April 2003 posts
New
York Times Buffy Article -- Dandy, 19:24:10 04/19/03 Sat
There is a copy of a NY Times Buffy article with suggestions for
the final episode posted at Buffy Cross and Stake Spoiler Board,
4/19/03 by yellowcrayons.
Right now it is on archive page 1.
Have a look. Personally I do not think Buffy should become a goddess.
Her purpose is to fight the good fight of living, from dealing
with bratty little sisters to monsters, ex- lovers and flooded
basements.
Besides, maybe we will get a Buffy movie with exotic Anne Ricey
locales and love triangle with Angel and Spike. And of course
a flooded basement............
[> Re: New York Times Buffy
Article -- Alison, 19:33:33 04/19/03 Sat
Buffy is just everywhere right now....even in the most obsure
of places, like the Nora Roberts article in the Washington Post
where she says it has "the best writing on TV" ...even
my local bookstore has a special display of Buffy books.
[> [> It's definitely
a Buffy world out there -- Valheru, 02:14:28 04/20/03 Sun
And I just know that there's some Joss-worshipping fanperson out
there saying, "Joss planned this all along! Since he was
twelve! 'First a movie, then a television show, a spinoff, books,
comics, lunchboxes, lawnmowers...' Joss is a genius!"
And take a gander at this little tidbit I ran across, from the
Long Beach Press Telegram. Seems like TNN (America's "The
National Network") is changing its name to "Spike TV."
As for the Spike TV handle: "We were looking for a name
that would reflect the attitude we wanted smart, sexy, active,
irreverent, slightly aggressive and unapologetically male,'' says
Hecht. (We've got goosebumps!)
His role models: Spike the macho vamp in "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer''; directors Spike Lee and Spike Jonze. As a verb, think
spike a volleyball. "It's a cool spike. An aggressive spike,''
Hecht says.
Maybe James Marsters's face will be the new logo. Now if only
someone would start that "Drusilla TV" channel I've
been waiting for...part Psychic Network, part "Tales From
the Crypt," part extreme Playboy Channel, and 100%
insane. It would be like a sexy Monty Python channel!
Seven years of ridicule, neglect, and ratings-basementship, and
only at the end does BtVS achieve any sort of widespread cultural
significance beyond the name. Now I know how the original Star
Trek fans felt.
[> Re: DANDY, I CANNOT FIND
THIS ?New York Times Buffy Article -- Angelina, 10:11:19
04/20/03 Sun
Could you post the website. Could anyone post a thread, I would
be very interested in reading this. Thanks in advance,
Angelina.
[> [> NYT story --
KdS, 10:19:48 04/20/03 Sun
There's a link to it on the front page of Slayage.com. The headline
is "Getting Buffy's Last Rites Right".
[> [> [> Could you
cut & paste to here? Thanks! -- Solitude1056, 10:40:07
04/20/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> Here
ya go! (unspoiled spec for finale) -- ponygirl, 11:00:50
04/20/03 Sun
April 20, 2003
Getting Buffy's Last Rites Right
By JOYCE MILLMAN
VAMPIRES, hellgods, snake demons ó I've watched Buffy battle
them all. But they weren't as scary as the knowledge that, very
soon, I will no longer have an excuse to put life on hold every
Tuesday night. I admit it: over the last six years, I've devoted
an almost embarrassing amount of time, energy and thought, both
personal and professional, to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Now, with only a few weeks left until the May 20 series finale,
I'm facing my "Buffy"-less future by burrowing into
seasons past, trying to imagine a fitting end to the coolest television
coming-of-age horror- fantasy-love story ever told.
It's difficult to predict what Joss Whedon, the show's fiendishly
inventive creator and executive producer, has devised for the
final episode (which he wrote and directed). Mr. Whedon, after
all, has already killed his heroine (twice) and jolted viewers
with such unexpected twists as the death of Buffy's mom, the surprise
ensouling of the vampire Spike and the episode in which everybody
sings. Frankly, as long as Mr. Whedon doesn't try to tell us that
the whole series was a figment of Buffy's imagination, I'll be
happy. I'll be even happier if the finale grandly articulates,
one last time, the show's main themes: woman power, friendship,
growing up and sacrifice.
WOMAN POWER On "Buffy," women rule the world and men
are largely watchers. Part of an ancient line of girls imbued
with the power to vanquish demons, Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle
Gellar) has lived longer than any of her predecessors. This season,
Buffy traveled through a time portal to the origins of the First
Slayer and learned that she was created by shamen, who mated her
with demon energy to keep evil away from the village. "You
violated that girl, made her kill for you because you're weak,
you're pathetic," Buffy sneered. "You're just ó
men." Buffy is strong enough to save the world (which she
did "a lot," according to her tombstone at the end of
Season 5). But, like that first slayer, she has been rendered
a little less than human by her mission. She's been emotionally
frozen for the past couple of seasons, unable to drop her guard
and let love (her adoring former sex partner Spike) in.
Buffy is not the only one who has been blocked from tapping the
positive energy of her better, female, self. Her friend Willow
(Alyson Hannigan), the lovable lesbian witch and computer whiz,
proved in last season's finale that she was strong enough to (almost)
destroy the world, when she went on a vengeful rampage sparked
by the murder of her girlfriend. This season, Willow has been
as emotionally frozen as Buffy, afraid to fully utilize her Wiccan
powers, lest they turn destructive again. We need some healing
here. Which is why I think "Buffy" ought to end with
both a Wiccapalooza and the most gargantuan release of girl power
the show's ever attempted.
I want to see Buffy beat on everyone and everything in sight,
save the world again and still find the time to finally admit
her feelings for poor Spike (James Marsters). I want to see Willow
get her mojo back. I want to see Buffy's rival slayer, the self-doubting
bad girl Faith (Eliza Dushku), regain her self-esteem and fight
at Buffy's side. I want to see Buffy's teenage sister Dawn (Michelle
Trachtenberg), a dormant but powerful unearthly being, come of
age in a flash of glory. I want to see the dozens of young Slayers
in Training, who are wandering aimlessly and namelessly through
the Summerses' house, truly become the "army" Buffy
has been promising us for most of the season, and make a stand
against the current big bad, an incorporeal entity called the
First Evil.
But most of all, I want to see them thrash that misogynistic preacher
Caleb (Nathan Fillion), an agent of the First Evil, who believes
women were "born dirty." For some intriguing Christian
symbolism, let Buffy's last battle be for the collective soul
of womankind, to remove the biblical taint from the gender.
FRIENDSHIP Buffy's "Scooby gang" ó Willow, Giles
(Anthony Stewart Head), Dawn, Spike, Xander (Nicholas Brendon)
and Anya (Emma Caulfield) ó has always been greater than
the sum of its parts. This pseudo-family of misfits banded together
at the climax of each season to save the world. And they were
a formidable blend, with Buffy's super powers, Willow's witchy
energy (and, when she was a teen, research skills), Giles's knowledge
of ancient demonology, Spike's muscle and bravado, Dawn's spunk
and Anya's enjoyment of a good fight.
As for Xander, he's Mr. Whedon's stand-in, the "unremarkable"
guy who lives in the shadow of the gifted heroine. Or does he?
Have you noticed how, time and again, Xander plays a crucial 11th-hour
role in enabling Buffy to prevail? I'd feel cheated if the Xan
Man wasn't the unsung hero, again, in the finale.
But for all their past harmony, the Scoobys have drifted apart
of late. Each member has been battling inner demons: addiction,
insecurity, self-loathing, jealousy, guilt. Like its strength,
the gang's weakness is greater than the sum of its parts. Earlier
this season, Buffy dreamed of her dead mother warning that "evil
is always here . . . evil is a part of us. All of us. It's natural."
Maybe the Scoobys have brought on this latest apocalypse; maybe
the First Evil feeds on each character's psychic fragility, on
negativity and unquiet minds. The Scoobys have to get over themselves.
They need to learn to trust one another again in order to bring
"Buffy" back to the point it's been making all along
ó that friendship, community and love are the greatest
weapons of all.
GROWING UP The coming-of-age theme has served "Buffy"
well ever since the show's earliest high school-is-hell metaphor.
Buffy and her pals have grappled with the usual adolescent traumas,
as well as the highs and lows of life as twentysomethings. As
the last hour nears, Buffy is fully entering adulthood ó
she has already lost her mother (her dad was always absent) and
relations are strained between her and her father figure, her
watcher Giles. She is growing more distant, accepting her responsibilities
and preparing to fight the final battle alone. I always believed
that "Buffy" was the story of a girl finding her place
in the big bad world. But now I see that the show is not about
our heroine growing up as much as it's about the other characters'
maturing enough to let her go.
SACRIFICE Buffy has always been a Christlike figure. She questions
her destiny as the chosen one, doubts her abilities to see the
mission through, yet always fulfills her role as savior. This
was never more true than in the finale of Season 5, when she sacrificed
herself to save Dawn from being killed in an apocalyptic ritual.
As a reward, Buffy entered Paradise, but she was soon ripped back
to earth ó and the grind of fighting evil ó by the
Scoobys, who used a spell to bring her back to life. She has since
grown battle-weary. She longs to lay down her arms, but the only
way to do that, as her mother foretold in that dream, is to "rest."
The logical end to the saga is for Buffy to get back to Paradise.
Speaking of sacrifice, Spike needs to make one, too. The brash
but sensitive vampire has been a central figure in Buffy's story
line; they were adversaries in Season 4, wary comrades-in-arms
in Season 5, punishing lovers in Season 6. Now, as ex-lovers who've
been through hell together, they've approached something like
real love. Spike's devotion to Buffy and her mission has set him
on a path to redemption; he endured torture to win back his soul
for her, then suffered at the hands of the First Evil. But Buffy
has yet to tell him she loves him.
In the finale, I want to see Buffy give Spike the moment of happiness
he's earned. And then I want my heart to be broken, because one
thing "Buffy" does better than any show on television
is break your heart. I want to see Buffy and Spike both make the
ultimate sacrifice, and both be rewarded for it. But they can't
be together; it's not in their destinies. I want Buffy to die
and become an immortal god(dess) who rights the balance of good
and evil in the universe. I want Spike to die and be reborn as
a human (and therefore available for a possible spinoff).
I can see the series's last moments now. As Buffy turns immortal,
she shines beatifically, and we finally understand the foreshadowing
significance in Spike's puzzling past fondness for the words "effulgent"
and "glowing." Buffy's ascension unleashes a surge of
positive energy that empowers the forces of good. They rise up
as one and drop-kick the First's evil army of gnarled ubervampires
back to hell.
Then, everybody sings.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: THANKS SO MUCH! Here ya go! (unspoiled spec for finale)
-- Angelina, 04:16:17 04/21/03 Mon
In defence
of Cordelia Chase -- yabyumpan, 13:19:59 04/20/03 Sun
There have been a number of posts over the past few weeks discussing
Cordelia's responsability in bringing Jasmine (and by extention,
the Beast) into being. Many posts have stated that it was her
ego and vainity which allowed it to happen and she is, in effect,
to blame for the present situation. I want to look at the full
impilications of that line of thinking.
Firstly, I want to look at what she would actually be responsable
for -
The rain of fire and the destruction of much of L.A., the deaths
of thousands of innocent people, turning L.A. into a demon playground,
the manipulation and moral decline of a confused, needy and probably
abused young man, the unleashing of Angelus, the mind control
of much of L.A., plus, what ever horrors are comming up next.
That's a pretty impressive list! It's probably more death and
destruction than The Master, Angelus(during his reign in SD),
The Mayor, Adam, Glory, The Troika and all the demons and BB's
(including W&H) on AtS, have been responsable for put together.
A number of posters have said they'd like to see Cordelia have
to deal with the results of her ego and vainity. If those results
are the list above, how the hell can she!? How could any person
with a conscience deal with that sort of responsability? Imagine
if Willow had not only killed Warren, but had also wiped out half
of SD before Xander was able to get to her. I don't think there's
anyway she could have come back from that, she'd either be a gibbering
wreck in a Psych ward or dead. I cannot see that Cordelia, realising
just what she's responsable for, not also being similarly destroyed.
Does Cordelia Chase really deserve such anguish? It seems to me,
that to follow what appears to be the popular line of thinking
re: Cordelia would also mean the total destruction of her character.
While it may be true that Cordelia's actions and attitudes have,
in part, been spurned on by her ego and vainity I would argue
that she has been equally, if not overwhelmingly, motivated by
her compassion and the desire to help those that are suffering.
To quote Wesley from 'Epiphany'
Wesley: "But you don't. You don't know her at all. For
months now you haven't cared to. Otherwise you might have realized
that our Cordelia has become a very solitary girl. She's not the
vain, carefree creature she once was... Well, certainly not carefree.
- It's the visions, you see. The visions that were meant to guide
you. You could turn away from them. She doesn't have that luxury.
She knows and experiences the pain in this city, and because of
who she is, she feels compelled to do something about it.
She has grown a lot since SD and her ego and vainity is only a
small part of who she is now.
My impression on this board and others, is that Cordelia isn't
the most popular of characters. That's fine, but do people really
believe that she is such a bad person that she deserves to carry
the weight of responsability for all that's happened this season?
If people do believe that because of her vainity and ego Cordelia
is responsable for all that's happened, what do they see as the
outcome for her? Isn't the fact that she has been thoroughly violated
(again), enough punishment for being vain/saintly/boring/bitchy/a
love interest for Angel? (pick your crime)
There have been some very interesting post regarding the how/when/what/why
of Cordelia, but I've yet to see discussed the full implications
of the theories posted or possible outcomes. I'm hopping this
post will start those discussions up ;o)
[> Re: In defence of Cordelia
Chase -- Dannyblue, 13:47:59 04/20/03 Sun
The reasoning on the part of many seems to be that, because Cordelia
made a choice, based on her vanity, that lead to all of these
bad things happening, she should be punished somehow.
Well, take all the characters who have really done "bad things"
in the Jossverse, but have been forgiven (more or less) by the
fans.
1. Angel/Angelus, who not only committed countless murders, rapes,
tortures, etc, but also tried to suck the world into hell.
2. Spike, who also committed his share of murders and rapes in
the past.
3. Faith who, instead of dealing with her guilt over killing a
human accidentally, went into full psycho-mode instead.
4. Willow who, in her grief, skinned a guy alive, almost killed
her friends, and tried to end the world. And seemed to enjoy doing
most of it.
You know what the major difference is between Cordy and everyone
else. The four above chose to do things they knew were wrong.
Cordy chose to do something she thought was right, and had know
way of knowing what the results would be. Not only that, but all
of the bad things that happened this season (blotting out the
sun, the beast on a killing spree, etc) were not the direct results
of anything Cordy did. They were the workings of an evil entity
that took possession of her body.
I think blame must depend a lot on intention and choice, free
will. There's a difference between choosing to do something that
you know will hurt others, and choosing to do something you think
is good and right, but having it turn out badly.
Even Wesley, who thought he was doing the right thing by taking
Connor, knew on some level that what he was doing (taking a child
away from its father) was wrong.
The same could not be said for Cordy. In fact, while her choice
might have been partially made with her ego, she also chose to
give up something she wanted (meeting Angel at the bluffs) in
order to do what she thought was the right thing.
So, it dependes on what choice you think you are making. Is it
one you know will hurt others, or is it one you think will help?
Say I choose not to take my friend to the mall. For one, I don't
want to go to the mall. For another, I promised to babysit my
nephew. So my friend borrows a car with bad brakes, has a massive
car accident on the freeway, and several people are hurt or killed
as a result. Am I to blame for that? Even though I had no idea
my choice could possibly hurt anyone?
Of course, I'd feel guilty. That's human nature. But how much
would I truly be to blame?
How much is Cordy really to blame for making a choice she thought
could only help people, with no clue how dire the consequences
would be?
[> I don't think anyone
is holding her responsible in the way that you're implying
-- KdS, 13:58:22 04/20/03 Sun
I don't believe that anyone is denying the broadly positive impulses
that drove Cordelia to (definitely) become part demon and ascend
and (possibly) accept Jasmine.
Even if the worst that people have been suggesting is true, I
don't believe that it would make her as responsible for Jasmine's
actions as you suggest. We still haven't got any clear indication
of how much of Cordelia's actions in this season were her idea.
As far as I can see, the suggestions which have been made are:
a) That Cordelia's original personality has been entirely destroyed
and that all her actions since Slouching were those of
some kind of proto-Jasmine impersonating her - hence Cordelia
cannot be held responsible beyond allowing herself to be manipulated
in Tomorrow.
b) That during S4 we have been seeing Cordelia herself for the
most part, but acting under the influence of mental possession
by proto-Jasmine, initially in brief flashes (eg having sex with
Connor) but fully possessed by, say, Calvary. Hence, again,
her responsiblity runs only as far as Tomorrow.
c) As (b), but that Cordelia voluntarily accepted possession by
Jasmine, under the impression that Jasmine was a cleansing figure
of good, and unaware of the lengths to which said "cleansing"
would go.
d) That it has all been Cordelia, but acting under a thrall similar
to that exerted by Jasmine over the whole of LA after her birth,
so that she believed that everything was justified if it brought
Jasmine into being.
If (a) or (b) are true, the most that Cordelia can be held responsible
for is allowing herself to be taken in by Skip in Birthday
and Tomorrow. I think that she was motivated primarily
by the desire to do good, but failed to ask certain questions
because of her ego-driven assumption that it was perfectly natural
for her to be offered apotheosis. If (c) or (d) (especially (d))
is true, Cordelia herself will undoubtedly suffer far more than
if (a) or (b) were true, but at worst she was acting under a magical
influence powerful enough to correspond, to neutral observers,
to a loss of soul.
Regarding comparisons: even if Willow had slaughtered half of
Sunnydale, she would have far more on her conscience than Cordelia
would in her worst case scenario. Although the black magic she
absorbed from the books and from Rack drove her insane, she absorbed
it for an evil initial purpose (to kill Warren) and with a fairly
clear idea of what it might do to her. I think a better comparison
would be with Liam. Liam didn't go down that alleyway after Darla
in the hope of becoming a mass-murdering monster, he did so in
the hope, at worst, of casual sex. If Angel shanshued and became,
effectively, an older and wiser Liam, without any demon part,
he'd still be suffering guilt but he would know that his actions
as Angelus were unforseeable by him in 1745. (And is the total
body count caused by Jasmine/Cordelia in at most a few weeks plausibly
greater than Angelus's over 150 years, not to mention the total
body count of Dru, Spike, Penn, and the other vamps in his line
of descent?)
Even in the most serious situations (c) or (d), I think Cordelia
could come back. The crimes on her conscience would be great in
size, but even the most uncharitable interpretation of her culpability
for them would be much lighter than Angel, Willow, even Faith,
simply because of the extent to which her charitable impulses
were deliberately manipulated using her very human, and humanising
weaknesses. By the end of the season, everyone will probably have
done some fairly ugly things under Jasmine's influence (Connor,
especially, is far more culpable than Cordelia). I think that
the main impulse of the season is the things that humans can be
made to do under the influence of moral fanaticism of any stripe,
and Cordy was just the first to succumb.
[> [> When Bad Things
Happen to Good People (vague spoiler thru MB) -- WickedWeirds,
15:00:05 04/20/03 Sun
We don't even know if it even was entirely her decision in Birthday
to go with Skip. In fact, until we are told by the scriptwriters
- it's 100% up in the air who, when, how, why and how much *anyone*
is/was making choices on their own? The scharacters actions have
ranged through a spectrum of complete self-responsibility to the
other end, where they're completely manipulated.
Jasmine mentions how far back everything had been planned -at
least as far back as Connors birth. And such an incredible series
of incidents must lead to get that precise event to happen - the
Jasmine entity must be the ultimate of manipulators AND planners.
How far back does it all really go? Past Connors kidnapping and
upbringing upbringing by Holtz in another dimension - those influences
play strongly on his sense of alienation and consequent vulnerability
and loyalty to Cordelia. Farther back than Angel being sired by
Darla - which is vital to those two meeting, bonding and recurring
in each others lives?
Makes me wonder if there was very much free will going on at all
through the entire series. Jasmines disclosure of how much had
been manipulated throws a much larger mystery into the show as
to when free will WAS ever present.
Jasmine seems to have been all three Fates. If she's weaving,
measuring and cutting each persons destiny - then logically wouldn't
it mean she is controlling most of now, too? Freds inital escape
from Jasmine? The others? Connors betrayal/immunity?
It creates the question of Jasmines actual position in the Angel
universe. Jamine gets hurt, loses some control over certain people
and is surprised by such events. Could she a beast working for
something even more powerful.
It's all up in the air.
[> [> Thank you for this
discussion, yab and Kds -- Masq, 15:42:23 04/20/03 Sun
It is very helpful to get the possibilities out in the open and
discuss their reprecussions.
Of course, KdS is right, even us folks here in North America don't
know which of the theories is right, if any--we aren't completely
sure what happened to Cordelia in the higher realm, what kind
of influence was affecting Cordelia once she got back on Earth
(if anything, but most likely, in some way, Jasmine).
Speculation can get dicey under our circumstances.
Hopefully, we will get the answers to this before the end of the
Season, but if ME's history on AtS is any indication, the full
answers lie in seasons to come. Which leaves us hoping for a Season
5 (as usual!), and hoping for Ms. Carpenter to return in Season
5 to help provide those answers.
[> [> Re: I don't think
anyone is holding her responsible in the way that you're implying
-- yabyumpan, 17:12:48 04/20/03 Sun
I don't believe that anyone is denying the broadly positive
impulses that drove Cordelia to (definitely) become part demon
and ascend and (possibly) accept Jasmine.
I have seen a number of posts over the past few weeks which specifically
stated that it was because of her ego and vainity i.e. thinking
she was special, accepting Skip's offer in 'Tomorrow', that Jasmine
was able to take over her with all the resulting death and destruction.
It was those posts I was reacting/responding to. Maybe over-reacting
but in all that's gone on, what's actually happened to her seems
to have been pushed to one side.
The poor woman has been duped, her body used to sleep with her
best friend's/potential lover's son, used to kill Lilah and the
girl, used to incubate an evil entity and now left in a coma with
her blood being used as an antidote to the evil that came from
her body. We don't know where her consciousness is; whether still
in her body, aware but unable to reacte or still in misty glowy
land, looking down at what her body has been forced to do. The
best case scenario would be for her to wake up and have no memory
of what's happened but this is ME so I can't really see that happening!
I just find that I really feel for her. So often over the past
few years she's been violated - the over night pregnancy in 'Expecting',
the vision nightmare of TSILA, the torture by the priests in Pylea,
the hot-wireing and disfigurement in TVT - and now it's happening
again, bigtime. While every one's looking at the big picture it's
easy to forget that Cordelia is going to have to live with the
consequence of all this and may infact be living with it right
now. That is a real tragedy which I hope won't be over looked
by ME. To often in the past she's just bounced back from whatever's
been done to her and the consquences just brushed aside (laughing
off the torture in Pylea because she got made a Princess). I hope
that care is taken next season to focus on the effect this will
have on Cordelia and it won't be just a case of her just waking
up from her coma and bouncing back, as usual.
[> Kind of focusing on a
relatively unimportant point, but. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:04:20
04/20/03 Sun
"It's probably more death and destruction than The Master,
Angelus(during his reign in SD), The Mayor, Adam, Glory, The Troika
and all the demons and BB's (including W&H) on AtS, have been
responsable for put together."
I highly doubt this. Even the Master alone has probably been responsible
for more pain and destruction than Cordelia/Beast/Jasmine have
this season.
Let's use a conservative estimate and say that most vampires feed
once a month. At 12 months a year and the Master's life span of
at least 1000 years, this comes to a minimum of 12,000 people
that the Master has killed personally. Then factor in that he
bears indirect responsibility for the murders commited by his
bloodline. Darla alone bumps up the bodycount by several thousand,
most likely. If you add in the crimes of Angelus, Drusilla, and
Spike, not to mention all of the other vampires of the Order of
Aurelius, than the Master is probably responsible for hundreds
of thousands of deaths, quite possibly in the millions, even.
Then there's Wolfram & Hart. They've supposedly been around since
the dawn of humanity. Over the thousands of years that they've
existed, W&H has probably surpassed the Season 4 body count in
employee termination alone, as well as being party to countless
more murders and other acts of evil and despair.
Then there's the Mayor. He was the guy that BUILT Sunnydale so
that demons would have an all you can eat buffet on the Hellmouth.
Essentially, the Mayor bears culpability for everyone who's died
in Sunnydale over the past 104 years.
Then there's Glory. In "Weight of the World", Ben mentioned
that she "slaughtered hundreds of people" just in our
dimension. Just imagine how much pain, death, and carnage she
wreaked back in her own hell dimension.
Cordy/Beast/Jasmine has been responsible for thousands of people
dying in LA, but that's about it. Perhaps it got up into the tens
of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands, but it still
doesn't quite surpass the likes of Glory, Wolfram & Hart, the
Master, and maybe not even the Mayor.
[> Re: In defence of Cordelia
Chase -- Wizard, 15:43:37 04/20/03 Sun
Ever since we met Cordy, she's been vain. It's a character flaw.
But, what a lot of us seem to forget- and I've been guilty of
this on occasion- is that since the beginning, she was also willing
to show kindness and acceptance. She was nice to Buffy, at first.
So, the evil bitch had seeds of goodness in her, just like innocent
Willow had evil seeds in her- or have we forgotten Willow tricking
Cordy into deleting all her hard work back in "The Harvest?"
I have to hand it to Jasmine and Skip- they played her beautifully.
"Birthday" took advantage of Cordy's selflessness and
situation- she was so willing to help people that she became half-demon
over the chance of a perfect life (yes, I know what the situation
really was, but this is what she- and we- knew at the time). The
season finale played upon Cordy's kindness, and vanity as well.
Remember, her new powers not only made the headaches go away,
but also sent the slug-demons back to their dimension and purged
Connor of the residuals of Quortoth (sp). They also expanded her
visions. In that context, being told that she was now meant for
greater things played a bit on her vanity, but was also logical
given everything that she- and we- had seen. Someone she trusted
told her that she was able to fight for good on a cosmic level.
IIRC, he then presented her with a choice- do so, or lose her
powers to help people at all. On top of that, she was being asked
to abandon a chance for love to help people. Willing self-sacrifice
has almost always been presented as a good thing in the Buffyverse.
Of course she chose to help- and her consciousness was subsumed,
and she became the vehicle of great evil. When Real!Cordelia comes
back, she should be VERY angry at first, then guilty, even though
she has no cause to be.
[> Re: In defence of Cordelia
Chase -- Wizard, 15:44:53 04/20/03 Sun
Ever since we met Cordy, she's been vain. It's a character flaw.
But, what a lot of us seem to forget- and I've been guilty of
this on occasion- is that since the beginning, she was also willing
to show kindness and acceptance. She was nice to Buffy, at first.
So, the evil bitch had seeds of goodness in her, just like innocent
Willow had evil seeds in her- or have we forgotten Willow tricking
Cordy into deleting all her hard work back in "The Harvest?"
I have to hand it to Jasmine and Skip- they played her beautifully.
"Birthday" took advantage of Cordy's selflessness and
situation- she was so willing to help people that she became half-demon
over the chance of a perfect life (yes, I know what the situation
really was, but this is what she- and we- knew at the time). The
season finale played upon Cordy's kindness, and vanity as well.
Remember, her new powers not only made the headaches go away,
but also sent the slug-demons back to their dimension and purged
Connor of the residuals of Quortoth (sp). They also expanded her
visions. In that context, being told that she was now meant for
greater things played a bit on her vanity, but was also logical
given everything that she- and we- had seen. Someone she trusted
told her that she was able to fight for good on a cosmic level.
IIRC, he then presented her with a choice- do so, or lose her
powers to help people at all. On top of that, she was being asked
to abandon a chance for love to help people. Willing self-sacrifice
has almost always been presented as a good thing in the Buffyverse.
Of course she chose to help- and her consciousness was subsumed,
and she became the vehicle of great evil. When Real!Cordelia comes
back, she should be VERY angry at first, then guilty, even though
she has no cause to be.
Jasmine,
the FE, and Andrew -- luna, 14:22:27 04/20/03 Sun
All art is self-referential. Roman Jakobson
You might argue that she meant that Bush's use of the media
is like mind control, but she did not say that. Grant
I havenít seen anyone yet discuss the greatest thing that
Jasmine and the FE have in common, and the theme that seems to
be dominating this yearís seasons on both Angel and Buffy
(and perhaps the whole of both series). Early in the season, FE
as Buffy says, ìItís all about power.î Yet
by speaking through Buffyís mouth, FE illustrates that
it is really all about illusion.
In many S7 episodes of Buffy, illusion and its cousin, deception,
have been either the central plot device or a major theme, and
have consequently given rise to many, many posts and discussions.
In CwDP, we are first aware that something is taking on the appearance
of others, and looking back we realize that Spike has already
been experiencing these visions. We argue at length over whether
or not Giles is really Giles, and we are duped ourselves by the
false Chloe, and still donít know what to make of the false
Joyce. The characters on the shows are equally susceptible, and
for them and us, in many cases we still canít be sure if
we and they are seeing the reality, or just one more layer of
illusionóas with Robin Wood, for example.
Earlier in Angel, weíve seen Cordy as one of the best of
the good guysóuntil the mask is dropped. Angelus pretends
to be Angel for a time, and both we and the AI fall for his act.
Connor still sees Cordy as good, even after she kills Lilah, and
Angel as evil even after his soul is returned, long after most
of us have made other judgments. When Jasmine appears, she is
able to make everyone believe in her deceptions, until contact
with the reality of her blood opens their eyesóstill except
for Connor.
Andrew in Storyteller and briefly in DG shows us how the vision
of reality can be manipulated by the one who tells the story.
The death of Jonathan becomes a different act with a different
narrator, though the actual act remains the sameóand Buffy
is able to alter that by telling a different story, that gives
the facts the mean she and we have seen. The facts are lying scattered
all around, but the Storyteller is the one who gathers them together
and makes A Truth out of them. Small wonder that Jasmineís
early words are a narrative that establishes her as a power of
goodness in the minds of those who hear it. The power of her illusion
operates even before she tells her story; it is the narrative
that makes sense of it.
But illusion is not JUST narrative. The other thing we see with
Jasmine, the FE, and Andrew is the power of the image. People
fall under Jasmineís spell just from seeing her, Buffy
and gang believe in the reality of Chloe because they see her,
and Andrew works with a camera, not just his words.
So what Jasmine and the FE have most strongly in common is their
ability to manipulate through story and imageómuch like
a movie, or a TV series, or a newscast. So in a sense this seasonís
Buffy and Angel are almost like mirrors, looking at their own
processes. How often have we seen discussions on this board bring
people to real anger, although the characters are really non-existent?
In that sense, the series itself manipulates us just as Jasmine
and the FE manipulate the charactersóby making us take
illusion for reality. Andrew underlines this by reflecting it
comicallyówe CANíT miss his inability to do the
same thing. Iím not suggesting that the series is a polemic
against TV or movies, but that it does make us look at our own
ability to confuse art and reality, and at the power of art.
Now taking this comparison to the real world, letís look
at media as it supposedly represents reality, in newscastsówhere
image and story again create their own reality. Since the long
thread about the possible political symbolism of Jasmine is about
to be bitten by the Voynok demon, Iím posting my response
to it hereóbecause Iíd like to go in another direction
entirely with it. I donít believeóand weíve
often discussedóthat ME would work in that kind of literal
allegory (FE=Bush), but I do think it possible that the current
situation of the war does nicely parallel the themes of this story.
I confess to not having read all of the threads, but there did
seem to be a call for evidence of media manipulation. Skillful
illusion is maintained by omission as much as by overt distortion,
and certainly thatís easiest to see. I imagine many of
you know approximately how many Americans were killed in Iraq,
and followed the story of Jessica Lynchís rescue, perhaps
can even visualize her face. Where have you seen the realities
of the casualties of the other side, and what do you know about
their families? What pictures have you seen of their wounded soldiers?
The narrative is that they are not human individuals, but faceless
minions of Saddam. Even more to the point: 50% of Americans believe
that Saddam Hussein engineered 9/11óyet even Bush himself,
when pressed, has admitted that there was no evidence of any connection.
Where did this belief come from? From hints, suggestions, manipulationsómany
made by Bush himself, when he called for a ìdefenseî
of the US (yet the attackers were Al Quaeda, not Iraq). Finally,
most recently there has been a condemnation of all dissent, justified
by the idea that any disagreement with the Presidentís
decisions will ìhelp Saddam win.î Refuting this doesnít
call for evidence but for logicówas there really any possible
chance, in anyoneís mind, that the Iraqi army had a chance
against the US?
Again, I donít think any parallels with the particulars
of the war could possibly have been intended by ME. I think that
once again, good art reflects human universals, and one of those
is our weakness for illusion.
Jasmine as Bush? Nah. But she might be Fox News.
[> Re: Jasmine, the FE,
and Andrew -- CW, 16:49:57 04/20/03 Sun
Jasmine as Bush? Nah. But she might be Fox News.
I think one of the biggest reasons for backlash against dissent
we've seen recently in the US was the coverage by national news
media. During the first few days of the war only probably only
fifteen or twenty percent of all the war coverage was devoted
to showing opposition to the war. But, not coincidentally, almost
all of that appeared during the regular time for the evening news
and the three-hour prime- time-period each evening, not just on
one news network, but all of them. You can draw your own conclusions
as to why this happened. Given the fact that most working-age
Americans were not sympathetic to the anti-war sentiment in the
first place, one can imagine the kind of reaction the networks
got to that kind of slanting. Is it any wonder that since then,
to try to deflect criticism from themselves, they have been overly
generous in permitting all kinds of cheap shots to be aired about
the French, Hollywood stars who voiced their opinions, etc? During
the news the presentation of this stuff is always in the form
of 'isn't that a shame.' But, who is responsible for spreading
it nationwide in the first place? So I agree with your statement.
Changing gears. When Roman Jakobson left the USSR in 1920 his
primary interest was the Russian symbolist literary movement which
was going out of fashion even before the First World War. His
structural approach to the study literature was well known among
us students of Russian, long before it became popular here in
English departments. It very much influences the way I look at
Buffy and Angel. Although his name certainly did come up in both
my Master's and Doctoral exams, the context had nothing to do
with his ideas on literature, but instead concerned his considerable
contributions to the study of Russian linguistics.
[> [> Re: Jasmine, the
FE, and Andrew -- luna, 17:30:57 04/20/03 Sun
Well, the coverage I saw was much slanted in the other direction;
I confess that I mainly read newspapers and I have not seen statistics
on the percentage given to anti-war versus prowar in the written
press nationally, but I can assure you that less than one page
total coverage of ALL anti-war activity was present in the paper
I read locally. The local broadcasts were the same. And also,
many stats I saw during the early days, before the media really
kicked into high gear, showed a LOT of reluctance to enter the
war, which I think the protests embodied. Once the media began
to give primarily the patriotic call, perhaps that influenced
watchers? Are you sure you were watching the dog and not the tail?
Now, re Jakobson, I did study him as a linguist in the course
of history of linguistics classes, but his views on literature
came in a semiotics class--the Formalists leading to Post-Structuralism
and on to more elaborate and obscure ideas, but that thought I
mentioned in the quote never seems to go away, though the Russian
Formalists are left behind. More later--jumping in while my SO
abandons the computer for a moment!
[> [> [> Re: Jasmine,
the FE, and Andrew -- CW, 18:43:30 04/20/03 Sun
I am among those who was reluctant to go to war. I am also painfully
honest. Obviously, I know nothing about your local coverage in
print or on TV. But, if you watched national TV coverage during
the daytime it was heavily presented from the government's/millitary's
point of view. If you watched the national coverage in the evening,
it was heavily slanted against the war, with many films of demonstrations,
more experts than in the daytime with negative opinions, and frequent
stories about how much the war was going to be a drain on the
economy. Believe me, the people with day-jobs who were really
on the pro-war side have a lot gripe about; as do anti-war people
who for whatever reason could only watch TV during the day.
Re the percentages, I saw the same thing happen during the war
in Viet-nam. The anti-war faction always griped they were not
getting enough publicity despite the fact the press showed up
for practically any announced demonstration, and usually put the
event on the air no matter how few people showed up. On the other
hand when I came home from the anti- war demonstrations I took
part in in the spring of 1970, I learned that the folks outside
it all thought they were just a series of riots. The news is often
a terrible place to get your news.
[> [> [> [> Andrew
and the Media--what about non-US media? -- luna, 06:58:25
04/21/03 Mon
Well, I teach English in a community college, and often found
that my students (who are definitely the working- during-the-day
type!) had seen coverage of the anti-war movements, but only in
a very distorted way (emphasis on nudity, violence--both, in reality,
happening rarely. The protests I experienced, including Washington
Jan. 15, were dominated by middle-aged schoolteacher types, like
me wearing LOTS of clothes since the high for the day was 22F).
The protests were reported, but the images were selective and
the narrative supplied was ridicule and belittlement (my point
about Andrew).
But I had not seen those statistics about the amount of anti-
war coverage.
However, I'm not so much concerned with how the anti-war protests
were covered as with how the war is covered. What is shown on
TV at night is reported by most people I know who have travelled
or have access to other media as being very different from what
is shown on TV from other countries, including our ally, England.
I know this only second-hand, but I've also heard it about news
from other "coalition of the willing"--that even Polish
news shows more complete coverage. I believe that what was shown,
once the war began, was clearly what I have always been taught
to consider propaganda. For example, when the statue of Saddam
was toppled, American TV constantly replayed it, apparently showing
a huge crowd cheering the fall, with the narrative that all Iraqi's
are delighted with their American liberators. On TV and in papers
in other countries, it was clear that it was a small group of
about 200 in the middle of an otherwise empty square. Then the
narrative is created to explain why these Iraqi's who were so
glad to get rid of Saddam have now "changed" and want
us to leave ("They've been taken over," "These
people have no right to speak," etc.). So once again, distortion
of image and re-creation of narrative based on elements of turth
create a false "reality" that deceives the viewer.
It would be interesting to know how people on this board from
other countries are seeing the coverage of the war and its aftermath.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Andrew and the Media--what about non-US media? -- 110v3w1110w,
07:25:06 04/21/03 Mon
the death of right and wrong in our society has made people afraid
to use their own judgement so now we have the situation where
people judge the merits and morality of war based on how well
the media and government can spin it to them. when there was a
war in serbia and when clinton bombed iraq there was never the
public outcry there is now why is that ? because clinton can go
on TV and look sorrowful and bite his lip and people will support
a war bush on the otherhand does not speak that well and looks
like he smirks so he is not supported. the media shows pictures
of the wounded iraqis on TV and they are terrible images and they
turn people against the war but if they had shown as many pictures
of the childrens prisons and other crimes that saddam commited
then people would have supported the war like they did when the
media showed pictures of the crimes of ethnic cleansing going
on in serbia. out of serbia and iraq, iraq was the bigger threat
to america iraq has killed more people iraq has created the bigger
humanitarian disaster iraq is far worse in every respect yet more
people supported the war in serbia because it had better PR and
that goes to show IMO how much the poltical left has destroyed
the concept of right and wrong
[> [> [> [> [>
Yep -- CW, 07:55:51 04/21/03 Mon
TV news cameramen have always been experts at using zoom lenses
to hide the true numbers of crowds. Some news outlets were more
honest about the make-up of the crowds here than others. I remember
one of my local station saying that the local group they saw was
mostly middle-aged. On the other hand the Spanish language national
network program I watch tends to have 'broader' standards of what
they will put on. They showed pixelated nude folks demonstrating
all over South America.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What about non-US media? -- Celebaelin, 09:23:00
04/21/03 Mon
I'm content that the post-war coverage in the UK has been fairly
even-handed. Much of the emphasis is now on what is being done
for the civilian casualties and the apparent attitudes of the
Iraqi population. We are shown the demonstrations but it is left
to the individual to decide the implications. My personal take
is that under Sadaam the demonstrators would have been shot if
they had dared to air their grievances in any manner, let alone
in a mass demonstration and I don't think this fact is lost on
either the coalition forces or the Iraqis themselves. It is a
test of will if you like, almost a matter of the Iraqis not really
believing that no-one is going to be murdered or tortured for
speaking their mind. The next question is of course 'What is an
acceptable form of government for all concerned?' and by all concerned
I mean especially the occupying forces. There is, understandably,
a desire not to replace one authoritative regime with another
or indeed to hand the victory over to Islamic clerics in what
would doubtless be interpreted by some Imams as a sign of fealty
to the 'true power' in Iraq.
It is a difficult time whilst some semblance of civic order is
demanded by elements of the population on the one hand and allegations
of imperialism and exploitation are being sprinkled around like
confetti on the other. I sincerely hope that the coalition forces
can secure the country sufficiently to be able to hand over to
a UN security force within, say, six months (RAF fighter squadrons
have already started coming back to the UK 'job done'). I live
in hope of an extrication of all (or nearly all) units involved
in the armed conflict with all reasonable speed.
The appointment of Jay Gardener I find particularly apt. Whilst
some are likely emphasise that he is a former General,
I only see that he is a former General and I hope the Iraqis
will see this point of view. They should, when all is said and
done, be aware of the involvement of Generals in what has happened
to their country and I would hope that a gradual move away from
a martial emphasis to the power structure in Iraq would be welcomed.
Civil government brings its' own problems and administering the
flow of oil revenues to the re-building of Iraq may not be easy.
If Sadaam's holdings worldwide are be liquidated and returned
to the Iraqi people some headway will have been made in this regard
(Sadaam is allegedly worth ~£200 billion it seems). I honestly
think there is some hope for Iraq and its' people but, ideally,
the responsibility will be in their own hands (but not as soon
as they would want in all likelihood/certainty).
C
[> [> [> [> [>
False realities and our own choices -- Dariel, 10:56:33
04/21/03 Mon
As you mentioned in your earlier post, people have a weakness
for illusion (or was it image?--sorry). I think the US media showed
a rather narrow view of the war, but it was also the one that
most Americans wanted to see. Even for an anti-war person like
myself, the image of the statue- toppling was moving. However,
I was watching the news not just to seee the news, but to see
how the war was being presented. After seeing this same image
repeated multiple times on every channel, I started to get suspicious--weren't
there any other happy people in Iraq besides this one crowd (and
the Kurds, but they liberated themselves for the most part)? I
mentioned this to several people who had been ambivalent about
the war, but they didn't seem to get the point. In fact, they
got rather irritated. I think they were happy to receive these
distorted images because they really wanted their faith in the
US restored.
My point--the media does manipulate, but most of us don't mind
it so much! We want to believe in our leaders, in our country,
because, as AI found, it's really depressing when you can't do
it anymore!
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Andrew and the Media--what about non-US media? -- O'Cailleagh,
12:22:05 04/21/03 Mon
From what I have seen of the UK news coverage of the war- which
isn't that much of late, not really a fan of reality tv-it seems
to have been pretty broad. Especially compared to the coverage
shown on CNN and the other American news channels we get here.
For instance, I don't recall ever seeing 'friendly fire' mentioned
on the US news, just lots of talk of supposed proof of chemical
weapons (according to UK news it was agricultural fertilizer).
And speaking from my own perspective, if I was an evil dictator
with chemical weaponry...well, I think I might have used it by
now...
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Andrew and the Media--what about non-US media?
-- Dariel, 15:01:56 04/21/03 Mon
And speaking from my own perspective, if I was an evil dictator
with chemical weaponry...well, I think I might have used it by
now.
Well, that's a funny thing. Some of the Arabic media has postulated
that the US and Saddam worked out a deal. Basically, you play
nice with us and we'll play nice with you. I have no opinion on
this, other then to say it wouldn't surprise me. It will be interesting
to see where he turns up!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> A truly paranoid theory -- luna, 19:12:58
04/21/03 Mon
I know someone who is convinced he's at the Bush ranch. I don't
believe it myself, but then...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> LOL! Pretty soon we'll start having "Saddam
sightings" a la Elvis -- Dariel, 19:28:13 04/21/03
Mon
[> Re: Jasmine, different
interpretations, and evidence -- LeeAnn, 07:29:14 04/21/03
Mon
While I still prefer the Jasmine is Bush symbolism I know a Bush
worshipper/Buffy & Angel lover who says that the Jasmine storyline
is an indictment of fundamentalism, especially Muslim fundamentalism.
Myself, I like how the symbolism can be interpreted in more ways
than one. I think the best art always has multiple interpretations.
********
If you aren't familiar with the evidence for media manipulation
by the Bush administration, how about this?
Remember those pictures of Iraqis tearing down a statue of Saddam,
pictures beamed around the world. Well it turns out that was as
staged and scripted as, well, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
The
photographs tell the story... : Is This Media manipulation on
a grand scale?
April 6th: Iraqi National Congress founder, Ahmed Chalabi
is flown into the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah by the Pentagon.
Chalabi, along with 700 fighters of his "Free Iraqi Forces"
are airlifted aboard four massive C17 military transport planes.
Chalabi and the INC are Washington favorites to head the new
Iraqi government. A photograph is taken of Chalabi and members
of his Free Iraqi Forces militia as they arrive in Nasiriyah.
April 9th: One of the "most memorable images of the war"
is created when U.S. troops pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein
in Fardus Square. Oddly enough... a photograph is taken of a
man who bears an uncanny resemblance to one of Chalabi's militia
members... he is near Fardus Square to greet the Marines. How
many members of the pro-American Free Iraqi Forces were in and
around Fardus Square as the statue of Saddam came tumbling down?
The up close action video of the statue being destroyed is broadcast
around the world as proof of a massive uprising. Still photos
grabbed off of Reuters show a long-shot view of Fardus Square...
it's empty save for the U.S. Marines, the International Press,
and a small handful of Iraqis. There are no more than 200 people
in the square at best. The Marines have the square sealed off
and guarded by tanks. A U.S. mechanized vehicle is used to pull
the statue of Saddam from its base. The entire event is being
hailed as an equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling... but even
a quick glance of the long-shot photo shows something more akin
to a carefully constructed media event tailored for the television
cameras.
This was hardly the first or last instance of the Bush administration
faking the news. They are masters at it.
White House Gets Credit in Some Quarters for "Spinning"
War. Isn't That Called Propaganda,
Skilled Use of Lies and Deception? In the New York Times:
Even Critics of
War Say the White House Spun It With Skill
That is the assessment of the Bush administration's wartime
public relations campaign by both its supporters and critics,
who say the spin operation was extraordinarily successful in
shaping a positive battlefield narrative, at least for American
audiences. They say the effort floundered in the Arab world.
Its success at home can be traced to three major factors.
First was the repeated use of phrases that critics branded propaganda,
like "coalition forces" and "death squads,"
that became part of the accepted language of war. Second was
the powerful cinÈma vÈritÈ journalism of
reporters and photographers, whose words and pictures humanized
the American soldiers they were with. [Non
embedded journalists were threatened with death and some deliberately
killed.]Third, but not least, was the message discipline
of a White House that plotted appearances by top officials on
a daily "communications grid," ensuring that in the
first half of the day there was a news briefing by an administration
official every two hours, and that everyone was saying more or
less the same thing.
ÖThe third factor in the communications strategy, the message
discipline, began in December 2002, when the top communications
officials from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department
and Britain instituted a daily 9:30 a.m. conference call about
the theme of the day and who was delivering it. By the time the
war started, the call was generally led by Tucker Eskew, the
director of the White House office of global communications,
which was created to spread the American message on the war in
Iraq. Mr. Eskew made sure that the president, the defense secretary
and the secretary of state or their press officers were briefing
at regular intervals.
As a result, cable television viewers could watch a steady stream
of the administration's message starting at 7 a.m. Eastern time
in the United States, when Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks briefed
at the $250,000 set created at the United States Central Command's
forward headquarters in Doha, Qatar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/international/worldspecial
/20BUSH.html
I was especially struck by how much this resembled Nazi Germany's
propaganda apparatus which gave out their
own message of the day, called a daily parole, in which they
instructed the German press how to present the Nazi spin on events.
Still I guess that's not too surprising considering all the links the Bush family
has to the Nazis.
Fair
did an analysis of coverage of the war by the networks which
showed it was heavily biased toward the Bush administration. The
networks were just megaphones for the official view. The Bush
administration controls the US press to a greater extent than
any previous administration. Only the internet is still free.
[> [> Re: Jasmine, different
interpretations, and evidence -- 110v3w1110w, 09:51:13
04/21/03 Mon
firstly i don't worship bush and secondly i never said the curret
angel story line represets islamic fundamentalismi said it represents
fanaticism in general islamic or any other kind. as for the iraqis
protesting they are much like the protests in the west the do
not always show what most people think as we seen millions protesting
the war in america yet public support for the war is about 70%
according to the opinion polls. also while the people that are
protesting may not like america we have not any of them calling
for saddam to come back everyone agrees that him going was a good
thing. i see iraq having a bright future if america ca rebuild
the country and help establish democracy and liberty but the path
will not be easy as there are many factions in and out side of
iraq that want a share of power. they will try to throw a spanner
in the works america must not give in to these forces and must
not hand over power to anyone until iraq is ready for the responsibility
of governing itself. also does anyone have any ideas on why conner
wasn't cured by the blood ? personaly i think he was cured but
i remember when angel was cured he wated to try to go back to
jasmin and pretend everything was ok maybe that is what conner
is doing because he has never felt loved like that before
[> [> [> Re: Jasmine,
different interpretations, and evidence -- Shiraz, 12:54:26
04/21/03 Mon
First off, NO ONE on the left ever suggested that Saddam Hussein
was (is) a good person. His crimes against humanity are well known.
However, so are the crimes of dozens of other dictators all around
the world; several of which have received my tax dollars. (Heck,
SADDAM received a chunk of my parent's taxes!)
Are we now to send our army out to eradicate these evil- doers
everywhere?
This is not a valid reason to go to war.
"if america ca rebuild the country and help establish democracy
and liberty but the path will not be easy as there are many factions
in and out side of iraq that want a share of power. they will
try to throw a spanner in the works america must not give in to
these forces and must not hand over power to anyone until iraq
is ready for the responsibility of governing itself. "
Erm... who desides when Iraq is 'ready for the responsibility
of governing itself'?
What if some Iraqis disagree with this self-imposed arbiter?
Is this the same arbiter who desides which forces are anti "liberty
and democracy" and can therefore be excluded from the process?
And finally, whose going to pay for all of this? Cause last I
checked things like hospitals, schools and roads didn't come cheap,
and the U.S. is piling up red ink as it is.
-Shiraz
"Bethan snorted and strode across to the little man, who
tried to back away. He was too late.
She picked him up by his apron straps and glared at him eye to
eye. Torn though her dress was, disarrayed though her hair was,
she became for a moment the symbol of every woman who has caught
a man with his thumb on the scales of life."
Terry Pratchett - "The Light Fantastic"
[> [> [> [> Re:
Jasmine, different interpretations, and evidence -- 110v3w1110w,
13:37:19 04/21/03 Mon
because america does not rid the world of all dictators and has
supported them in the past does not make it wrong when it does
decide to get rid of one. stoping a fascist from opressing and
killing people is a good deed whatever else happens. as for the
political left they have sunk to new lows in this conflict some
have gone as far as commiting treason by actualy trying to stop
military convoys. as for who decides when iraq is ready the american
government will because they occupy iraq and if some iraqis disagree
then tough they have no experiance in creatig democratic government
and making sure there is justice and liberty so they will have
to learn for a few years
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Jasmine, different interpretations, and evidence --
Shiraz, 15:15:08 04/21/03 Mon
So, what you're saying is that the US has a right, not a duty
(which would require us to invade), but a right to invade whoever
the US government wants to, whenever it wants to no matter who
objects?
And anything that anyone from that "undemocratic" nation
says about the actions of the US government can then be safely
ignored because of their lack of familiarity with democracy?
And if the US decides that Iraq won't be ready for say 10 or 20
years, then your OK with that? Are you OK with that even if the
majority of the Iraqi people very vocally AREN'T OK with that?
And what if Iraqi vision of 'Liberty and Justice' is somewhat
different from ours? Do we re-educate them to accept our version?
Remember foreign relations are like court cases, they set precedents,
and what foreign policy actions a superpower takes are the equivalent
to a supreme court precedents; meaning that they validate similar
actions by other powers.
With this war we have set a very dangerous precedent. We have
now given legitimacy to the idea that any strong nation who wishes
to invade any smaller nation, provided they can find some moral
fault with that nation.
Russia vs. Uzbekistan? Go for it! Those Uzbeks have been repressing
all kinds of minorities, and its a dictatorship!
China vs. Mongolia? Sure! Mongolia's just a Stalinist hold- over
anyway.
-Shiraz
You can't impose democracy, and you can't force liberty down people's
throats.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Jasmine, different interpretations, and evidence
-- 110v3w1110w, 04:23:02 04/22/03 Tue
yeah thats pretty much what i am saying if you gave iraqis a vote
now or to soon before they are ready for it they will vote an
islamic theocracy into power and they will end up in the same
situation as iran is in now i.e poor human rights, poor womens
rights and no rights for gays at all and i don't think that is
acceptable even if most iraqis want it. As for countries waiting
for someone else to set a precedent in policy so they can follow
this shows you have a flawed understanding of how the world works.
russia and china base their policys on what is in their national
interests at no point do they rule a course of action out because
america has not done it first.
Belated
reply to the discussion of Get it Done -- norms,
15:33:44 04/20/03 Sun
someone, I don't know who wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
The issue is whether [Willow and Spike's] situations are symmetrical
to Buffy's. After much thought, I don't believe so. Buffy did
not ask them to gain more power. She didn't ask Willow to go drain
another Rack, she didn't ask Spike to become an UberVamp. What
she did was demand that they use the power they already have.
This was no different than what Buffy demands of herself. Yes,
Willow and Spike have powers rooted in darkness; we now know that
Buffy does too. She controls that power in order to use it for
good. She demanded that Willow and Spike do the same.
------------------------------------------------------------
the sad part is not that someone wrote this, the sad part is that
someone thought this drivel was worthy of being imortallized on
the episode page. (No offense)
the one real differance here (between the situation of buffy and
that of willow&spike) is that with willow and spike the power
is "already in them", that however is meaningless
the essence of the whole episode was that buffy wanted spike and
willow to risk there humanity to be better fighters, but when
called on to do the same she wouldn't do it.
Not that this is surprising, Buffy, as a charactor, never really
had any kind of moral fiber, there were always things she was
to squemish to do but she never had a problem if someone else
did it for her. and the few "moral" judgements she has
ever made were based an this brain- damaged valley girl mentality
that equated "creepy" or weird with evil and morally
wrong.
if you really want a differance between buffy and the W&S
situation then I have one, Willow and Spike both have actual humanity,
buffy on the other hand, is human by apperance only (if you didn't
realize that then go back and watch season six, if you still don't
get it then I'd like you to wear tin-foil SO WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE)
and if I were in the postion of any of the group and I was offer
power in exchange for an EMPTY SACK (which is all buffy humanity
amounts to these days) the I would say that to even hesitate would
be a betrayal of humanity
[> Re: Belated reply to
the discussion of Get it Done -- M. (wearing a tin-foil hat),
21:30:06 04/20/03 Sun
Buffy made her decision and I wonít even argue about whether
it was the right or wrong decision, but simply defend the fact
that it was her decision to make.
What Buffy says to Spike or Willow can not be compared to what
the shadow men tried to do to her. Buffy did not chain then up
and try to force power upon them, she did not try to force them
in anyway. She simply told them what was needed and allowed them
to chose. The Shadowmen knocked her out, chained her up and exposed
her to the demon essence. Did you really expect that Buffy would
stand there and allow herself to ìget knocked up (raped!)
by some demon dust? I found myself wondering what would have happened
if they had told Buffy about the turokan first, then offered her
the power instead of trying to force it upon her.
[> [> Okay, now you're
just dodging the issue -- norms,
12:33:08 04/21/03 Mon
---------------------------------------------------------
Buffy made her decision and I wonít even argue about whether
it was the right or wrong decision, but simply defend the fact
that it was her decision to make.
-------------------------------------------------------
well in the words of Bill Cosby "well that changes the subject
doesn't it.". I was't judgeing weather buffy was right or
wrong (except at the end, the part about the sack). I was merely
stating that buffy once again failed to practice what she loudly
and abrasively preaches.
--------------------------------------------
What Buffy says to Spike or Willow can not be compared to what
the shadow men tried to do to her. Buffy did not chain then up
and try to force power upon them, she did not try to force them
in anyway
---------------------------------------------------
You have a point, it's irrelevent and only true in a technical
sense (if you really don't consider the constant verbal abuse
an attempt to "force" spike and willow to do what she
wanted in any sense of the word, then I truly pittiy your command
of the english language)
---------------------------------------------------
The Shadowmen knocked her out, chained her up and exposed her
to the demon essence. Did you really expect that Buffy would stand
there and allow herself to ìget knocked up (raped!) by
some demon dust?
------------------------------------------------------
also irrelevent, this piece of narrative would only support buffy
if you think that if they had ask first she would have gone through
with it. the point still stands that in the end SHE made the choice
to not do what she wanted from her "friends" ( I use
quotes because I don't believe buffy understands the concept any
longer)
[> [> [> Re: Okay,
now you're just dodging the issue -- M., 17:16:08 04/21/03
Mon
Ok, Iíll try again. You say ìthe one real differance
(difference?) here (between the situation of Buffy and that of
Willow & Spike) is that with Willow and Spike the power is "already
in them", that however is meaninglessî. Why is that
meaningless? It seems to me that Sophist demonstrated fairly conclusively
that this difference is very significant (and doesnít need
my defence, but I like to argue sometimes). No only is Buffy not
asking them to gain more power nor asking them to relinquish their
humanity, she is only asking them to do things that they have
each done before and they both know exactly what the results could
be. Buffy does not in fact have any idea what the result would
have been if she had let the Shadowmen have their way with her.
We donít even know that it would help.
The next point is you consider ìconstant verbal abuse an
attempt to "force" spike and willowî. I will attempt
not to engage in nor acknowledge personal attacks but I will ask
ìare you trying to ìforceî people to agree
with you?î You must see that there is a difference between
verbal coercion and physical violence. No only that but I have
to ask ìwhat do you mean by ìconstantî verbal
abuse?î Until this point Buffy has been very understanding
and supportive when dealing with Willows concerns about magic,
and Spike seemed down right shocked that Buffy felt the way she
did. It does not seem to me that she badgered or wore them down.
Do you consider Spike and Willow to be such weak willed individuals
that they can be so absolutely controlled by a single comment
from Buffy? Strongly influenced yes but they still had a choice.
I do not think that it was Buffyís intent to deny them
that choice, but rather ìforceî them to make it.
That is not the same thing as what the Shadowmen tried to do,
they tried to make the choice for Buffy.
The final question is do you ìthink that if they had ask(ed)
first she would have gone through with itî. I hope that
I understand your argument, you seem to imply that even if Buffy
had been given a chance to make an informed choice, she still
would have turned them down and therefore the actions of the Shadowmen
are ìirrelevantî. First I have to say that the violence
and attempted rape (and I do mean that) is completely indefensible.
It would be unfair to expect anyone to make the right choice under
those circumstances. Next why are you so sure that Buffy would
have turned them down had they asked? It seems fairly obvious
that Buffy had reconsidered her decision after seeing the army
of Turok-han, she tells Willow ìI think I made a mistakeî.
By the way, still proudly sporting my tin-foil hat and taking
the little bus to battle.
[> [> [> [> um...
damn -- norms,
18:57:57 04/21/03 Mon
Overall you have a very good point, I concede to your logic and
knowledge.
HOWEVER, I few points I would like to dispute:
-----------------------------------------
You say ìthe one real differance (difference?) here (between
the situation of Buffy and that of Willow & Spike) is that with
Willow and Spike the power is "already in them", that
however is meaninglessî. Why is that meaningless? It seems
to me that Sophist demonstrated fairly conclusively that this
difference is very significant
------------------------------------------------------------
where? and what is this significance?
---------------------------------------------------
No only is Buffy not asking them to gain more power nor asking
them to relinquish their humanity
------------------------------------------------------
Actually buffy is quite clear that she looks down on spike for
not "relishing the kill" the way he used to, and seemed
quite frustrated with willow because she refused risking a repeat
of the events which almost ENDDED THE WORLD last year. so that
falls pretty well under asking them to relinquish thier humanity.
------------------------------------------------------
Until this point Buffy has been very understanding and supportive
when dealing with Willows concerns about magic, and Spike seemed
down right shocked that Buffy felt the way she did. It does not
seem to me that she badgered or wore them down. Do you consider
Spike and Willow to be such weak willed individuals that they
can be so absolutely controlled by a single comment from Buffy?
----------------------------------------------------------
good point about spike, but buffy had been haranging willow for
a while. and as for relitive weakness of will I must wonder how
you've watched so many episodes and missed the fact that the scooby-gang
long ago ceased to be a group of friends and became a cult devoted
to worshiping the slayer and fighting a jihad agains't all demons
that they aren't two lazy to find
--------------------------------------------------------
you seem to imply that even if Buffy had been given a chance to
make an informed choice, she still would have turned them down
and therefore the actions of the Shadowmen are ìirrelevant
----------------------------------------------------------
Exactly!
------------------------------------------------------
First I have to say that the violence and attempted rape (and
I do mean that) is completely indefensible
------------------------------------------------------------
and I make no attempt to defend it.
-------------------------------------------------------
It would be unfair to expect anyone to make the right choice under
those circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why? I understand the emotional charge of such a situation can
cloud ones judgement but someone buffy's age (or even someone
three quarters of buffy's age) should have enough emotional maturity
to seperate emotion from logic when the stakes are this high.
[> [> [> [> [>
Concessions, clarifications and general ramblings. -- M.,
22:38:13 04/21/03 Mon
I will concede one of your points as well. I said the Buffy didnít
ask them to give up their humanity. But maybe that is exactly
what she did. But I still maintain that they had a choice, at
that is what is significant. Iím trying to think of any
examples of Buffy ìharanging Willowî and I canít
think of any that occurred before ìGet It Doneî (or
after). In ìShowtimeî I saw Buffy being sensitive
and supportive to Willow when asking for her to make a barrier
to protect the potentials. I saw the same concern in ìPotentialsî
when Willow volunteers to cast a spell to find the missing potential.
You may take a cynical viewpoint that she was just pretending
to be nice to take advantage of Willow, but that is not how I
see it.
It always amazes me (in a good way) how two people can look at
the same thing and see two completely different things. You see
Buffy as shallow, conceited and lacking humanity, and the Scooby
gang as a mindless cult who worship her. (How dare you suggest
that Buffy has a cult following!). I see Buffy as a hero in the
truest sense of the word, sacrificing herself for the good of
the world. Iím not just talking about the two times she
literally gave her life, but the way she devotes her life every
day to fighting the forces of evil (sorry to sound like a comic
book). The same applies to Willow and Xander. Willow who could
have been literally anything she wanted chose to stay in Sunnydale
to fight the good fight way back in season three, and then chose
to come back at the beginning of this season because she was needed.
Xander shows incredible courage to face these monsters without
any of the super powers of the others.
I am not saying in anyway that Buffy is without flaws. She has
demonstrated a dangerous blind spot regarding Spike, a definite
tendency to lecture to the potentials instead of listening to
them, and a lack of respect and consideration for the views of
her allies who are in this fight with her. But I would like to
remind you that she would not be such and interesting character
if she was without flaws. Also in every good story there has to
be tension. In every season of BTVS there has been a point just
before the climax where the character flaws seem almost insurmountable.
In season one Buffy tried to deny her calling and responsibility.
In season two she has been unable to fight the monster that had
her lovers face. In season 3 she was conflicted about the council
and indecisive about how to destroy the monster who was going
to eat the town. In season four she fought and argued with the
Scooby Gang. In season 5 she sunk into a fugue state because she
couldnít handle the stress of protecting her sister and
of course you are right that she struggled with depression throught
much of season six. Now in season seven Buffy is once again becoming
disconnected with the Scooby gang, she has been unable to inspire
the confidence of the Potentials and has yet to find a way to
fight an intangible foe. The point is that she overcame these
challenges in the past, and will again. At this point I am going
to make an impassioned plea to you, not to ignore Buffyís
flaws, but donít concentrate on them to the exclusion of
all else and allow yourself to see her strengths and maybe even
her humanity.
Now briefly to something more specific that I hope you will respond
specifically to. You say ìsomeone Buffy's age (or even
someone three quarters of Buffy's age) should have enough emotional
maturity to separate emotion from logic when the stakes are this
high.î. Personaly I am just about six quarters of Buffyís
age and I canít claim I am always able to separate logic
from emotions, especially in times of stress. (Anyone who claims
they can always make logical decisions unaffected by stress or
emotion must be a ìVulcanologistî) When someone tries
to force something on me even if it is for my own good, my natural
response is to resist. The point is that if given the needed information
and time to think about it, things might be different. You seem
to be absolutely certain that Buffy would have turned down the
Shadowmen offer under any circumstances. I would like to know
why you feel this way when Buffy herself seems to
feel that maybe she should have taken the power.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Since I have a completely impartial interest in this
issue..... -- Sophist, 09:10:57 04/22/03 Tue
let me just offer one point in response.
I said the Buffy didnít ask them to give up their humanity.
But maybe that is exactly what she did.
The way I see it is this: the exercise of special powers by any
of the three (Buffy, Willow, Spike) runs along a continuum. Using
Willow as an example, we might say that the continuum runs from
locater spells to teleportation to raising the dead to attempting
to destroy the world.
Now, if any exercise of power along this continuum puts
their humanity at risk, then Buffy certainly did ask Willow and
Spike to take that risk. By the same token, however, Buffy cannot
be accused of hypocrisy because she exercises her power every
day and, by the same logic, must therefore put her own humanity
at risk.
I don't believe that the mere exercise of power alone puts their
humanity at risk. It's the abuse or excess of that
power which does so. Buffy pushes herself as far as she can, but
made the decision that the "extra" offered by the Shadowmen
went too far.
What she told Spike and Willow was, in essence, "Hey, you
guys are limiting yourselves to the tinkerbell end of the spectrum.
I need you to go further because I know you can. I believe in
your ability to control it and I myself am taking that same risk."
Buffy did not tell them to "risk their humanity".
She told them to use the power they had while remaining in
control. Again, Buffy herself does this. Faith, as we have
seen, faces the same challenge. Given the circumstances, it's
fair to demand no less of Spike and Willow (and, on a different
scale, Giles, Xander and Wood).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Exactly, Sophist (spoilers for GID, very vague
spoilers for S7 to date) -- Random, 09:35:55 04/22/03 Tue
The continuum is important...mere evidence alone has shown us
that Spike and Willow have done what Buffy asked of them and are
still with us in a good-guy, not-trying-to-destroy- the-world-or-murder-lots-of-innocent-people
way. Willow has exercised her power more liberally, Spike as gone
back, to some degree, to the Big Bad, leather duster and all.
The point is, therefore, moot as of the most recent episode. Hell,
it was close to being moot by the time the ubervamp army showed
up at the end of GID. Why are we still discussing GID in terms
that have since been dealt with?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Concessions, clarifications and general ramblings.
-- norms, 12:40:21 04/22/03 Tue
once again you prove logical and clarifiy several parts of your
statements that apparently misunderstood, however I feel you have
misinterpreted a key detail of my side of this discussion. I fully
agree with you that buffy WAS quite heroic, emphasis on was. she
was a very admirable, respectable, human charactor until season
six (though there were shades of the problem in season five).
this is actually quite common on other buffy boards I post on.
I see buffy (and to a lesser extent the rest of the cast) NOW,
on UPN, as entirely differant from the buffy seen when BTVS was
on WB. due mostly to the massive and uneven personality shifts
that took place repeatedly durring season six.
buffy in S 1-5 was a hero as you describe. buffy S6 and at very
common intervals in S7 is , at least compared to the old buffy,
a self-centered, sadistic, sociopath with mental functionality
on par with a lovecraftian ghoul (for those who haven't read the
relevent writings, imagine a human, now strip away the conscience,
personality, higher reasoning capacity, and everything else that
makes us more then a snarling, rabid animal, concernd only with
the physical and the most primitive of emotional gratifications.
which is , one must admit, a perfect decription of buffy's season
six behavior.
also, you mention I should look past here flaws to see the virtues,
I did. the only problem is that when season six started she lost
all those virtues and gained more flaws. and secondly to that,
in fiction (as in real-life) I find it hard to see past flaws
when a person is such a fanitical hypocrite. I have no problem
with human flaws, I just have a problem with people who are riddled
with flaws that they see in everyone BUT themselves. "physition,
heal thy self"
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Huge heavy sigh. -- M., 14:56:34 04/22/03
Tue
We are not going to agree, and we donít have to. I just
hope you keep watching with your eyes open, and keep your heart
and mind open as well. What you see just might suprise you!
Good luck
[> Umm...nice to hear from
you. Glad you could unenlighten us with your drivel (no offense
intended) -- Random, adjusting his shiny new tin-foil hat
and vest, 22:52:03 04/20/03 Sun
[> [> BTW, Sophist generally
tends to consider his posts to be periphrastic sophistry, not
drivel -- Random, donning his tin-foil pants of evil, 23:06:30
04/20/03 Sun
[> [> [> Great point
-- Sophist, 08:13:12 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> Hey, I just call
them as I see them (nt) -- norms,
12:12:42 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> Hay, straw
is cheaper, -- Cleanthes,
14:07:31 04/21/03 Mon
grass is free; marry a farmer and you'll get all three.
[> [> [> [> oh,
how witty! -- norms,
19:02:15 04/21/03 Mon
can you believe this is the third time this year that this has
happened.
the thrid time someone who disagreed with me tried to make me
seem wrong by attack my choice or usage of words while making
no attempt to refute my logic.
interesting.
[> [> [> [> [>
Sigh...fine, I'll give you a reply to mull over -- Random,
wearing tin-foil boots, 19:45:06 04/21/03 Mon
You offer us an unsubstantiated theorem:
Buffy, as a charactor, never really had any kind of moral fiber,
there were always things she was to squemish to do but she never
had a problem if someone else did it for her. and the few "moral"
judgements she has ever made were based an this brain-damaged
valley girl mentality that equated "creepy" or weird
with evil and morally wrong.
and expect a refutation of your logic. In order to address you,
we have to have a reason to take you seriously. What exact situations
are you referring to? Her willingness to go to jail over the death
of Katrina? The fact that she sacrificed her life twice to save
the world? The fact that she doesn't kill the "weird"
Clem, or the "weird" demon who offered up the books
of Ascension or the newly-chipped Spike, to name three that she
had no reason to spare except simple mercy? By engaging in ad
hominem attacks about Buffy's mentality, you make it difficult
to address your "logic." And referring to someone else's
observations as drivel tends to be rather counterproductive if
you want someone to take your drivel (no offense, of course, cause
we all know that phrase makes everything better) seriously. I
offer this perspective to you because you clearly feel like people
are rejecting or dismissing you -- the thrid time someone who
disagreed with me tried to make me seem wrong by attack my choice
or usage of words while making no attempt to refute my logic.
-- and I don't want you to have to deserve the treatment you get.
Furthermore (donning a tin-foil cape), your last paragraph - -
if you really want a differance between buffy and the W&S
situation then I have one, Willow and Spike both have actual humanity,
buffy on the other hand, is human by apperance only (if you didn't
realize that then go back and watch season six, if you still don't
get it then I'd like you to wear tin-foil SO WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE)
and if I were in the postion of any of the group and I was offer
power in exchange for an EMPTY SACK (which is all buffy humanity
amounts to these days) the I would say that to even hesitate would
be a betrayal of humanity
-- offers a perspective that I would love to debate with you.
If only it weren't utterly without any definition of terms or
actual argument. "Watch season six" doesn't offer anything
in the way of constructive advice to help us understand your point.
Buffy felt disconnected, this is true. It is also true that we
are now almost a season past the point where she appears to re-connect.
My question is whether you have a clear idea of what you mean
by "human" and "humanity." Are you saying
that Buffy doesn't feel human emotions? Does her inhumanity show
up in the fact that a 22 year old girl with the weight of the
world on her shoulders suffers from the strain, and sometimes
acts or reacts in a brusque fashion? Does that make those drivers
who flip the bird to other drivers inhuman because they suffer
from the strain of traffic jams and work-scheduled? Are you suggesting
that her rejection of the apparent dehumanization offered by the
Shadowmen is evidence of her lack of true humanity? I would be
quite puzzled by your reasoning...except, of course, you offer
no reasoning. Sophist makes an interesting point: Willow and Spike
are holding back. Buffy isn't holding back, she's rejecting additional
violation. The situations are not parallel. Furthermore, Buffy
is being consistent. You can't fight evil by doing evil. You can't
violate a souled Spike anymore than you can violate a souled Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Great post, Ran -- fidhle (putting on tin-foil boots
too.), 19:50:46 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You can't fight evil by doing evil, but -- Cleanthes, 20:07:11
04/21/03 Mon
can you fight unreason with sweet reason?
I applaud your effort, Random, but I'm thinking my approach works
better. Were you able to write your reply without exasperation?
If so, you're the Gunga Din to my Archie Cutter.
I handle exasperation poorly, so I choose to reply to "crab
grass posts" with absurdity, just as I do with the crab grass
in my yard. It doesn't respond well to reason either, although
it demands attention by popping up so vigorously.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Excellent, my friend! :) -- Rob, 22:45:43 04/21/03
Mon
P.S. I have been busy this week, but I'm definitely going to try
to make it to chat tomorrow night. You gonna be around?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Surely...I'm doing a road trip today, but I should
be back later. Look forward to it. -- Random, 10:14:56
04/22/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Are you bringing the chocolate? -- LittleBit,
13:09:00 04/22/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Oh, yeah...but unfortunately, it will have
to be Kosher- for-Passover chocolate! ;o) -- Rob, 14:00:14
04/22/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Da'het fe'urst (Translation: I sumit to you authority)
-- a very sorry norms, 13:29:50 04/22/03 Tue
just to fully detail this offical retraction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Buffy, as a charactor, never really had any kind of moral fiber,
there were always things she was to squemish to do but she never
had a problem if someone else did it for her. and the few "moral"
judgements she has ever made were based an this brain-damaged
valley girl mentality that equated "creepy" or weird
with evil and morally wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------
these statement come from a combination of laziness, over generaliztion,
and a spotty memory. I've spent alot of time of time on the Buffyguide.com
forums danceing in the gray areas, I forgot all the counter points
you offer which generated little debate.
--------------------------------------------
? By engaging in ad hominem attacks about Buffy's mentality, you
make it difficult to address your "logic."
-------------------------------------------------------
then maybe someone should address my lack of logic. merely because
I didn't give a detailed episomlogical explantion dosen't mean
there is nothing to refute. make your own statements and back
them up, talk me out of it.
-------------------------------------
And referring to someone else's observations as drivel tends to
be rather counterproductive if you want someone to take your drivel
(no offense, of course, cause we all know that phrase makes everything
better) seriously.
------------------------------------------------
so what you're saying is... form over substance? my (antagionistic)
choice of words automaticly disqualify me from deserving a debate?
----------------------------------------------------
"Watch season six" doesn't offer anything in the way
of constructive advice to help us understand your point. Buffy
felt disconnected, this is true. It is also true that we are now
almost a season past the point where she appears to re- connect.
----------------------------------------------------------
how reconnected is she, she's softened a little bit, true but
she still has the same (sadistic, guiltless, self- centered) "New
and dysfunctional" personality.
(guiltless and selfcentered are by degree not absoulte. and if
you want the most recent proof sadistic I suggest you re watch
"Him", many caught how buffy helped dawn in the end,
I more noticed that her first instinct was to kick her while she
was down, "Face it dawn, you're never gonna get him"
not a trace of sympathy or even pity, just an urge to cause pain
to someone who's vulnerable)
----------------------------------------------------------
? Does her inhumanity show up in the fact that a 22 year old girl
with the weight of the world on her shoulders suffers from the
strain, and sometimes acts or reacts in a brusque fashion
-------------------------------------------------------
Weight of the world? you mean season five. in season six buffy
only fought what, two demons, and they both came to her. she spent
the whole season avoiding her friends to avoid thier problems,
screwing spike and claiming it as time on patrol or at work, and
the coup de grace, beating the shit out of, verbally demeaning,
and sexually violating the only person who tried to help her.
(and yes, spike was violated, that, I believe, is the only way
to describe buffy stomping into his house in "Gone"
,and completely ingnoring spike protests about being used and
doing whatever we it was she did off camera)
but I digress, this was meant as a retraction, I have a tendency
to try an "counter balance" the popular mistakes of
the fandom. like the huge clog of...grrrr...arrrgh... fans that
somehow came to the conclusion that buffy was the victim in season
six.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Correction: I suBmit to you authority + one more
thing -- norms, 13:45:54 04/22/03 Tue
you said:
--------------------------------------------------------
I offer this perspective to you because you clearly feel like
people are rejecting or dismissing you -- "the thrid time
someone who disagreed with me tried to make me seem wrong by attack
my choice or usage of words while making no attempt to refute
my logic." -- and I don't want you to have to deserve the
treatment you get.
-----------------------------------------------------------
My point was that I don't deserve this treatment. I write the
way I speak; agressive, off the cuff, and antagionistic. and some
are regarding me with an extremely dismissive tone because I used
one or two words they consider "improper" or "bad
english". I find it especially infuriating that the people
who take this tone, that is, the ones who are to distracted by
the form to address the substance, thier assumption of superiority
proves their inferiority. If the symetry were any more perfect
I would cry ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Eh, not trying to be an authority...
-- Random, 18:30:34 04/22/03 Tue
Just observing the realities of dialogue. I notice you actually
make some cogent, reasoned arguments, once you settle down a little
. It isn't so much a question of whether you deserve debate,
but of whether other people are willing to look past what they
perceive as antagonistic and personal observations. If that's
your normal IRL form of discourse, as you say, then I imagine
you've encountered negative reactions before. Just a fact of life.
Anyway, I would argue she still has the weight of the world on
her shoulders. I mean, the ultimate Evil is hell-bent on destroying
her and the world. And, while she behaved badly in S6, I will
also note she was hardly the monster that some people say. This
a a girl that made some bad choices, but do a comparison analysis
with, say, Angel of S2 or Spike or Willow S6...our expectations
of Buffy may be a tad too high. I mean, she wasn't out robbing
and murdering...she was dealing with issues
Tamara
Swift -- Celebaelin, 17:10:43 04/20/03 Sun
I've just been looking at the BBC website and found Amber Benson's
current project which you can watch free of charge (unless you
pay your TV licence fee in the UK to fund the Beeb's free to air
stuff) at
Tamara Swift
Incidentally, on the Beeb's Buffy site I found this
Ripe
For Captioning
Any takers? Nothing extraordinarily impolite please!
C
[> Oh, I forgot my caption
-- Celebaelin, 18:22:02 04/20/03 Sun
I'll say this for her, she can certainly hold her liquor.
[> Caption, my caption
-- pr10n, 22:26:04 04/20/03 Sun
Now that is a woman that knows how to moisturize!
Mind
Control in the Buffyverse (Spoilers through "Magic Bullet")
-- Finn Mac Cool, 19:19:14 04/20/03 Sun
When Jasmine burst out of Cordelia's womb and started spouting
platitudes about love, hope, and fighting evil, there was definite
ambiguity about whether she was a truly evil creature, or a misguided
power fighting for good. Of course, the revelations of her true
form (a maggot covered corpse), her need to eat people, and her
non-chalant attitude to her followers' deaths is definitely pointing
towards Jasmine being a being intent on doing evil. So, one might
ask, if she's evil and is capable of enchanting all who look at
or listen to her, why'd she talk to Angel Investigations about
faith, love, and eradicating all evil?
Well, that seems to be how mind control works in the Buffyverse,
for the most part. We've seen several other demons like Jasmine
whose modus operandi is to enchant human beings into doing their
will. In "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been", the paranoia
demon exploited the fears and distrustfulness of the Hyperion
Hotel residents until they lynched Angel. In "Gingerbread",
the Hansel and Gretel demon heightened parents' concern for children
until they tried to burn three of them at the stake. And in "I
Robot, You Jane", Moloch preceded Jasmine by drawing human
followers into a state of quasi-love for him. And now Jasmine
has joined the club.
Something these particular demons emphasise is that mind control
in the Buffyverse isn't total. They can't just totally subjugate
someone's personality and free will. After all, when Willow met
Moloch online, he didn't go "I'm a powerful demon. Obey me."
No, he told Willow he was a normal guy, a nice guy, and slowly
drew her to him. He took tempting, seductive words and used a
certain amount of magic to make them seem even more appealing.
Eventually, long exposure to Moloch's persuasive words and magic
resulted in devoted slaves praising Moloch's "love".
The others acted in the same way. They find something inside each
person (whether it's fear or love) and exploit it. Mind control
can't totally control someone's thoughts, but it can heighten
particular feelings and beliefs until they're all consuming.
This is why Jasmine told AI she came to bring love and peace.
She first needed to bring out their desire for a higher power
to make everything all right before she could make that all they
thought about. While her mind control took almost immediate effect,
it may have lacked quite as much oomph if she didn't use AI's
search for a higher good to its full effect. But, in "Magic
Bullet", we saw her power increasing. She developed a psychic
and visual link between her and everyone else under her thrall.
And, as the control grows stronger, she can afford to be less
subtle. She tells Connor quite openly "I ate them",
and he doesn't even bat an eye, just like how the Hansel and Gretel
demon could appear to the parents in the form of the two dead
kids eventually, even though the ghosts of dead children would
normally draw their attention. And, also like the Hansel and Gretel
demon, once Jasmine's true form is revealed, the spell is broken.
Did this all make much sense? It started as an explanation with
Jasmine's attitude matching her evil nature, but it kinda broke
down near the end. Sorry, but, of five rewrites, this was the
best one.
[> Re: Mind Control in the
Buffyverse (Spoilers through "Magic Bullet") --
Ray, 05:35:19
04/21/03 Mon
"Did this all make much sense? It started as an explanation
with Jasmine's attitude matching her evil nature, but it kinda
broke down near the end. Sorry, but, of five rewrites, this was
the best one."
I found it very interesting. Going all the way back to Moloch
(6 years) with your references.
I can't actually think of any episode that would contradict you.
[> [> Superstar Jonathan?
-- neaux, 07:55:56 04/21/03 Mon
I dont think Superstar was exactly mind control.. but the parallels
between Shiny Happy People and Superstar are definately there.
You could compare Buffy to Fred as the lone person knowing something
is amiss.
[> [> [> I noticed
that, too -- Masq, 09:28:26 04/21/03 Mon
The effect super-star Jonathan had on Sunnydale (and one presumes
the rest of the world, too?) was very similar to the effect Jasmine
has on L.A. The major difference, I suppose, is motive. Jonathan's
motives were very human--low self-esteem, loneliness. He let his
personal needs take precedence over a nasty side-effect of his
spell--the balancing monster--but he didn't do what he did because
he was evil, or because he had some kind of disdain for the rest
of humanity.
Jasmine's motives are still very mysterious, IMO. She does seem
to rely on "consuming" human beings to regenerate herself
in someway, and she is willing to hurt and kill people to maintain
her control over the populace. But is all her "love-and-happiness"
talk ONLY talk? She seems to believe in a lot of it. There is
duplicity in her, but I'm not convinced she doesn't believe in
what she's doing on some level. Yet.
Now perhaps she's just turning L.A., and then the Earth, into
one big giant cattle barn/slaughter house for some powerful BigBads
waiting to join her on Earth, or maybe she's just a really, really
morally ambiguous "messiah" who wants to make the world
a better place for humankind's "own good" and just happens
to be above us on the food chain as well. To her, human beings
are like animals--mostly cherished pets, but ocassionally, dinner.
[> [> [> [> Re:
attachment issues -- aliera, 15:32:41 04/21/03 Mon
At little OT but until his teens, my dad grew up on a working
farm and (at least in his case) this was the thing they wouldn't
dare do... I remember asking about it as a kid (probably after
reading Charlotte's Web.)
Anyway, did anyone other than me just have a flashback to Dawn's
words from Lessons:
Dawn: I know! You never know whatís coming, the stake
is not the power, To Serve Man is a cookbook!
[> [> [> [> What
if (spoilers Magic Bullet) -- lunasea, 15:50:19 04/21/03
Mon
Jasmine is like Connor and really doesn't know what love is? She
is spouting hallmark card sentiments that give people hope, but
she doesn't have that genuine concern for people. She confuses
her affection with real love. Spike and Angel confuse approval
with love because they didn't know any better. What if Jasmine
is confusing the hope she gives to people and the Shiney Happy
feelings that she generates as love?
She doesn't have a genuine concern for our well-being. She just
wants us to all be shiney and happy. As we have learned, sometimes
doing the most loving thing involves pain. As the Guide tells
Buffy, love is pain.
If someone is eaten, they aren't unhappy any more. Willow was
going to destroy the world because of all the unhappiness. Jasmine
is just trying to make everyone happy.
Mindcontrol to me is the means to something else, typically something
incredibly sinister. Jasmine just wants shiney happy people. I
don't think she has another end. There is no something else.
But I could be wrong. I tend to be.
[> [> Another two mind
control episodes -- RadiusRS, 00:22:26 04/22/03 Tue
While I agree with your post, I do have a few episodes in mind
that, while they don't contradict you, might add a different perspective.
In "The Pack", the characters were possesed by the spirit
but still retained facets of their personalities and a post-possesion
memory of all that happened, much like Angelus experiences everything
that Angel does but is impotent to affect it (isn't Angel essentially
Liam's soul possesing the body of the Demon Angelus, who in turned
possesed Liam's body when he became a vampire?). In "Bad
Eggs", a phsyical entity was the medium of mind control.
While the characters kept attributes and memories, they were like
robots for the mother demon, much like the Borg and their Queen.
The costume episode showed that while some were possesed by the
characteristics of their costumes, they retained most of their
good qualities (Xander), some didn't (Buffy), and some kept everything
(Willow). Maybe no one was directly controlling their minds a
la Jasmine but, there was once again a physical connection to
the subjugation of the victim's will; those most costumed (Buffy,
the demon kids) were the ones most affected. In "Band Candy",
much like "Spin the Bottle", the characters minds were
subjugated through the chocolate bars, kept their core personalities,
and remembered everything. The one with Xander's spell so that
Cordy would fall in love with him and "Him" also subverted
the characters desires while allowing their personalities to remain.
The first demon who impregnated Cordy and the other women was
able to directly control their actions after a while. "Billy"
was able to influence people's actions towards hatred through
touch. In "Waiting in the Wings" and "I Only Have
Eyes for You", the supernatural drama has possesed the chracaters
because of the parallelism to their own lives at the moment. The
Beastmaster completely subjugated Cordy's personality while retaining
her memories (and who wants to bet Cordy remembers everything
too?).
All these examples plus your own lead me to believe that Jasmine
IS indeed Evil, and she's a worse form of mind control than all
the ones we've seen so far; she embodies evil as a hive mind much
like the Borg, the Alien Queen, or those monsters in killer insect
movies do. She is like a Messiah, a God in flesh. Gods want adoration
(Glory), it's what feeds them. Jasmine has subverted everyone
into worshipping her, fueling her so that she can continue to
grow more powerful. I do believe that she is using subertfuge
by offering everyone a utopia, what they want the most (sounds
just like the Devil's M.O.), so she can wriggle herself into their
minds and hearts. What makes Jasmine so much more worse than everything
we've seen is her control does not require physical contact (though
blood-to-blood contact with her or her mom does break the spell,
ironic huh?). While at first she was only able to influence their
actions, she is now able to replace their moral compass with her
own. They do feel love from her but it is like an addictive drug,
the ultimate high (hence the post-Jasmine depression). And their
love for her eclipses their concern for Fred. The Jasminites are
now vessels she can see and control, extensions of herself. In
order to maintain life, she must consume them. Seems to Jasmine
is the ultimate evil because she takes the best human emotion
and perverts it to her own purposes.
But...whatever she is, she is still Connor and Cordy's child,
and therefore probably has a soul (and remember, she's just a
vessel for the Beastmaster). I think she has the potential to
do as much good as evil, and I think this will affect the Beastmaster
within her somehow (human weakness) who, in "Players"
showed that It is not all It used to be, and this might open the
door toward her downfall and/or possible redemption.
Anyone
know what episodes the flashbacks came from? ("Dirty Girls"
spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:48:09 04/20/03 Sun
Just for fun, I've been trying to keep track of every Buffy episode
that's been referenced this season. And, 1hen Andrew is telling
the potentials about Faith, there are a LOT of clips from previous
episodes. So I'd like to know which episodes these were clips
of, if anyone knows, since a flashback is a pretty direct reference.
And happy Easter/Passover/Spring/Fall (for all you Australians
out there)!
[> Re: Anyone know what
episodes the flashbacks came from? ("Dirty Girls" spoilers)
-- Rob, 20:04:57 04/20/03 Sun
I can't remember every one at the moment, but I definitely recognized
some clips from "Bad Girls."
Rob
[> Re: Anyone know what
episodes the flashbacks came from? ("Dirty Girls" spoilers)
-- pellenaka, 08:16:44 04/21/03 Mon
Enemies - Faith holding Buffy up against the wall and Faith looking
at Angel with Buffy in the background.
GD1 - Faith shooting Angel (Green, bright Sunnydale sign), killing
vulcanologist.
Bad Girls - Dancing, smashing stuff, B&F standing in the bright
light, killing Mr. Finch.
Choices - Faith gets a brand new knife and threathens Willow.
Consequences or Enemies - Faith fighting Angel.
Faith, Hope And Trick (I think) - Faith, a guy and a fence.
The Zeppo (I think) - the very first short clip of Faith and Faith
killing blue demon. (in the beginning of the ep. I believe)
A life? Me? No, what would I need that for?
[> [> I could have sworn
there was a "This Year's Girl" clip in there --
Finn Mac Cool, 09:07:09 04/21/03 Mon
I think from the Joyce-as-hostage scene. Nothing actually happened
in the clip, just Faith briefly there, flaunting her cleavage,
but I think it might have been the same outfit as TYG.
With you on the life thing. They're highly overrated.
[> [> [> Oh, and there
was a "Beauty/Beasts" clip of Faith with the tranq gun.
-- Finn Mac Cool, 09:09:23 04/21/03 Mon
But thanks for clarifying some of the others. I'm beginning to
suspect that this season of BtVS might reference EVERY past episode.
Not likely, but possible.
[> [> [> [> Ah,
so that's where that one was from -- pellenaka, 11:40:56
04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> & the
scenes w/the vulcan, of course, were from "faith, hope, & spock"
@>D -- anom, 12:20:47 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Really? I thought they were from "Vulcanation, part 1"
-- Masq, 13:30:20 04/21/03 Mon
By which time, Faith had gone evil... and illogical
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I'll never forget that classic episode! -- Rob, 16:10:03
04/21/03 Mon
With that killer twist ending that Faith, that whole time, was
actually selling the Mayor out, by working as a Ferengi spy. And
in the second part, where Troi mind-melded with Willow to create
a psychic web to entrap Faith, and Worf taught Faith the true
meaning of a warrior. True classics!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I'll never forget that classic episode!
-- ponygirl, 07:47:13 04/22/03 Tue
Yeah but that sub-plot about Xander being trapped on the holo-deck
(again!) was totally lame.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> LOL..... -- Rufus, 19:20:58 04/21/03 Mon
See what happens when a gal wears a wonderbra??? All logic goes
south....;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> nope, it's fh&s... -- anom, 15:03:35 04/22/03
Tue
...note the Classic Trek-era uniform. Remember, it was one of
those which-side-are-you-on mixups ME is so fond of, w/Faith asking
this "demon," "What are you supposed to be, a Vulcan?"
(Love that self-referential stuff, where yeah, turns out he really
is!) The which-side aspect is neatly echoed in Dirty Girls itself
in Faith & Spike's exchange in the graveyard, although I wouldn't
say it counts as foreshadowing.
And when was Faith ever into logic?
[> [> [> Ah, you're
right. (link inside) -- pellenaka, 11:51:36 04/21/03 Mon
Screencaps from said clip.
http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season7/vidcaps/dirtygi
rls/dirtygirls357.jpg
http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season7/vidcaps/dirtygi
rls/dirtygirls358.jpg
http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season7/vidcaps/dirtygi
rls/dirtygirls359.jpg
[> [> Some other ones...
-- Grant, 16:01:16 04/21/03 Mon
A few other ones that I noticed:
Revelations: Very short clip at beginning of Faith sitting in
her motel with a stake. Also the clip of Faith fighting Angel
was from Revelations. You can see poor evil Ms. Post collapsed
against the wall. There is also a clip of Faith fighting the big
demon guy who also wanted the lightning glove thing. And the clip
of Faith and Buffy doing the synchronized slaying is from the
beginning of this episode as well.
GD1: Faith punching the punching bag.
Bad Girls: Faith in the sporting goods store doing that pose (I
think she was raising her hands for the police) while Andrew states
the definition of the noun faith. Also the scene of Faith beckoning
from the window.
Faith, Hope, and Trick: Faith pummeling a vampire, which is off
camera in the clip.
Enemies: There is also a clip in there of the standoff from this
episode where Faith and Buffy have knives to each other's throats
("What are you gonna do, B? Kill me? You become me. You're
not ready. Yet.").
[> Question for you Finn
-- tomfool, 21:42:10 04/21/03 Mon
I've been wondering about the references too, but haven't been
keeping track. From what you've seen, does it look like they will
eventually reference every episode from previous seasons, at least
in a minor way? If so, how close are they? i.e., 70%, 40%? Just
wondering.
[> [> Here are the past
episodes references that I caught -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:59:24
04/22/03 Tue
(If I'm missing any, please tell me)
Season 1:
"Welcome to the Hellmouth", "The Witch", "Teacher's
Pet", "The Pack", "Invisible Girl", "Prophecy
Girl"
Total: 6 episodes
Season 2:
"School Hard", "Reptile Boy", "Halloween",
"What's My Line II", "Innocence", "Phases",
"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered", "Passion",
"Go Fish", "Becoming I", "Becoming II"
Total: 11 episodes
Season 3:
"Faith, Hope, and Trick", "Beauty and the Beasts",
"Homecoming", "Revelations", "Lovers'
Walk", "The Wish", "Amends", "Helpless",
"Bad Girls", "Consequences", "Dopplegangland",
"Enemies", "Choices", "The Prom",
"Graduation Day I", "Graduation Day II"
Total: 16 episodes
Season 4:
"The Initiative", "Something Blue", "Hush",
"The I in Team", "Goodbye, Iowa", "This
Year's Girl", "Who Are You?", "The Yoko Factor",
"Primeval", "Restless"
Total: 10 episodes
Season 5:
"Buffy vs. Dracula", "No Place Like Home",
"Fool For Love", "Into the Woods", "Triangle",
"Checkpoint", "Blood Ties", "The Body",
"Intervention", "The Gift"
Total: 10 episodes
Season 6:
"Bargaining I", "Afterlife", "Flooded",
"Life Serial", "All the Way", "Once More
with Feeling", "Smashed", "Gone", "Double
Meat Palace", "Dead Things", "Older and Far
Away", "Hell's Bells", "Entropy", "Seeing
Red", "Villains", "Two to Go", "Grave"
Total: 17 episodes
All together, there has been a total of 70 episodes referenced
this season, out of a total of 122. So 57.4% of Buffy's past episodes
are accounted for. Now that I actually figured out the percentage,
it seems a little less likely that every episode will be references
(unless Buffy's life flashes before her eyes again in the final
episode, or if the First Evil revisits a bunch of past events).
Still, if it did, that would be a neat way of seeing the show
off.
[> [> [> One missing
ref and a few less likely ones (spoilers up to DG) -- skyMatrix,
17:04:43 04/22/03 Tue
I've actually given some thought to this since I read that you
were working on it. This kind of thing fascinates me, unfortunately
for my academic career! It's hard to say what a reference is,
of course. When we are reminded that Xander still lives in his
apartment and works his construction job, does that count as a
reference to "The Replacement," where Xander gets promoted
at his job and gets the new apartment? Probably not, but maybe
so. Anothe questionable one is the references to Anya's bunny
phobia in "Selfless." Does this count as a reference
to "Fear, Itself," where the bunny phobia was first
established, or not, since it has been reiterated since then in
"The Gift" and "Once More, With Feeling,"
among others. Is the reminder in "Selfless" that Willow
went to school before a reference to "The Freshman"?
You decide.
Some things I see as homages. For instance, when Buffy lets herself
be drawn into a trap by a taunt in "Dirty Girls" (I
understand why she did it but that's another thread!), to me homage,
maybe even a "reference," to her similar behavior in
"When She Was Bad" (which you didn't list) and "Becoming,
Part 1" (which you did).
Also, in "Dirty Girls," when Buffy seems resentful that
Faith got to be in Angel's mind, it seems to me to recall "Earshot,"
where Buffy tried to use her temporary psychic powers to read
Angel's mind. Buffy never could get into Angel's mind even when
she tried, so she must really be envious that Faith could (and
of course she might be wondering how that was possible, much as
Masq did in her analysis!)
Anyway, the one you definitely missed was "Normal Again."
Anya asks Buffy in "Selfless" if there's any of her
friends she hasn't tried to kill, and of course Buffy tried to
kill Xander, Willow, Dawn and Tara in that one. Also, she almost
tried to kill Giles (as the demon) in "A New Man" but
I don't know if that counts.
Also, when Willow tells Kennedy that her mother barely cared about
her coming out and didn't have much to do with Tara, it seems
to be a fairly direct reference to "Gingerbread," which
is the only time we meet Sheila Rosenberg, who acts in a manner
not inconsistent with what Willow describes in "The Killer
in Me."
Hopefully some of this is useful! It's a good project you're doing,
good luck with it! Oh, and I have a question. Where do they reference
"Afterlife"? I don't remember anyone mentioning that
Buffy had been to heaven in this season.
[> [> [> [> OK,
I'm not sure if this counts or not (spoilers through Angel 4.17)
-- Finn Mac Cool, 19:18:50 04/22/03 Tue
But Angel has made some references to Buffy this season as well.
The Orb of Thessala remark was how I fit "Passion" in
there. "Spin the Bottle" was how I fit the "Helpless"
reference in (though I suppose the introduction of Quentin Travers
there could also count, given his appearance in "Never Leave
Me"). And "Afterlife" comes from Skip's comment:
"No one comes back from Paradise. Well, a Slayer, once .
. ." I was thinking that if references are made to Buffy
episodes on Angel, than they count. After all, they are episodes
referenced this season, just on a different show.
I will definitely add "Normal Again" to the list. I
won't be adding "Earshot" or "When She Was Bad".
As for some of the others, I'll keep them in mind in case they
aren't referenced by 7.22. I already kinda used it that way (the
introduction of Drusilla, the Master, the Mayor, and Adam was
how I got WttH, "School Hard", "Homecoming",
and "The I in Team" to count.
What's kinda sad is I had all these references stored in the old
memory bank. Oh well, I'm among fellow obsesses here.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: OK, I'm not sure if this counts or not (spoilers through
Angel 4.17) -- skyMatrix, 21:06:59 04/22/03 Tue
I didn't realize you were including stuff from Angel S4. As for
including the first episode characters are introduced, I guess
I wouldn't, but that's just me! ;)
[> [> [> Thanks
-- tomfool, 08:52:26 04/23/03 Wed
Thanks for the list and statistics. It might be fun at the end
of the season to compile a table of the references. I know they
are consciously increasing the number of references; I wonder
if they have a 'completist' goal. We'll only know at the end,
I guess.
Now
for a little something to help offset the downer I posted earlier.
-- OnM, 20:19:12 04/20/03 Sun
Find ye a modicum of necessary absurdity by clicking:
Here
Warning!
agent156 and other individuals suffering from MPIDS (Marshmallow
Poultry Immune Deficiency Syndrome) are strongly advised not
to visit this site!
Goodnight, all-- See you tomorrow.
;-)
[> And from art to, um,
science... -- Darby, 06:26:17 04/21/03 Mon
There's
http://www.peepresearch.org/
The "Risk analysis" page is just...wrong.
[> [> This cannot be
socially-repsonsible research! -- luna, 07:32:23 04/21/03
Mon
Pics
from BtVS wrap party! -- HonorH, 09:35:34 04/21/03 Mon
Lots of pics. Unfortunately, you have to be a member to see the
larger images, but what you can see on these pages is quite nice.
Note 1: The pictures labeled "David Greenwalt" are actually
of the lovely and talented Drew Goddard. I get dibs on having
his baby, ladies.
Note 2: Any guys who don't want to get a serious case of Dawn-lust
need to stay away from the pics of Michelle Trachtenberg herein.
She looks freakin' *amazing*.
BtVS Wrap Party
[> *sob*! -- Masq, 09:43:13
04/21/03 Mon
I can't believe it's over! Seeing those older faces (Oz, Joyce,
etc) just brought it back.
so where was SMG?
[> [> She and Eliza Dushku
weren't able to attend. -- HonorH, 09:50:42 04/21/03 Mon
So they threw the Buffy wrap party without Buffy. Oh, well. I
didn't see David Boreanaz there, either.
[> [> [> A Slayer-less
slayer-end? oddness -- Majin Gojira, 13:26:43 04/21/03
Mon
[> Ooh! They corrected Drew
Goddard's caption! -- HonorH, 09:48:02 04/21/03 Mon
He's so gorgeous. And boy, can the man *write*! I think I've found
the future Mr. HonorH.
[> [> Re: Ooh! They corrected
Drew Goddard's caption! -- pellenaka, 12:40:25 04/21/03
Mon
You know, I told my sister:
David Greenwalt looks very similiar to Drew Goddard.
But she wouldn't listen. Ha! That'll show her.
He is incredibly cute. And those pictures are even better than
the ones from the PBP.
You are spoilerfree, my dear?
[> [> [> I'm a born-again
spoiler virgin! -- HonorH, 13:31:49 04/21/03 Mon
Er, that would be a yes. Spoiler-free here, just like NewDrew
wanted. Honor the NewDrew.
[> [> [> [> A very
wise decision, judging from the pics -- pellenaka, 15:00:27
04/21/03 Mon
[> [> I think I'm going
to have to fight you for the Drew Goddard love child! -- ponygirl,
07:39:07 04/22/03 Tue
Drew! Drew! He's so new! If he can't write it I don't know who!
All right I don't think I'm going to win him with rhyming but
damn, the man is cute!
[> Links to Full Sized Pics
from Rufus' Board (via the C &
S - no spoilers) and MT looks AMAZING -- Dochawk, 17:41:51
04/21/03 Mon
MT must turn 18 soon! (I know she just turned 17), but she has
never looked sexier.
Date Posted: 05:51:53 04/21/03 Mon
Author: denmaroca
Author Host/IP: 82.43.57.238
Subject: High quality pics of the wrap party.
At:
http://users.pandora.be/patsie/buffy/
http://www.slayerhelp.com/news/viewalone.php?newsid=688
http://www.slayerhelp.com/news/viewalone.php?newsid=690
MT looks frigging amazing and way sexier than she ever did on
the show.
[> [> Tsk, tsk, tsk........SMAP!!!!!!!!!
Bad Doc.....<g> -- Rufus, 19:24:54 04/21/03 Mon
Like I said at another board, who let that girl go to the party
wearing what amounts to a dinner napkin....when she develops the
breasts to hold up a dress like that she will almost
be old enough to wear it.
[> [> "Woman-sized"
indeed. Warned ya. -- HonorH, 19:27:32 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> Ooh! Must critique
the fashions! -- Honorificus (Who Is Every Woman), 22:09:52
04/21/03 Mon
Tom Lenk: Too tame, by far. If he wants to dispel the bad taste
left by his character, he simply must break out and do something
truly fashion-forward. The color of that shirt was wrong, too.
It wore him.
Emma Caulfield: Why can't Anya dress like this? Simple silk top
(and what a color!) with jeans and one hell of a necklace. I love
that thing! Finish off the ensemble with understated makeup and
hair and a pair of gold sandals, and you've got a better fashion
statement than Anya's worn all season.
Alexis Denisof: A man this sexy, and *that* was what he chose
to wear? The top looks like a bad '70s flashback!
Alyson Hannigan: Now, that's more like it. I love, simply love,
the skirt. Must get one just like it. The tank top worked well
with it and showed off her cute little figure, and the accessories
were perfect. Loved her hair, too. A bravura performance!
ASH: Ah, darling, we must get together. A conservative suit, with
just enough rebellion to remind us that he isn't Giles. But honey--an
earring? Are we trying to be Wood?
Joss: I might have excused the suit if he'd made some attempt
to brush his hair. He didn't, however, so he bears the full brunt
of my sartorial wrath. Unflattering, vaguely rumpled, and I hate
the shirt.
Michelle Trachtenberg: Has decided she's ready to step out from
big sister's shadow, and what a way to steal the spotlight! Perfect,
from the top of her curled head down to her red, red toenails.
The dress is perfect--sexy, flattering, and guaranteed to send
many men to A Special Hell. Top that off with smoky eyes and touseled
hair, neatly contrasted with the innocent pink of her lipstick,
and you've got an ingenue who's ready to claim her place in the
sky. Brava, Michelle!
James Marsters: Keeping it simple, keeping it real, keeping me
hormonal. Black turtleneck paired with distressed jeans- -the
perfect way of saying, "I may not be Spike, but I'm still
a little bad." Look me up, James, honey.
Other notes of interest:
--Marti, Marti, Marti: why? You need a nice peach or coral, not
that hideous shade of orange, and polka-dotted to boot! You have
many talents, but picking an outfit does not appear to be one
of them.
--Kristine Sutherland: looks lovely, but the shade of lipstick
she chose is completely wrong for her delicate coloring. She should've
borrowed from Marti, who at least got her makeup right.
--Juliet Landau: managed to commit more fashion atrocities in
one outfit than Dru did in her entire stint in the Jossverse.
--Julie Benz: so pretty, and I adore her earrings, but I do not
love that top. Bad, dear, bad.
--Amber Benson: simply lovely. She keeps it simple and figure-flattering,
and she wins. Love the longer hair, too.
And that, dears, is the extent of the wisdom I shall bestow on
you tonight.
[> [> [> About the
earring...... -- Rufus, 00:34:22 04/22/03 Tue
ASH: Ah, darling, we must get together. A conservative suit,
with just enough rebellion to remind us that he isn't Giles. But
honey--an earring? Are we trying to be Wood?
I'm sure ASH got the earring from chewing it out of DB's ear during
some over the top slash fiction....;)
Julie Benz: so pretty, and I adore her earrings, but I do not
love that top. Bad, dear, bad.
I was hoping that was a jacket and she had some flattering t-
shirt or cami underneath.
Kristine Sutherland: looks lovely, but the shade of lipstick
she chose is completely wrong for her delicate coloring. She should've
borrowed from Marti, who at least got her makeup right.
If she didn't know before she knows now....says Rufus who likes
bright red lipstick.
James Marsters: Keeping it simple, keeping it real, keeping
me hormonal. Black turtleneck paired with distressed jeans--the
perfect way of saying, "I may not be Spike, but I'm still
a little bad." Look me up, James, honey.
I remember telling someone that if JM wanted to make points to
keep is simple and remember with his hair that colour he needed
to wear something that wouldn't make him look head to toe monochrome.
My bet is someone picked his clothes or everything was in the
wash and that was all that was left.
[> [> [> You just
don't understand artists, dear -- Masq, 06:41:08 04/22/03
Tue
True arteeests don't wear rebellious fashions or pressed suits
and they certainly don't waste time on trivial practicalities
like ironing their clothes and combing their hair.
Joss has his next great inspiration swimming in those gi- normous,
squishy frontal lobes of his, and you condemn him for being...
scruffy?
Fashionista nazi, you! Determined to set back artistic progress
into the... into the gasp! 1980's!
[> [> [> Saguaro Stalker
joins the fashion police. -- The desert's biggest fashion
criminal, 07:47:52 04/22/03 Tue
Since guys tend to see things a bit differently than the lady's
I thought I'd chime in. My ssytem is pass/fail, with snide comments,
of course.
Passing
AH
AB, but somebody slip her and order of sopapillas. She looks famished.
D.B. Woodside, doesn't look like his mommy dresses him.
JM
J Whedon, Compared to some of these goobers his hair looks great.
Julie Benz, Gold Star winner for the evening!
Juliette Landau. Don't listen to Honorficus. She looks great.
Kristine Southerland, yeah her lipstick is a few shades off. But,
remember Faith as Buffy tricked her into burning her best shade.
Marti Noxon. Hey, she's the boss, let her in, even if that neckline
is a bit inappropriate both for the occaision and her personally.
Seth Green
Tom Lenk
Conditional pass (clothing acceptable in all cases)
D Strong, needs mommy to comb his hair.
Nathan Fillion, Cut that hair! That low forehead makes him look
like his IQ is lower than his age.
NB, Cut it or comb it, dude!
Fail
AD, How cold was it in LA the other night? How dirty is that green
tee-shirt underneath?
ASH, Looks like he stole that outfit off a much taller homeless
person.
Emma C, that top and blue jeans?
MT, maybe her mommy should dress her for a few more years. Black
is not her color, and hopefully, streetwalker is not her profession.
James (Clem) Leary At least he found a homeless person the right
size to rob.
Fashion tips from the worst possible source (me)
Ladies -Last year's dress is fine. Last year's lipstick is fine.
Don't be a slave to fashion, and to thine own self (coloration,
maturity) be true.
Gentlemen - For those of you who still have enough hair to comb.
It's okay if your mommy combs it for you, but never let your girlfriend
touch it. She'll make you look like an idiot every time. Wives
are problematic at best in the early years, but eventually tire
of standing next to a freak a parties, and will stop doing you
wrong in the fashion sense.
Both genders - looking sharp is fine, looking showy can be fine,
looking grungy can be fine. But, unless you've got superpowers
never mix showy and grungy!
[> [> [> [> Stick
with spying on cacti, dear. -- Honorificus (The True Fashion
Goddess), 12:05:39 04/22/03 Tue
[> [> Mmm, Michele --
Augh, Marti! My eyes, my eyes! -- pr0ng, 08:10:13 04/22/03
Tue
[> [> [> Funny, I
had the exact opposite reaction .... -- LonesomeSundown, alone
in saying MT looks better on the show, 13:16:58 04/22/03 Tue
[> [> Sunnydale sign
-- pellenaka, 10:05:48 04/22/03 Tue
Don't forget to notice the 'Welcome To Sunnydale' sign on the
left side of the cast pictures.
And speaking of, where is Nick on those pics?
[> [> Yummy MT, JB, AH,
and AD -- Joss is cute too ; ) -- Scroll, 11:25:33 04/22/03
Tue
[> [> [> From a totally
straight perspective, gotta say Joss looks so much better now
w/o that stupid beard! -- Rob, 12:06:23 04/22/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> Rob,
Rob, Rob... -- dub ;o), 15:01:34 04/22/03 Tue
No one is totally straight!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
Okay, okay... -- Rob, 16:15:35 04/22/03 Tue
...mostly straight perspective. Then again, most of my
friends, including the gay and lesbian ones, tell me I have the
tastes of a gay man (I love showtunes, Madonna, reading classic
literature)...so maybe only partly straight perspective.
;o) lol
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> And don't forget the pom-poms! -- Masq, 21:47:04
04/22/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> LOL. There's that too. -- Rob, 00:08:02
04/23/03 Wed
[> [> Lamb dressed up
as mutton.... -- QueenC, 13:32:40 04/22/03 Tue
Poor MT has no idea how to dress or do her hair in an age- appropriate
way. That dress should be worn by someone at least 15 years older
than Miss Trachtenberg who also has some cleavage to reveal. The
highlights in her hair were atrocious and she should get her money
back as well as punitive damages and compensation for my pain
and agony in having to view the monstrousness of it. Her makeup
was far too heavy for anyone of any age and the colours she used
were more appropriate for darker skin tones and an older age than
hers. We've all know how terrible it looks when mutton dresses
up as lamb but lamb dressing up like mutton is just as bad. She
reminded me of Lydia Bennett.
The most stunning look of the evening is definitely Ms. Benson
- hair, face, outfit all perfection. More Ms. Bennett, with the
spirit of Elizabeth.
The
Wounded Hero -- Hemiola, 10:20:20 04/21/03 Mon
In the immortal phrase of "Linda Richman", "I'll
give you a topic....."
The serious wounding of Xander shocked me as I know it shocked
many unspoiled viewers. In thinking about it, though, I realized
that there is a long tradition of heros/protagonists who encounter
evil and are seriously wounded in the process, yet continue in
their quests to overthrow the evil in question (a famous example
would be Ransom in C.S. Lewis' "Perelandra").
So, do you think Xander will be made stronger by his terrible
wound, or will he be "broken" and bow out?
As LR would say, "Discuss!":-)
[> He won't be broken
-- Masq, on-topic grrl, 10:35:12 04/21/03 Mon
Xander just isn't that kind of person. He'll continue to be part
of Buffy's team and fight at her side. That's really defined his
life for seven years, given his life meaning and purpose. I don't
see that changing.
However, I do wonder if we will see a little Xander-attitude boy
from the olden days, though. A little anger at Buffy for getting
them into that situation in the first place? If we do, it won't
be motivated by his own wounded eye, though. It will be motivated
by the death of those two Potentials.
I was also unspoiled for the eye-gouging, and when I saw it, I
thought, "Oh! It really is the end of the series! They never
would have done this kind of debilitating wound in earlier seasons!"
It will be tougher for Xander to be a figher with this disability,
and, unfortunately, we won't see the long story arc about how
he will cope with it. From what I understand, Nick Brendon is
off to do other things now, separate from the Buffyverse???
[> [> Re: He won't be
broken -- CW, 10:51:41 04/21/03 Mon
If it were earlier in the series, it would be a sure bet his eye
would have been replaced by something mystical to give him a consolation
power. And sick as it sounds, we could have had Xander give the
evil eye with a genuine evil eye.
Maybe Willow can whip up something quick (and not so evil) for
him.
[> [> [> I feel quite
good - except for the rage. -- Utopia, 12:26:08 04/21/03
Mon
Yeah, I'm really hoping that they'll do something interesting
with this in the time they have left. I hope they don't just push
him into the background with an eyepatch and let that be the end
of it.
I mean, do they really want to send the message that ordinary
people can't make a stand and try to make a difference without
being permanently mutilated? After seven years of loyalty and
fighting evil and staying human I can't believe that this would
be his reward.
For christs sake, the way the episode read (to me at least) was
that he was being punished for looking at the underaged girls.
Let your eyes wander, have them put out. It makes me sick to think
that the most human character would be treated this way. Flawed
but trying isn't good enough, apparently.
[> [> [> [> Bad
things don't happen to just the bad people -- Robert, 15:36:37
04/21/03 Mon
>>> For christs sake, the way the episode read (to
me at least) was that he was being punished for looking at the
underaged girls.
I firmly believe that God does not reserve his blessings for only
those individuals who are perfect. Xander was not being punished.
The two potential slayers (whose names I do not know) were not
being punished when they were killed. Bad things happen to good
people. Good things happen to bad people.
>>> It makes me sick to think that the most human
character would be treated this way.
I'm sorry about your illness, but this is the aspect of the show
that makes it real for me. As horrified as I was, I still believe
it was the best part of the show.
>>> Flawed but trying isn't good enough, apparently.
Of course it isn't enough. No one is so perfect as to be immune
to tragedy. But, this is what makes the show good.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Bad things...(And unorganized thoughts) -- Utopia,
17:04:48 04/21/03 Mon
I firmly believe that God does not reserve his blessings for
only those individuals who are perfect.
Who said anything about God? I'm talking about the way the story
is written. God and the authors are not one and the same. For
instance; Joss said he didn't want to punish Buffy for having
sex, and worried about how the soul-loss plot read. Not God, Joss.
The two potential slayers that were killed did not have scenes
that highlighted some sin that they could possibly be suffering
for. They were not killed in any way that suggested they were
getting payback for something.
Xander was shown having lusty thoughts about 15 year-olds that
would not be acceptable to act on. Then later his eye was put
out. Looking at what is forbidden - losing an eye.
I'm not saying anything against him. I realize that they were
innocent dreams, and he's a twenty two year old guy, and he would
never go through with them. In fact that is my point. I don't
like that he would be punished for having sexy dreams. I don't
like that it's implied.
Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad
people...but this is the aspect of the show that makes it real
for me. As horrified as I was, I still believe it was the best
part of the show.
My first post (that you are responding to) was originally much
longer, and it totally got eaten. I had to reconstruct it and
I forgot most of what I was going to say. BUT! I did have stuff
in there about bad stuff happening to good people and reality
etc.
Let me try to remember the gist of it...I was going to say that
I know in real life, yes, bad things happen, but Buffy exists
in a fantasy world where almost everything is some sort of metaphor
or symbol. Having an eye put out is a big honkin' symbolical event.
I want it dealt with. I want some sort of interesting story to
happen with it. I don't want Xander pushed into the background
where he's been for the past...pretty much the entire season,
I want plot! Character development! It could be painful or happy
or anything, I just don't want this latest development to be ignored
or brushed off with one line or something. I'm hoping that they
didn't mutilate him just for the shock value.
I'm sorry about your illness
Um, thanks. I didn't mean sick literally. I meant sick at heart.
Not that I have heart disease. Heheh.
[> [> [> [> I know
how you feel, bud -- the
disillusioned exile, 19:16:21 04/21/03 Mon
----------------------------------------------------
. I hope they don't just push him [xander] into the background
with an eyepatch and let that be the end of it.
------------------------------------------------------------
I feel the same way, I think that to do so would be a huge disapointment.
which is exactly why that that is what's going to happen. let's
face it, they quit charactor development, charactor consistancey,
metaphor, message, and all the rest when they moved to UPN.
I mourn the loss as much as anyone but it's time to come to grips.
Joss ranout of ideas two years ago and has been dealing with the
discontent by hitting the crack pipe, and let's face it the show
could still be halfway decent if he would scrape for good ideas
with half as much effort as he spends scraping for resins.
[> Spoilers for "Dirty
Girls" in Hemiola's post and subsequent thread -- Random,
12:46:41 04/21/03 Mon
[> And luckily I knew of
this or might be spoiled too! -- O'Cailleagh, 12:54:31
04/21/03 Mon
Please mark your subject heading 'spoilers', even if the episode
has been shown where you live. There are many people who visit
this board who are not yet aware of what happens in the later
episodes, and with a subject heading like yours ( the wounded
hero), well there was nothing to say it was concerning the show,
or some aspect of folklore/mythology/etc (which I thought it was!).
I'm not being snarky, or trying to single you out, but its exactly
this sort of situation that has caused me to become as spoiled
as I have. Little hints and such have a way of making one go looking
for more and before you know it, you know everything thats going
to happen.
O'Cailleagh
[> Re: The Wounded Hero
-- luna, 12:55:27 04/21/03 Mon
I believe he'll go on--I'll bet he will even continue to be a
good carpenter! Xander's kind of guy doesn't have to be perfect.
We already know about the damage his family did to him--I think
eventually he'll transcend both.
[> Re: The Wounded Hero
(spoilers dirty girl) -- lunasea, 15:34:34 04/21/03 Mon
I think he is going back to his orignal role. What happened showed
that he was no longer capable of the one he was occupying. Since
season 1 there has been a character whose job it was was to show
Buffy what she looked like through his eyes. His eyes had to be
perceptive and current though. S1-3 that role was wonderfully
filled by Angel. If Angel is coming back, even for a brief time,
it will be to assume that role.
Season 4 that role was wonderfully played by Xander. His speech
in "The Freshman" still makes me cry. Season 5 that
role is played by Xander in "Into the Woods." In "Forever"
the role is again assumed by Angel. Giles plays it in "Spiral."
Season 6 it is played by new improved Riley in "As You Were."
In "Dirty Girls" the speech was right up there with
the above instances, but there was one problem, it wasn't how
Buffy was acting any more. Xander wasn't seeing Buffy's state
of mind and speaking to that. The speech wasn't even directed
to Buffy. Caleb took out the eye that was closest to Buffy, the
eye that Xander wasn't really using.
How much of a loss will it be? It will probably return him to
Mr Perceptive Guy, a role he used to have because he doesn't have
complete faith in Buffy. He can see her weaknesses and counsel
her accordingly. (well maybe not counsel. More like yell at and
accuse)
It will probably also return him to the role of damsel in distress,
which he can share with Dawn. Willow can't occupy that role any
more. It would be beyond laughable. We don't really care about
the Potentials and many actually root for them to be winnowed
out. Buffy is going to need something to rescue. Xander will get
to fill that roll.
What effect the maiming has on Xander will barely be shown. It
is the effect it has on Buffy that is important. Xander doesn't
even have an arc this season, per NB.
[> Remember (spoilers, dirty
girls) -- Shiraz, 07:23:14 04/22/03 Tue
There is always the possibilty that Xander's missing eye will
be portrayed as it usually is in comic books and movies; used
to give the character a 'grizzled' appearance but confering no
disability on them.
I hope they don't go this route, but with so few episodes left
to air it seems likely.
-Shiraz
"Star man: "If you kill me a thousand will take my place."
Cohen: "Yes, but that isn't the point, is it? The point is,
you'll be dead."
Star man: "There is that, yes..." "
Terry Pratchett "The Light Fantastic"
[> [> One-eyedness
-- KdS, 08:53:02 04/22/03 Tue
Just to point out that as well as the obvious reduction in visual
field, much of our judgement of distance is based on subconsciously
comparing the views of an object of our two eyes.
Interview
of Freddie Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas?
-- Angelina, 10:45:50 04/21/03 Mon
End of 'Buffy' Only Makes Gellar Stronger
Thu, Apr 17, 2003 03:20 PM PDT
by Kate O'Hare
Zap2it, TV News
LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Next week, Freddie Prinze Jr. and his
wife, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" star Sarah Michelle
Gellar, are due to head to Vancouver, Canada, to start production
on the "Scooby-Doo" sequel.
Work on the film immediately follows the end of production on
"Buffy," which is shutting down after seven seasons
-- five on The WB and the last two on UPN.
Without going into specifics, Prinze hints that the later seasons
of "Buffy" may have been rough for his bride.
"A lot of people owe Sarah a lot for doing that show,"
Prinze says, "and she doesn't always get the credit she deserves.
She's a very strong woman, because she deals with a lot of nonsense,
and instead of that nonsense, she should be thanked -- and she's
not. That's the reason she won't be coming back."
"Sarah's the most appreciative person in the world, and if
that environment would have remained the way it would six years
ago, she would go back, because she's loyal. But things change,
and people's egos get in the way sometimes. They make poor decisions."
"I don't agree with it, but I understand it, and I just pray
I'm never guilty of it."
Prinze asserts that, whatever happened, Gellar gave 100 percent.
"And even if she's not, nobody knew, because she commits.
She's badass."
The series finale of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" airs
on UPN Tuesday, May 20, at 8 p.m. ET.
[> Re: Interview of Freddie
Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas? -- CW, 11:10:22
04/21/03 Mon
Not surprising. SMG seemed to be missing most of the time when
we've known the rest of the cast was getting together socially.
As Freddie says, it doesn't show on screen which is all that really
matters. Right now I'm more interested in the final product, than
the behind the scenes cat fights. Ten years from now, maybe...
[> [> Not sure what I
think of FPJ for saying all this. - - HonorH, 11:30:48
04/21/03 Mon
If there have been behind-the-scenes fights, SMG has never let
it show. In interviews, she's always been very complimentary about
the cast and crew of BtVS. I can't recall her ever saying anything
negative about any of them. Very classy, IMHO, and if I were her,
I'd be a little upset with hubby for letting this slip.
[> [> [> Exactly!
No matter what her feelings, SMG always was polite and respectful...
-- Rob, 12:04:27 04/21/03 Mon
...of her co-workers. Freddy really should keep his mouth shut,
because I'm sure SMG is horrified he let this slip. Completely
classless of him. Reminds me a little of that famous Connie Chung
interview where Newt Gingrich's mother let slip that he thought
Hillary Clinton was a bitch.
Rob
[> [> [> [> It
occurs to me, too, that this could be a male/female thing.
-- HonorH, 15:47:11 04/21/03 Mon
A little while back, a male friend told me that his wife would
come home and complain to him about her job, which she supposedly
liked, to the point that he was wondering why she didn't just
quit. I told him that she likely *did* like her job, but certain
things about it drove her nuts. She'd vent about those things
to her husband, feel better about it, and then go back to work
and enjoy it. "Good point," said he. Perhaps Freddie
has been the recipient of wifely griping and unwisely spilled
to the press.
SMG has been dedicated to this show for seven years. There's no
doubt in my mind that someone as focused and driven as she is
has clashed with Joss and other BtVS higher- ups. However, in
every interview I've ever seen by both of them, they've been extremely
respectful of each other. I'd be very surprised if they started
badmouthing each other now.
As for fan sites, Angelina--keep in mind that they work mostly
on gossip and take everything you read with a grain of salt. A
big one.
[> [> [> [> [>
I agree plus......... -- Rufus, 18:48:30 04/21/03 Mon
It's common in the industry for someone at any given time to have
their knickers in a twist over something. The difference is that
when that happens it could hit the papers and people not in the
know guess to who is the bad or good guy....then all of a sudden
everyone kisses and makes up leaving fans wondering what the hell
they were worried and angry about.
[> [> [> [> [>
Well said, as usual-- saved me a lot of writing again!! :-)
-- OnM, 06:48:10 04/22/03 Tue
Classic old B. Dylan line:
Bent out of shape by society's pliers / who cares not to rise
any higher /
but rather drag you down to the place that he's in
I can't help but feel this way about a lot of the 'gossip' oriented
sites and magazines etc-- these people don't have a very good
life, or feel badly about themselves, and seek to 'elevate' their
own status by tearing down others who appear to be successful.
Everyone suffers, has disagreements, can't always get what they
want. The chances of getting any sizable group of people together
and still have everyone working in perfect harmony is next to
nil. I have yet to see any article or interview from a responsible
source that characterized Sarah as anything but incredibly professional
at her craft. Being professional doesn't mean you won't have conflicts
with the people you work for, nor should your mutual respect diminish
because of it. Joss is hardly perfect either, but that doesn't
suddenly render his work invalid-- and Sarah certainly understands
this.
SMG's spouse may mean well by standing up for her, but he isn't
doing her any favors-- Sarah can fight her own battles, and he's
diminishing her by acting this way in a public forum.
[> [> Re: I AGREE BUT.....Interview
- SMG is POed over something - any ideas? -- Angelina, 14:02:40
04/21/03 Mon
You know, I am NEVER going to another fan site again. Not only
do I get spoiled, but I find out WAY too much about the "behind
the scenes" stuff that I really don't want to know. After
reading the above interview with FPJ, I couldnít leave
well enough alone, and had to follow through the rest of the site.
Well, I found out things about SMG that I really didn't want to
find out. AND...I am wondering if "harsh" feelings between
ME, Joss and the star of the show could have serious dire consequences
to how this epic journey ends. I know that is highly unprofessional,
yes, but people are people, and people can be VERY vindictive.
I hope I am wrong about this, but who knows. Hollywood. Jeez.
Also, I am very upset cause I love Buffy and I love SMG as an
actress. I am SO pissed of at myself right now.
[> [> [> Re: I AGREE
BUT.....Interview - SMG is POed over something - any ideas?
-- Rob, 14:47:58 04/21/03 Mon
I've heard the "SMG is a bitch" rumors and rumblings,
too. Ya know what? I just don't let it get to me. Like you, I
love her as an actress. She does her job wonderfully and has entertained
me for the past 7 years on "Buffy," as well as numerous
of her film roles. As long as she continues to make me happy in
her career, I could personally care less about how she is off-screen.
As long as she isn't beating up old ladies and murdering people,
that is. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> Ang
does have a point there that I tend to agree with... -- Briar,
16:23:48 04/21/03 Mon
Watching the last few eps of this season (Storyteller on basically...)
I have noticed the Writers tending to show us a very negative
view of Buffy as a character. Disrepectful of others, ego driven,
endless "motivational" speeches based more in emotional
and verbal abuse than anything else, and more 'going through the
motions' than anything since the beginning of season 6. Buffy
just doesn't have as much HEART in her this year....
I had wondered about this trend as it started to come up in posts
by people earky this year during the talk about this being a major
contract decision year at the new UPN Buffy boards. It became
a sort of "Hey don't kill the character because the actress
wants to move on..." bug a boo with me. It was like people
were angry at SMG for not being quick to re-sign, so a lot were
Buffy-bashing in general. I posted about it here and there and
elsewhere at the time and kept being told that it wasn't happening.
But it WAS happening among the board posters in some places. And
it also showed in the general maliase among some posters here
cncerning this season as a whole. Some here were basically saying,
"Can't get into it. Why should I? It's ending anyway."
And then in the series itself, it has turned into a long series
of sanctimonious Buffy spiels to the SITS and the Scoobies and
taking the HEART out of the character we have known for seven
years.
I am hoping that this trend STOPS within the next couple of eps.
It's so painful for me to watch. Like the egos of ME are trying
to seperate me from my love of the character by showing Buffy
as a selfish and controlling Be-otch. Therefore, I can't help
but see it as a cross over from personal, real life issues haven't
made their way into the ME portrayal of Buffy and what she's about.
Since it's not UNCOMMON for a show that is doing it's last run
to go for the major tear jerker eps to make you really appreciate
the lead character before the swan song... I have to ask the Universe
if this change in Buffy isn't trying to do the opposite: Make
the audience dislike her so when she goes it won't be such an
emotional thing.
I really don't like that train of thought.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Awesome BRIER - PLEASE SEE MY OTHER points that I tend
to agree with... -- Angelina, 17:42:55 04/21/03 Mon
WOW, that was great! That is exactly the first thing that went
through my mind when I was reading the SMG bashing on some fan
sites today. I mean there were posts that had the most unfaltering
things to say about SMG, it was very upsetting. Major feuds with
SMG and ME about Season 6 - she HATED doing that year, and was
very vocal about it. Stuff about Joss allowing the show to be
"dumped on UPN." Bitter stuff. I also just cannot help
feeling in my gut, that the general trend of showing Buffy so
out of character and in such a negative way, that fans actually
stepped back from her character and were just unrealistic and
Cruel in their critiquing of Buffy. I feel it was a deliberate
attempt to punish the actress, SMG, for being "uncooperative"
and hostile during filming of Season 6 and 7. Now, Joss could
be a dumb vindictive a-hole and write an ending for Buffy, the
ultimate hero of the saga he dreamed of and wrote and that could
make her character look so bad, that the fans will just hate her.
A really pathetic way to end such a great show. Or. Joss can take
the high road, and write a spectacular ending for Buffy, one that
she deserves as a CHARACTER that he created and that all of us
just loved. It could go either way, but as of right now, the writers
have taken all the PASSION out of Buffy, and SMG is trying very
hard to work with what she is being given. I don't know how it
will go. But I hope for the legacy of the show, that Joss Whedon
decides on the High Road. Buffy was an unique, powerful and wonderfully
crafted show with the most amazing ensemble cast ever. It and
its indefinable hero, Buffy Anne Summers, should be remembered
as such. Its about the Art folks - wise up ME and give the fans
what they want to see at the end. Don't give our Hero clay feet
JUST to apease a grudge. Don't do it, please, even if it is only
to sell those DVDS, comics, action figures, novals, etc. Bring
Back Buffy. Again. We need to take that with us when she goes.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Probably not Joss -- heywhynot, 20:17:32 04/21/03
Mon
I just throw it out there that is might not have been Joss that
SMG was upset about. Joss the last couple of seasons has been
more hands off than usual. SMG from what I know is very dedicated
to the character of Buffy and did not fully agree with everything
Marti Nixon brought to the series when MN took fuller control
of the show. It is bound to happen. Literal creative difference.
Not everyone is going to have the same vision. Tensions happen.
In terms of the show, I still think highly of Buffy. She is trying
to be strong for everyone. Not an easy task. She hasn't been sleeping
much. She is fighting for her principles against not just evil
but those she has respected like Giles (the whole the means matter
speech to him). The potentials are well just that and not living
up to the title. The fact so few died in the battle with Caleb
probably due to the training. Could Buffy of done better? Yes
but she is a new role. She is a teacher, a mentor, an adult now.
The learning curve can be pretty high.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Awesome BRIER - Huh? -- Rina, 10:37:43 04/22/03
Tue
I've had no problems with Buffy's character in Seasons 6 and 7.
Why do people expect the main character of any story to behave
perfectly? Why can't they show flaws?
Buffy is not the first fictional character to behave like she
did after being resurrected. A major character on one of the TREK
show actually became hostile and later, suicidal. What did many
fans expect her to do? Become brave and noble after being ripped
out of heaven by selfish friends, incapable of moving on?
As for Season 7, I see a big improvement over Buffy's character
in compare to Season 6. But to expect her to resume her old personality
from Seasons 1-5 was a big mistake. In fact, that would have been
a mistake from a writer's POV. Naturally, Buffy was going to change
after all that has happened to her. And during those changes,
she was bound to make mistakes. Like many other well-written characters
have done. Like many humans in "real life" have done.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Awesome BRIER - Huh? -- Miss Edith, 05:07:52
04/23/03 Wed
Sarah herself has commented unfavorably on the portrayal of Buffy
in season 6. She had problems with the way B/S was written, and
the way Buffy treated her friends in scenes like the public sex
in the Bronze. She has publicly stated she would have prefered
Buffy to remain a more heroic character for young girls to relate
to. Personally I emphasised with Buffy the most in season 6 when
she was struggling, I'm just throwing Sarah's point of view out
there.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> People, People...stop believing everything you read...you'll
never last! -- maddog, 12:39:04 04/22/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
She's actually the opposite of her Season 6 self in Season
7 -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:32:53 04/21/03 Mon
In Season 6, Buffy felt dead inside. She felt like she wasn't
human and couldn't care or feel about anything. But she put a
mask over it. She tried to pretend, for her friends, that everything
was all right, that she was OK. It was only to Spike and a little
to Tara that she revealed how horribly wrong she felt.
Now things have gone the other direction. Buffy does seem to be
feeling, at least to me. Note her many tender moments with Spike,
gently looking at a sleeping Dawn after the events of "Lies
My Parents Told Me", confessing to Wood that sending the
potentials into battle didn't seem like the right thing, or walking
sorrowfully down Sunnydale's streets at the end of "Dirty
Girls" (and these are only some of the times Buffy has revealed
her true thoughts/feelings in quiet little moments). In Season
7, Buffy DOES feel alive, she does have human emotion. But she's
still got a mask. She hides her real feelings, trying to seem
calm, collected, and untroubled by the events unfolding around
her.
The trick this season, at least to me, is catching these little
moments, the ones where Buffy's alone, or it's just her and one
of the Scoobies (particularly Spike), and NO potential Slayers
around. She's a bundle of uncertainties, fears, and dilemmas hid
under the guise of a general. The thing is, Buffy doesn't realize
what others think about this. She hears Xander's speech about
her, but doesn't get to hear the potentials being uncertain about
her methods. She doesn't hear the snide remarks about her speeches.
She thinks that what she'd doing now is both what is needed and
what people want.
My guess is this will end when Buffy has to finally face the First
Evil. Think about it, the First hasn't really come after her yet
this season. She's only seen it three times in her entire life,
and all three times she was interrupting the First with somebody
else (in "Amends" it was only interested in Angel, in
"Showtime" and "Get It Done" it was more concerned
with the potentials). Eventually though, the First Evil will wreak
its wacky mental mojo on Buffy, and that's when the mask will
crumble.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Well said Finn -- fidhle, 19:41:57 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I may not agree with all the details, but I do agree
with the general feeling. -- Ender, 21:17:25 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Agree 100%! -- Rob, 21:51:12 04/21/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ang does have a point there that I tend to agree with...
-- maddog, 12:32:00 04/22/03 Tue
People that bitched at Buffy for not resigning are selfish. It's
that simple. The show's been on the air 7 years. That's longer
than most. It's gone through so many changes. And this year's
storyline just feels like an ending. It felt like it early on.
These people have their lives...they need all to move on...whether
that be to Angel or to other projects. As a fan I can understand
that and applaude them for going out on top.
As for the storyline, people are always so quick to jump on Joss
just because they don't like the way this show goes. And yet every
year he pulls it together and shows us why he had to go that route.
I learned to trust him years ago. It's sad that those that sit
through these endless conversations can't see the light at the
end of the tunnel. You just gotta have a little Faith. Buffy looks
bad....sure...but if she didn't...the dramtic tension for the
ending would be that much less. Just give her a chance...things
come together to a degree....they always do.
[> [> [> Re: I AGREE
BUT.....Interview - SMG is POed over something - any ideas?
-- maddog, 12:21:04 04/22/03 Tue
This is the thing though...whatever you read about someone...their
personality...it's all subjective...you could meet her tomorrow
and find out she's the sweetest woman alive. And if you're reading
things she's done then you have no idea the circumstances around
it. the main point here is, never worry about what others say...there's
always a bias involved. Feel good about Buffy again...until she,
personally, gives you reason not to.
[> Re: Interview of Freddie
Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas? -- Sofdog,
11:40:48 04/21/03 Mon
Since the comments are removed from their context entirely, I'm
not even sure what FPJ is talking about. Then again, who doesn't
go through crap at work? Things change, and we have to make the
best of it. Whatever that means to us.
[> Shut up Freddie!
-- pellenaka, not very constructive tonight., 11:58:35 04/21/03
Mon
[> I have a theory...
-- pr10n, 16:36:25 04/21/03 Mon
ITEM: What well-chiseled cheekbones were recently featured in
a splashy, fan-sponsored Variety thank-you ad? And FPJ says "six
years ago" -- not seven of five or two. "Cheekbones"
arrived on the set six years ago.
I'm thinking the conversation around the Gellar-Prinze home was
like, "Aiiii!" [FPJ ducks flying vase] "I could
use a big ad like that!" [sounds of more shrieking and stomping
dried cattails to dust] "Why don't they love me? I DIED TWICE!"
[> [> I saw that, and
I think you may have hit it dead- on. -- Solitude1056, 06:59:47
04/22/03 Tue
I didn't get the impression that Freddie - although obviously
a little challenged in the diplomacy area - meant that this was
the sole reason SMG had left, but that it galled her to not be
thanked. By whom? I mean, she's the star. Wouldn't she get thanked
regularly?
No, I think you're right - I think the ad's appearance triggered
a great deal of hurt for her (and I don't blame her for that in
the least) and was probably still on his mind therefore triggering
the comments.
[> [> [> Re: I saw
that, and I think you may have hit it dead- on. -- Rina, 10:42:48
04/22/03 Tue
Are you saying that SMG is jealous of a particular fellow cast
member? Do you know this for a fact? And besides, fans of that
particular cast member were the ones who placed that ad, not ME.
You know what I can imagine? Freddie and SMG reading this discussion
board and wondering what the hell were we thinking.
[> That explains it
-- Arsonist, 03:07:21 04/22/03 Tue
No wonder Sarah had such a problem with season 6, sounds to me
like it was hitting to close to home. I can see it now.
Freddie: They don't appreciate you there, you don't belong in
the brightness of tv, you belong in the darkened movie theatres
with me. You, me and a talking dog we'll be Movie Stars!
[> Re: Interview of Freddie
Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas? -- maddog,
12:03:55 04/22/03 Tue
I think those are more Freddie's views than hers...or at least
she was professional enough to keep her views to herself and just
gut it out knowing what a great thing she had going. If I were
her I'd be PO'd at Freddie right now for blabbing. He's got no
right to talk for her, married or not. I lost some respect for
him with that interview...he's always seemed like a decent guy.
[> [> Re: Interview of
Freddie Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas? --
amber, 23:28:43 04/22/03 Tue
Agreed! I just have to add that it's kind of sad that the only
way the guy can get media attention is by talking about his wife's
career. He's supposed to be an actor in his own right. If a reporter
is paying attention to him why doesn't he talk about himself and
his own acting endevours? By doing this he's just fueling the
gossip hounds at his wife's expense.
[> He might have been referring
to my waning appreciation for her efforts. -- WickedBuffy
(so SMG reads these posts, eh?), 21:26:09 04/22/03 Tue
[> Re: Interview of Freddie
Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas? -- Miss Edith,
05:37:50 04/23/03 Wed
I'm personally shocked that Freddie would say Sarah always puts
in 100%, and when she doesn't you can't tell because she's "badass".
Many Buffy boards are accusing Sarah of lackluster performances,
I'm sure she did not appreciate her husband making that particular
comment.
As for Sarah I have never seen her as a diva, but many people
like to simply because she is the lead of a television series.
Funny how David Borenez isn't constantly called a bitch as Sarah
is by people who don't even know here. From what I have heard
she is very professional and if she doesn't get along with the
cast big deal. Sarah is by all acounts a perfectionist which can
rub people the wrong way. Anyway a lot of us might not get along
with the people we work with.
I lost respect for Freddie (well not that I ever had any *cough*)
for spilling the dirt, just as I did for Joss when he made his
own tactless comments which caused fans to read through the lines.
Is tact nonexistent in todays world? If Sarah does have a problem
with Joss I cannot blame her. He did seem to lose interest in
the show after season 5, whilst she was publicly held to her contract
by Joss. I can see how that might have created resentment. Particularly
after he said "God, I hope so" at the prospect of Buffy
ending, whilst comparing the cast of Firefly favourably with his
other shows. If it wasn't for Buffy Joss wouldn't have had the
opportunity to create shows like Firefly in the first place, he
has a lot to be grateful to Sarah for. And really it's nobody
elses business. I hope Sarah told Freddie that after his comments.
[> [> Re: Interview of
Freddie Prinze - SMG is POed over something - any ideas? --
Miss Edith, 05:41:40 04/23/03 Wed
Regarding my comments about David Borenez not being held to such
sucrutiny, I was not slamming Sarah. I was making a comment on
the bitch rumours that seem to plague any forthright woman who
speaks up for herself. It was not intended as a slam on Sarah,
and after re-reading my post I just wanted to be sure it wasn't
taken the wrong way.
Current board
| More April 2003