April 2004 posts
Jasmine and Illyria *AtS Seasons 4 and 5* -- Alistair, 12:12:25 04/06/04 Tue
I found it quite interesting that as Joss loosely borrows the Old Ones mythos from the Lovecraftian lore of huge ancient tentacles creatures, both Jasmine (a power that was) and Illyria are tentacled creatures.
This makes me wonder if Jasmine's story goes like this...
"In the beginning, before the time of man, great beings walked the Earth- the beginnings of what would be known as good and evil. Yet there was a balance. Within time, the malevolent among us grew stronger..." You know the rest. But perhaps what she did not mention is that while the Powers left the Earth for their new reality (a very different dimension which interfaces with the Earth in that the powers can watch what happens and know everything about people), the malevolent among them stayed and the Earth became a demon realm. The malevolent among them are the Old Ones, demons pure, who warred with each other once the Powers were gone. Eventually, for whatever reason, the Old Ones were exiled as well, perhaps somehow by the human pestilence among them.
It is clear that Jasmine and Illyria are both tentacled beings, of great power and transcendent power. It is possible that they are related in that they came from the same group of beings which existed with the Earth after the Earth was created.
Perhaps humans were the next step in the evolution of the Old Ones, who kept devolving for eons. Eventual they devolved into beings which were mortal, and then man, who would drive them out. Obviously humans existed even in Illyria's time, as well as the lesser demons (the Wolf Ram and Hart).
Another interesting idea is that the demons on Earth seem to fit the demonic stereotypes which have developed across human history (horns for example). The demons among the Old Ones are very different, mostly in that they are not humanoid.
Also, it seems like many people have a geneticaly based fear of tentacled creatures, which would make sense in the Buffyverse, as those humans who naturally feared the Old Ones lived on, and those who did not, were killed and or eaten by them.
Replies:
[>
Well -- KdS, 14:09:46 04/06/04 Tue
The demons we usually see on BtVS all have a certain degree of human ancestry mixed in, at least if you believe Anya. So it shouldn't be surprising that they're more humanoid.
[> [>
Re: Well -- Alistair, 15:18:30 04/06/04 Tue
Oh yeah, I know that, but I also wonder if the humans may have descended from the old ones, as have the lower demon species (anything not Old Ones level).
I personally don't like this theory but it has been pointed to on the show. When Jasmine said that the Earth became a demon realm, she says "a" not "the"- perhaps indicating that there were several demon dimensions already. Maybe the powers who lived on Earth made contact with other dimensions and some became corrupted by the evil of the beings there and that evil and those demons intermixed with the powers. Then the Old Ones, or the intermixes of the powers and demons were sent back to the hells they descended from.
I like the geocentric- Earth is the source of all life, and the demons left later to fill up the many demon dimensions, but that does not exaplain why there are millions of dimensions with indigenous humanoid demon populaces (Pylea, Quortoth). There would not have been enough human-demon intermixing possible to create the billions upon billions of demons which must exist across the dimensions.
Although it is a TV show, and if itis followed directly, the humans already existed "millions of years ago" when Illyria knew of them.
[> [>
Re: Well -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:38:32 04/06/04 Tue
Didn't she say, though, that "all demons that walk the earth are tainted, or are human hybrids, like vampires." This seems to indicate that tainted and part human aren't necessarily the same thing.
[> [> [>
Re: Well -- Alistair, 14:50:00 04/07/04 Wed
She did say that... I wonder what tainted means... tainted
could mean anything from tainted with human ancestry, or tainted with the ancestry of the descendants of the old ones who were lesser demons, less power, more mortal.
Symbol in the Magic Shop -- Kisstara, 12:15:52 04/06/04 Tue
There is a symbol in the work out room of the magic shop. It is painted on the wall and it is kind of a letter I with arms and legs. I am wondering if anyone knows if it is a true wicca/pagan symbol or if it is a Buffyverse magical symbol. If it is a true wicca/pagan symbol, what is it about?
Replies:
[>
Re: Symbol in the Magic Shop -- Ames, 19:31:34 04/06/04 Tue
Can you give us an episode/scene? Or post a snapshot online?
[>
Re: Symbol in the Magic Shop -- O'Cailleagh, 20:59:15 04/06/04 Tue
If it's the symbol I'm thinking of, then it isn't a Realverse Pagan symbol. It probably symbolises a person. I seem to remember it being one of many symbols in the backroom of the shop. They are most likely there for protective purposes.
O'Cailleagh
[> [>
Re: Symbol in the Magic Shop -- skpe, 06:47:05 04/07/04 Wed
If it is the one I am thinking of, I always thought it looked like a crude rendition of the Chinese good luck symbol
Charles Gunn and Angel Investigations II -- Josie, 13:51:06 04/06/04 Tue
I've just finished watching Season 2 of "Angel", along with some of the early Season 3 episodes and I'm confused about something.
Angel was the owner and boss of Angel Investigations from the beginning of Season 1 to mid-Season 2, when he fired Cordelia, Gunn and Wes. Then later, his three former employees had formed their own detective agency as full partners - again in mid-Season 2.
Could someone explain how Gunn went from a partner of Angel Investigation II to a mere employee who could be fired by Wes, of all people? How did Wes become boss? And what right did he have to threaten Gunn with termination in "That Old Gang of Mine"?
Replies:
[>
I think Cordy and Gunn voted him into the boss position -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:40:57 04/06/04 Tue
He says in Pylea, "Why do people keep putting me in charge of things?" They probably did it because, as the smart, bookish guy, he seems to fit the mold best.
[> [>
Re: I think Cordy and Gunn voted him into the boss position -- Anny, 00:23:45 04/07/04 Wed
Cordy was barely 20 and Gunn probably not much older.Wesley is a Watcher,at least 25-26 years old.They put the "old guy" in charge,Imo.
[> [>
Re: I think Cordy and Gunn voted him into the boss position -- Josie, 10:22:22 04/07/04 Wed
"He says in Pylea, "Why do people keep putting me in charge of things?" They probably did it because, as the smart, bookish guy, he seems to fit the mold best."
"Cordy was barely 20 and Gunn probably not much older.Wesley is a Watcher,at least 25-26 years old.They put the "old guy" in charge,Imo."
I must admit that I honestly do not see these as good reasons for putting Wesley in charge, in the first place. Despite Wes' bookish leanings, he has proven to be a somewhat mediocre leader in the past. And Gunn, despite his age, has proven to be a more experienced and charasmatic leader before meeting Angel and the others.
Also, I believe that Wes had no right to treat Gunn as a lowly employee in that episode. He was chosen to lead the others, while involved in cases. But when it came to who will work with the rest of the group, that decision, based on who started the agency in the first place, should have been left to Cordelia, Gunn and Wes, together. I cannot help but feel that Wesley should have told Gunn that the next time the latter messed up, he would speak to Cordelia and try to convince her to agree with him to cast out Gunn. Not threaten him with expulsion like he was the boss and sole owner of AI and Gunn was the employee.
[> [> [>
Never said they were good reasons, just reasons -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:46:30 04/07/04 Wed
I was just saying that Wesley gave off the most leaderesque vibe, and so he got the job. As for threatening to fire Gunn, I really don't think anyone in the gang would have that power if the others opposed it; they're not a firmly structured organization. However, Gunn couldn't be sure the others wouldn't go along and, besides, it may a good piece of intimidation.
The story Joss wanted to tell about Tara -- Evan, 18:25:45 04/06/04 Tue
I've been hearing rumours that Joss wanted Tara to come back for the 7th season of Buffy, but Amber not wanting/able to. Does anybody have any details about the story he wanted to tell?
Replies:
[>
The story is.. -- CW, 20:13:35 04/06/04 Tue
Joss wanted her to come back for "Conversations with Dead People" to be the dead person, actually the incarnation of the First Evil, who appeared to Willow. Amber Benson said absolutely no to that, and the story was written so that Cassie appeared to Willow bearing false tales from Tara from beyond the grave.
[> [>
And according to a later interview... -- Rob (finding another opportunity to sneak on-line), 20:25:19 04/06/04 Tue
A friend of mine is visiting with his laptop, so he's on my network for the moment, which means I'm on for the moment.
Just had to add that Joss confirmed in an interview at filmforce.ign.com that he had also planned on having Tara brought back to life by the end of the season, so when she refused to come back, he had to change Willow's season-long story arc from one about grieving Tara, which would then climax in Tara's return, to learning how to move on, and thus Kennedy was brought to the forefront. This shift in gears may account for some of the akwardness of "The Killer in Me."
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: And according to a later interview... -- Evan, 21:49:23 04/06/04 Tue
I think I'm kind of glad he didn't bring her back...
Some things just need to be permanent to be meaningful.
Although, I guess the meaning of Tara's death is its meaninglessness, if that makes sense. More importantly, I guess it's how Willow had to deal with that. Despite my irritation with Kennedy, I liked Willow's season 7 arc.
[> [> [> [>
bringing her back would have had interesting implications, though -- chronochromie, 06:09:15 04/07/04 Wed
How would Tara have felt that Willow killed Warren? That she nearly ended the world over her grief?
Would Tara feel some misplaced guilt?
Would they even be together if she was brought back to life?
How would Willow feel about her actions, now that they had been rendered almost pointless?
And what would it be like for Willow, if she had already mourned Willow and was in the process of moving on? It would be so incredibly mentally jarring.
In typical Joss fashion, I don't think her being brought back to life would have made her death any less meaningful.
[> [> [> [> [>
or not -- skeeve, 07:26:36 04/07/04 Wed
The most obvious way to unkill Tara
is with a wish to a vengeance demon.
Retroactively preventing her death
would have left only Willow and the
vengeance demon any the wiser.
Of course there is always the possibility
the wish would be reversed. In that case,
Willow could get a live Tara the same way
she inadvertently got a vamp-Willow.
Then life gets interesting.
[> [> [> [> [>
Unecessary -- Joyce, 10:31:40 04/09/04 Fri
I like Tara, but bringing her back to life would have been a mistake, I believe. And rather unecessary. After all, Buffy, Angel, Spike, and Darla have all been resurrected. Bringing back Tara would have been just one too many times and I feel it would have regressed Willow's attempt to move on.
[> [> [>
But according to Amber.... -- Sophist, 11:23:16 04/07/04 Wed
Joss never mentioned to her the prospect of coming back as Tara brought back to life. AB says the only "return" ever mentioned to her was for CWDP.
There appears to be an inconsistency between JW and AB.
[> [> [> [>
Re: But according to Amber.... -- shambleau, 12:00:14 04/07/04 Wed
Or joss hadn't thought of it yet. Or assumed if she wouldn't come back for one, she'd refuse the other and didn't ask.
[> [> [> [>
From what I heard... -- Rob, 13:14:27 04/07/04 Wed
....Tara appearing as The First was an important precursor, plotwise, to Tara's eventual return, so when Amber wouldn't come back for one, Joss couldn't use her for the other. It is also possible that either her refusal to come back annoyed Joss, or that her refusal was more about money than issues of whether the fans would be upset (there was some talk for a time about her contract negotiations not go well).
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: From what I heard... -- Sophist, 12:06:33 04/08/04 Thu
My understanding of AB's comments is that she refused the part in CWDP because she felt that having Tara back as the FE would be hurtful to many viewers. She said she was never told about any further plans; that's the inconsistency with JW, who expressly says she was told about his further plans.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
OT - WB! -- Rahael, 15:54:27 04/08/04 Thu
[> [> [>
Killer in me and Season 6 Triad Symmetry -- darrenK, 14:17:02 04/07/04 Wed
While I agree with the person who said that deaths should be final to be meaningful, I also think that any episode that brought Warren back should have brought Tara back as well.
As I wrote way back during Season 6, it was and remains my humble opinon that there were two trios in Season 6. There was the male trio of Warren, Andrew and Jonathan and the female triad of Tara, Willow and Buffy. (Doesn't Tara's name translate as "the pinnacle" or am I delusional in my desire for interpretive nirvana?)
As you chart out their various skills and traits, you find that the Yin/Yang of these two groups is creepily complete.
First off, Tara is the pinnacle of the female/good triad. She is the good mother to Dawn that Buffy isn't and the Madonna/child lap that Buffy cries in over her affair with Spike. She's the good witch that Willow isn't. She is a lesbian, a lover of woman. The male principle is not necessary to complete her.
Warren is her opposite. A warren is a tunnel beneath the ground. He is the nadir to Tara's pinnacle. He is a master of technology and only desires the female principle carnally. He is the creator of false women, women without wombs who can't reproduce, who aren't part of the feminine creation that is their true magic. He is a hater of women, only completed with his powerful orbs of whatever (testicles, everyone, testicles).
The parallels keep going, but I won't lay out all of them, but they have something to do with Andrew being a demon-summoner and Buffy being a demon-fighter; Jonathan being a very weak warlock and Willow being Willow, etc.
As has been much speculated on previous to Tara's demise, She disappears 2/3s of the way through Restless and becomes the voice of the Primitive becoming the voice from the behind, a spirit guide.
This, of course, has other resonances as Tara, a martyr, killed for the hatred of women, would be the Buffyverse equivalent of a saint and it's only natural (or super-so) for saints to make visitations to intercede for those who need their love and strength
In this interpretation, Tara shouldn't be in Conversations with Dead People on the grounds that the good of her couldn't be so corrupted or hijacked.
But, when we get to Killer in Me and Willow starts to be subsumed by the male principle of evil, it would have been right for Tara to intercede on behalf of the principle of feminine good, for Willow to be cleansed in her light, then, of course, to disappear.
It would have completed the symmetry.
As an end note, Tara, Buffy and Willow are a triangle facing up with Tara at the top and Warren, Jonathan and Andrew are a triangle with Warren as the nadir, the bottom point. The two overlapping triangles form a 6 pointed star, a single simple diagram to represent Season 6. dK
[> [> [> [>
Re: Killer in me and Season 6 Triad Symmetry -- purplegrrl, 16:06:03 04/07/04 Wed
Oooh!! I really like this reasoning.
[> [> [> [>
you're a star -- MsGiles, 06:03:41 04/08/04 Thu
I love this as well.
"The name 'Taaraa' itself tells us much about her. Paali and Sanskrit dictionaries generally define the word taaraa as 'star' or 'planet' and it may be etymologically related to the English word 'star'. According to the Pali Text Society Dictionary, it is equivalent to the Latin astrum.[2] In all Sanskrit-based modern Indian languages taaraa is still the word for 'star'. A derivative of the same word means 'the pupil of the eye', suggesting the idea of a focal point, which further gives us the idea of Taaraa being in some manner a very concentrated essence. However, the more popular approach in Buddhism is to interpret Taaraa's name as coming from the causative form of the verb t.'r 'to cross', 'to traverse' or 'to escape'. So we reach the idea of 'she who ferries across', 'she who saves' or 'a saviouress'. Taaraa herself is supposed to have sung at one time:
When only my names are recollected, I always protect all beings,
I, O Saviour, shall ferry them across the great flood of their manifold fears.
Therefore the great Seers sing of me in the world under the name of Taaraa. [3]
The translation of Taaraa's name into Tibetan is Dölma (sgrol-ma) or She who saves."
(from http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/tara_origins_a_development.html)
Tara is also the name of a hill in Ireland (reportedly derived from 'Tea mur': 'the burial place of Queen Tea', which gives its name to the place Tara (and hence to the house Tara in Gone With the Wind)
'Star' seems fine for your argument, and fits beautifully with your final star image.
[> [> [> [>
Interesting stuff -- Gyrus, 08:18:15 04/08/04 Thu
I like your analysis.
Tara is the pinnacle of the female/good triad. She is the good mother to Dawn that Buffy isn't and the Madonna/child lap that Buffy cries in over her affair with Spike. She's the good witch that Willow isn't. She is a lesbian, a lover of woman. The male principle is not necessary to complete her.
It also seems that the lover of men (Andrew) is the most ambivalent member of the male side in terms of his dedication to either good or evil, while the lover of women is the member of the female side who is most dedicated to goodness. Does that fit in with your model?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting stuff -- darrenK, 09:12:26 04/08/04 Thu
Maybe even more important is the fact that no matter what sexuality Andrew is, he's unable to act on it or admit to it.
He's still Buffy's opposite though. The attraction to Spike that he can't act on or admit to is mirrored by the affair with Spike that she has acted on and learns to admit to.
She "comes out" about the affair to Tara and needs her motherly forgiveness. Andrew doesn't come out to Warren because he needs his acceptance and love, but fears his rejection/oppression.
Both Andrew and Jonathan show an ambivalance to evil that's mirrored by Buffy and Willow's struggles with being good.
Warren shows no compunction or second thoughts towards doing evil in the same way that Tara's goodness is effortless.
Warren is the leader. He tells Jonathan and Andrew what to do. Tara, on the other hand, is not the leader, that's still Buffy's role. She's the example, to emulate and follow.
Andrew's assumed "closeted" status is mirrored by Tara and Willow's public acknowledgement of their sexuality. This isn't just because of the parallels between individual characters, but the opposite values of the two trios.
Warren, Jonathan and Andrew are refusing to face growing up, to face the truth about adulthood. They are delusional in the things they give importance. They are hiding from themselves. Andrew is hiding from himself.
The female trio is struggling with the truth of things; the truth of Buffy's relationship with Spike; Willow's addiction to magic; Buffy's return from Heaven, etc.
So the opposition isn't just about sexuality, but about dealing with the truth and dealing with one's true self.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
This is why I think S6 is such a kick-ass season -- Rahael, 04:34:51 04/09/04 Fri
Great posts btw
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: This is why I think S6 is such a kick-ass season -- darrenK, 15:26:27 04/09/04 Fri
Rah--
Hey. Hope things are good.
Six is definitely the bravest and most challenging season. How many superheroes go broke and have to work in fast food? How many previously killed heroes want to stay dead?
At the time it was a little jarring, especially the Willow addiction subplot but it makes more sense now. The scoobs couldn't always be the squeaky clean superheroes. Not if the show was going to fulfill all of its promise and be not just about fighting evil, but about gaining wisdom.
OT: Have you, or anyone reading this post, read William Gibson's Pattern Recognition? All the message board stuff sounded quite familiar. I'll have to start a thread on it at some point when I have more time and stamina.
Best, dK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
William Gibson -- Rahael, 04:13:54 04/10/04 Sat
I hadn't heard of this, so I checked out the reviews on Amazon - it has sufficiently intrigued me to put it in shopping basket, to be purchased when I buy my next lot of books.
And like our S6 heros, S6 had it deep flaws, that made me want to give it a shake and tell it to pull itself together.
But it was also brave, courageous, compassionate and had real spirit, oh, and some real intellectual coherence to it too...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Seconding, both 'S6' and the 'Great Posts' part! -- OnM, 20:54:20 04/09/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting stuff -- Ann, 08:34:06 04/10/04 Sat
I have always had a theory that the final battle of the hellmouth would be in Buffy's soul. Your posts made me realize that this may have happened at the end of S6. I always assumed Chosen was the final internal spiritual battle within Buffy, but now I am wondering if the end of S6 was it. Willow's evil and Zander had to battle to allow Buffy to continue on her spiritual path. She was stuck during this season, trying to find her way. Willow's turn to evil was the demon within Buffy forced upon her by slayer power. It had to be cast aside to allow Buffy to use her heart and not just her mind to be whole again. Zander (as her heart) won back "Buffy" in the form of bringing back good Willow. The lighting of that scene was done the same way as Buffy's previous encounters with the first slayer. Zander as carpenter imagery (Christ aside) was the step to rebuilding, remodeling and completing Buffy's soul. It allowed for choices to be made in season 7 bringing together all that Buffy was and could be. Buffy was right that she was still cookie dough. She had been "mixed" in season 6.
I know this is a bit of a ramble but these posts brought these thoughts together.
Illyria -- Jennifer Hudson, 06:35:05 04/07/04 Wed
I don't know how other people feel, but I find the Illyria character very intriguing. Like the Adam character in Buffy S4, Joss Whedon brings us another "postmodern" concoction. But whereas Adam is more pluralistic in the sense that he is an amalgam of various things (i.e. human, demon, machine), Illyria is more dualistic--but in a way that is different to how we normally view dualism in Western culture.
Illyria is the kind of character who blurs conceptual borders between two seemingly oppositional states, thereby disrupting traditional binary thought. To start, "he" (as Knox refers to Illyria as "king") now inhabits the female body that once belonged to Fred, so the lines between masculine and feminine become blurred. Illyria's new body is also human and Illyria is a demon, so the line between human and demon is blurred. Illyria also finds her/himself in a new temporal location, the twenty-first century, which is strikingly different to his/her home in an ancient realm. Moreover, the identificatory markers between Fred and Illyria have now become blurred since Illyria possesses Fred's memories.
Illyria is a prime example of the postmodern crisis--the sense of displacement that comes from dwelling in a grey area or areas. With this displacement comes a search for identity, and Illyria expresses interest in finding a place in the world where s/he fits. Illyria wants to know who s/he is. So do we. And we also want to know who and where is Fred now.
I think there's something significant about Fred's bunny "Feigenbaum," although I am not quite sure what exactly. However, I do see an ostensible connection between the bunny and Fred's life and death.
In the beginning of the ep, with the flashback to Texas, we see Fred almost forgetting to take Feigenbaum along with her to L.A. Later, when Fred is dying, she jumps up and cries out the bunny's name, but can't remember the significance of that name.
Perhaps this is Joss's commentary on the function of memory, and how identity is linked to memory (and names and naming)? We know that to have amnesia (say as in the Buffy ep "Tabula Rasa") is to be without an identity. However, in "Shells," identificatory markers between Fred and Illyria are obscure since Illyria has Fred's memories. So we are led to ask, just who is Illyria? Who is Fred? What's in a name? Do names place markers on "things" (e.g. concepts, people, etc.) and does this system of naming limit all that those things might be?
At the end of "Shells," we see Wesley mechanically placing Feigenbaum in a box ... then Illyria walks in and they discuss grief over a life, particularly Wesley's grief over the loss of Fred. Does Feigenbaum represent memory? (I also wonder if the bunny might act as, say, some kind of mystical conduit to Fred? Only the remaining six episodes will tell. )
Illyria has found him/herself in a place that is grey. But to be in a place that is grey--i.e. the borderland, the place where lines between this concept and that, this state and that, including what is "good" and what is "bad," who one is and who one isn't, is obscured and disrupted--offers to opportunity for growth and development ... and also the possibilty that Fred isn't totally "gone." The apparent "crisis" may not be as chaotic as one might assume.
It will be interesting to see what happens next and I look forward to next week's new episode with great anticipation.
Replies:
[>
Re: Illyria -- skpe, 06:59:31 04/07/04 Wed
It has been reported by several other posters that Feigenbaum is the author of books on Chaos theory
[> [>
Re: Illyria -- Jennifer Hudson, 07:54:51 04/07/04 Wed
Now that's interesting ... so are we to assume postmodernity brings chaos? If so, is chaos necessarily a bad thing?
[> [> [>
Re: Illyria -- Jennifer Hudson, 08:48:11 04/07/04 Wed
Here's what I have discovered recently about Mitchell Feigenbaum's chaos theory: According to Feigenbaum, "chaos" is a phenomenon in which there is the appearance of highly erratic spatial configurations and/or highly erratic temporal evolution. In other words, chaos, or chaotic motion is a lack of predictability. The motion, rather than exploring all possibilities allowed to it instead lies in a highly complicated subspace. Thus an a priori calculated average over "everything" will generally produce erroneous results.
So I'm wondering: if chaos, as Feigenbaum suggests, is an erracticism that prevents "everythingness," then what becomes of an individual, such as Illyria, who lives in the grey? Are we to assume, then, that the grey in which Illyria dwells is just an in-between space that constrains possibilities rather than explore them; a space that is really nowhere, nothing, emptiness (i.e. "erroneous")? Are we to assume that Illyria has no real place in the world and that she is on the outside, an "Other," a non-being?
I also wonder if, going by Feigenbaum's theory, we should assume that Fred is erased from existence or that she might inhabit a "highly complicated subspace"? Could Illyria be that subspace?
Hmnn.... the questions keep coming. Oh, the crisis (anxiety) of postmodernism!!!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Illyria -- heywhynot, 09:45:24 04/07/04 Wed
I think that Fred's memories are the main unpredictable element. They are what keeps Illyria from doing what we expect of an Old One, ie conquer humanity. Illyria being in a shell of a human, having human memories, living in the present combined create a situation in which yes there will be order but not something predictable. Sorry that is poorly worded. Have to get back to experiments otherwise I will be in lab way too long today.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Illyria -- Alistair, 14:56:56 04/07/04 Wed
What was once Fred's brain, the chemical impulses of it, Fred herself, has merged into Illyria's functioning system (the Old One equivalent of brain perhaps). Illyria was not a humanoid entity, and it appears that her essense was not physical. Her "soul" entered Fred, transformed her body into a shell to hold the spirit of Illyria, but as an unexpected consequence, it has perhaps also joined Illyria's soul with Fred's soul. They are now one entity made up of two. Illyria is the one that is concsious of existence, but Fred is a part of her.
I wonder what would have happened if Illyria was ressurected in her temple, had her army of doom not been destroyed. Perhaps the effigy of Illyria in the temple was meant to be her new body, her new shell, forged right after her death to house her when she returns.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Illyria -- kisstara, 15:47:17 04/09/04 Fri
But we were told that Fred's soul has been destroyed not incorporated into the "soul" of Illyria. Souls and memories are separate things. Angelus had Angel's memories (and body) but only existed when the soul became separate from the memories.
Does the soul retain the memories as well?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Illyria -- Alistair, 17:04:07 04/09/04 Fri
Well, it seems weird that they were so adamant. Perhaps this is the first Old One to be ressurected into the body of a human, and as a result, Fred's soul has merged with Illyria's essence. From what we know of the old ones, they are beings of extreme malevolence. Illyria has chosen to adapt to the world, and not change it back, since her army is gone. Perhaps some of Fred's motivations, some of her is still in there. It is so easy to say that her soul was destroyed, but I think that now, she is part of an immortal being, and Fred's destiny has become to help this lost Old One find her place among mankind. Why did Illyria choose Fred's last words as the manifest memory? Perhaps because she felt they had personal significance. Either we have severely underestimated the Old Ones, or Fred is a big part of Illyria now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Illyria -- Pip, 02:02:09 04/10/04 Sat
We weren't told that the soul has been destroyed. We've been told it was consumed. Consumed has several meanings, only some of which equal destroyed. 'Bought for personal use' is one; 'absorb all the attention and energy of' is another.
So personally, I think 'consumed' is being used in the sense of all Fred's attention and energy (and memories!) being taken up into (or bought for) Illyria. The audience and the Gang are meant to think of 'consumed=destroyed', but it's one of the other meanings that's in play.
Question about "The Pack" kids -- Ann, 07:53:50 04/07/04 Wed
Did we ever hear what happened to the hyena kids after the episode? The script has them "scramble away". I didn't think we did, but wanted to check with those that know the series details better than I.
Thanks for your help.
Replies:
[>
Re: Question about "The Pack" kids -- DorianQ, 09:06:40 04/07/04 Wed
No, that is what happened. Although they weren't nice kids by any means, they were possessed when they killed Flutie, so I wouldn't hold them very responsible for his death. If anything, I think the whole experience scared the crap out of them by the looks on their faces and they came out much more docile people. But they did crawl away during the fight scene and were gone by the time the zookeeper was fed to the hyenas.
[> [>
Re: Question about "The Pack" kids -- Ann, 09:59:39 04/07/04 Wed
That is why I find their story potentially fascinating. With Zander, they experienced something very animalistic and brutal. How does this change them? Or does it? You mention their brutality before their experience, but could their brutality have been fully realized by this incident? I too think they were scared, but in my story I'm writing, I am taking it to a place where the "animal" is not fully expunged by the transfer to the zookeeper. It is then rereleased.
Thanks.
[>
Well, Heidi Barrie changed her name to -- Cleanthes, 09:29:41 04/07/04 Wed
Cleopatra, went in for a routine boob job, and woke up in the year 2525 as the star of her own show! :-)
[> [>
Re: Well, Heidi Barrie changed her name to -- Ann, 09:50:19 04/07/04 Wed
I am writing a story about Rhonda. That isn't the direction I took her but sounds like it would make a great show. Reality tv we can watch!
[>
maybe they're choosing stunts for Fear Factor? -- shambleau, 11:19:17 04/07/04 Wed
Actually, no. Those kids ATE THEIR FREAKING PRINCIPAL, not just a pig, a la Xander. Holden Webster no doubt ran into one or two of them at Sunnydale's mental institution. Just one more reason he was agitating for them to put in a bouncer and a rope.
I wonder if any of them sang about their deepest feelings when Sweet came to town? I think I'd rather have listened to the five-hundred pound Chiraga demon making like Yma Sumac.
Is the Scifi Channel making a comeback? -- Vash the Stampede, 09:00:55 04/07/04 Wed
After Farscape was cancelled, I pretty much stopped watch the Scifi Channel, partly out of protest, but mainly because there really wasn't anything worth my time. I mean, Scare Tactics? Mad Mad House? Tremors? Plus the movies they showed weren't exactly edge of your seat compelling. Now, however, it looks like maybe the network if finally getting back on track. They've just announced their new schedule of shows for the 2005-2006 season, and it looks promising. A live action version of anime favorite Witch Hunter Robin, a two hour backdoor pilot of Jim Butcher's Dresden Files (not as good a read as Anita Blake, but entertaining), and a trio of movies created by Stan "The Man" Lee. Plus, I remember them trying to develop a show based on the comic series Painkiller Jane.
Now, I am as skeptical as everyone else when it comes to adapting books or anime to live action shows, but I must admit, I am impressed that Scifi is taking the initiative again in trying to create original programming. Maybe this network has a future after all.
Replies:
[>
Re: Is the Scifi Channel making a comeback? -- neaux, 11:08:07 04/07/04 Wed
well if you've seen Witch Hunter Robin.. you know its a mix of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and X-Files.. with witches.
currently airing on cartoon network.
All the reason to watch it. Lets hope Sci-Fi makes it good.
[> [>
Also...SciFi is airing an "Earthsea" miniseries later this year! -- Rob, 10:35:06 04/08/04 Thu
My faith in them is thisclose to being restored. Let's hope they don't screw it up. ;-)
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: Also...SciFi is airing an "Earthsea" miniseries later this year! -- botitas, 22:38:10 04/08/04 Thu
Even better news according to www.aintitcool.com and scifi.com there will be a four hour Farscape miniseries to air at the end of this year. Yes, I would say things are lookin up.
[> [> [>
Re: Also...SciFi is airing an "Earthsea" miniseries later this year! -- fresne, 16:35:49 04/09/04 Fri
I'm a bit concerned about their casting choice for Tenar (the actress who plays Lana on Smallville), but we'll see. I'll be crossing those fingers.
[> [> [> [>
On the plus side... -- Rob, 17:02:43 04/09/04 Fri
Kristen always seems to be a bit better when she's not playing Lana. She showed some good comic promise in that plant episode where she became a wild girl, and some good dramatic promise in the flashback-to-the-fifties episode earlier this year where she played the woman Kal-El had an affair with. And she was funny in "Eurotrip." I read some review somewhere that the girl just seems so happy to be playing a part that isn't Lana that she actually displays a spark of talent here or there when she's given the chance. Not saying it's time to hand this girl an Oscar, or that she's the right choice for Tenar, because frankly I don't understand how in the name of Ged the producers could have thought that she of all people was right for the part (I'd pick someone a bit more...luminous and mysterious, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment), but the movie isn't definitely doomed because she's in it. At least I hope not, because I really want them to do this series right!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Small correction -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:06:50 04/09/04 Fri
Jor-El had the affair with previous-Lana-incaration. Kal-El is his son (aka Clark).
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ack! Of course, you're correct. I can't believe I did that! -- Rob, 22:27:27 04/09/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Further pluses Renee O'Connor and Bruce Campbell -- Cleanthes, 10:39:18 04/10/04 Sat
SciFi has announced the following:
ALIEN APOCALYPSE: Another Bruce Campbell action fest, this time with Campbell playing a deep space explorer who returns to Earth years after leaving it, only to find the planet has been invaded by an alien race and mankind reduced to slaves. Campbell and his fellow astronauts try and mobilize a rebellion.
I happen to know from the Xena forums that Renee O'Connor (Gabrielle on Xena) will play his second-in-command.
Further casting hasn't been announced, but his would be a good place for certain of the Buffy alums, I think.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Squee!!!! I haven't seen ROC in ages!! I didn't realize she was in this. -- Rob, 07:09:22 04/11/04 Sun
And of course Bruce Campbell...and it's directed by Josh Becker, who directed some classic Xena episodes, including one of my all-time favorites, Fins, Femmes, & Gems! Bring on the campy sci-fi spectacular!
Rob
Losing one to save thousands of lives (Angel S5 and Buffy's "Choices" spoilers/observation -- Mike, 10:39:11 04/07/04 Wed
Here's something that came to mind when I saw Buffy's Choices" again and a certain tie-in with Angel's "Hole In The World". The issue of losing one of your own to ensure the safety of thousands and thousands of lives played a part here on Buffy. It's funny how sometimes you've seen a certain episode a couple of times, yet still don't remember certain things until you watch it again. And then comparing it to ANGEL right now.
Here's what I mean, in Buffy's "Choices", Wesley was dead-set on the Scoobies keeping the Box and finding another way to save Willow from captivity from The Mayor and Faith. He says thousands of lives depend on destroying the box, not returning it to the Mayor at any cost, this includes Willow. Cut to now, Angel's "Hole In The World", Wesley's really changed, surely he'd feel otherwise or hesitant about thousands of lives over Fred. Keeping in mind that Wesley was a tight, stuffy Watcher then, with no friends, no loved ones in his circle whereas in The Fang Gang he's got that - now minus Fred, and Cordy. Even a year ago, Willow herself saw that he was a further-changed man in "Orpheus". Of course, both parties had experienced some grey areas at that point.
And back then Angel was just silent in the background while Buffy and Wesley argue over the Box and Willow. Four years later, Angel has to choose between Cordy and the world, and a year after that, Fred and the world. And seemingly, Angel has a bigger cosmic purpose than Buffy. Buffy chooses her friends first, even sacrifices herself for the world first; Angel chooses the world first. Unfortunately in Angel's case, Cordy and Fred weren't saved, evil had won both times.
Anyway, just thought to point that out. Boy, times and situations definitely change through the years.
Replies:
[>
Rational Choice theory -- Ames, 11:01:19 04/07/04 Wed
This gets into an area of behavioural research called "Rational Choice Theory", which examines how and why people make choices, and why they don't always appear to do the "rational" thing to an outside observer.
Simple example: a study of New York City cab drivers showed that on a good day where they got lots of high-tipping fares (e.g. a rainy day), they quit early and went to celebrate. On a bad day where fares were thin, they worked longer hours to try and make up for it. But a rational choice would have been to work longer on the good days and quit early on the bad days - they would have made more money for less effort overall. But that argument fails to take into account that stability of income has a high value to the cab drivers, so to themselves they were making a rational choice.
Another factor that has been found to strongly affect rational choice is how certain the outcomes are.
When heroes like Buffy and Angel have to make a choice that may involve sacrificing one life (maybe their own) to save thousands, the rational choice often appears to be the sacrifice of one, i.e. the good of the many outweighs the good of the one. But that depends on how certain the outcomes are. It can make a difference if the death of the one is an immediate certainty, but the potential death of thousands is delayed and not absolutely certain. That's why Buffy was not prepared to sacrifice Dawn as long as there was even the slightest chance of preventing disaster, but when the outcome was clear she was able to sacrifice both Angel (Becoming 2) and herself (The Gift) without hesitation.
In the case of Fred in Hole in the World, it seemed to Angel that the loss of Fred was not yet an absolute certainty, but he was assured that any attempt to retrieve Illyria would result in the immediate sacrifice of thousands.
[> [>
These series "age" just as all humans age.... -- Briar Rose, 23:33:57 04/07/04 Wed
Many times the relational between how ME tells a story about choices appears (at least to me) to be based on the chronological "age" of the characters being portrayed as being responsible for the decision.
Angel has always been the Elder in relation to Buffy. And his choices have inveriably been more about what is easiest for him to handle versus what might appear the most rational to others. He has a lot of years and a lot of experience on Buffy. He also has a lot of experience and years on everyone else he's around. Including Spike.
Buffy started to change the way she saw her choices as she grew more mature. By season 7, she had finally figured out that Dawn's death versus total Apocolypse would now be a viable choice. This came with the age and experience that she accumulated AFTER "The Gift" and would have never crossed her mind before that. Also to be noted, this had started to happen with Buffy's maturation point in season 6, when she vowed to kill Willow if she couldn't stop her any other way.
As each of our Champions ages and experiences more, their decisions also mature and change when choices are placed before them.
Now, I will admit... Angel tends to make the choice that causes him the most pain and the least harm (in his opinion)to others. This is the same rational that makes him leave Buffy in the first place, as well as to erase Connor's very existance from the timeline of everyone but himself and Wolfram and Hart's insiders.
But even that is something that human maturity would lead a Parent to contemplate when the sanity and very life of their child is at stake.
Maturity is about using your experience and the years you have had to see the possibilities in any number of decisions in a different light than the brash and bight carefree days of youth.
Buffy always made choices that were most readily attributed to a young woman who felt indestructable.
Angel, as the more mature and "wise" (if elder is ever wiser...) choose the path where he would cause the least damage to others, even if he ultimatly destructed himself.
Nielson admits to ratings errors of at least 62% -- Ames, 11:19:27 04/07/04 Wed
Not the primary thrust of the Forbes story about Nielson technology upgrades causing a dispute with Fox, but a partial answer as to how Fox comes up with these idiotic ideas about which shows to air and which to cancel:
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2004/04/06/rtr1325447.html
Replies:
[>
The Link doesn't work for me -- Majin Gojira, 11:59:47 04/07/04 Wed
The Neilsons have always been skewed because they never did take enough subjects in their system. 1,000 is the minimum needed for an accurate sensus, and they use around 300 IIRC.
The Prom, Graduation Day I & II: The catalyst that sent Angel to LA and W&H -- Mike, 11:37:16 04/07/04 Wed
There are many perspectives about Angel being a pawn for the Powers That Be, the Senior Partners, and so forth, as well as the rest of the Fang Gang being pawns. There's different starting points for when Angel's calling as a Hero, a Champion, came into play and slowly set into motion the extraordinary events through the five years of the series. Now I do accept more than one theory or outlook, some of those I retain when thinking about Angel, his friends, and subsequent events. I would like to add, if it hasn't been added already, a take on where his coming to LA and being a Hero/Champion came about. Not to mention, Angel's destiny with W&H, for better or worse.
In The Prom, Angel & Buffy start off romantic as usual, and for a brief brief time living with the idea of a future together. Aside from Angel thinking about it more and having doubts, Joyce arrives to lend her insight on how their future will really turn out. The Mayor already told Angel what'll happen, but it's Joyce's endearing words that officially change Angel's mind about him & Buffy forever.
Also, Angel has that startling dream where Buffy dies as a vampire and he lives as a regular human. This could've been a possible forshadowing of Angel & Buffy in the distant future (Angel shanshu-ed? Maybe). Alright, basically Angel feels he must leave Sunnydale for Buffy's sake as well as his own.
Few things that happened from Graduation Day I, and Graduation Day II, Angel almost died but was cured by Buffy's blood. Perhaps that Slayer blood he was cured with endowed him with some extra dosage of power, aside from his own incredible strength already. Long shot thought, just in case. Anyways, Angel walks away from Sunnydale, having told Buffy one last time what he must do in the long run. Angel fights evil in LA for a few months, then meets Doyle. More essentially, and through fate, Angel encounters Wolfram & Hart. And at the end of Buffy S3, Cordelia went broke and a few months later moved to LA for a shot at stardom. Of course, who does she run into. And also at Buffy S3's end, Wesley had failed as a Watcher and was kicked off the Council. Fatefully, Wesley runs into Angel by mid-1st-season.
Through time and many encounters with Wolfram & Hart, Angel and his friends have dealt with events where the evil firm always played a part, whether big or small, always there to
try to ruin Team Angel. Surely other factors play a role in Angel's calling as Hero/Champion, his move to LA (why he chose that particular city?), Team Angel, prophecies, forged destiny. Though, I'm currently thinking that Team Angel and AtS' events were in its initial stages beginning with the last three episodes of Buffy's Third Season.
Like, what if Angel had stayed with Buffy after all and not moved to LA? Well for one thing, Cordelia would've been killed by Russell Winters (W&H client), and if not which turned out to be the outcome, she would die a few years later anyway. Angel and W&H were destined to meet, and where Angel's feelings for Buffy initially turned him to LA, Doyle's guidance, and W&H, think years later when he gave her W&H's amulet to prevent The First Evil's apocalypse. And none of that could've happened had he not met W&H specifically. Spike takes credit for FE's defeat, but it was really Angel who inadvertantly stopped FE's gloom and doom (W&H amulet). Ironic because FE brought Angel back from Hell in the first place, which he has recently called "a show of reprieve". It appears to be an arguable point, how much Angel gets credit for, the things that really started Team Angel, him and W&H, and what does it all mean in the final battle, in the end.
That's that, Angel, Cordelia, Wesley, from Sunnydale to LA,
Doyle and soon his death, Wolfram & Hart; into the 21st century, things just kept getting more complicated and greyer for everyone in the Whedonverse.
Confused about Wesley's betrayal (spoilers S3) -- Belladonna, 13:45:13 04/08/04 Thu
I think I've seen all of season 3, but it was out of order, and over a time span of 2 years, so I'm not sure I understand everything. I understand that Wesley took Connor to protect both Connor and Angel. I get that he believed the prophecy that Angel would kill his own son. And I understand why he didn't talk to Angel about it. But I don't understand why he didn't talk to Gunn and Fred about it. Was it just that he was too bitter about them being a couple? That seems a bit petty when an issue of such magnitude is on the table.
But what I really don't understand is, why did he go to Holtz?! What did he go to Holtz for? Was he going to give the baby to him? In which case, why did they slit his throat? If he hadn't planned on giving the baby to him, then what was his plan? Why wouldn't he just take the baby himself and not bother with Holtz? It just doesn't make sense to me. I feel like I must have missed something. Can anyone explain it to me? Thanks...
Replies:
[>
Some answers -- KdS, 14:19:05 04/08/04 Thu
Some is made very clear, some is my speculation:
Why didn't Wes confide in Gunn and Fred? Partly, yes, it was jealousy that Gunn "got" Fred and he didn't. But I also think he saw them as sentimentalists, and that they wouldn't be able to do what had to be done. It goes back to the battle in Pylea, when Gunn was shocked by Wes's willingness to sacrifice fighters' lives for tactical advantage, and only agreed to the plan fairly mutinously. Also he probably felt that he would be sparing them pain by not getting them involved.
As far as Holtz goes, Wes went to Holtz in the hope that Holtz would arange a diversion so that Wes could take the child, believing that it wouldn't be safe to try to do it alone. Wes intended to leave LA alone and bring up Connor himself. But Holtz decided to take the child for himself as his ultimate revenge on Angel, and sent Justine to steal Connor from Wes.
[> [>
Re: Some answers -- Dlgood, 22:44:00 04/08/04 Thu
Why didn't Wes confide in Gunn and Fred? Partly, yes, it was jealousy that Gunn "got" Fred and he didn't. But I also think he saw them as sentimentalists, and that they wouldn't be able to do what had to be done.
I think it's a bit more than that. Psychologically, I think Wesley has a need to feel righteous - as though he is spiritually tough enough to make a difficult choice others aren't capable of... I think he cuts out Lorne, Wes and Fred, for the reasons above - but also because - on an unconscious level - that if he told them what he suspected, they might show him that his plan wasn't actually "what had to be done" - preventing him from acting in the righteous manner he believed only he was capable of.
Does it ever occur to him that there's an alternate course?
To some extent, I think he's trying to prove to father, in the form of Holtz, that he's not completely Angel's servant or dupe. That he is a leader and can make hard decisions. So he makes a hard decision, even though poorly thought out, poorly supported, and probably unnecessary. That's sometimes his way.
He still leaves Gunn, Fred, Angel, and Lorne in that hotel without warning of the attack he knows Holtz will deliver. Is going to kidnap the baby without word or warning, when given Angel's own history that telling him he has to let Connor go for Connor's own good might well be a winning appeal. Or that the team might have supported him, or been more wary of Angel having learned of the Prophecy.
[> [> [>
Agree with all of the above -- KdS, 04:18:33 04/09/04 Fri
Moreover, if he'd kept in contact with the rest, he'd have found out about Lilah's switch with the blood, which given the amount of wiggle-room in Jossverse prophecies might even have been seen as a harmless fulfillment of "the father shall devour the son".
[> [> [> [>
Re: Wes' Father Issues -- Buffalo, 20:36:01 04/09/04 Fri
It is not realistic even in a fantasy that either Gunn or Fred would've not done everything in their power to stop Wes. He "knew" what he had to do...
Wes was gripped by his own past of being abused by his Father. About this he was pathological as seen this season when there was a split second to save Fred by filling his dad's chest with lead. The thing is he admired his father's feats of demon hunting.
Despite Wes' admiration for Angel, the prohecy gave him his marching orders.
OTOH, Holtz, in effect, tried to kill Connor by making him Steve, after displacing Angel as the father.
"God said, 'Abraham, give me a son,
down on Highway 61.'"-Zimmerman
[> [> [> [> [>
"Highway Sixty-One Revisited" has some very intriguing parallels to S5 -- KdS, 02:52:13 04/10/04 Sat
Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
Well Georgia Sam he had a bloody nose
Welfare Department they wouldn't give him no clothes
He asked poor Howard where can I go
Howard said there's only one place I know
Sam said tell me quick man I got to run
Ol' Howard just pointed with his gun
And said that way down on Highway 61.
Well Mack the Finger said to Louie the King
I got forty red white and blue shoe strings
And a thousand telephones that don't ring
Do you know where I can get rid of these things
And Louie the King said let me think for a minute son
And he said yes I think it can be easily done
Just take everything down to Highway 61.
Now the fifth daughter on the twelfth night
Told the first father that things weren't right
My complexion she said is much too white
He said come here and step into the light he says hmm you're right
Let me tell the second mother this has been done
But the second mother was with the seventh son
And they were both out on Highway 61.
Now the rovin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61.
The penultimate verse has just happened IMHO, and the last may be the wind-up to the saga.
[>
Re: Confused about Wesley's betrayal (spoilers S3) -- Evan, 14:21:50 04/08/04 Thu
Wesley's plan was to take Connor, not tell anyone (he was probably afraid Gunn or Fred would've told Angel), and go somewhere never to be found and raise Connor himself, I guess. Of course, this plan probably wouldn't have worked too well since Willow or someone else probably could've easily done some sort of locator spell and found him anywhere in the world, but that's not important.
As for the Holtz thing, if I remember correctly, Justine was off on the side of the road pretending to be hurt or something. Wesley (who I think didn't know who she was) got out of the car to go help her and she slit his throat and kidnapped Connor.
[> [>
Oh, Wesley knew very well who she was -- KdS, 14:26:18 04/08/04 Thu
Wes thought her relationship with Holtz was unhealthy and tried to persuade her of that. Justine got close to Wes by pretending that Holtz had attacked her and that she'd seen through him.
[> [> [>
Remorse -- Claudia, 15:04:24 04/09/04 Fri
Has Wesley ever openly expressed remorse for taking Connor away? Or is he like Giles, who rarely expressed remorse?
Spoilers: Episode 5.18 ( and up) Question? -- luvthistle1, 19:03:52 04/08/04 Thu
Ponder, In Episode 5.18: Origin :
....after Wesley breaks the "Orlon Window" that release everyones memories, Connor return to his happy family. but what happen than? wouldn't his Happy family's memories also return? wouldn't they remember that they do not have an son name Conner?
Replies:
[>
Gah! *spoilers in the above post for 5x18*!!!! -- angel's nibblet, 23:29:38 04/08/04 Thu
Sorry, I just didn't think it was clear enough that it was actually spoilery, and not just general questioning.
[> [>
Haha, whoops *turns bright red* -- angel's nibblet, 23:31:17 04/08/04 Thu
My eyes completely missed the word "Spoilers"...
Forgive me?
I think my brain needs some serious sleep...
[> [> [>
Re: Haha, whoops *turns bright red* -- luvthistle1, 00:54:04 04/09/04 Fri
It's o.k ,I was wondering why the repeat.
[>
Re: Spoilers: Episode 5.18 ( and up) Question? -- Rufus, 00:14:13 04/09/04 Fri
Just an opinion...Connor has his memories restored but is unable to cope therefore he returns to the family he dreamed of instead of the family he was born to. To restore reality to the state it was before the mind-wipe has to have consequences, one of those will be the reactions of each character to fitting in their immediate past to the past that was taken from them. I'd call that traumatic to say the least for some of them.
[> [>
Re: Spoilers: Episode 5.18 ( and up) Question? -- luvthistle1, 01:00:15 04/09/04 Fri
But what about his new family? wouldn't they memories also be restore as well? wouldn't they know they never had a son name Connor, and probablu be a afraid of him? I mean think about it, some 20 something guy that you have never met comes out of the blue and start calling you mom and dad? most people will call the cops. so it not Connor reaction I'm looking for, it's his parents reaction?
[> [> [>
Re: Spoilers: Episode 5.18 ( and up) Question? -- Rufus, 04:43:27 04/09/04 Fri
It depends...the memories of the past may be false but the new family memories will have evoked feelings that are real. Think back to Buffy finding out about Dawn not being her sister, even though the memories were false, Buffy made a choice to continue on like they were real. I see the family doing the same thing. The writers have season five Buffy to fall back on when it comes to the memory and family thing.
[> [> [> [>
That makes a lot of sense. -- luvthistle1, 09:44:38 04/09/04 Fri
....so even if they discover that Connor is not really theirs, they has the memories of him, that make him, their child. great! the way you related it to "Dawn".
[> [> [> [>
Re: Spoilers: Episode 5.18 ( and up) Question? -- Joyce, 10:15:57 04/09/04 Fri
"Hello. Are you a save Angel supporter. With this post it's not very convincing. I would think any Angel fan would be happy with what they are getting shown."
Why would Connor's phony family react in the same manner as Buffy? When she first found out about Dawn, she was ready to kill the latter. It wasn't until the monk told Buffy that Dawn was an innocent who needed protection that she was completely willing to accept Dawn into the family.
[> [> [> [> [>
Sorry! Original Quote Posted Is In Error. -- Joyce, 10:17:13 04/09/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
She was only ready to kill Dawn because she thought Dawn was causing Joyce's illness -- KdS, 11:10:22 04/09/04 Fri
I don't think you can extrapolate from those circumstances.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: She was only ready to kill Dawn because she thought Dawn was causing Joyce's illness -- Joyce, 12:23:05 04/09/04 Fri
"I don't think you can extrapolate from those circumstances."
Granted, but I still find it hard to accept that Connor's fake family will just easily accept him after the mindwipe's spell is over, just because Buffy did the same with Dawn. Don't individuals react in different ways to similar situations, sometimes?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with you on that part -- luvthistle1, 14:27:35 04/09/04 Fri
I think they might accept him, but not as fast as everyone think. Plus, there would probably have a question they would want answer, before they accept him into their lives. while they still might obtain the memerioes of Connor gowning up, ( like Buffy had with Dawn) they will know ( or rather should know) that he is not their son. Plus, there is a big different. Dawn was a helpless little girl, without mental issue, while Connor is a grown man, who was raise in hell. so, how would he explain his present, or where he came from to them?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spoilers: Episode 5.18 ( and up) Question? -- Rufus, 02:29:33 04/10/04 Sat
Just an opinion
As I said in my first post, "just an opinion". Of course my opinion is based upon watching every episode of both BTVS and ATS. Both are shows created by Joss Whedon and the issue of invented family members has been shown in BTVS. In Angel the circumstances are reversed, Dawn was the invention of the monks and the family is the invention of Wolfram and Hart. If people weren't willing to accept someone into an established family they weren't born to then no one would adopt. Connor was placed into a family where the memories are loving, just like Dawn was. I suspect that once the truth is known, unless the memories of the past year are extinguished from Connors "fake" family, it will be hard to undo the love that exists. Again, just an opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
From s5 Buffy "Listening to Fear" and ATS "Home" spoilers for season 5 ATS -- Rufus, 02:43:41 04/10/04 Sat
Joyce does figure out that Dawn is not "hers" but her reaction is swift....
JOYCE: Buffy, uh, (clears throat) I'm gonna ask you something, a-and if I'm, if I'm being crazy you just tell me, okay?
BUFFY: (nods) You got it.
JOYCE: The other day ... well, actually, I'm, I'm not sure when, the days seem to all bleed together...
BUFFY: It's not important.
JOYCE: No, I guess it isn't. I do know I was ... pretty out of it, and I had ... not-not a dream ... exactly, more like I had this ... knowledge, i-it just came to me like ....truth, you know? (Buffy frowns) Even though it didn't seem...possible, even though I shouldn't even think such things.
BUFFY: What?
JOYCE: That Dawn...
Buffy looks very startled.
JOYCE: She's not ... mine, is she?
Buffy stares at her mom, then looks down. She comes to a decision and looks Joyce in the eye.
BUFFY: No.
Joyce absorbs this for a moment.
JOYCE: She's ... she does belong to us, though.
BUFFY: Yes, she does.
JOYCE: And she's important. To the world. Precious. (Buffy nods) As precious as you are to me.
Buffy smiles and nods again. Joyce nods back.
JOYCE: Then we have to take care of her. Buffy, promise me. If anything happens, if I don't come through this-
BUFFY: Mom-
JOYCE: No, listen to me. No matter what she is, she still feels like my daughter. I have to know that you'll take care of her, that you'll keep her safe. That you'll love her like I love you.
Joyce didn't reject Dawn, she went with her feelings that told her that no matter what the reality, that Dawn felt like her daughter, she loved Dawn just like she loved Buffy.
In Season four of Angel the Episode "Home" shows a Connor who has given up, wants to die because the world is too painful for him. Not debating the right or wrong of what Angel did, he did make sure that Connor got his dearest wish for a family and normal life.
CONNOR
You know, maybe I'll go to school overseas, like Russia. Is there anything further away than Russia?
MOM
Don't you even joke about it.
DAD
I feel a toast coming on.
CONNOR
Gee, big surprise.
MOM
There he goes.
DAD
To the top tenth percentile- (holds up his glass)
CONNOR
(stands) OK, whoa, whoa. Enough. That's all I had to hear. Since it's my special day and I'm all brilliant and everything and I'm forced to spend at least a few more months with you freaks...
AUNT
(gasps, feigning shock) How mean.
CONNOR
Uh, heh heh, I get to make the toast, OK? (puts his hand on Dad's shoulder, looks at Dad) To family. (clinks glass with dad)
Angel watches from outside, smiles, then walks away.
SISTER
I think I should get wine for the toast.
CONNOR
No, really? Well, I wasn't talking about this family. I made that clear, right? (laughter from the family)
SISTER
I'm not gonna tell you. (more laughter)
One big difference between Connor and Dawn has to be mentioned. Dawn was made from Buffy if you saw The Gift, and Connor is placed in a different reality. The one thing that is similar is that the families that Connor and Dawn were placed into loved them, unless something happens on Angel to show that the loving family is not so loving then I have to think that Connor will find them hard to leave, real or invented. Once love is established, once you care for someone like they are your family, there is usually a bond that is hard to break, unless you choose to.
Uncle OnM needs you! (Note: No actual military service required. Free brochure!) -- Yer Humble Movie Man, 19:17:26 04/08/04 Thu
This is OT for the Buffyverse (to the extent that nothing is truly OT for the Buffyverse, ya mon?) but I suspect that as always, some cogent opins are available for the asking, and I am, so here goes:
As you quite probably already know, this Tuesday last saw the release of the final portion of The Matrix trilogy on DVD, Matrix Revolutions
Now I haven't done any CMotW's for awhile now, but I've gathered up a strong hankerin' to do one on this flick, because there are many folks, both pro critics and plebian flickophiles who DID NOT like this movie, for various reasons.
The problem here is that I find myself so severely at odds with them-- I think the film is eminently brilliant, with only minor flaws at best, and that the ending is one of the most inventive and intellectually challenging since the end of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.
So what's the deal? I would like to hear from those of you who liked the film, and even more so from those who did not, but I would appreciate specifics as to why the like or dislike.
I am hoping to a do a CMotW on Matrix Revolutions and have it up by this Sunday night if at all possible. In the meantime, along with any general commentary you want to contribute, I'd especially like some answers to the following questions:
1. Do you think you understand the ending? If so, what was it about?
2. If you've seen the film more than once, did you like it better the second time around?
3. Did you notice any parallels to things that Joss has done in writing/directing the Buffyverse?
4. Finally, a specific case study extending from #3: Is Neo Buffy, or Buffy Neo, or neither?
*******
Post 'em if you've got 'em!
*******
Replies:
[>
Regarding the ending of Revolutions -- KdS, 04:33:29 04/09/04 Fri
Only seen the film once, and have no desire to see it again. As I see it, the ending showed Neo doing a deal with the Machines to help them destroy Smith, who was threatening all parties, at the cost of his own life, thereby creating the possibility of mutually respectful communication and a negotiated peace between the Machines and the Zionites, with the possibility implied that humans still within the Matrix would be given a genuine choice of how they wanted to live without being co-opted by either side (or thoughtlessly killed in passing by uncaring Zionites and Agents). Which I didn't consider a morally or philosophically bad ending, just simplistic in terms of turning what I thought could be a very interesting philosophical fantasy into a very simple war story, with a bunch of transparent and simplistic Christian symbolism thrown in a give an illusion of gravitas. (Not bashing Christianity here - just saying that the symbolism was extremely hackneyed and unoriginal and didn't hugely deepen the story.)
I should also note that I interpret the death of Smith as having a fairly mechanical and technical justification - that Neo had inadvertantly separated Smith from the system while trying to destroy him at the end of the first film, reducing him to an amoral virus creature solely intent on self-replication, and that when Smith assimilated Neo, the fact that Neo was directly connected to the system brought Smith into contact with the system again, allowing the system to purge him. If you have a more mystical explanation of Smith's death, you may have a different view of the ending.
I don't see this as hugely paralleling Buffy, although it could be seen as paralleling the unfulfilled hopes some fans, especially Spuffy fans, had during S5-6, of Buffy and Spike creating a new peaceful relationship between human and demon.
[> [>
Thanks! (-Preserving-) -- OnM, 06:02:10 04/09/04 Fri
[> [> [>
And BTW folks, if you haven't already, please scroll down and read KdS's thread... -- OnM, 06:07:21 04/09/04 Fri
.... "His Hope Was a Rope". Kaboomage awaits!
[> [>
Humble, probably stupid guess of mine -- DorianQ, 16:54:28 04/14/04 Wed
I thought the reason that Smith died was bacause he had killed or assimilated (corrupted?) his opposite in Neo. It's the principle that everything has an opposite and needs an opposite; there can be no darkness without light, we would never know what is right without knowing what is wrong, there's no evil if there is no good, there's no man without machines and no machines without men. Similarly, Smith (the Many) needed Neo (the One) to exist. Sort of what happens in the movie The One with Jet Li, there they guess what happens when the opposite is removed and it's one of three things: 1. that person or thing becomes a god. 2. death or destruction of that person's existence. 3. the end of the world. And that is what happens in Revolutions; the system resets, removing Smith. That's just what I think happened. I could ramble on more but I have one last form to fill out tonight.
[>
Matrix Revolutions mini-review -- cjl, 10:23:58 04/09/04 Fri
From my LJ review (11/03):
We'll start off with nitpicks:
-- If an EMP was the weapon of last resort against the attack of killer calimari, why wasn't there an EMP generator set up INSIDE Zion? Why were they all attached to those cool subterranean hovercraft coveniently trapped outside the city for the climactic battle?
-- Why did the squids almost always attack the exo-skeletonized Zion-ites from the front? Wouldn't an attack from all directions have eliminated the human warrior in no time flat?
-- Speaking of dubious battle strategies, how could thousands upon thousands of mechanical squids, all guided by the nigh-omnipotent machine intelligence, allow stray, unprotected humans to wander around the battlefield unmolested?
-- Same nitpick, more obvious example: how could those same mechanical squids, all guided by the aforementioned nigh-omnipotent machine intelligence, allow the kid to open Gate #3? They should have wiped him out before he took a step.
-- How exactly did the Machines eliminate Smith after he absorbed Neo? I thought they were unable to purge Smith from their collective memory banks. (BTW, Hugo Weaving rocked in this movie. He was so much a force that even Ian Bliss' imitation of him as the possessed Bane was more fun than Keanu's Neo. Missssster Annnnnndersssssson....)
-- Why did the Wachowskis shunt the amazing Laurence Fishburne to the background and devote huge chunks of movie time to a pair of awful WWII cliches (the Kid and his gruff commander)?
OK, there's no good answer to the last one.
There was some interesting visual material in Revolutions: the "Mobil Ave." train station/limbo realm and Neo's vain attempt to escape (heh); the design of the Merovingian's Club Hell; Monica Belluci's breasts (always a pleasure, Monica); Neo's "Messiah Vision"; Neo and Trinity's flight to the Machine City (loved when they broke through to the sun), and the Machine City itself; the Neo/Smith battle, and the final scenes with the Oracle, the Source, Seraph, and Sati.
But, as usual with religious allegory, the symbolism trumped the characters. (Otherwise known as Geroge Lucas syndrome.) The Wachowskis were so busy maneuvering their chess pieces into the larger scheme of things that we never got a good idea who Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus were as people--and that prevented us from truly caring about their fates. Trinity's death scene should have had the audience weeping, but it was an embarrassment. Keanu tried his best to express wrenching grief, but we just didn't care; the longer it went on, the more I looked at my watch and said: "Uh, Carrie Anne, sweetie? Could you move it along?"
In a word: meh. I expected not only Revolutions, but Revelations, but this movie was thin on both.
P.S. from 2004: The last stand of Zion was cheap WWII melodrama. Definitely brought the whole enterprise down a notch in my eyes.
Grade: B-
[>
My review of "Revolutions" (minimal spoilage) -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:03:18 04/09/04 Fri
When I try to think of how to describe "The Matrix: Revolutions", the epic finale to the renowned "Matrix" Trilogy, one word comes to mind before all others: disappointing.
"The Matrix" first appeared back in 1999 and was a revolutionary sci-fi/action story with a lot of philosophical thought behind it. I could see why it became a hit: it had a compelling story, some interesting thoughts about the nature of reality, and, of course, some of the best action sequences ever filmed. Then came "The Matrix: Reloaded", the inevitable sequel. Many have slandered it, calling it a shallow imitation of its predecessor, but I rather enjoyed it (in fact, more so than the original "Matrix", but that's probably because I saw Reloaded while it was still in theatres). The special effects were, quite possibly, even better than the first's, the story was strong, the characters were compelling, there were flashes of humor, and its view of fate and destiny really spoke to me.
As you can probably guess, I'm praising the first two "Matrix" movies here in order to convey how profoundly disappointing and horrendous the third and final one was. "The Matrix: Revolutions" not only wasn't as good as its predecessors, but wasn't even a good movie in its own right. It just leaves such a bitter taste in your mouth to see this epic story you've grown to love be ruined by one colossal, black hole of a movie.
Right from the beginning, I knew "Revolutions" wouldn't be up to snuff. Neo's (Keanu Reeves) return to consciousness is done as quickly as possible while still introducing several uninteresting and, ultimately, unimportant plot points. Persephone (Monica Bellucci) and the Merovingian (Lambert Wilson), two of the best characters from Reloaded, make token appearances here, each of them getting about three lines and nothing interesting to do besides hand Neo over to the good guys. And, much to my distaste, the possibility that all of Neo's actions are fated is chucked away quick as can be, destroying the whole message of "Reloaded". The beginning of "Revolutions" is a shoddy to attempt to set things up for the main story as fast as possible.
Sadly, this main story the Wachowski brothers desperately want to get us to is little better than the beginning. The movie was doomed as soon as I realized that, after the first ten to fifteen minutes, we don't get to see the Matrix again until the LAST ten to fifteen minutes. The appeal of this series is based around the Matrix, a digitized reality where literally anything can happen. By setting the movie almost entirely in the real world, the whole point of the series is lost. What's worse, the void left by the Matrix's absence is filled with a (very) long, drawn out battle scene between the humans and machines. Granted, the action in this battle is quite good, but not enough to spend half the movie on it. And don't even get me started on the screen time this battle stole from the characters. Link (Harold Perrineau Jr.), the lovably funny operator from "Reloaded", gets about two lines here. Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith) do little besides run their ship through a very tight tunnel for about forty minutes. Neo and Trinity (Carrie Anne Moss) are totally forsaken while the battle's going on elsewhere. And, perhaps worst of all, the delectable villain that is Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) is almost completely wasted, seeming as though he's at the beginning and end of the movie as a mere afterthought.
OK, I'll play fair and say what I did like. While there was way too much of it, the battle scene was pretty impressive for awhile. Despite poor characterization run rampant, one character's death scene did bring a tear to my eye. And the final battle between Neo and Smith is pretty awe inspiring (even though the ending was horrendous). OK, done being generous. I did not like "Revolutions". It is a disappointing, very much not a good movie. Shame on you, Wachowski brothers. No cookie for you.
[> [>
And more spoilery thoughts on the ending (spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:13:09 04/09/04 Fri
I did not like Neo's sacrafice. Quite frankly, Smith turning him into another clone came off as a profound violation of Neo to me. I can appreciate a heroic death, but this came off as more of a heroic raping to me. How pissed off would you have been if Buffy saved the world by letting the Shadowmen's black magic cloud do its work on her? Well, I felt similarly when Neo was turned into yet another Smith copy (though not as strongly since I do care for Buffy far more than Neo).
[> [> [>
Regarding the Ending (I May Loathe the Movie and Feel More Betrayed Than You Do, Finn) -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:31:11 04/09/04 Fri
I didn't even see what happened to Neo as a sacrifice, but more as an out-of-character and inexplicable resignation. Smith won that battle because Neo just gave up, and somehow (since its never elaborated upon)the machines are able to purge Smith themselves.
So let me get this straight:
A series of films that began about and was even about in its second installment forsaking the illusional in favor of reality, about escaping systems and transcending limitations, this series' final scene is OF PROGRAMS IN THE VERY FALSE REALITY WE'VE BEEN MADE TO REBEL AGAINST IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Horribly contradictory, if not laughably ridiculous. That last scene, with the syruppy and heavy-handed image of a figmentary sun setting in the Matrix, made me SEETHE even more than Neo's 'sacrifice' did.
[> [> [> [>
Wow. Hey folks, don't hold back on my account now, I can take it! .... ;-) -- OnM, 20:42:19 04/09/04 Fri
*** Smith won that battle because Neo just gave up, and somehow (since its never elaborated upon) the machines are able to purge Smith themselves. ***
This does seem to be what many-- perhaps most-- viewers took away from the film's conclusion, except...
.... that wasn't what happened.
One of the reasons I asked about having seen the film more than once is that there are clues all over the place (and even in the opening credits!) that this isn't what took place. The visual elements of the film are indeed kind of overwhelming on the first go, and the clues you need to look for are delivered in quieter, more subtle moments.
But you'll have to wait a few more days until I post the whole garbonza thoughts-on thang for me to present my take, 'cos I want to give some more posters a fair go to chip in.
Thanks for your contributions so far, though, and I do mean that most sincerely. Many of the things you commented on do have merit, and I'll have more thoughts on them later, too.
:-)
"Karma. That's just a word."
[>
My initial response from my LiveJournal (warning, very negative) -- KdS, 11:18:46 04/09/04 Fri
Well, after the trailers and early reviews I was expecting it to be bad, but I had no idea how lousy a piece of cinematic masturbation I was going to have to sit through. The basic concept of the ending is reasonably decent, but more on that later. Before we actually get to it, we have to sit through what seems like hours of horribly cliched, effects-overload war movie stuff, full of characters we've hardly met and care absolutely nothing about. The complaint after Reloaded was that the action and the philosophical stuff was split into alternate chunks instead of being integrated. Here, there is just tons and tons of action and terrible, truly awful macho battle dialogue with nothing to interest the mind whatsoever. The film that came most often to mind was Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, and that was meant to be a parody of dumb futuristic action movies. There is not a single original idea in this movie, even on the basic level of coming up with ideas for action scenes that have not been done before. Even worse, after an all too brief appearance from the wonderfully louche Merovingian, there is not a single joke. No character has any sense of humour whatsoever. This is fatal. There were a few occasions, however, when the hoary cliches and lousy dialogue and acting made me laugh out loud, and I'm astonished I was the only person laughing.
The ending, with Neo sacrificing his life to defeat the monstrous Smith and agreeing a peace deal with the machines, is actually quite affecting and more palatable than a robotic genocide would have been. Unfortunately, it makes the whole of the latter two films pointless and suggests that the two of them could have been compressed into a single installment with far fewer longeurs. It also confirms my suspicion, expressed on ATPO in the past, that the films show a certain contempt for the unenlightened majority. The adepts of Zion live in peace, while the rest of humanity remains enslaved by the Matrix. On the other hand, one could see it in terms of the majority of humanity living in a thoroughly habitable and intriguingly malleable environment, in a symbiotic relationship with machines and wonderfully quirky AIs, while the brave and self-righteous rebels rot in a muddy cave, secure in their meaningless biological purity. I don't think the Wachowskis intended that cynical view, however.
I have to say that after seeing the later two Matrix films and the earlier Bound my opinion of the Wachowskis is incredibly low. Bound was an amusing but cliched noir movie with some purely hetboy-titillating lesbianism tossed in to give a hip veneer. (If you disagree, calculate the tiny number of lines which would have had to be changed to make Gina Gershon's character a man.) The Matrix films, especially the latter two, are big dumb action movies with some half-digested Gnosticism and post-modern philosophy tossed in to give a hip veneer. The lack of genuine intellect could still be tolerated if the boys had been capable of creating likable characters who one cared about, but not a single character in Revolutions raised the faintest emotion in me. The biggest failures are in Neo and Trinity's relationship, which is seemingly meant to be the emotional core of the trilogy but never convinces, and, as I alluded to in the previous paragraph, the lack of sense of anything inspiring or worthwhile in the culture of Zion. Carrie-Anne Moss gave a decent performance in Memento, so I don't blame her. Reeves's woodenness may be to blame, but I think that the main problem is that the Wachowskis are perpetually adolescent film geeks who care about nothing but big bangs and are unable to create deep human feelings. They would probably do very well as specialist effects and action sequence designers, but I hope to God that no-one ever gives them a film of their own again.
There are a couple of good things in the film. The genuinely colour- and gender-blind casting of the heroes continues to impress, and the irony of the freed Smith behaving in exactly the virus-with-legs way that he self-righteously denounced humans for while still connected to the system is pointed.
What makes the Matrix trilogy actually pernicious, though, is its pretentions to science-fiction. I have never seen such an utter and total failure to follow through on a single interesting idea thrown up from a good central concept. The terrible decision between a benign illusion and an awful reality, Neo's godlike powers inside the Matrix which never manifest beyond flying and hitting people even harder, Smith's state as an unthinking and loyal functionary suddenly and painfully endowed with free will and existential absurdity, the tempting hints in the conclusion of the second film that the "real" world was just an outer matrix... All of these are simply dropped, and the film ends as just a leaden slugfest between two armies and Good and Evil supermen punching each other in a muddy puddle. The pity is that many people will probably see the films on the basis of the hype created by the first installment's mystical pretentions and simply be confirmed in their view that SF is a genre for overgrown adolescent boys full of cardboard characters, incomprehensible plots and big rucks.
The claim that fans are more intelligent and creative than the actual originators of a story is often made, and usually just a cover for petty anger that a certain plot point or ship didn't turn out the way that person wanted. In this case, however, I would bet large sums that most of the people who have been boosting the Matrix trilogy on the basis of the philosophical promise of the first film have ten times the imagination and humanity of the Wachowskis. I had my doubts from the start, and if I was one of these people I would be very, very angry right now for being made to look silly.
[> [>
In total agreement. The Matrix Trilogy is a case study in Squandered Opportunity -- KdS, 11:31:33 04/09/04 Fri
I think this is why so many people loved Return of the King so unconditionally, even though the movie had its problems. We were just grateful that Peter Jackson didn't F-up the way the Wachowskis did....
[> [>
"if I was one of these people I would be very, very angry right now for being made to look silly." -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:43:32 04/09/04 Fri
Yeah, that's me, KdS. I'm an aspiring screenwriter and novelist who saw in the first Matrix and portions of the second a great deal of consistent visual symbolism and philosophical metaphor. I thought the Wachowski brothers could be added to the list of creators operating out of Hollywood bringing allegedly distinct notions of 'high' and 'low, popcultural' art together to make good ideas accessible to the populace. That's a list that includes the likes of Joss Whedon and David Greenwalt, by the way.
Yes, I defended the movies in arguments, event wrote an essay dissertation analyzing visual metaphors in each film and how certain sub-cultures were represented, tirelessly ruminated on the film's sympathy for political-terrorists. Then I saw Revolutions and it was like coming home to find the love of your life in bed with another person.Its as if the entire purpose of the film trilogy in the first place had been to trick me into caring and then quickly make me look like a fool to everyone I'd spoken to about its possible profoundness.
"and if I was one of these people I would be very, very angry right now for being made to look silly." Yeah.
[> [> [>
Yes, the absolute fury that I felt after seeing Revolutions still puzzles me -- KdS, 14:01:07 04/09/04 Fri
I think it's that it seemed to me, all the way through the film, that the Wachowskis were personally saying to me
"You are a cretin. We had some good ideas, but we couldn't be arsed to write them because you're a moron who just wants to see big fight scenes and, hey, we've got your money now and you can't do a thing about it. Now shut up and watch the pretty explosions, DUMBASS"
[>
More ambivalent view...neither negative nor postive(Spoilers for Matrix Revolutions and BTVS S7) -- s'kat, 12:48:24 04/09/04 Fri
First off, I honestly think whether or not you enjoyed Matrix Revolutions or for that matter BTVS S7 or S6, may have a great deal to do with your expectations and what you respond to in a narrative. In short this is a pretty subjective exercise when we get down to it. But fun, all the same.
Reading the reviews below and yours above reminds me a bit of an argument I was reading on another list regarding Chosen. One group was defending the structure, stating how beautifully the thematic message came across - actually posting as you do above, the other group was upset with the execution and how the characters, individual moments, action, and relationships were conveyed. Both made generalizations about each other. Which I, ahem, am doing now, probably.
Truth is? I think whatever response you get is going to tell you more about the "person" disliking or liking the movie than the movie. Possibly more than the reviewer realizes or wants to convey about him or herself. If that's what you want? Cool. Enuf preamble. Sorry, I'm finding the contradictory reactions of people to the same story somewhat fascinating. Even those who basically agree. Makes me wonder if we can control how others view what we write? If authorial intent just somehow gets lost in viewer response? (I actually think it does, every time I share my fiction with people or anything I write - they end up seeing stuff in it I never intended. It's enough to drive a writer batty, yet we all do it. I believe it is impossible not to.)
That said, here we go:
1. Do you think you understand the ending? If so, what was it about?
Saw the film once, in the fall. The ending seemed fairly simplistic to me. It was about rising above the conflict, merging - machines and humans have to work together, one cannot exist without the other. So you reach beyond the idea of opposites. In that sense, yes it was similar to some viewers' take on Chosen, most notably manwitch and Age - who mention how Buffy had to reach past the idea of opposites or labels, go beyond good and evil and thereby ascend from the hellmouth to adulthood. (Probably said it wrong - I get it. I just can't explain it worth shit this week. )
Was the theme clear? Almost embarrassingly so, in my opinion. I felt as if the Wachwoskis sacrificed plot, character development for theme and message. The characters seemed in the final episode to be reduced to pawns to push forward the theme. This reminds me of BTVS S7 actually, where the writers do somewhat the same thing. The theme or message becomes more important than the characters. To the extent that some characters get completely lost in the shuffle. In Matrix Revolutions - we lose Morpheus a bit, he becomes little more than a talking head. The love triangle they'd been developing between him/Niobe/and the Commander seems to disappear in thin air. To the extent that the Commander becomes little more than a footnote. Leaving the audience wondering if it was there to begin with. We don't understand his background with Niobe so are given little reason to care about them or their continued existence. There's another trio they also do this with - a woman, her husband and the sister played by Gina Torres, I can't even remember their names. Same with Trinity - who becomes little more than Neo's love interest. At least in the first movie, we had a sense of the characters, cared. Here they seem to be reduced to plot points or allegories. Yes, Trinity is interesting when she breaks him out, but we don't know who she is...she seems to have no purpose or motive outside of Neo. She's lovely but one-dimensional....so as a result it's hard to care when she dies. It feels poetic but not real. The most developed character oddly enough is Mr. Anderson - Neo's shadowself or counter. Very lovely job of metaphor. But Neo is such a cipher and by the time Matrix Revolutions rolls around, he still seems undeveloped. I know very little about Neo. And Keanu Reeves as pretty as he is, doesn't give me much insight into beyond what we are told. He seems almost fake somehow. One-dimensional. Mr. Anderson seems more real in some respects, at least emotionally than Neo does. (I've seen all three movies and the Animatrix (which I actually enjoyed more than Revolutions) by the way. So may know more than some viewers who may have missed the middle two. ) In the end the character I had the greatest emotional response to, albeit a sort of hatred, was Mr. Anderson. Because I felt him as a character. The others felt allegorical.
2. If you've seen the film more than once, did you like it better the second time around?
Only seen it once so far. Not in a hurry to see a second time, although I might do it some day.
3. Did you notice any parallels to things that Joss has done in writing/directing the Buffyverse?
Yes, I think as mentioned above, Waschowiskis and Whedon were going for similar philosophical views: not being defined by others, moving past distinctions of good and evil, not making it all about the self - rising above. The act beyond good and evil beyond male and female beyond matter and antimatter - the movement past forms.
Both Whedon and Waschowiskis make some of the same mistakes in telling this story - which is execution and covered very well by Finn, cjl and Kds regarding Matrix. Regarding S7 BTVS? Check the archives, we've criticized it too death by now, I think. Also not everyone seems to have picked up on this theme. Which means - that the text may have been a little too didatic about some things and too incoherent on others. Also it doesn't help when you lose interest in the characters. I'm wondering if some of the problems in execution might not have been due to the ambitious nature of trying to convey this theme? Maybe not. Just curious that both had some of the same problems in executing it.
Another explanation may be why a writing instructor once warned me off of writing science-fiction and fantasy. He told me that the problem with writing a sci-fi or fantasy story was you can get so caught up in your mythos, world, or theme that you lose the characters and story. And the main goal for every writer - is the story and characters. The theme must come from them. It's all very well and good to have a complex world, an innovative great moral or idea - but without the engine which is story and character, you might as well be writing an essay on the topic. Also, hate to say it, but there aren't any new ideas - just new ways of telling them - the innovation comes from creating interesting characters and story and setting.
The trouble with the science fiction genre is there are so many distractions, which keep the writer from focusing on developing what is important and vital - character and story to get to theme. That's why sci-fi and fantasy is so hard to write and why it gets a bad rap. Pulling off a good sci-fi/fantasy epic is akin to pulling off a magic hat trick.
4. Finally, a specific case study extending from #3: Is Neo Buffy, or Buffy Neo, or neither?
Heh. I think you could certainly make one if you really wanted to. You can argue anything if you want to badly enough.
But no, the two characters are on two different journeys - Buffy is growing up. Neo is becoming enlightened, moving beyond matter and anti-matter. Buffy is merely learning how to move past adolescence and high school. Although you could argue that both characters set themselves and others free by their choices, which is a definite parallel, I suppose.
Also Neo is more of an allegorical character. Buffy is probably the most complex five dimensional female heroine to have graced our television sets. Neo is sort of two-dimensional actually - we never get much development. He becomes essentially a means to an end. Buffy - well the story does come from her. She remains it's focal point. Her actions are her own not fated to be hers.
On a strictly thematic level - yes, there are bound to be comparisons. The writers in BTVS certainly make them. But I think BTVS actually had more to say than Matrix did. BTVS was about moving past a stage in development, about accepting change, about growth, about making your own identity in the universe, and about defying fate and societal constructs .. The Matrix is far more simplistic in some ways - it's about rising above the idea of self-profit, forms, power and being one with the universe - yet still stays within the idea of fate and destiny, with the nice little twist that you are fated to make your own destiny. Ie. Neo can make choices, but each choice is fated to happen and leads to a destiny. Instead of stepping outside the box, we are creating new boxes.
There is the nice parallel between Neo sacrificing himself in the Christ like pose to save the world and Spike sacrificing himself in the Christ like post to save the world. Except I don't think Whedon meant Spike's act to necessarily elevate him beyond forms and substance or bring demons and humans together. Spike's was a cleansing act. Neo's is more of a Christ-like - ascension. In Matrix, Neo's decision to sacrifice himself and Mr. Anderson - canceling out both matter and anti-matter per se - is the only act that works.
The other choices just continue the loop he keeps moving around and around and around or cancel out everything. Buffy's decision to share her power does in a sense stop the one-slayer must die rule, but I don't see that rule as an eternal loop. Yes by doing so, she cancels out The First, but she doesn't need to die. It's different. She's sharing her power.
Neo is basically using his to cancel himself out, which results in rising above the idea of forms. Not quite the same thing.
Did I like Matrix Revolutions? It was okay. I wasn't in love with it. I preferred the previous movies in some respects. But I didn't hate it either. More ambivalent actually. Just like I was about S7 BTVS, ambivalent. It didn't move me. Of course part of the problem was I had high expectations. Never good.
[> [>
Who exactly is this "Mr. Anderson"? -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:53:57 04/09/04 Fri
At times, it feels as though you're talking about (formerly Agent) Smith. At other times, it seems to be some sort of distinction between Neo inside and outside of the Matrix. Kind of confused here.
[> [> [>
Sorry used the wrong name, meant Agent Smith ;-) -- s'kat, 09:18:35 04/10/04 Sat
See, that says something - I transferred the taunt Agent
Smith gives Neo, Mr. Anderson - to Agent Smith, who seemed
to exhibit more signs of humanity than Neo/Mr. Anderson
did.
Again, sorry for the confusion.
[> [>
Icebergs Ahoy: The Difficulties of Writing F&SF -- dmw, 14:55:37 04/10/04 Sat
Another explanation may be why a writing instructor once warned me off of writing science-fiction and fantasy. He told me that the problem with writing a sci-fi or fantasy story was you can get so caught up in your mythos, world, or theme that you lose the characters and story. And the main goal for every writer - is the story and characters. The theme must come from them. It's all very well and good to have a complex world, an innovative great moral or idea - but without the engine which is story and character, you might as well be writing an essay on the topic. Also, hate to say it, but there aren't any new ideas - just new ways of telling them - the innovation comes from creating interesting characters and story and setting.
The trouble with the science fiction genre is there are so many distractions, which keep the writer from focusing on developing what is important and vital - character and story to get to theme. That's why sci-fi and fantasy is so hard to write and why it gets a bad rap. Pulling off a good sci-fi/fantasy epic is akin to pulling off a magic hat trick.
I agree with you on the difficulty of writing F&SF and that it's because of the difficulty of balancing setting, plot, and character, but I don't think the general problem is that people spend too much effort on their setting, though that might be the case in The Matrix trilogy. In BtVS's case, one of the major problems was too little attention and consistent focus on setting, including both fantastic and nonfantastic aspects of it.
In fact, almost all TV and movie F&SF falls down badly in the setting or world development, settling for a thin veneer of high tech or fantastic appearance like Star Trek. On the other side, we have the LotR, where you only see the tip of the iceberg of historical, linguistic, and mythical research and writing. The prevalance of series in F&SF can also be largely explained by the iceberg theory. It takes a great deal of work and imagination to create a world like that, and few authors have the time or ability to successfully build a deep setting more than once. The other half of the explanation for the prevalance of series is the readers/viewers' attachment to the setting.
[> [> [>
Very True..it's a complex juggling act -- s'kat, 18:53:03 04/10/04 Sat
I agree with you on the difficulty of writing F&SF and that it's because of the difficulty of balancing setting, plot, and character, but I don't think the general problem is that people spend too much effort on their setting, though that might be the case in The Matrix trilogy. In BtVS's case, one of the major problems was too little attention and consistent focus on setting, including both fantastic and nonfantastic aspects of it.
Yes, thank you. You hit on something that had been nagging at me after I wrote the above. Also, while discussing this with a friend in a pub (more pub than bar) this afternoon, she pointed out that part of the problem with tv or movie sci-fi for her is it is rendered too simplistically. There's the stalwart hero, the damsel, the mission, and the monster they must defeat. She enjoyed movies like Blade-Runner, Alien, but found the Star Wars series to be fairly simplistic in comparison. She liked the first Matrix film, but could not be bothered with the last two. Now her difficulties are slightly different than what you state above - but I think in some ways corollary to them.
The problem with writing science fiction or fantasy is when you create a world or universe - particularly one that is more than just a shadowbox or beautifully decorated stage setting, you have to be careful to follow the rules and orders of that world you have created. If for instance you have created a rule that no one in your world can be "good" without a soul - you have to be very careful how you play with that rule you have created. I'm not saying you can't re-address it at a later point, just that you have to make sure how you do so is consistent and doesn't make the rule null and void. At the same time, you need to be careful not to become so focused on the minute detail of the world, rules, and setting that the characters are merely decorations.
BTVS and ATS and I have to say most Science Fiction/Fantasy TV shows have the problem of sticking with or being consistent to the rules and orders of their world. They attempt to get around this issue by creating as you state a thin veneer of this world. They get so caught up in the characters and story that the setting can at times become nothing more than a back-drop. Comic books are also guilty of doing this. When Joss Whedon states in his S4 Wild at Heart Commentary - "I decided to throw out the metaphor in S6", I sighed. Okay, I know you've kept this world as thin as possible in some respects, but that's a problem Joss, because hate to tell you this but the world you created isn't just a metaphor for growing up - it's also a setting for the characters and story. You can't suddenly decide to stop obeying the rules of that world or create a new world, because you are bored or you want to change the metaphors or drop them. You have to stick with the setting you have. IF you start playing with that setting too much - you risk unraveling it and killing suspension of disbelief. TV shows do this all the time. Part of the problem may be the nature of the medium.
[>
Neo to join the band Wild Stallions (spoilers) -- fresne, 15:53:39 04/09/04 Fri
1. Do you think you understand the ending? If so, what was it about?
My housemate saw it before I did and all she would say was, it's all about being "the cup" and not "the sword." A comment, which since I've read the The Curse of Chalion made a great deal of sense when I saw the movie. At the time I was in a phase of reading a fair amount of theological fantasy. So, the movie really fit my mood. Now, I did prefer the second movie, which had me wandering around in an "all is dharma" daze, but I was able to get good philosophical discussion out of it, so I was happy.
I was particularly intrigued by the representation of the three cities. The battle for Zion - Jerusalem, the sepulcher, the temple at the heart of the world. The machine city on the world's irritated skin. The Matrix in the green streaming lines between. The lie. The blue. The world of spirit and imagination that a child can bend. There is no spoon and it is beautiful.
The continuing emphasis on light. When Neo and Trinity pierce the clouds to see once more the sky. Parish glowing and fair, falling back to the reality of their choices. A moment answered by an imaginary sunset that can only live in a realm of choice. The city of the machine (i.e., hard metal) as the real of light and electricity. The seraph, a being of light. The dark Matrix in the rain.
The emphasis on the feminine: Trinity, the Niobe's captain, the Oracle, that little girl. Smith, who replicates himself, but does not create. Trinity as heart made outward through expression.
Neo - choosing - understanding his choices and therefore able to see beyond them in a way the Smiths of the dark side of the moon never can.
It was all about choice and tests and being willing to be a cup that carries the light that streams the world and not a sword to cleave the same.
2. If you've seen the film more than once, did you like it better the second time around?
Seen it once. Eventually, I'll see it used and buy it (hey, I've got travel habits to support).
3. Did you notice any parallels to things that Joss has done in writing/directing the Buffyverse?
I don't know. Buffy is more of a Paladin of Souls than a Cup from the Curse of Chalion.
4. Finally, a specific case study extending from #3: Is Neo Buffy, or Buffy Neo, or neither?
Actually, it goes more like I was having a discussion with someone about the Justice League episodes this season, and given the general cultural representation of Superman as a Christ figure, we had this syllogism. Superman as Christ. Neo as Superman. The One as Christ. Christ as the prince of peace. Ted, as a member of the musical group the Wild Stallions, whose music brings perfect peace. Where in the World is Bill? i.e. Never watch the Matrix and Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure on the same day.
[> [>
Quote of the week! -- Masq, 16:05:23 04/09/04 Fri
Coffee. Computer screen. Mess.
Never watch the Matrix and Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure on the same day.
[> [>
Ahh! Yes. -- OnM, 20:28:54 04/09/04 Fri
*** My housemate saw it before I did and all she would say was, it's all about being "the cup" and not
"the sword." ***
Your housemate is very perceptive, and even though I've never read The Curse of Chalion, the words themselves are sufficient to touch the purpose.
Also,
*** The emphasis on the feminine: Trinity, the Niobe's captain, the Oracle, that little girl. Smith, who replicates himself, but does not create. Trinity as heart made outward through expression. ***
Be advised that you may expect to be quoted.
:-)
[>
From Angel s2 "No Place like Plrtz Glrb" -- Rufus, 18:01:28 04/11/04 Sun
The end of Revolutions made me think of something Gunn said in season 2 Angel "No Place like Plrtz Glrb"...
Cordy: "You're in charge now. You got a long road ahead. (Leads him up the steps to the throne) Slavery has ended but - reconstruction has just begun."
Groo: "What is this - recon-struction?"
Cordy: "Gunn, you wanna field this?"
Gunn: " It means - sayin' people are free don't make 'em free. - You got - races that hate each other, you got some folks gettin' work they don't want, - others losin' the little they had. - You're lookin' at social confusion, economic depression and probably - some riots. - Good luck."
I've only watched the movie once, but I did like it. And the answer to question four...
The Slayer is Neo.
[> [>
I liked this piece on Revolutions........link inside -- Rufus, 18:06:10 04/11/04 Sun
www.corporatemofo.com/stories/031109matrix.htm
[> [> [>
You know, I enjoyed Corporate Mofo's Review of the first two, but... -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:22:04 04/11/04 Sun
On the third I didn't buy it. Not that the references couldn't possibly be read as having been there. My main problem with Revolutions is not just the way ideas are presented, in contrast to their presence and emphasis in the first two, but also a deviation from, if not contradiction to, themes prevalent in Matrix and Reloaded.
1)Subcultural signifiers are lost. Case in point? Previously it was always the federal government (Agents) and corporate workers (Metacortex or the crowds of witless civilians in both the first and second movie) that are aesthetically identified with the conformity and villain of the matrix itself, and programs. Our heroes are leather clad and black garbed for a reason: their fighting the literal system is identified with actually existing counter-cultures.
Yet in Revolutions we get two villainous programs and their lackies in an S&M club where the heroes are attacked by leather clad villains. What?!
2) If the first film seems to establish Neo as a Christ/Buddha/Gnostic savior figure, Reloaded brushes any metaphysics off the table, destroying and almost mocking Morpheus' faith in the myth of the One, and subsequently the audience's. I enjoyed this because I thought two things would happen that didn't a)we'd get interesting character development for Morpheus, as the righteous man deals with disillusionment and b)We'd get an even more triumphant ending because it wouldn't be a prophecy or metaphysical powers that saved Zion, but the great power of simple humanity.
Instead, despite what the architect tells Neo in Reloaded, he's still got extraordinary powers that derive not from anything the machines gave him or his natural human abilities, but some metaphysical prophecy. This does nothing to envigorate me, personally. Might just be me, but I'd be far more uplifted if it wasn't Neo "The One" that won that battle with Smith, but Thomas Anderson, the human.
3)The ending. I won't harp again on the outcome of Smith and Neo's battle, but on a fundamental level the ultimate resolution makes the entire conflict pointless. On the one hand I want to like the idea of the conflict being solved by peaceful co-existence between two groups, but that's ignoring the portion of the conflict that was most important in the first place: reality vs illusion. The One, the rebels, Zion, all were meant to free minds from the illusion of the Matrix, which had been massively villainized over the span of two movies. Now I'm supposed to placidly accept it continuing to exist, and humans willingly being a part of it? I'm not even going to touch the question of why exactly the machines wouldn't just destroy humanity after taking care of Smith anyway...
4) Heavy handed imagery. Neo's lack of sight inducing visions of his walking on water seems a little more pedantic than the series had been before. Smith on fire. Maybe its just me...
5) I could have watched Dragonball Z and Gundam Wing, and subsequently wanted to shoot myself repeatedly with a magnum, for free at home on Cartoon Network.
[> [> [> [>
Whooo, much too late tonight to get into detail on this, besides... -- OnM, 22:40:36 04/11/04 Sun
.... you'll have more than plenty'o'explanatory to wade through tomorrow. Nevertheless, I would like to state that when you suggest that...
*** I'd be far more uplifted if it wasn't Neo "The One" that won that battle with Smith, but Thomas Anderson, the human. ***
.... that this is, in fact, one definite aspect of what really happened.
[>
Uncle OnM needs more time! (Note: Actual CMotW composition well underway. Part 1 posted Mon. AM!!) -- OnM, 22:31:26 04/11/04 Sun
So what else is new, it's started out sizable and is quickly becoming an epic. I'm doing my best to not make it boring, so hang in there!
And if it is boring, hey, new Angel this Wed., right?
Stay tuned!
:-)
[>
Spoilers AtS HitW Shells -- tost, 02:08:53 04/12/04 Mon
1. Do you think you understand the ending? If so, what was it about?
"Unbreakable"
2. If you've seen the film more than once, did you like it better the second time around?
I don't really enjoy my videos with strangers and a sticky floor so no contest. I liked it even more the third.
3. Did you notice any parallels to things that Joss has done in writing/directing the Buffyverse?
Fred/Illeria, maybe, we'll see (I realize this contradicts no. 1, but what can you do.)
4. Finally, a specific case study extending from #3: Is Neo Buffy, or Buffy Neo, or neither?
Coming up empty other then they are both Messianic figures (The One).
I loved the black cat, the earpiece, Niobe's hitting Morpheus with "sounds like Providence", and the pure economy of Neo's conversation with the deus ex machina.
OT: Tru definitely improving ... -- Ames, 22:30:59 04/08/04 Thu
But just try to find out who the writers are! Lots of junk about the many "Executive Producers" on the show's web site, but not a word about writers. Hmmm, could that have something to do with how the series started out so lame?
Anyway, glad to see the writing improving. There's still not much depth, but at least the plots are more interesting. With Wonderfalls gone and Angel probably soon to follow, maybe there won't be much competition for it next year.
Replies:
[>
Agree - last night was pretty respectable! -- OnM, 06:13:40 04/09/04 Fri
And did I miss it, or was the half-point 'recap' actually gone? If so, YAY!!, that's a big step forward all by itself. I've always found that damn recap so insulting, as if a viewer couldn't remember anything that happened all of 20 minutes ago and needed reminding. Sheesh!
[> [>
Not complaining that it's gone... -- Rob, 09:17:59 04/09/04 Fri
....but I always figured that it was meant less as a declaration that the average viewer couldn't comprehend what they had just seen and more as taking it for granted that with its low ratings, most people didn't come in at the beginning. Of course why they would think that Tru's "mysteries" are complicated enough to require a recap is a different story.
Will admit though that last night's ep was pretty decent. My favorite was still Doug Petrie's, though.
Rob
[> [> [>
I have personally appreciated the recap several times in the past -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:06:58 04/09/04 Fri
It allows me to watch "Friends" and still get in on "Tru Calling" (I suspect this is the reason it was added; otherwise it probably would have faced timeslot death). Also, since Tru relives the day each episode, not knowing how the day went originally can remove all understanding of the changes she makes.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I have personally appreciated the recap several times in the past -- luvthistle1, 14:32:40 04/09/04 Fri
I think putting "tru calling " up against Friends was the reason why the rating was so low. Friends has been on the air for some time, and it's still one of the top ten shows on Tv, so to have an new show ( any new show) go up against it was the kiss of death. now with Friends on vocation, the show finally have an chance of reaching it's target auidence.
[> [> [> [> [>
I heard that's why it got renewed -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:47:45 04/09/04 Fri
FOX realized that it had tough timeslot competition, so they decided to give it another season to see how well it can do without "Friends" to contend with.
[>
"Two Pair" written by Doris Egan, directed by Rick Rosenthal -- cjl (Doris Egan "brush with greatness" story enclosed), 08:06:33 04/09/04 Fri
DORIS EGAN is an acclaimed fantasy/horror novelist (City of Diamond, The Ivory Series) who's recently carved a niche for herself in genre TV. She's written teleplays for Early Edition, Smallville, Dark Angel, So Weird, Profiler and now Tru Calling.
cjl knows full well the power of Doris since he worked with her on the graveyard shift at E.F. Hutton in the mid-1980s. I was beta-testing (is that what you call it?) a new computer program that would (supposedly) eliminate investment consultants by automatically allocating the financial resources of Hutton clients. The damn thing took more than two hours to run (when it didn't break down), and I was bored out of my skull most of the time. Once, I crossed over to the next cubicle and saw that one my co-drones was working on a manuscript. Yes, it was Doris. And I believe it was The Gates of Ivory, the first book of her fantasy epic. (End of story.)
RICK ROSENTHAL made a huge impact on the Buffyverse with his brilliant direction of "Normal Again." His vast list of credits include three films in the Halloween series, American Dreamer, Russkies and Nasty Boys; he's directed episodes of Smallville, Crossing Jordan, Witchblade, Law and Order: SVU, the Practice, Early Edition, Darkroom and the Incredible Hulk.
"Two Pair" may have been the best episode yet of Tru Calling (faint praise, I know). Yes, Davis' blatherings about mirrors and symmetry were just a bit much, but the scene with Tru, Davis, and Harrison in Davis' office at the end was one of the most compelling character moments of the series; a few more of these, and I might actually believe I'm watching people on the screen. And the twist ending with Jack? Genuinely chilling.
More Doris!
[> [>
Re: "Two Pair" written by Doris Egan, directed by Rick Rosenthal -- Cheryl, 08:36:41 04/09/04 Fri
Yes, Davis' blatherings about mirrors and symmetry were just a bit much, but the scene with Tru, Davis, and Harrison in Davis' office at the end was one of the most compelling character moments of the series; a few more of these, and I might actually believe I'm watching people on the screen. And the twist ending with Jack? Genuinely chilling.
I like that Harrison is finally growing (somewhat). One of the things that's bothered me up to this point is that he never changes, no matter what's happened. Definitely a good character growth episode.
I've had a strange feeling about Jack from the start. First I thought he was a good guy, trying to help out in a weird way. But now I'm thinking he's EVIL. ;-)
And did anyone notice the Hong Kong guy (can't remember the name) is the same actor who was on Angel - I don't remember if it was S1 or S2 - but his significant other was killed by vampires and he hired Angel under false pretenses to kill them.
[> [> [>
More Buffyverse veterans cross over to Tru Calling -- cjl, 08:45:51 04/09/04 Fri
The Buffy/Angel vets on "Two Pair":
Rick Rosenthal (director, "Normal Again")
Courtnee Draper (suicide blonde, "Two Pair"; Annabelle, "Bring on the Night")
Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Hong Kong guy, "Two Pair"; Sam Ryan "Provider").
[> [> [> [>
I knew it! -- Cheryl, 09:41:58 04/09/04 Fri
Courtnee Draper (suicide blonde, "Two Pair"; Annabelle, "Bring on the Night")
I thought she looked familiar and that she may have been a potential slayer. Thanks for the info!
[> [>
Re: "Two Pair" written by Doris Egan, directed by Rick Rosenthal -- s'kat, 16:47:40 04/09/04 Fri
She apparently has a live journal too - where she's been discussing writing for Tru Calling and other things:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tightropegirl/
Current board
| More April 2004