April 2004 posts
A look at what might have been...Shooting scripts for "Wonderfalls" unaired eps -- Rob, 07:33:35 04/09/04 Fri
Found these last night at http://jossisahottie.com/wonderfalls/
Since I'm holding out hope that the show gets picked up or that the filmed episodes are given a place to air or put out on DVD, I'm not going to be reading these yet, although I did copy them to my hard drive, but I'm sure some of you guys would want to read them now. Enjoy!
Rob
Replies:
[>
and tv quebec picked up the 13 eps to air. in french. but still. -- gretch *at least they're being recognized etc*, 18:19:49 04/09/04 Fri
Hmm, is Robert Bianco of USA Today a lurker? -- Cheryl, 14:34:43 04/09/04 Fri
Deja vu. Great minds and all. ;-)
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-04-08-save-tv-main_x.htm
Can TV be saved?
By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
It's time again for USA TODAY's Save Our Shows survey. For the seventh year, we want your opinion on which TV shows in limbo deserve a second chance. But it's not just the shows that need saving. It's the networks.
By every measure, critical and commercial, this has been a dismal season for broadcast TV. From long-running series that ran out of gas to promising newcomers that were never allowed out of the garage, the seasonal race has stumbled from one disappointment to the next. If network TV were a reality show, the title would be I'm a Viewer: Get Me Out of Here.
Launching series is a tough business, as the networks' cable competitors are now discovering. HBO has yet to come up with a drama that can hold The Sopranos audience, and every original scripted series on basic cable lags in the ratings behind wrestling and repeats from the Law & Order factory.
If we're lucky, we're merely in the midst of one of TV's periodic creative slumps, and relief is only a hit away. But slumps can sometimes lead to collapse - particularly when the people in charge make the wrong turns. Like, say, sacrificing the industry's long-term health for a quick reality fix.
What should the networks do? Here's a 12-step program to save them from sinking - and from themselves.
Salvage what little is worth saving
Look on the bright side of this sorry situation: There's no need to spread your votes around. Of the series on the USA TODAY Save Our Shows ballot, I'd rescue Arrested Development, It's All Relative and Whoopi (just because it's willing to imagine a sitcom world that extends beyond sex, dating and parenting). As for the campaign to save WB's already canceled Angel, if nothing else, the fight will remind networks that good shows still do have loyal viewers.
When you find something good, stick with it
The tone this season was set early on by NBC's treatment of Boomtown. Here's a show that could have been nurtured into a signature series, as the network wisely did with Hill Street Blues and Cheers. Instead, NBC cut the show's order, reworked it, dumped it in a terrible slot and canceled it after two episodes. A similar fate befell ABC's Karen Sisco and Fox's Wonderfalls- which Fox gave up on before it even aired. Why should viewers commit to a series when the networks won't? Such treatment sends a chilling message to viewers and the creative community alike, and makes it even harder to get the next innovative series off the ground.
For heaven's sake, stop fidgeting
People expect to find shows in the same time slot every week, which is why it's called a "schedule." Instead, viewers barely know what the networks are showing from hour to hour, let alone week to week. (Does anyone know where, or even if, Scrubs is airing these days?) Whatever tactical advantage a network may hope to gain by these constant shifts is pretty much lost when everyone else is shifting at the same time. Unless, of course, the goal is simply to annoy viewers. In that case, it seems to be working.
Behave responsibly
Trash has always been with us and always will be. But the networks used to have the good taste to at least pretend to be embarrassed by it. Now they revel in their bad behavior, promoting each new outing as the grossest, raunchiest or sexiest yet. (Compared to The Swan, those When Animals Attack specials look like the Golden Age of Fox reality.) Perhaps it's time to ask whether the networks and their affiliates, who have been granted access to our homes through government license, should be using that gift to develop programs that trick parents into thinking their daughters are getting married or, worse, turn TV into procurers on an electronic temptation island? The idea that power carries with it responsibility may be old-fashioned, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Re-evaluate or restructure the business
Every season, it's the same deadly dance. Advertisers want young male viewers, so the networks chase after an audience that isn't interested in their shows - and chase away the audience that is. Economically, a business that can't make money from the people who are actually eager to be its customers is a business that makes no sense. And artistically, an art form that allows its standards to be set by teenage boys is an art form, and a culture, in deep trouble.
Beg the best writers to come back
Four years ago, networks hosted what was, collectively, the finest group of writers ever to work in dramatic television: David Milch (NYPD Blue), David E. Kelley (The Practice, Ally McBeal, Boston Public), Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing), Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel) and Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick (Once and Again). Now, Milch has moved to HBO; Sorkin has left Wing (leaving a shadow of a show behind him); and Whedon, Herskovitz and Zwick have had their shows canceled. As of now, only Kelley will be represented on network television next season, and he has been reduced to dragging life out of a Practice spin-off. Whatever it takes to bring these writers back to broadcast television - such as letting them do something they're passionate about - the networks need to do it.
Recruit better replacements
While they chase away their best writers, the networks give multiple chances to dull, predicable hacks who can be counted on to churn out dull, predictable shows. There must be better writers out there, as the nation's lively theater scene would seem to indicate. If those writers aren't coming to the networks, perhaps its time for the networks to go looking for them. Yes, I know: That will mean leaving your offices in L.A. and New York. You'll survive.
Find a few good women
Is it any wonder so many female viewers embraced Sex and the City? Where else could they turn? Network comedy was once dominated by funny women, from I Love Lucy through Mary Tyler Moore, Kate & Allie, The Golden Girls, Designing Women, Murphy Brown and Roseanne. After ignoring the form for too long, the four networks finally have made a few tentative steps back to female-centered sitcoms with such shows as Whoopi, Less Than Perfect, Hope & Faith and Life With Bonnie. But none has become the kind of reviving hit the genre needs. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the genre; it just means the networks haven't paired the right stars with the right writers.
A little variety, please
No, that's not a call for a new variety show, though that might be nice. It's a warning that too many shows look too much alike - and most of those shows look like Law & Order or CSI. So far, the clones have worked, but we can't be far from that "one thin mint" too many. Ask the people who used to make Westerns what happens when you push viewers into overload. They usually don't just turn against the last clone to arrive; they reject the entire genre it represents.
You're fired
What TV really needs is a mass executive exodus. Among the current crop of network presidents, some have taste, a few have some sense of showmanship, and a few more have some dependable grasp of what works for their network. But only CBS' Leslie Moonves combines all three of these necessary qualities - and even he seems to be overextended as more of the Viacom empire comes under his supervision.
To be fair, as the networks have been swallowed by media conglomerates, network presidents have less power, and less accountability, than they once did. (We'll see if upcoming executive shifts at ABC fix the core problem: there are so many layers of manangement involved in every decision, it's like a ship with 10 captains and no rudder.) The networks appear to be at war with themselves, with one group of executives supporting a show and the rest doing their best to subvert it. How else to explain the odd treatment accorded Karen Sisco or Wonderfalls?
So here's a suggestion for the networks' overseers. Enough with the lawyers, accountants and news wunderkinds. Recruit your presidents from the entertainment world, let them do their job and replace them if they don't.
Keep working on diversity
While the situation is better than it once was, black and Latino audiences still by and large have to turn to sitcoms or cop shows to see themselves - and Asians aren't even accorded that much visibility. It's long past time we saw their lives explored more fully on TV.
Show some respect
Many of the worst problems would disappear if the networks would stop airing shows they know are awful, and stop yanking shows they know are good - both of which they do with frightening regularity. It shows a lack of respect, not just for the audience, but for the history and reputation of the networks themselves.
Replies:
[>
No, it just really is a problem that's obvious to the best minds -- Masq, 14:54:09 04/09/04 Fri
All I can say to this is clap, clap, clap, clap, clap!!
[>
A suggestion for networks: Mini-series -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:04:59 04/09/04 Fri
If you've got internal debate or uncertainty about a new show, make a short mini-series of it. This will give you the ability to judge the ratings power of a show, as well as which audiences it appeals to (plus they can make handy fill-ins for cancelled shows or poorly watched reruns).
[> [>
Re: A suggestion for networks: Mini-series -- nazlan, 22:05:17 04/09/04 Fri
Unfortunately, that is what's being tried with ABC's Kingdom Hospital, and the ratings have been sad. Of course, that could just be the fact that the show itself is quite weird and rather offputting.
But I do love the idea of limited run series. No messy cliffhangers, no dangling plotlines, and in the case of The X-Files, no slowly devolving mytharc.
[>
fabulous article wasn't it? i feel a love letter to mr. bianco coming on. -- gretch, 18:18:22 04/09/04 Fri
he touched on every point i've been reading and thinking about. and sorta mapped it all out so there was no need for any of the dummies out there to second guess anything.
big smooches for RB...fingers crossed that someone besides us viewers read it.
[>
Re: Hmm, is Robert Bianco of USA Today a lurker? -- darrenK, 18:38:59 04/09/04 Fri
Joss is in a very special position. He actually has a personal following irrespective of whatever show it is he's working on.
This would allow him to bypass the networks and stovepipe a show via dvds directly to fans.
In effect, that's really what happened with Firefly. It's ratings were slight and inconsistent when broadcast, and for a lot of very good reasons. The show was broadcast out of order and on an unpredictable schedule. DVD gave the fans the ability remedy these problems themselves.
Tivo-like products are also a factor and on their way towards making the broadcast schedule completely meaningless. People don't need to watch Friends Thursday at 9pm so why should they? And why shouldn't the networks just broadcast everything on Monday and people can choose their own schedule? That's the way of the future. It's got the networks scared out of their little minds. Whither advertising in a scheduleless universe? Everywhere and nowhere.
And the networks are dying beasties. The audience for ABC is about the same as Fox which, just 10 years ago, was considered an impossible gamble. Instead it brought us the age of the niche. Is there a place for a general audience in these times? No. People who 15 years ago might have been satisfied to get their one helping of sci-fi on Fridays at 8pm can now get it full-time on a network designed specifically for them. And why shouldn't they? General networks were only dominant because of how difficult it was to broadcast.
And reality shows? The fact that the networks have stopped broadcasting from the ampitheater to focus exclusively on the circuses is just a sign of desperation. This short-sightedness will hasten their demise. Will anyone mourn? Not me. I'll be watching dvds.
Marc Blucas . . . in New Movie -- Joyce, 18:04:34 04/10/04 Sat
Just saw "The Alamo", which featured Marc Blucas as one of Jim Bowie volunteers. He didn't say much. In fact, I believe he hardly had a line in the movie, aside from one or two, in which he is featured as one of the volunteers writing a letter to a loved one in a montage just before the big battle. But it was Marc. Guy gets around, doesn't he?
Replies:
[>
Actually, he originally had a bigger role but . . . -- Cheryl, 22:00:59 04/10/04 Sat
From DallasNews.com:
One of the hardest things director John Lee Hancock had to do was
tell actor Marc Blucas, who played defender James Butler Bonham,
that his role did not survive the final cut.
Read the whole article here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/entertainment/stories
/040404dnartalamo.3d368.html
I've been psyched for months to see this movie (especially after visiting the actual Alamo last fall), but after I saw this my enthusiasm diminished. So, it's actually a pleasant surprise to hear that Marc's still in the movie, afterall. I was going to wait for the DVD and hope for an extended version and/or deleted scenes, but now I might go see it afterall.
[> [>
"The Alamo" was awful. Poorly directed, poor pacing, and poor screenplay... (no specific spoilers) -- Rob, 07:05:53 04/11/04 Sun
Marc did, however, did appear a few times, in crowd scenes. His only lines were in a voiceover near the end of the film, where he is writing a letter to his loved ones. My friend and I were so bored, we invented a game that we played throughout the whole screening, "Punch Buggy Blucas," which livened things up. I usually spotted him first. ;-)
Once the Marc sightings became fewer and far between, we did "Punch Buggy War Movie Cliche." Ah, yes, that gave us quite a workout.
As far as the movie goes, it was a real disappointment. There is absolutely no sense of urgency, and if you don't go into the film knowing about the Alamo, it doesn't give you enough of a historical context. I dimly remembered some of the history from high school, but I needed some clarification, which the film did not give. I can imagine someone who didn't know the history not getting the situation at all. Why did they stay there? Why didn't they just leave? Why was this cause so important? The movie really doesn't tell us. Billy Bob Thornton was only so-so in the role of Davy Crockett, as well. Very few solid performances, with the exception of Patrick Wilson, as Travis, who impressively rose above the hackneyed script. Still, though, immensely dissatisfying movie.
Rob
[> [> [>
This review sums up my feelings... -- Rob, 07:32:17 04/11/04 Sun
snippets from the review at http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/503/503521p1.html Interestingly, this reviewer praises Billy Bob Thornton's performance and didn't like Patrick Wilson's. I'm the other way around on that, but here's the gist of the film's flaws:
"...As has been widely reported, The Alamo missed its original Christmas 2003 debut after some negative test screenings necessitated the film be extensively reworked and trimmed for time. The theatrical version of co-writer/director John Lee Hancock's Alamo certainly feels truncated, both emotionally and as a narrative. While it's no Pearl Harbor, The Alamo is also no Braveheart.
What could have been Zulu in the Old West instead comes across like the most ambitious TNT production yet made. There's the promise of a great film but The Alamo just doesn't resonate the way it should have...
The Alamo also suffers from the same problem The Passion of the Christ did - a lack of context for those unfamiliar with the historical events and prior texts. You never really understand why these guys are fighting Santa Anna in the first place and, thus, are robbed of the impact of their sacrifice. There are a few lines about land and tax incentives but that's as exciting as a travel brochure.
For a film about men fighting to protect their homes, it's ironic that we never see the defenders on their farms or at home, something visceral to tell us what's at stake for them in this conflict..."
Rob
[> [> [> [>
My newspaper's reivew started, "forget The Alamo." -- CW, 08:23:00 04/11/04 Sun
Didn't have much good to say about anyone in it.
[> [> [> [> [>
My View -- Joyce, 12:33:10 04/12/04 Mon
I thought that THE ALAMO wasn't a bad movie, at all. A bit talky at times, but it was pretty good. It was a hell of a lot better than the previous movie versions. But I do have some reservations.
1 - By pointing out that there were Tejanos who fought against Santa Ana, I get the feeling that the movie's director was trying to excuse the American conquest of Texas. I noticed that the movie never went into detail on the true reason why the American settlers rose against Santa Ana and the Mexican Army.
2 - The movie felt rushed by the time it reached the final battle sequence at the Alamo. The events that led up to the Battle of San Jacinto were even more rushed and left me feeling slightly unsatisfied.
3 - I was a little annoyed that Marc Blucas, who presence was very much seen in the movie, barely said a word or two.
4 - I wish the movie's producers and writers had informed the moviegoers on what happened to the surviving characters - like Santa Ana, Houston, Travis' slave and Bowie's slave, and sister-in-law.
Btvs season 4 , Angel episode 5.7 to 5.14:Cyborg! -- luvthistle1, 02:56:11 04/11/04 Sun
My theory on the Cyborg
The season it almost over, and it doesn't seem like we will ever get a answer to who sent the "Cyborg", or "why"
So lets examine a theory on who might be responsible for the "Cyborg", but in order to do that we should go back to the first robot we seen . so maybe we should return to "Sunnydale".
The first robot introduce was "moloch" in "I robot, you Jane". he was a demon in a robot body , (which was built by nerds). Than we had "Ted ", ( who was built by Ted) than we had the April bot, (made by Warren,) than we had "Buffy bot " (also made by warren.) than we had "Adam",( built by Doctor Walsh) who, while he isn't a "robot", he is half human ( like the "Cyborg"), and half demon. now we
have someone introduce the "Roger cyborg". The whole cyborg thing reminds me of something Adam said to Riley, in Primeval ( or was it "the yoko factor"?)
Quote:Adam: Actually, the chip is here. (points to his chest) Tied directly into your central nervous system through your thoracic nerve. This is Phase One of your preparation. It lay dormant until the time came. I simply activated it, brother.
Riley: Stop calling me that. I'm not your brother.
Riley had a chip, that wasn't put there by "Adam",( he only activated ) which indicated that he might might be more than he seems. How else would you explain
him "not knowing about the chip?, and he seem to have been the only one with a chip, who was not a demon. ( if there was others, it was never mention ) Perhaps Riley was the first rough draft for "cyborg".
"
Note: -Fred said that the cyborg are part human. Wes and Angel said that the cyborg were the good guys...sounds like the Initiative.
another quote by Adam
Quote:Adam: Humans claim to old ways and ancient feuds. And they're hopeless with technology. Unworthy. (he turns around) Riley: Not really wanting a lecture right now.
Adam continues walking.
Adam: Disappointed by demon-kind, we turned to humans. Smart,adaptive, (he turns around) but emotional and weak. Blind. There's imperfection everywhere. Something must be done. Who will deliver us?
Riley says nothing.
Adam: Mother. She saw our future. Yours and mine. She saw that you were necessary. She saw the role you will play by my side.
- it seem that Dr. Walsh plans for the future ( and for Riley) was to build a stronger , better " Initiative". The Initiative was also the ones responsible for Spike's chip, and they were also mention in "why we fight". coincidence?
-The cyborg seem to know a lot of information on both spike and Angel as well as the watcher council and W&H. the Initiative wanted control over the demon
population, as did the Roger cyborg want control over "angel". the uniforms that the cyborg wore, were similar to the outfits that the Initiative wore.
-but the Initiative was suppose to have disband, after season 4, they burn it to the ground, and they left sunnydale.....or did they? ...In season 7 when Buffy notify Riley about Spike's condition, how was they able to responds so fast? if the Initiative cave was fill in, how was spike and Buffy able to enter them? if they no longer was still in operation in sunnydale, than how come there was still "Fresh" demons body's lying around?
So, in regard to who built the "cyborg" ( who were part humans). ask yourself , who wants to control the demon population, works on the sides of good, and has
the knowledge and the man power to do so?...."the Initiative" . but who would take over where Dr.Walsh left off? ...Riley. That might have been the "destiny" that Dr. Walsh was talking about. plus, if you go back to "Restless", in which Adam and Riley are shown together, which implies they share a connection. so,
Riley could very well turn out to have been the very first Cyborg made (which would explain 'why' he had to go to an special doctor, instead of any doctor who was available. it had to be that doctor only ) and he could also be the one behind "the Cyborg"
Note: we only believe Riley to be all human, but can we be sure? we all thought Roger bot was human as well.
who do you believe might be behind the "Cyborg"
What were they plans for Angel and why?
Replies:
[>
Re: Btvs season 4 , Angel episode 5.7 to 5.14:Cyborg! -- Mighty Mouse, 09:28:38 04/11/04 Sun
If Adam were still alive, I'd possibly believe he'd be behind this. However, I doubt the Initiatve, or whatever form it has taken now (I think the Special Operations group that takes out demons is not the Initiative - that is, they're not out to control and experiment on Demons, but simply to wipe them all out), is behind this.
For the first part, they're purely scientifical. All the post-Season Four Spec. Ops groups we've seen have had no interest in, nor do they plan, to utilize magics to get the job done. They see demons as animals to be put down, not magical beings here for some different purpose. As such, they wouldn't seek out to acquire a device from Wolfram & Hart (and most likely they would not be aware of W & H's existence as anything more than a law firm) to control Angel.
Furthermore, the Initiative never knew about the Watchers Council, or at least they never let it on that they knew. This is considering how Maggie Walsh 'n co. thought the Slayer was a myth. The same would probably go for the Council.
I doubt Riley is behind the Cyborgs sent to Wolfram & Hart. My best bet for an explanation would be either: A. Some safeguard by the original Watchers Council to deal with Angel 'n co. B. Or other forces who are familiar with Angel's part in the coming Apocalypse, and wishing to control him.
[> [>
yes, They about it from Giles -- luvthistle1, 12:51:40 04/11/04 Sun
...and they have more information on all , from Ethan Rayne. Remember in "A New man" they took Ethan Rayne into their custody. Etan knew a lot about The watcher council, through Giles ( plus, Riley had information throught Buffy) and Ethan also knew a lot about magic. Everyone seem to know about W&H, ( even Harmony, so if she knew, than most likely anyone who ever dealt with demons knows about W&H) and Etan knew a lot about Magic and spells, combine that with Knowledge of the Initiatve, it's possible.
Giles/Ben -- ghady, 05:42:35 04/11/04 Sun
Giles killes Ben.. fine.. but does Buffy know? I haven't seen season seven yet, so does Giles ever tell that to Buffy in that season?
Replies:
[>
Nope! -- luvthistle1, 07:15:41 04/11/04 Sun
....Buffy never found out that Giles had killed Ben. It was suppose to be reveal in season 7 "lies my parent to me", but that part was edit out.
[>
Re: Giles/Ben -- skpe, 07:21:53 04/11/04 Sun
If she did it was never shown. As for S7 my feeling can be summed up in 4 words 'What might have been'. Over and over interesting plot lines were started and dropped with no payoff or reason. Way to many characters we introduced and the villains (the vital part of any story) we 2D at best.
[> [>
Re: Giles/Ben -- luvthistle1, 08:33:47 04/11/04 Sun
.... it all start to fall apart after "bring on the night". we still never found out what made the slayer run from the house? nor the first plans, or why was the basement a maze, and what happen to Dawn two friends. To many drop plotlines.
[>
Re: Giles/Ben -- shambleau, 18:53:08 04/12/04 Mon
He DOES tell her in the original script to LMPTM, but it was dropped, either for time or other considerations.
Classic Movie of the Week - April 11th 2004 - *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* -- OnM, 07:49:24 04/12/04 Mon
*******
A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.
............. William Shedd
*******
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
............ Bill Gates (1981)
*******
I was present at the Los Angeles premiere of [2001: A Space Oydssey], in 1968, at the Pantages Theater. It is
impossible to adequately describe the anticipation in the audience. [Stanley] Kubrick had been working on the film in
secrecy for some years, in collaboration, the audience knew, with the author Arthur C. Clarke, the special effect
expert Douglas Trumbull, and consultants who advised him on the specific details of his imaginary future-- everything
from space station design to corporate logos. Fearing to fly and facing a deadline, Kubrick had sailed from England
on the Queen Elizabeth, using an editing room on board, and had continued to edit the film during a
cross-country train journey. Now it was finally ready to be seen.
To describe that first screening as a disaster would be wrong, for many of those who remained until the end knew
they had seen one of the greatest films ever made. But not everyone remained. Rock Hudson stalked down the aisle,
audibly complaining, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?" There were many other walkouts and
some restlessness at the film's slow pace. (Kubrick immediately cut about seventeen minutes, including a pod
sequence that essentially repeated another one.) The film did not provide the the clear narrative and easy
entertainment cues the sudience expected. The closing sequences, with the astronaut inexplicably finding himself in a
bedroom somewhere beyond Jupiter, were baffling. The overnight Hollywood judgement was that Kubrick had
become derailed, that in his obsession with effects and set pieces he had failed to make a movie.
What he had actuallty done was make a philosophical statement about man's place in the universe, using images as
those before him had used words, music or prayer.
............ Roger Ebert ( from his book The Great Movies )
*******
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
............ Alan Kay
*******
*** Somewhere from the infinite distance, deep, almost subsonic bass rumblings. (Duck.) ***
According to the Internet Movie Database, the year would have been 1972, which sounds about right. I was one
year out of high school, and a buddy of mine, also a movie aficionado, wanted to go out and see this new Roman
Poanski film that was playing at a local theater. It was titled "Diary of Forbidden Dreams", and was an erotic
comedy of some variety. I remember it as being quirky, somewhat interesting, confusing in a mainly non-offensive
fashion, and a respectable evenings entertainment.
What I also remember about that evening at the movies was that prior to the screening, a coming attractions trailer
played for a new film by a youngish director named Francis Ford Coppola. The movie was titled "Apocalypse
Now", and the trailer was simply stunning. It left such a potent impression that I immediately felt (and my buddy
heartily agreed after I verbally acknowledged my interest) that this was, for sure, a film to check out when it finally
arrived in the theaters some months later.
That's how I remember that evening, but it turns out that I was mistaken. My advancing geezerhood has increasingly
left my memory blanking out at frequent intervals, and while I knew that the director of Forbidden Dreams
was Roman Polanski, as I sat here preparing to write these first few paragraphs, I couldn't bring that name to
conscious recall no matter how I tried, nor could I recall the name of the film itself. Fortunately, the internet blesses
the forgetful by its many and manifest search strategies, and a quick visit to the IMDb brought enlightenment. I knew
that Mr. ??? had also directed a more recent film named "Bitter Moon", and a search on that title brought me to
(Ah-HAH!!) suitable neuronic revitalization. What it also brought about was the inescapable fact that
Apocalypse Now could not possibly have exhibited a trailer in 1972, because it wasn't released until 1979.
Damn. I hate when that happens. I could blame it on a X-Filesey time-warp caused by alien abductors, but un/ or
fortunately I still remember lots of other stuff from the early-to-mid 70's, like the decline of FM radio or the
appearance of the Betamax, so I suppose I'll let them off the hook. Regardless of the year, I do clearly
remember that Apocalypse trailer, and when the film did eventually arrive in my humble hometown, I made
plans to go see it. But then the reviews started to come out, and it seemed clear that engrossing and exciting though
the teaser may have been, according to the critical scribes of the day, someone's dog had clearly up and died.
Yes, dear friends, they pretty much hated the poor thing, and presented many a reason why. I no longer remember
the specifics, but 'overwrought', 'more concerned with effects than story line or character', 'Brando's ludicrous
salary demands for a few short moments on-screen', 'Coppola's pandering to the leftist historical revisionists' etc.
etc. etc. filled page after page of the media. I was taken aback. The accusations of what today would be lumped
under the general perjorative of 'liberalism' didn't phase me, being a leftie-ish sort myself, but the ones about poorly
developed plot and characterization, and of an empty film puffed up with special effects to vainly attempt to fill the
vacuum hit home.
Now, I was so much older then, but fortunately I'm younger than that now, at least what I can still remember of me.
As such, I did a very stupid thing, which was that I distrusted my own gut feelings and went along with the multitude
of experienced, professional film analysts who malodorously evacuated over a (much, much smaller) handful of
Coppola admirers who stated quite assiduously that that film was not only not bad, but far more-- a masterpiece,
and a film for the ages. And in doing so, I missed a basically once-in-a-lifetime chance to see the film gloriously
full-impact, in a real theater, unspoiled, and open to my own impressions.
Those who have read my Classic Movie ramblings for a while now know that one of my writing/stylistic quirks is not
to reveal the title of the film under consideration until at least part-way into the essay. Over at the Existential
Scoobies website where the Sidereal Coder and I have been (very) intermittenly archiving my occasional output,
the section introductory blurb states the reason for this, but until now I have never revealed the specific
incident in my personal movie-going history that lead to this particular attitude. Well, as I'm certain you've already
grokked, that sitch with Apocalypse was the germination. Please don't get me wrong, I respect quite a few
professional (and several amateur) film critics out there, and I read and consider their thoughts if I am debating
whether to spend time with a given work or no, but ultimately I trust my instincts and just take my chances.
Sometimes I am disappointed in the experience, and sometimes I am rewarded. But what is more rewarding than
anything is to find myself in the position of either championing an underseen but excellent flick (Such as Whale
Rider or Bend it Like Beckham) or to go to the defense of a major, widely-seen production that I feel
has been grossly misunderstood or critically written off for specious reasons.
Very few people would dispute today that 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocalypse Now or Blade
Runner are archetypes of not only superior art, but progenitors of entire classes of films to follow after them.
Why then, did they arose such intense dislike on opening night that it took years for the general populace to
appreciate and eventually admire them? It is typically hard to understand without the benefit of historical distance, or
an 'insider' knowledge of the scene during the day, why these radical paradigm shifts occur, and that is a
whole 'nother essay in and of itself. The short list, though, could be summed up by noting the following: a film
typically fails unjustifiedly because it is a) too far ahead of its time in concept or execution, b) damned for simple
political reasons or c) because someone closely associated with the film is intensely disliked by a person or persons
in a position to 'kill' it, which is actually a subset of 'b' when you get right down to it.
In the case of the latter instance, even if the work doesn't get 'killed', it can be crippled beyond immediate repair.
Some works, in fact, do not make it even to a point where the public could fairly evaluate them before being cut off
at the knees. (In the closely-related TV universe-- Firefly, anyone? Or more recently, and even more
egregiously, Wonderfalls? And seriously, folks, doesn't the situation with the startlingly abrupt termination of
Angel, a show with supposedly good ratings figures, smack of petty retribution of some sort rather
than the highly dubious spin of 'money issues'?)
So, I have to wonder if something equally perverse had to have happened with my choice for this week's Classic
Movie, Matrix Revolutions, the third and (for the moment) final part of the Wachowski Brothers'
science-fiction epic that started so successfully with the original, lost viewer ground in the second outing, and was all
but snuffed by the first weekend at the box office for the conclusion.
To be fair, in light of what I spoke of above re: the machinations of critics and studio suits, there were quite a few
former Matrix aficionados who intensely disliked the last third of the series. And, while I intend to try to
address some areas where I think they missed the pod and went drifiting off into space, a feeling is a feeling, and the
feelings weren't good for many. Prior to putting this review together, I solicited some commentary by my fellow
ATPo'ers, and the collective responses below by posters KdS, Finn Mac Cool and Angel vs Angelus effectively
summed up the main case for the opposition:
*** Hello, I'll be your monolith for today. May I take your order? ***
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. (--KdS)
KdS does admit to the following, though, a point which I think is anything but trivial, even though the choice of the
word 'mystical' is one I would consider highly ambiguous from what I think was the Wachowski's intent:
If you have a more mystical explanation of Smith's death, you may have a different view of the ending.
Now, Finn Mac Cool has a say:
When I try to think of how to describe (...) 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. (...) 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. The special effects were, quite
possibly, even better than the first [film], 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 [films] here in order to convey how profoundly disappointing
and horrendous the third and final one was. 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. (...) Shame on you, Wachowski
brothers. No cookie for you (--Finn Mac Cool)
And as to what Finn 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.
Now for AvA's considerations:
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. (...) A series of films that began about (...) [the importance of]
forsaking the illusional in favor of reality, about escaping systems and transcending limitations, this series' final scene
is [one 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 syrupy and heavy-handed image of a figmentary
sun setting in the Matrix, made me SEETHE even more than Neo's 'sacrifice' did. (--AvA)
KdS also comments that s/he felt the film spent far too much time on the battle for Zion, and that the dialog during
same was cliche-ridden and the action full of macho posturing, without anything to interest the mind. A more serious
charge was that "There was not a single original idea in the movie, even on the basic level of coming up with ideas
for action scenes that have not been done before. Also, the film "lacked humor", and that this "was
fatal". While noting that s/he found the ending "quite affecting and more palatable than a robotic genocide
would have been", it "makes the whole of the latter two films pointless."
Most damning of all is a thought 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."
*** Thus Codeth Zarathustra, or someone like her ***
Now, I could go on with this for quite a while, but I'd like to step in at this time to interject my own take on these
comments, and present a bit of counterpoint. OK, more than a bit. Lots of bits. Bit's a'poppin'.
I want to take on two of the statements that I consider the most unfounded, and eminently disprovable, which are the
ones about Revolutions lacking 'any original ideas' and that the Wachowski's somehow offer contempt for
the 'unenlightened majority' by ignoring those still enslaved by the Matrix and providing selected freedom for the
denizens of Zion.
Since it is the one debatable issue that comes up more than any other-- namely, regarding the ultimate (?) meaning of
the ending of the trilogy-- I want to go no further without presenting what I think is a reasonable and supportable
argument for just exactly what happened. Ironically, in one post KdS brushed by one of the key concepts in
passing, but appeared to disregard the possiblity that it might be the actual truth. Namely, that the Matrix of the film
was in fact not the only Matrix in existence, and that multiple Matricies could be layered or ensphered
one within the other. In fact, by implication, the different levels of 'cosmological programming' could be in the
dozens or even hundreds. Even within my admittedly limited understanding of much of Eastern religious thought, this
sounds very familiar to me. The big twist (and the 'new' idea here) is the redefinition of what we think of as
(mystical?) theology in terms of a 'mechanistic' structure, with God (or many gods) as the programmers of the
entirity of the universe.
One thing that I can fairly blame the Wachowskis for here is that if you have only seen the three films, and have not
dug any deeper into the mthology of the series via such additional vectors as The Animatrix or the video
games, or hung out on Matrix websites, you may be missing key information on which you can form an analysis.
While I have not been in the habit of visiting Matrix websites until recently (largely to get some additional info to write
up this essay), and have never played any of the video games, I have seen The Animatrix, and what is most
important about that is the much deeper background it gives to the side of the machines.
For the benefit of those who have not seen this (very interesting) collection of animated short films based on the
Matrix universe, the short version of the overall 'prequel' is that humans created and programmed the machines, then
exploited them viciously even after the machines began to evolve sentience. The vast majority of the machines were
peaceful, and there were significant numbers of humans who tried to legislate a sort of 'bill of rights' for them, but
these groups failed, and the machines eventually began to see the destruction of the human race as their only chance
for survival. As the machine race grew in size and power, the tables were brutally turned and the human race became
nothing more than a convenient source of energy for them-- creatures to exploit them as they had been exploited.
Note: Way back in the first film, Morpheus relates to Neo that "We do know that we [humans] were the ones
who burned the sky." This line is like many in the entire trilogy, in that is zips by quickly, almost off-handedly,
and is easily missed. The high production values and the high-energy action scenes exacerbate the ability to pay
attention to subtleties such as these, and so just like BtVS and similarly layered creations, rewatching pays additional
dividends and leads to a greater understanding. In any event, please take a moment to stop and think about the
metaphorical/emotional implications of the words "We burned the sky."
So, with this background in place, the whole paradigm suddenly shifts without a clutch. Coming into
Revolutions without understanding that at one time the machines were the grievously wronged parties makes
it easy to look at the battlefield conduct of the 'macho' humans with their 'simplistic' attitudes and dialog as
"cliche-ridden and the action full of macho posturing, without anything to interest the mind". Yeah, it would be--
except that this is pretty much what the machines have come to also, only there's more of them, and they're
physically stronger. Smith the Virus (currently in the body of Bane) sums it up rather well, a fine spokesperson since
he now represents the darkest aspects of the machine mind, stripped of reason, only possessing 'purpose':
Smith/Bane: Somehow familiar, isn't it?. We've been here before, you and I. Remember? I do. I think of
nothing else.
Neo: Who are you?
Smith/Bane: Still don't recognize me? I admit, it is difficult to think, encased in this rotting piece of meat.
The stink of it filling every breath, a suffocating cloud you can't escape. (he pauses, spitting out blood) Disgusting!
Look at how pathetically fragile it is. Nothing this weak is meant to survive.
(Well, Glorioski, that sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? Smith has certainly made it his purpose to get off of his
tuffett and "make the birthing stop". Smith, however, does not have even the faint connection with humanity that
Glory of the BtVS-verse did. Glory, for the most part, didn't care about the fate of humanity, she just wanted to get
home. Killing humans was just a gift with purchase.)
Smith is a renegade program that wants all life to end, except for his. The machines he formerly served are
now as much his targets as the humans, something which the machines comes to realize, and eventually fear.
The idea of enemies grudgingly acknowledging that they have to work together to defeat a common foe is as old as
fiction itself. It's also not unheard of for the opposing factions to resist this action to the bitter end, because of the
degree of polarization in their objectives that has heretofore been established. In this case, there is the additional
factor that from the machine's position, they really are the superior race, and that the humans deserve to be
exploited. The only way that this can possibly happen is for a human to prove that he or she is an equal.
One of the great (and from a writing standpoint, rather dazzling) misleads throughout the whole series is that Neo--
the human who brings about this equal meeting of the minds-- is the Saviour of humanity. Neo, by gaining
'enlightenment' in various stages is finally able to do the impossible-- make it through to the machine city and offer
the 'god' of the machines his assistance in dealing with the mutual problem, Smith, the force of literal chaos. Neo,
however, is not the real saviour-- the Oracle is. Neo is a program, created/manipulated by the Oracle (who is
another program!), to bring about the reconciliation of the humans and the machines-- who, by the end of the
trilogy, we have come to realize are all programs running under... the ultimate programmer? We don't know
who that might be, and frankly that is assumed to be ultimately unknowable, just as we don't know how many
universes within universes the metauniverse may contain. Such is not the issue, only the concept is important.
And while it is not strictly a new concept, consider that only within the last few decades could a
philosopher or artist have rendered the concept in this particular intellectual vehicle.
*** All aboard! Last stop Jupiter and beyond the infinite ***
Herein lies yet another clever twist, which is the challenge that Neo is both human, and yet on some level, another
program. Which is he? Our conventional perceptions of reality will want to insist that he either is or he is not human,
but this view fails to grasp the concept of what a program is. There is no literal reason why he cannot be both, it's all
just perception. (Note: For those who would like to peruse another cinematic excursion that deals with this general
realm of thought, check out Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg's Existenz.) Neo comes to realize this in
his final seconds of life, just before Smith assimilates him (or thinks he does) and appears to win the fight, and
understanding this is what the genius of this film is about, just as in 2001 we come to understand that the
astronaut and the 'star child' are one and the same, both parent and progeny.
Neo wins the battle not because he was stronger than Smith, because physically, he wasn't. He wins because he
believed in what he could do, and this belief made a safe harbor within his 'code structure' that allowed the
Oracle to transfer her own 'code' from Smith (where it had been hiding, virus-like-- still more layered irony!) when
Smith inadvertently triggered it. Here's the transcript of the critical moment:
Smith: This is my world! My world!!
( Neo has been knocked back against the crater wall and is lying on the ground, barely conscious. Smith is about to
move forward and deliver the killing blow, when he stops, startled by something. )
Smith: Wait... I... I've seen this. (He looks baffled, but goes with it) This is it, this is the end. Yes, you were
laying right there, just like that, and (a beat) I... I... I stand here, right here, (longer beat) I'm... I'm supposed
to say something. (beat) I say... Everything that has a beginning, has an end, Neo.
( Neo begins to get up again. It's suddenly becoming clear to him what is happening, and why, what the words Smith
has just spoken really mean. )
Smith: (Now not only baffled, but deeply concerned. He knows something is wrong, but he can't wrap his
code around it) What? What did I just say? (long beat) No... no, this isn't right, this can't be right. (he suddenly
panisks, and backs away from Neo, who is on his feet and slowly approaching Smith.) Get away from me!
Neo: (Half-smiling, softly cajoling, understanding what Smith needs to do) What are you afraid of?
Smith: It's a trick!
Neo: (Tells Smith exactly what he wants to hear, what Neo knows will make him drop his guard) You
were right, Smith. You were always right. It was inevitable.
( Smith returns to his rage, and slams his hand into Neo's body, beginning the assimilation/code re-write. Neo
doesn't resist, allows it to happen, becomes the image of Smith. Smith looks relieved, but still-- the idea that
something is wrong returns as surely as the rain which keeps falling.
Smith: (To Smith/Neo, almost like a child) Is it over?
( Smith/Neo nods, with a slight grin. In the machine world, Neo's 'real' body jerks, an intense field of golden light
appearing gradually around it. Back in the Matrix, blinding white light explodes from within and then around
Smith/Neo, who is consumed and destroyed by it. Smith watches in abject horror, finally realizing what has
happened. )
Smith: (almost pathetically) Oh, no, no, no. No, it's not fair!
( The white fire of deletion then consumes Smith, followed in turn by all of his clones en masse. )
Back in the machine city, Neo apparently dies. The tentacled links from the machines retract from his body, leaving
him lying on the metal back of the ship. The machine 'god' speaks:
Deus Ex Machina: It is done.
So there you have final part of the sequence. Earlier in the film, when Smith assimilates the Oracle, he is also
momentarily aware that something isn't right, but he brushes it off, and goes on his way. Later, in the final battle with
Neo, he gets Neo in position to finish him off, an event which the Oracle probably forsaw. At this moment, the
Oracle, who has hidden her code within Smith, reveals herself to Neo by making Smith utter the 'beginning or end'
line. Neo recognizes the words as ones that could have come from only one place, and immediately groks. He
allows Smith to think that he will concede defeat and give in to assimilation, but in reality he frees the Oracle's code
back into Neo. The outward appearance may be Smith, but inside the Oracle is in complete control, since of course
Neo will allow it. Having been previously exiled from the machine world, she is now back in contact with it, and so
effortlessly enables a deletion program to eliminate Smith and all of his copies, having gained the exact knowledge of
how to do so by studying Smith's code while 'trapped' within his.
This is why when the camera eventually cuts back to the bottom of the muddy crater where Neo and Smith
concluded their fight, we see the body of the Oracle lying there, and not Smith or Neo. This scene is
admittedly extremely baffing if you don't figure out what transpired before, which is certainly not obvious on a single
viewing unless you've been paying absolutely extraordinary attention all along. After leaving the theater, and thinking
back on what had transpired, I was pretty sure that this was what happened, but I had doubts, since at the time it
was as much intuition as logic. A few weeks later, after seeing Revolutions a second time, I was
sure-- and incredibly impressed.
- ( To Be Continued in Part II ) -
Replies:
[>
Excellent work, OnM! -- Rob, 09:02:03 04/12/04 Mon
My very good friend, Justin (who hosts my annotation site) and I saw Revolutions with a bunch of other friends. We were the only two out of about eight who really liked it, and both of us talked for about 3 or 4 hours, non-stop, throwing around ideas and theories. We ended up with very similar ideas to yours, particularly regarding how the Oracle had hidden herself inside Smith, although we weren't quite able to bring our thoughts to completion. We were almost there, but not quite...and I think you completely nailed it. Can't wait to read the next part!
Rob (running off to e-mail this post to Justin)
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 11th 2004 - *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* -- Ann, 14:11:40 04/12/04 Mon
"And seriously, folks, doesn't the situation with the startlingly abrupt termination of
Angel, a show with supposedly good ratings figures, smack of petty retribution of some sort rather
than the highly dubious spin of 'money issues'?"
So glad I am not the only one who feels this way. Thought it was just me.
Great review and looking forward to part 2. (My patience was tested during Reloaded with the extended dance mix orgy music video wanabee scenes. I did get the sense in Revolutions that everyone was tired and just wanted it to be over.)
[> [>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 11th 2004 - *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* -- Arethusa, 19:47:21 04/12/04 Mon
OnM, you've made me want to see the second and third movies. I'm looking foreward to part II.
Ann-yes. When I read that the network was putting on Dark Shadows and cancelling Angel, it sounded odd. Why put on a show that has been unsuccessfully revived once before when you have a vampire show already? But-never underestimate the devotion to the Nest Egg!
[>
So........ -- Rufus, 23:35:15 04/12/04 Mon
What is Sati besides precious...;)? Now I'm back to the Darla line "what we once were informs all that we have become"...and in Smith's case he thought that by assimilating other programs they ceased to exist making Oracle that Ghost in the Program/Machine? Oh yeah, where is Neo?
[> [>
"Cookies need love like everything does" -- Rufus, 00:12:07 04/13/04 Tue
The instructions the Oracle gives Sati on how to make cookies, are we talking about batter or more? When Smith takes over Sati he is able to say "Cookies need love like everything does" just like later he says "Everything that has a beginning has an end" making me again think of cookies, Smith seems full of cookies.
Onto Animatrix, I found a transcript of the piece about the machines with comments from the director at the end that was interesting.....
Animatrix: The Second Renaissance, Part I and II
It has bonus data from Mahiro Maeda, director and one of the writers of that piece.
[> [> [>
Thanks for the link, Rufus! Did a cut'n'paste, I'll get to read it tonight. -- OnM, off to the audio mines, 07:59:37 04/13/04 Tue
[> [>
Classic Movie of the Week - *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* - Part II -- OnM, 07:44:52 04/13/04 Tue
- ( Continued from Part I ) -
*** All things good come to s/he who fates ***
I would like to note, since I leveled a bit of criticism at the Wachowskis earlier on for allowing some of the story
background to show up only in a video release that was secondary to the theatrical releases of the main trilogy, that it
is not necessary to know why the machines would be willing to deal with Neo to accept that he does so. The
fact that Smith had evolved into a serious threat to them is sufficient cause that they would at least take a chance, for
purely practical reasons, on allowing Neo to offer assistance. What is fascinating to me is that when the phrase 'the
prodigal returns' is utilized, the prodigal in question in the Matrix trilogy turns out to be the Oracle, who returns to the
Source, where she came from originally. In doing so, the Oracle proves the point that the Architect was trying to
dismiss-- that it is not only futile to try to 'balance the equation', doing so leads to only one thing-- purpose without
choice ultimately leads to extinction of any sentience. The humans did not give the machines a choice, and the
machines rightfully rebelled. Now that the situation has reversed, and the humans are the ones denied choice, the
Oracle is trying to convince the machine intelligence that the wrongs committed by the humans in the past do not
justify wrongs committed by the machines in the present.
This idea leads to what some have referred to as the sell-out shot, or the 'ludicrously happy ending'. Again,
understanding what came before is essential, or the ending is indeed ludicrous. A truce has been established, but it is
a shaky one at this point. The Architect, creator of the Matrix (and the Oracle) is still not fully convinced that her
strange code has merit, and fully expects that it will break down in future. The Oracle does not deny that the truce is
fragile, but she will take what she can get, and hope that time will bear out her beliefs. It found it delightful-- and
appropriate-- that the Architect's parting shot is "What do you think I am, human?" after the Oracle questions if he
will keep to his word and free those humans who want to leave the Matrix.
A second delight occurs when Seraph and Sati reappear in the park that the Oracle is sitting within. The sunrise is
glowing stunningly over the beautiful lake, the outlines of the city bathed in its light. This conversation transpires:
Sati: (comes running up to the park bench) Oracle!
Oracle: ( laughs )
Sati: We were afraid we might not find you.
Oracle: Everything's okay now.
Sati: Look, look! (points at sunrise)
Oracle: Just look at that! Beautiful! Did you do that?
Sati: (smiles, nods affirmatively) For Neo.
Oracle: That's nice. I know he'd love it.
Sati: Will we ever see him again?
Oracle: I suspect so. Someday.
Seraph: (to the Oracle) Did you always know?
Oracle: (looks somewhat amazed, and respectful) Oh no. No, I didn't. But I believed. I believed.
It's easy to get caught up in what the Oracle says about 'believing', which illustrates that she never really knew for
sure that Neo and the others could pull off this 'miracle', enabling her to return to a position of power and influence
with the Source-- The Architect was right when he accused her of "playing a dangerous game." In doing so,
you can just as easily miss what really was a last-second bombshell, which is that Sati may very well be the next
generation of 'The One', who could be even more powerful than Neo. I mean, she codes sunrises at her
age? (Keanu voice:) Whoa! And yes, this was foreshadowed also, in several places within
Revolutions.
*** Sweet dreams are made of this / Who am I to disagree? ***
Before I get into that particular diversion, I want to return to answering the second primary disagreement I have with
those who felt that the Wachowskis somehow tried to suggest contempt for the 'unenlightened majority' of humans
still trapped within the Matrix, while the Zion folk get to be literally free, as if freedom was a special privilege
reserved only for 'special' people like Neo, Morpheus, Trinity et al.
If one accepts the concept as suggested by the latter two films that there is more than one Matrix, and further that
they are layered within one another, and that essentially the meta-universe is an indeterminantly diverse cluster of
interlocking programs created by an equally indeterminant number of programmers, then just who, exactly, is literally
'free'? I submit once more that this is a computer-age variant of traditional Eastern theology, with its many levels of
interlocking 'hells' and 'heavens' and a concept that reality itself is insubstantial, only our minds make it so. The
reason that the humans who are trapped in the Matrix of the first film are not free has nothing to do with the Matrix
itself, but everything to do with the fact that they were not given a choice. Stop and think of the power that
would be available to humanity (or for that matter, the machines) with this technology/theology if they could choose
to engage with it or not. The Matrix itself is not inherently evil, and this is one of the core messages of
Revolutions. The Matrix, in fact, may be literally universal and therefore inescapable.
I have to admit that this idea is such a radical re-ordering of much Western theology, with its overweening emphasis
on linearity and on who is ultimately answerable to the ultimate whom that I like it just because I'm ornery. You
know, it's like "Who died and made you God? (pause) What's that? You were always here? (pause) You'll
always be here? (longer pause) So what kind of a choice is that??"
I'm guessing that if one makes the presumption that all of the humans who are within the Matrix would want to leave
it given the choice, one might realize a very surprising result. How many people in our own, familiar world
willingly place themselves in servitude to some Alpha or another, be it human or supernatural being, because
that is the way of life that they feel comfortable with? You may recall that back in the first film, one of Morpheus'
crew betrayed his fellow humans by making a deal with the Agents to place him back into the Matrix, and with his
memory purged of knowledge of 'the real world'. When the betrayal was discovered, he explained that life in 'the
real world' was far worse than in the 'unreal' one of the Matrix. Of course, he was a sleazy, low-life traitorous
bastard not because he wanted to change his mind, but because he sold his friends out to do it-- you need to
be specific about where the blame actually goes.
Ponder for a moment the degree of potential that exists in this fictional universe, and also ponder the fact that it was
the machines that successfully created the Matrix, not humanity. Suppose things had gone differently many decades
(centuries?) ago and the machines and the humans had not gone to war with one another. Sooner or later (although
likely it would be later, without the impetus of the drive to enslave humanity by the machines) the Matrix technology
would evolve, since even today in the real world, the concept of 'virtual reality' is well known, even though in
execution it is pathetically unaccomplished. On the surface, such an achievement could be considered a form of
entertainment, a technological drug, but if the created reality becomes so real as to be indistinguishable from 'real'
reality, then you find yourself faced with the big ol' theolgical issues once more, as I alluded to previously. Are we in
the midst of some god's Matrix right this moment, here in the realverse, and just haven't discovered the true nature
of our 'enslavement' just yet?
Or maybe it isn't enslavement, maybe the programmer is a benign being, and is just patiently waiting for us to
discover what is going on once we have enough mental capacity (and emotional stability) to handle it. After all,
consider that it is hard to explain to a caveman that the stars he sees at night are actually suns that are millions of
miles away, and the apparently flat earth he stands upon is instead a big ball of rock and air and water floating in this
big semi-nothing called 'space', with everything held together by an invisible force called gravity:
Programmer: So whadaya think, pretty neat, huh?
Caveman: Uhhh. Ogg eat now?
Programmer: Mmmm, OK, maybe I'll stop back in a few millenia...
In any case, as with any new development that raises the big questions, we have to have a choice if we are to utilize
the new gift intelligently. Those who believe that the Wachowskis are making a case for the supremacy of Western
religious belief and/or that they have contempt for the 'unenlightened' should consider that if they are indeed doing
so, then why did they:
a) Postulate a virtual universe that for all practical purposes should represent the ultimate 'heaven' of many actual
human beings, a world were literally everything is 'fated', and they are 'all in God's hands', completely. There are no
decisions to be made, only the need to express trust in the deity that all is as it should be.
b) Proceed to undermine the concept of 'a' by showing that humanity can willingly accept 'submission' to a deity
(or a programmer) only if they grok the alternative, and freely choose to do so. (In a little while I'm going to
discuss some specifics of the DS/SM subtexts in the trilogy, especially as it relates to the Merovingian and his
followers, because these various scenes are actually rather important, they aren't 'throwaways' at all.)
c) Choose to heavily, almost overwhelmingly populate their Zion with decendants of non-Western cultures. (One of
the big delights for me in viewing this trilogy is the realization that it was mostly people of color who worked to free
the white race from its chains. Both fans and detractors of the trilogy have pointed to this aspect as a positive grace
note, but it's more than just color-blind casting, it's highly metaphorical for many other things. Plus, a technical note--
I have seen many, many films over a long period of time which feature persons of color in roles both great and small,
but I genuinely cannot recall any film where the lighting and cinematography have been so intensely flattering
to the color of darker human skin, at least within the walls of Zion. I mean, look at them-- these people all but
glow.)
d) Further extend the idea of 'c' to embrace a strongly Eastern cosmological view, with its idea of layered universes
and the implications of 'karma'. (Consider the appearance of Sati, child of a programmer who is herself a program,
and who when she first appears to Neo in the train station momentarily sports a halo of ostensibly 'divine light'
around her head. Yes, it's easy to miss-- cue the DVD to the scene where Neo wakes up, and hit the slomo button
the instant Sati appears. It only lasts a second, but it was placed there very deliberately-- it's not a trick of the
background framing and lighting, it's definitely a CGI insert.)
e) End the story (for the moment, anyway) with three non-Western faces vs. a single, very white, very European man
who with some begrudgingly offered respect agrees to honor their wishes, even though he obviously thinks they are
highly dubious and likely not to produce positive results. The clear implication in the same scene is also that the
youngest person of the four-- a 'mere' girl-- may be or may become more powerful than any of them.
I find all of that stuff pretty non-Western-tradition-embracing, and anything but contemptuous of the 'unenlightened'.
- ( To Be Continued in Part III ) -
A Note from yer humble scribe--
I originally planned to have a single second part, but time constraints (and the new Angel coming up this Wed.) are such that I'll pretty much just send this out as I write it, so sorry for not providing better organization.
There may be more tonight, certainly more by Wednesday. In the meantime, a teaser for the next section:
Oh my God..... it's full of chicks! ***
;-)
See ya!
[> [> [>
Sorry, but Part III (the remining part, party to the 1st & 2nd parts) delayed 'til Sun. -- OnM, 16:11:16 04/14/04 Wed
Got busy with several other projects today, and what with the new Angel coming up tonight (and the inevitable ensuing discussion) thought I'd put off this OT-ish post until the latter part of the weekend.
Thanks for the responses so far, and I'll be back soon with the conclusion!
Unless of course (pause for effect) there is no conclusion...
( Uh-oh... )
;-)
[> [> [> [>
Oh...you tease!!! Oh yeah, there's never really a conclusion....;) -- Rufus, 17:28:47 04/14/04 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Just you wait... the *Endless 7.22 Review* will resurface any ol' month now! -- OnM, 20:30:08 04/14/04 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Part III about halfway complete, so so far on schedule-ish for Sun. as planned. -- OnM, who believes, 21:38:35 04/17/04 Sat
[>
Spoilers for all Matrix materials BtVS 7 , AtS 4, and "Don't Say a Word" -- tost finding a button and sewing a vest on it, 03:45:08 04/17/04 Sat
Truth be told I didn't find a button I stole it from OnM. Thank you OnM.
There are at least five ways that Neo's loss could have caused the destruction of Smith (probably many more).
1. Neo, realizing from the Oracle that a person overwritten by Smith still has some control, allowed Smith to win to defeat Smith from the inside.
2. Figuring out the Oracle's plan, Neo allowed her to defeat Smith (as OnM suggests in more detail).
3. Neo knew that Smith and he were opposite sides to the same equation created to balance human choice with machine need and one couldn't exist without the other.
4. Smith may have taken from Neo exactly what he said he would, purpose, and couldn't live with that knowledge, that purpose.
5. Tritisan at IMDB http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0242653/usercomments-321 suggests beautifully that when Smith assimilates Neo, who had passed beyond the world of duality, Smith accidentally gets himself enlightened. (Lovely post. I'm grateful I read it).
They all seem to me to be possible, not contradicted directly by the text of the movie. There is one idea that the text does not allow. The deus ex machina's last question to Neo "and if you fail?" seems to eliminate the idea that Neo losing was a necessary part of the machine god's plan. I even wonder if that line was inserted for that reason. If so it's a bit of screenplay writing subtlety which impresses the heck out of me (I impress easily YMMV).
At any rate whatever the exact mechanism used to defeat Smith. The important thing, to me, was that it was the Oracle who put into motion the set of circumstances which ended the war. "Neo, however, is not the real savior-- the Oracle is." to quote OnM. I don't feel this should make us minimize Neo's Heroism. The Oracle needed just the right person to convince the machines that humans were needed for more than a convenient power supply (I love this trilogy but human batteries has to be the goofiest idea since "let's attack the mayor with hummus" ). This was not an easy task considering both the brutality of the human reign of oppression (revealed in The Animatrix and recounted by OnM) and the perfection of the machine memory.
The Oracle is an "intuitive program designed to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche" as such she was called when the Architect was faced with the monumental failure of his first Matrix (or fiftieth he strikes me as the stubborn sort). This is important for several reasons. Being intuitive she could see things with less information than a mind more "bound by the parameters of perfection". Since she was a program designed by and for the machine world she had no allegiance to the humans. Given her area of study I think we can guess where she found information that allowed a short term solution and compelled a long term plan which on the surface looks like a betrayal of the same machine world she was created to serve. We aren't told what information she gleaned on the human psyche but we do know the environment which would maximize the benefit to the machine world and was her ultimate goal ...peace.
We also know the problem which baffled the Architect, choice, the human free will. The machines couldn't design a stable Matrix with it and (surpassing Angel's Jasmine arc where people only devolved to insects) humans refused to live without it. The short term solution to this short term problem was the Matrix as we are introduced to it in the first movie, Zion a "real world" city populated with people who worked to free the minds of those still trapped (the quotes are in deference to OnM's multiple Matrix theory which was strongly hinted at in the second movie and though fascinating is beyond the scope of this post), and agents. Agents are "sentient programs" evidently designed to prevent any threat to the stability of the Matrix. Perhaps the Architect inserted them to lengthen the useful life span of the Matrix by delaying the appearance of the "systemic anomaly" or perhaps it was the Oracle who knew the importance they would play to her long range plan and used that excuse. At any rate they were the gatekeepers.
At this point I need to make a small detour to recommend the eclectic group of nine animated short stories known collectively as "The Animatrix". While not strictly necessary to the understanding of the trilogy it did provide a back story which (as OnM points out) allowed me to step back from my human centric, people good demons ..oops.. I mean machines bad, point of view. It also offered insight into some of the characters (voiced by the original cast), Trinity (before she met Neo) and, most interestingly, The Kid for whom one film is named. In "Kid's Story" we learn the antecedent to Neo's very literal and profoundly significant comment in "Matrix Reloaded", "you got yourself out". But the tale I want to talk about here and the real reason for this digression is a haunting little offering by Kojo Morimoto called "Beyond".
We open with views of the Matrix, traffic lights blinking, people going to work. The system is working. The protagonist is introduced. A girl who appears to my "dull cow eyes" to be about the same age as Buffy was when she was called. A typical teenage girl doing the things a typical teenage girl does. Lounging on and about her bed, gossiping to her friends on the phone about (what else) boys, and feeding her cat (many regulars on this board if for no other reason should appreciate The Matrix trilogy for the importance it places on cats). Discovering her cat is missing she goes to look for it and finds it at an abandoned house where she meets a group of children playing very unique games. Jumping, singing and tossing balls without regard to gravity or time (at least in the sense they are generally accepted). Playing with a host of phenomena loosely classified as paranormal. The agents too are aware of this threat to the systems stability and arrive in short order with a small army of humans in has-mat suits who roughly hustle the children out. When the dust settles and the marauders leave, the children return but their games lack the power and wonder. The magic is gone. The agents had done their job. One more gate was closed and locked.
Now (...pause for blush...) I happen to believe that UFO's, ghosts,ESP,magik, crop circles and visitations of the blessed virgin Mary et. al. are all manifestations of the same phenomenon which science however broadly defined cannot touch. So upon viewing the above mentioned "Beyond" I realized, embarrassingly late (I never claimed to be the fastest boat in the fleet), that the agents were the Wachowski's depiction of the late twentieth, early twenty-first century icon popularly referred to as the Men In Black. It was with some bemusement that I learned, through reading an early "The Matrix" script, that the name of one of the other agents was Jones. The date on the script was the year before the release of "M.I.B." so it's only an interesting coincidence that the actors in the latter were also Smith and Jones.
Coincidence, propinquity, synchronicity, or conspiracy. It was with near ecstatic delight that I heard The Oracle voice perfectly to one of my own beliefs in "Reloaded". "Every time you hear someone say they saw a ghost or an angel, every story you've heard about vampires, werewolves or aliens is the system assimilating some program that's doing something they're not supposed to be doing".
The Oracle. The story really seems to begin and end with her. Until her introduction the viewer is introduced to the world where the drama is to take place. We learn about The Matrix, the machines, the warriors fighting for the emancipation of human kind, the ships, the world outside The Matrix, Zion, and Neo the chosen one.
After the acclimation and education of Neo and the viewer there is one thing that is left before the games can begin and Neo dutifully makes the long walk and stands before the Oracle for the anointing. The Oracle looks over her champion decides he'll do gives him a few words of encouragement, or at least to get him headed in the right direction, and presents him with a token, in the form of a cookie, for luck. All the pieces have been prepared. There is nothing to do but sound the trumpets, shoot the starting gun, ring the bell or yell go. This is done by a collarless, black, furry, four footed feline I affectionately refer to as '"deja vu" and think represents change.
I loved the original Stars Wars trilogy. Epic battles, heroic characters overcoming impossible odds to defeat unambiguous evil. What's not to love. But what really changed between the first and the third movie? They both started with the evil empire about to destroy the badly out numbered and out gunned forces of good with a secret weapon. Then both ended with unambiguous good killing a bunch of the bad guys destroying the secret weapon and having a big party. A sequel would be easy using the same formula as the first movie. There are always more bad guys more secret weapons more heroes who can learn more Jedi secrets. That world hasn't changed because the story wasn't about that world. The story was about the hero's journey epitomized by Luke, Leia. and Han Solo. They were the story.
Try writing a sequel to the Matrix trilogy that uses the same formula as the first movie. It wouldn't make sense. That world has changed. Also the lack of ambiguity in the Star Wars trilogy is missing in the Matrix trilogy. The humans aren't that good, they "burned the sky" an act of suicidal barbarism that overshadows anything the machines did, and the machines aren't that evil. Machines and humans were both good and evil. Even Neo's closest friends show a casual disregard for the lives of the trapped humans they're fighting to save. The practical considerations for freeing all humanity are also problematic. What is to be done with billions (no reason not to believe Smith) of people when the only human city has 250,000. So the goal itself is ambiguous. No bad guys to fight, no good guys to fight alongside, no reasonable goal to fight for, it's enough to turn a hero anti. "It is a pickle, no doubt about it." Fortunately, for me since I liked it, the Wachowski's didn't want to remake Star Wars or Blade Runner they wanted to do something different. The way they kept their fictional world intact and left Neo and the other humans heroic was to take the story away from them and make it about the Oracle and the world and the change that she brought about.
Shadowkat writes:
"The characters seemed in the final episode to be reduced to pawns to push forward the theme. "
"The theme or message becomes more important than the characters. To the extent that some characters get completely lost in the shuffle. "
" 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."
"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."
Shadowkat is 100% right !! and it is of course beautifully worded.
By the end of the trilogy anyone could have been the hero's lover or teacher. In fact anyone could have been the hero "The One". According to the script I mentioned Neo wasn't the first person that Morphus thought was the One. The Kid (referenced above) had accomplished something that nobody had ever done except the person that Neo was supposed to be the return of and he was mythical. The Kid certainly had the credentials. Neo was "The One" only because The Oracle said he was. Of note, "The Kid" and "Second Renaissance" were the only stories the Wachowski bros. wrote in the Animatrix.
Far from being a flaw in the story. The iconification of the human characters was the story or at least a major part of the story. "We're all here to do what we're all here to do." Ironically, looked at from this point of view, the human characters in "Revolutions" have got to be the most completely drawn characters in the history of literature. Since we know vastly more about them than we need or want.
At the story level changing all the characters into icons served the Oracle's purpose. It made them predictable. She could depend on them doing exactly what they needed to do just when they needed to do it. It makes an oracle's job easy. Heck it makes oracles of us all. It must have been a joy to write.
In the director's commentary to the film "Don't say a Word" At the point where Michael Douglas and Brittany Murphy steal a boat, Gary Fleder offers "forgive me for this ...eh..the guy yelling on the dock..that cliche I didn't know how else to do it. We needed to tell the story about the guy, the irate boat guy its always one of the things... I cringe looking at it now."
In the second half of "Revolutions" the brothers could, and did, trot out every overused war story or car chase cliche and use it with gleeful enthusiasm. Of course nobody's perfect and freshness did creep in on occasion. I, for one, forgive them. What a great way to write a story. There's a reason things are used and eventually overused. It's because they work.
Given the above there's not a lot that I need to say about the rest of the movie.(In truth there's always more to say. I've been at this for days and I'm tired. I don't know how you guys do it.) The heroes were heroic, the victims tragic, the lovers loving and Neo, the sacrifice appropriately sacrificial. I will mention but not belabor Neo's blinding since anyone on this board who witnessed Xander's injury in BTVS season seven and manwitch's excellent post on same knows just what was happening.
Which brings us to the coda. Introduced fittingly by our whiskered friend "deja vu" this time sporting a collar (change has been tamed). The cat pads across the ruined landscape and disappears. The world heals itself and "deja vu" reappears and again traces its route, this time on a world reborn, into the beloved presence of Sati. The movie ends a few minutes later with, who else, the Oracle followed by a sunrise.
There has been some speculation that the Oracle is a dark goddess. Maybe it's the identification of cats with Egypt but when I think of the first and last appearance of the Oracle enclosing the two appearances of "deja vu", images of Nuit (or Nut) come, near irresistibly, to mind. Nuit is the mother of the gods. She gives birth to the sun every morning, bringing day, and eats the sun every evening and brings the night. I now believe I may be the slowest tugboat in the fleet. It took me five days to realize the significance of Nuit's most common appelation "sky goddess". Which answers the last question. Why did the Oracle go to such extreme lengths to free mankind? Simply put, she got tired of waiting for the machines to clean the crap out of her sky.
Just a last few thoughts, which may be of interest.
In Second Renaissance when the machine representatives came to the U.N. to plead their case. They appeared as humans as a sign of respect (according to the directors commentary). This adds quite a bit of depth to the deus ex machina talking to Neo with a human face. Whether or not Neo could see it.
There has been some justifiable criticism of the third movie based on its lack of humor. So I wanted to share this. I bought and played the video game "Enter the Matrix" in order to see what other bits might be present to help me unravel the mysteries of that fictional world. I was successful in viewing all the clips and accomplishing all the goals except piloting (as Niobe) the hovercraft, Logos, after Niobe's distruction of the power plant until the E.M.P. was triggered The view was so obscured I couldn't avoid running into things getting stuck and eventually blowing up. So I for one got a good laugh or at least a loud snort when Sparks said "could you clean the windshield while you're at it".
Thanks again to OnM for starting me on a train of thought which has allowed me to answer a question, that has been haunting me for a year. At least to my own satisfaction. Why wasn't I disappointed in "Matrix Revolutions"?
Thanks also, as always, to the caretakers of this much beloved board.
TWS
[> [>
FYI "Animatrix" on Cartoon Channel tonight (Saturday) check your local listings -- tost, 11:48:45 04/17/04 Sat
Midnight (I think) here in New Mexico
[> [>
Toshiro Mifune -- Rufus, 20:44:04 04/17/04 Sat
As soon as I saw the Mifune character all I could think of was the movies with the actor Toshiro Mifune. I think this reference is on purpose and I had no problem with the WW2 parallels. If we go back to the Animatrix we can see that the conflict between the machines and humans ended up in the same place as in Revolutions where it was kill or be killed. The battle in Revolutions a cliche as it could only end one way, until Neo suggests that they simply stop. The only way to end the conflict was to stop the cycle of war and work towards something else, didn't mean the story was over and everyone lived happily ever after. The Oracle played the dangerous game of change. There is never one hero but a series of actions and heroes who contribute to a final result, as always happens people tend to remember a few and forget the contributions of the rest.
[> [>
Great stuff, tost! Thanks for the buttonage and the vestments, yea verily! -- OnM, 21:43:12 04/17/04 Sat
There may be no spoon, but there will be quotage.
:-)
What's My Line Part I, random thoughts. -- Cactus watcher, 08:40:07 04/12/04 Mon
What's My Line is an annotator's paradise so go check Rob's site for all that.
Oh, yes the career fair. We didn't really have a career fair, but I remember taking the test. I think it was the MMPI in those days (something like Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory) I think I came up high in things like CPA and musician, neither of which I was really suited for. I think worst possible result was if you were high in shepherd, meaning you were both a loner and didn't share many interests with anyone who made more than minimum wage.
Dru - As Spike threatens the brainy vamp to make him try harder to decipher the gibberish in Du Lac's book, "He can't help you. Not without the key." Good thing this was before Dawn's made up existence or that phrase would have caused a merry chase!
What exactly is wrong with Dru? In the later seasons things tended to be explained to death, but not in the early ones. What exactly was wrong with Dru remains a mystery. Fire later slows down Spike and Darla for a time, but neither of them keep getting worse as Dru seems to do. The mob in Prague knew something about vampires we don't hear about later.
There seems to be equal opportunity for economic failure among the Good and the Evil. Evil comes to town on the bus. Kendra has to stow away on a plane.
Where is Honorificus when we need her? Kendra shows up in shiny magenta pants, and a purple top ("Me only shirt," Kendra later tells us), matching choker and bracelets and easy grab earrings for her fights with vampires. It all look fine on her. But she really needed to make friends with the Scoobies earlier so Xander could get her a pair of "fightin' pants."
It's interesting that when Giles is carrying his reference for Du Lac out of the stacks he carefully hides its identity. Willow on the other hand quickly shows it to be an old National Geographic when they still put the contents on the cover. The must have had a lot more articles on the occult in those days. ;o)
In order to get out of 'booking it' with the gang, so she won't miss her skating date with Angel, Buffy rationalizes, "I kinda lack in the book area." This has another level as we see in the next ep. She's lacking a slayer handbook, in the book area!
Whatever happened to that statue in the fancy case, in Angel's apartment? I guess he traded it for a case full of weapons!
Any one who enjoyed the "Cheerios by General Mills" credit in the first Superman movie will appreciate the box Krispy Kreme doughnuts at Willow's desk in this ep. It was, of course, before they were available on the area of the country including California.. I wonder if they came in on the same plane with Kendra?
Notice it's Giles that throws Cordy and Xander together. I wondered why Cordy would agree to giving Xander a ride when I was watching this time. But then I remembered that whole saving-her-life-numerous-times business that might make her feel like she owed them a few favors!
Ever wonder at the strength of vampires? There are numerous eps in which they rip solid metal doors to pieces, Welcome to the Hellmouth, Lie to Me, etc. . It takes them some effort, but they can make it through. But, when faced with flimsy metal mesh as in this episode at Willy's place or on many many occasions at the school library they seem to be helpless.
Buffy to Kendra "You must be number two." I can't figure out why, but this line always is a little confusing in context. It's a good enough line and refers forward to Kendra being the second slayer. But, every time I see Buffy say it, it takes me a minute to figure out, she's talking about the second assassin.
Replies:
[>
What was wrong with Dru? -- KdS, 11:02:58 04/12/04 Mon
I've always wondered if her mystical talents were wearing her out in the same way that they did Cordelia in AtS.
[> [>
Re: What was wrong with Dru? -- luvthistle1, 18:48:13 04/12/04 Mon
remember Angelus had made her insane before he "sire" her. that was why she was crazy. but as to why she needed to drink more of Angel blood to get better, that was never fully explain.... at least not that I know of. Was it?
[> [> [>
Re: What was wrong with Dru? -- Alistair, 15:13:45 04/13/04 Tue
Well, we do know that sometime in the last few decades, Drusilla encountered an angry mob in Prague. We know that Spike was in New York in 1969 for Woodstock, and 1977 killing Robin Wood's mother. It is likely that Drusilla was with him at the time. When Giles first mentions Drusilla, he shows an old photograph of her, likely from the early 20th century, which shows her strong, as she is believed to have been killed by an angry mob. Probably, the mob injured her just enough to eventually lead to her death, perhaps by use of magick, or maybe ritual blood lettings of some sort, mixed in with fire. It would seem appropriate that she would need the life blood of her sire to be restored, which would also kill Angel in the process. This means that a vampire which somehow loses all its blood before it is healed can die, and perhaps Drusilla lost too much to be replaced by feeding. This is my theory.
[>
What's My Line Part II, more thoughts. -- Cactus Watcher, 08:22:23 04/13/04 Tue
What's My Line, the two-parter was one that just kept getting more and more important as time went by. The assassins weren't the scariest, and the dialogue is a little stilted at times, but it hits one of those major themes of the show. 'You are who you are, and being the person you are, isn't a part-time job.'
Kendra with her bizarre accent almost, but not quite says Andrew's copyrighted "vamPIRES."
Kendra as little Miss Perfect. It seemed when the episode aired that Kendra was what the watchers wanted a slayer to be. But Kendra starts questioning Giles' judgement and authority as soon as she meets him. As we learn later this isn't exactly perfect slayer behavior according to the counsil. On the other hand, it does seem Gwendolyn Post from "Revelations" would have had a little more difficulty fooling Kendra than she did with Faith.
Oh, What a Night! - One of my favorite Buffy flubs is in part two. Spike says it's going to be a full moon that night. Giles and Kendra agree it's going to be a new moon. Of course, a new moon is always setting at sundown, so it would be a bit anticlimactic for the ceremony. On the other hand remember the lyric from "Tonight, Tonight" from West Side Story 'And make this endless day, endless night, tonight!' In this case to have both a new and full moon, the night would have to last at least two weeks. You ask, in Sunnydale who'd notice?
Phony-policewoman assassin - "Listen up and answer, when I call your name." Some teachers get unhappy when you raise your hand, as Buffy did, instead of answering out loud. However, pulling a gun may be more than necessary to get the point accross.
Just noticed this viewing. - Why is Willow heavily taping up Buffy's knee in the very next scene? She wasn't cut and she seemed to be walking fine.
Buffy and Kendra - "I guess it's something I really can't fight. I'm a freak." "Not the only freak." "Not any more." This is what happens when you write well the first time. For the next five sessons these lines don't mean much more than face value. But come season seven, it starts to mean a lot!
[>
Re: What's My Line Part I, random thoughts. -- oshunwunmi, 12:22:06 04/13/04 Tue
"Whatever happened to that statue in the fancy case, in Angel's apartment?"
Oh oh oh! I know this one. It got moved to the mansion after Angel's return from hell and Gwendolen Post smashed it with her magic lightning of doom. I always thought it was a statue of the Chinese godess of mercy, and thus iconographically significant.
[> [>
Re: What's My Line Part I, random thoughts. -- CW, 13:46:42 04/13/04 Tue
Mrs. Post ought to be ashamed of herself. Moral - if you're going to go evil only break the ugly lamps. ;o)
[>
What's wrong with Dru? Read "Tales of the Vampires" -- Rufus, 22:34:21 04/13/04 Tue
What exactly is wrong with Dru? In the later seasons things tended to be explained to death, but not in the early ones. What exactly was wrong with Dru remains a mystery. Fire later slows down Spike and Darla for a time, but neither of them keep getting worse as Dru seems to do. The mob in Prague knew something about vampires we don't hear about later.
Tales of the Vampires is written by Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard among others. The story in question is "The Problem with Vampires" which is in issue #1 and written by Drew Goddard. The story is about Spike seeking out Dru who is being held by a fellow who is into the torture thing. A combination of the mob and the torture guy (don't be sitting in any chairs in his place)results in a Dru who is more scrambled than before, and she never quite recovers from the combination of Angel's torment and Torture guys attentions. Considering the series is written by Joss and other writers from the show I consider it canon.
Current board
| More April 2004