April 2004 posts


Previous April 2004  

More April 2004

Time to kiss up to The WB...Apparently, they're considering picking up "Wonderfalls"...really... -- Rob, 22:00:48 04/15/04 Thu

from http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Kristin/Archive2004/040416c.html:

Wonderfalls Update: Though the ship may have sailed on Angel, there is still hope for another quality scripted series, Wonderfalls--which happens to be helmed by former Angel boss Tim Minear. Sources tell me UPN has passed on picking up the former Fox series for the same reasons they passed on Angel. However, the WB execs have decided to review an episode of Wonderfalls along with its pilots, which means it is in the running for the fall season.

That said, time to rally before it's too late. Send your support letters (and if you want to throw in a little zsa-zsa-zu, some kind of animal figurine) to:

Jordan Levin
CEO, Warner Bros. Network
4000 Warner Blvd., Building 34R
Burbank, CA 91522

Rob

Replies:

[> I have given up hope for them.... -- SS, 05:04:51 04/16/04 Fri

I saw this on the TVGUIDE website....this seems to be where the WB is going:


www.tvguide.com

"PAGING CAMILE VELASCO...: The WB has quietly wrapped production on Superstar USA, a bizarre version of American Idol that tosses out great singers while rewarding the William Hungs of the world. But in typical reality fashion, the contestants are not in on the joke. In fact, the judges must keep a straight face when they heap praise on tone-deaf singers and send truly gifted crooners home. "These people believe they're the next pop superstar, even though they're horrible singers," exec producer Mike Fleiss (The Bachelor) tells Variety. "This is about people who are clearly delusional and watching them butcher song after song." That is just plain cruel. I love it!"

And with that reality soap opera highschool reunion show, and that reality soap opera sureal life show....one word: Scary.

Don't they know that every network is trying to sell that stuff now? Why sell what everyone sells when you could sell something original?

Sigh.

SS

[> [> Oh, me, too. But if there's a chance to get "Wonderfalls" back... -- Rob, 07:20:35 04/16/04 Fri

I'd rather deal with watching The WB next year (without a ratings box, it's not as if what I watch or don't watch makes the slightest bit of difference to the networks anyway, and I do also feel a certain obligation to watch Smallville, which is good every now and then) than not have the show at all.

Rob

[> The WB is not as bad as Fox -- Vash the Stampede, 07:53:59 04/16/04 Fri

The WB is not as bad as Fox. That is not to say that they aren't ingrates when it comes to shows that put them on the map, but at least they try and allow series to grow. Birds of Prey last for all 13 episodes, and Tarzan had a 9 episode run. They or course weren't even close to the caliber of Angel or Buffy, but at least the WB tries to make its freshman shows successful. Then later on they stab them in the back ;)

[> [> Re: The WB is not as bad as Fox -- Rob, 11:57:25 04/16/04 Fri

Birds of Prey last for all 13 episodes, and Tarzan had a 9 episode run.

Exactly...which is why I'm fairly confident that if The WB did pick up the series, they would at least air the already filmed episodes before canning it.

Rob

[> [> Re: The WB is not as bad as Fox -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:23:16 04/16/04 Fri

Don't you think you're being a little harsh? Sure, I would have liked to see "Angel" continue for longer as well, but five seasons is still a pretty respectable run, longer than most TV shows get, actually. I hardly think that simply cancelling a TV show makes them worthy of scorn.
Illyria's "nightmares" -- BrianWilly, 15:12:25 04/16/04 Fri

I'm curious as to how people are interpreting this. My first thought was that she was being metaphorical, saying that actual nightmares, aka nightmarish demons like Old Ones, used to actually walk the actual earth unfettered and terrorize folk in their actual waking lives, and now they are all gone from this dimension and the only remnants of these horrors is within the dreams and imaginations of the human beings they used to rule over.

But after reading some thoughts from others, I wonder if Illyria's descriptions were meant to be taken literally...that somehow, these nightmarish monsters of the past are actually "trapped" in some prison of the human mind, that the monsters of our bad dreams are actual monsters forced to take shape only within nightmares.

I'm leaning more towards the former myself, but the latter is an interesting idea regardless, no? In the past we've seen demons who attack using the power of dreams and nightmares brought to life, and even the First Slayer who had form only within the dreams of others.

Replies:

[> Re: Illyria's "nightmares" -- kisstara, 15:27:32 04/16/04 Fri

I took the bit about nightmares literally, that somehow nightmares had a corporal form at one time and literally walked the Earth. Strangly, I did not even consider a metaphorical interpretation.

It is as if nightmares now exist in a form that can only be interpreted to humans as a "bad dream", but the nightmares are experiencing the dream as reality. This makes our subconconcious a true alternate reality as opposed to just thoughts in our head.

[> Re: Illyria's "nightmares" -- Pip, 16:44:53 04/16/04 Fri

I understood Illyria's meaning literally - that 'nightmares' were not demons you have nightmares about, they were demons that created nightmares. After they'd created nightmares in a being, they'd make the worst imaginings visible to others for amusement.

Now those nighmare-demons are trapped within human minds, and the nightmares they cause are trapped inside also.

But this may be because the idea that nightmares used to be actual demons-who-brought-you-nightmares is familiar to me anyway. Whether it's a myth I was told as a child or a fiction story I've read somewhere, I'm not sure. But I know it.

[> [> Re: Illyria's "nightmares" -- Kenny, 12:28:13 04/17/04 Sat

As a definite example of that concept in fiction, That it's the basis for Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series. Not limited to nightmares, all dreams are crafted in the Dreaming and sent to sleeping individuals. One nightmare even went renegade. If you haven't read it, it's a wonderful, epic comic book.

[> Darn. Very minor spoiler for AtS 5.17 in this thread -- Pip, 16:46:39 04/16/04 Fri


[> Did anyone else think... -- DorianQ, 14:23:18 04/17/04 Sat

that it was a reference (or a parallel, whichever is correct) to Fred and her memories being trapped in Illyria's head now? That's how I interpretted the line's presence, anyway, along with it being a very intriguing tidbit of information. Most of her lines seem to have importance to the themes in the rest of the plot line and maybe for the rest of the season, since Wes and Illyria don't have interaction with the rest of the characters and don't seem to progress in their relationship with each other except for a growing trust between them. Has someone done an analysis of their lines together in this episode (along with Wesley's dream)? That would be nice, and I'm not usually very good on picking up on that stuff myself.
Questions (and teeny spoilers) for "Underneath" -- Darby, 19:49:09 04/16/04 Fri

Illyria, especially early, seemed to have a very distinctive rhythm to her lines, reminiscent of Shakespeare. Can anybody recognize iambic pentameter?

Also, they seemed to try to cast Lindsey's "wife" with an actress combining facial features of Darla and Eve - blond hair, upper face somewhat Julie Benzish, mouth and dimples very Sarah Thompsoney. Or is it just me-?

Replies:

[> Re: Questions (and teeny spoilers) for "Underneath" -- Cheryl, 19:52:48 04/16/04 Fri

I thought it *was* Darla at first, when it was just her profile. She even sounded a little like her. I didn't notice the Eve resemblence, but I'll pay more attention when I rewatch it (for the 4th time!).
Buffy and final Angel episodes -- ghady, 03:26:56 04/17/04 Sat

WIll Sarah be appearing in the episodes leading up to the Angel series finale (or at least in the finale itself)??

Replies:

[> (Casting spoilers up to 5.22) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:14:38 04/17/04 Sat

According to various most reliable sources (such as Kristin's e-online column), Sarah will not be appearing in any Angel episode. Her dates for filming 'The Grudge' couldn't fit together with the necessary filming schedule for Episode 21, which was the part of the arc they were going to fit her into. What that means plot-wise is anyone's guess. Also not appearing, though requested, Alyson Hannigan and Michelle Trachtenberg. The only Buffyverse alums to appear (aside obviously from Angel, Spike, Wesley and Harmony) will be Andrew, and, bizarrely, Anne. Your guess is as good as mine...

TCH

[> [> Casting spoilers continued with a question -- KdS, 04:35:58 04/17/04 Sat

Is that Chanterelle/Lily/Anne or Spike's Mum Anne?

'Cos I can see how both might fit.

[> [> Re: (Casting spoilers up to 5.22) -- Rufus, 04:47:11 04/17/04 Sat

When you see her you will understand why Anne is not such a bizzare character to appear in the end eps.

[> [> Unspoiled speculation as to why ... (Casting spoilers up to 5.22) -- s'kat, 08:30:09 04/17/04 Sat

and, bizarrely, Anne.

I didn't know this, but I'm pleased to hear it! I've been dying for Ann/Lily/Chanterelle to make an appearence.
She's incredibly important in a way to both Angel and Spike.

Why?

Well, re-watch Ann(S3 BTVS), The Thin Dead Line (ATS S2),
Blood Money (ATS S2), and Lie to Me (BTVS S2)

Lily/Chanterelle romanticized the older guy/lonely one. She was the counter-part to Buffy. In Lie to Me, Ann is Chanterelle and wants to be made into a vampire and join the lonely ones as their lover. In her head they all look like Angel and Spike do without the vamp face. Chanterelle is a lot like the fans who overly romanticize vampires and may actually be Whedon's shout-out to them. Spike gives Chanterelle a rude awakening when he almost kills her - showing her that he's not the handsome prince she dreams of but a monster who will rip out her throat, what saves her is Buffy threatening Dru, but it is made clear to Chanterelle that he planned to kill her not turn her not love her. Chanterelle changes her name to Lily and flees to LA, and takes up with an older boy and drug addict, living off the streets. The older boy - named I think, Billy, is a clear analogy to Angel, in fact her whole existence with Billy in Anne, is an analogy to the Buffy/Angel romance and the idea of being taken care of forever - about how that romance while lovely does not hold up in an adult world. Once again Buffy breaks through Lily's illusions and Lily sees her life with Billy for what it was, gets herself out of hell and takes the name Buffy had been using, Ann. At this point, Lily learns from Buffy that she doesn't need a boyfriend to make her whole or
protect her, she can do this for herself.

When Angel meets up with her in Blood Money, Anne has no illusions about vampires or men. She is actually somewhat cynical. She knows what to do to survive. And has taken as her calling - helping street kids and runaways, giving them a place to stay and a way to get help. She has no illusions.
No rose colored glasses.

Angel doesn't quite know how to deal with Anne, she seems him for what he is and refuses to play damsel, refuses to swoon, and refuses to flirt. Anne has carved a place for herself in the hellish world of LA, strives each day to make it less of a hell for those around her. Anne also symbolizes in some ways Angel's and Spike's journeys - she was inspired by Buffy to help others and has fallen down at times - relying on WR&H for money and support in Blood Money, but broken free of that in Thin Dead Line.

So yes, it makes a great deal of sense for Anne to reappear. Actually more than Buffy at this point, because Ann unlike Buffy is part of Angel's world and has been since Ann S3.

[> [> [> Re: Unspoiled speculation as to why ... (Casting spoilers up to 5.22) -- Cheryl, 08:58:30 04/17/04 Sat

So yes, it makes a great deal of sense for Anne to reappear. Actually more than Buffy at this point, because Ann unlike Buffy is part of Angel's world and has been since Ann S3.

I was thrilled to hear Anne was going to be back because I always felt that storyline was unfinished. It bothered me some that Angel and "Anne" didn't recognize each other from Lie To Me, but I got over it. But once I knew Spike was going to be on Angel, I felt there was definitely a need for Anne to show up again so I've been hoping for it all season. And I always wondered what happened to her anyway. She was also a friend of Gunn's from before he joined up with Angel. And wouldn't it be interesting if Lindsey is still around when Anne comes back and sees Lindsey and Angel working together (sort of)? Yep, lots of history with Anne.

[> [> [> [> Anne in the Buffyverse -- Dandy, 09:17:10 04/17/04 Sat

Anne represents morality in the Buffyverse.

Anne of the shelter took over Buffy's persona, absorbed her mission, her morality. She was influenced by Buffy in the same way Angel was. They both found their mission through contact with Buffy. Angel has strayed from this. Anne hasn't. The contrast between them may be a sobering experience for Angel.

Spike's mother is also named Anne. She was a positive, nurturing figure. Part of Buffy's position as role model makes her a mother figure to Spike and to Angel and Chanterelle. Chanterelle's adoption of the Buffy persona leads her to become mother to the orphans of the street.
How did Angel get his champion moniker? By defending an unborn child.
"Heres the Rub: Heroes Don't Do That" -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:49:38 04/17/04 Sat

Despite the morally dubious nature of its source, I was incredibly moved Lindsay's speech to Angel in "Underneath". Shadowkat has pointed out long before me that it is a 'you sold out' speech levied at him. I am under thirty years old, twenty in fact. As such, as she also stated in her post, it may be unlikely that I understand those statements from the perspective of one stuck in a holding pattern of corporate/suburban hell.
However, the funny thing is, even at my early age I already feel as if the speech applies to me, not because I'm not doing something that I want to (I'm a student. I've had jobs bussing tables for elitist bastards and the like, but despite my complaints they can't realistically compare to one in such a job indefinitely in their adulthood), nor because I'm working for anyone I don't believe in. Its because of where I live, namely, the United States.
People on this board have seen my posts before, and probably recognize an element of what I'm sure most would classify under the heading 'anti-Americanism'. I mean not to say that I dislike the liberties or freedoms that I enjoy in this country, nor do I intend to spark any sort of political flame war. That having been said, I do have what I consider to be a reasonable amount of contempt for a great deal of corporations that while bringing comfort into the living rooms of many in this country are simultaneously bringing misery and slavery (yes, it still exists the world round) to many globally. For me, Wolfram and Hart is representative of the very real evil corporations that exist in our world: the Haliburtons, the Talisman Energies, the Exxons, Shells, and Yum Yum Foods. Angel's fought against that symbol for years and has now found himself in the pit of its stomach.
Are we so very different? I find myself feeling more and more like I'm not. I don't have any direct involvement in these corporations, but some of their products are in my household. Coca Cola in the fridge. McDonalds on the counter. Gasoline in the tank of my car. I'm looking to my left now at a book bag I regretfully brought from the Gap before discovery of their involvement in force child labor in Myanmar.
I write letters. Angel signs checks. I protest. Angel holds meetings. I currently write for the Newspaper of my University, but I'm reporting on local things, small things. Its getting to me, and its making me feel smaller and smaller, more mundane and ineffectual. Am I not distracted from effecting change in the same way that Angel is? In operating on such a small scale, have I lost sight of the big picture?
And what's my alternative? I read the news all the time, watching our world slip into chaos and degredation the same way Angel's is. There's MORE than a third of the world starving, Spike, and I have a hard time not thinking about it even when I want to stop.
My affilation with organizations and newspapers and systems, systems, systems is making me feel like more and more I'm starting to accept the world the way it is. As Lindsay said, "heroes don't do that". Whats the first step to not doing so? Where do you go to operate outside the systems? I apologize to posters for any redundancy, as I've asked this question in one form or another in the past. I just thought it'd be appropriate, given the episode's themes and the themes of this season in general.

Replies:

[> Re: "Heres the Rub: Heroes Don't Do That" -- Arethusa, 12:30:57 04/17/04 Sat

The small scale is the big picture. This is something Angel has had trouble understanding. He tried to do the big things-end apocalypses, tear through dimensions-when he should have done the little things, like help people and make every decision count. Everything has consequences, and that includes the little things you do to help, the right decisions you make. Every one of those sends out ripples too, you just don't always see them. We may never succeed in ridding the world of its problems, we may never even know if our efforts have any affect, but we can find peace in discovering that "the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

[> Re: "Heres the Rub: Heroes Don't Do That" -- Bjerkeley, 12:56:37 04/17/04 Sat

Interesting thoughts there, and I think you really do get to the heart of Angel's dilemma, in fact most genuiely questioning peoples' dilemma or question.

It's interesting to go back to the beginning of AtS and look at that Angel's general thought processes were. Perhaps most instructive is in In The Dark where he gives up the chance to walk in the world because it would mean that those he could otherwise help in his present situation would be forgotten. So he gives up what would help him a great deal in order to help him (we'll ignore for the moment that Angel helped very few helpless past season two).

I don't think that focusing on small areas, or only being involved in small areas is not focusing on the big picture. The big picture, after all, is only made up of all these small areas and individuals put together. Some would argue that focusing on the big picture can remove what is most important - the people. Few people realistically have the power to make great differences to the world; practically, the real changes most people can make are on a fundamentally local level. And I think that's important. I've heard many people say that there is little point trying to do good things because it won't make a difference overall. And if everyone thought that way it probably wouldn't.

I think that a large part of Angel's problem is that he has forgotten the point that Arethusa makes above, and indeed is one that used to be central to Angel. He became focused on the idea that he had/has some great importance in the scheme of things overall, and various events have conspired him to end up with Wolfram and Hart, still looking for the bigger change. Whereas the answer seems to be on a far smaller level, that smallest act of kindness.

Which is pretty much a basic fundamental theme in human thought, be it Christian, humanist or whatever - the idea that society can become a better place if we do good things to each other.

I think the important thing is to keep questioning. That to me is central; when someone stops to question the world around them, they become complacent, or they stop to care. And that's when the trouble starts. But if you constantly question things, what goes on in the world, and how you can make a difference, then that's a great start. Because asking how you can make a difference and trying to enact that goes a long way, however small it may be.

Just my two, very ill-informed, cents :-)

[> [> Three Great Posts -- DickBD, 13:38:30 04/17/04 Sat

The importance of attention to the small kindnesses can't be overestimated, in my opinion. I remember being struck many years ago by the personal unpleasantness of a man who was known as something of an advocate for humanity. I couldn't help wondering how he could be so concerned about humanity in the abstract but be so unkind with people one at a time.

[> Re: "Heres the Rub: Heroes Don't Do That" -- s'kat, 20:39:18 04/17/04 Sat

Interesting...was talking to a friend this afternoon, who is not an Angel fan, in fact the first episode she watched of Angel in years was "Underneath" - which she enjoyed tremendously by the way and which she interpreted in much the same way you just did.

It hadn't occurred to me to look at it quite that way - but she raised some interesting points. After all over 14 million people tuned in to watch a reality show about women who got plastic surgery to enter a beauty pagent. If you don't know what is wrong with that...than well, you are living in Lindsey's W R&H holding cell. I've more or less decided we all are. (I'm half-joking). The most popular show right now is The Apprentice - a reality show where successful and rich 20-30 somethings come from other areas in the country to compete for a 250,000 year job with real estate magnet Donald Trump who is now making 100,000 an episode. BTW - some stats you may not want to know, "what lies underneath", over 250,000 people applied for the Apprentice. People are carefully interviewed for drama. And the show takes place mainly in New York. New York City currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation.
It is over 8% and that is not counting those of us who can't qualify for unemployment. There are currently 40,000 homeless on the streets of New York City. Meanwhile Donald Trump is telling us that the decorations in his penthouse are pure gold on live television and his apprentices are swooning over it. His penthouse far above the streets of NYC. On the final episode of the Apprentice, which made all the newspapers and TV news outlets, a "cigar" mogul was offered the reward of a one year job for 250,000 a year.
On top of this, one of the episodes - showed Trump ordering these candidates to rent two small one bedroom apartments for as much as possible. The person who rented it at the highest amount won. This in a city where there are 40,000 homeless? Somewhere along the way we decided money and material goods was how we measured success. The more we have the more successful we are. Yet, to quote an old adage, why? you can't take it with you?

The conversation between Illyria and Wes on the rooftop is chilling, if you think about it. We can't look at the truth, so we hide behind tv sets, iPods, whatever we can find to distract ourselves - anything not to see...what lies underneath.

Like Angel we repeat ourselves. Fighting the same religious and territorial wars over and over and over again. The Iraq war is hardly new. Terrorism isn't new. This has been going on for thousands of years. But do we learn from our history? Do we learn? Or do we continue like Angel, stuck in a continous never-ending loop?

Oh - for an interesting perspective on the whole middle east thing? Check out Deep Space Nine reruns on Spike.

[> [> I'm Glad You Mention DS9 -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:23:59 04/18/04 Sun

Because that was one of my favorite things about the show: The Bajoran/Cardassian conflict always seemed like a veiled allegory for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The Bajoran people resort to terrorist/guerrilla tactics to combat an oppressive occupying group.
I'm not insinuating that I condone usage of violent means, EVER. Some would call that naive, but I don't, because we unfortunately don't live in a world with monsters to kill. There are only human beings. However, I think the show's objective stance perfectly captured the amount of sympathy and understanding that one has to have when fully understanding the complications of the issue. Were the Bajorans, and in our world those Palestinian members of Hamas, pushed toward such means without alternative? I like to believe not, but the fact that its still a QUESTION in my mind is telling. Are the Israeli government officials that order air raids that kill innocent civilians and the construction of apartheid walls leading to homes being bulldozed any different?
*shakes his head* Man, I hear what all of you are saying about the importance of small scale. Its just REALLY difficult for me not to constantly feel like I'm not doing enough in the face of such problems, especially when I see a larger than life hero like Angel and look up to that group so much. Sometimes I wish they were just demons I could decapitate. That'd make it so much easier.

[> [> [> Personally I think the Narn-Centauri conflict on Babylon 5 captured real world strife the best -- Doug, 10:53:53 04/18/04 Sun

Though whether we choose to compare it to the Middle East, or the Balkans, or to any other hot-spot on the planet is to be handled carefully.

The problem with the Bajoran-Cardassian conflict is that it's all one-way for most of the series, with the exception of one Cardassian domestic servent the entire message reads as Bajorans-good guys who sometimes resort to bad tactics, Cardassians- just plain bad. But when I go through my Babylon 5 DVDs I notice that the Narns were no angels themselves, and start out in an antagonistic role in season 1. I never realized how important that portrayal was until I started watching seasons 1, 2, and 3 together on DVD.

DS9's portrayal of the Bajoran-Cardassian conflict presumes one side as the clearly antagonistic one. It would be perhaps miore accurate to compare this to some of the struggles of the Cold War in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan or Vietnam, or Central and South America; one side which is millitarily dominant and asserts it's will over the other. But modern conflicts are more commonly not so one way. In Eastern Europe Serbs have targeted Albanians and Croats in what they perceive as their territory, but in zones that Croats control the exact same thing is done to Serbs. The Rwandan Genocide is an example of mutual tribal loathing carried to an extreme, where a previously subordiante people tried to exterminate those who had once ruled them.

The Bajoran-Cardassian conflict is difficult to apply to real-world situations because it is mostly portrayed as one way, the way the general viewing public likes it. The Narn-Centauri conflict always seemed a better example; it's a story about two peoples so deep in each-others blood that there doesn't seem to be a way out apart from genocide.

All just my humble opinion.

[> [> [> [> I don't know if it was so completely one sided... -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:55:01 04/18/04 Sun

Later in the series, the Bajoran ambassador on DS9 (I forgot her name, unfortunately, its been that long since I saw the show), was showed regretting her resorting to those methods and questioning the necessity of violence to solve the problem of oppression. She was torn and guilty.
I do agree, however, that Bab 5 offered yet another good example of political reflection.

[> [> [> [> Agree on Bablyon 5, but it wasn't that conflict actually.. -- s'kat, 07:20:15 04/19/04 Mon

Actually I wasn't comparing it to Israel/Palestine, but
to the Iraqi conflict (I have *major* problems comparing it to Israel/Palestine - for the reasons Doug states above):

You have the Federation - or provisional government: which is a good metaphor for US and its allies (and there associations with each other)

Bajorans - the Iraqui people

Cardissans - the ruling group or Saddam's regime

It's not a direct analogy - the thing about analogies is they don't need to be direct. An analogy is often used as a means of looking at a difficult situation from another perspective or examining problems in a new way.

When DS9 was first on - I was watching Bablyon 5 (in it's first airing and that to be honest was why I missed out on DS9, I lost interest in DS9 because I kept, perhaps unfairly, comparing it to Bablyon 5 which I felt did the same thing far better. ) I haven't watched any of these on DVD (so believe a much different viewing experience). Now I'm re-watching DS9 and the conflicts they are examining fit in some ways the issues going on now with Iraq than they really do Israel and Palestine. I never really saw that, and comparisons friends made on that score bugged me and may have affected my enjoyment of the series the first round, because of much of what you stated above.

No, I think there's a more interesting analogy to be drawn:
it's situational by the way, not character. There is a difference.

A situational analogy is when the parties are really exactly alike or alike at all, but the situation is quite similar.

Cardissans aren't like anyone on earth.
Bajorans really aren't either.

Like most fiction they are composites of different people and cultures in the writer's imagination.

The situation however is similar in some ways.

You have an allegedly "benevolent" group that wants to help, yet does have alterior motives (Federation in DS9, US and its allies in Iraqi conflict or even Kosvo). You have
the country in conflict - which has been under a dictators rule for a long period of time, now has been freed but has so many adversarial cultures that there's a constant threat of civil war breaking out amongst them (Bajor in DS9 and
Iraq in our world or Yugsolova/Croatia). You have the dictators who believed that firm rule kept everyone in line and why can't that continue (Cardissa in DS9 and well the rulers of Iraq, Kosov, or if you like ruling countries).

The situational analogy is - can you free a country and set up a provisional government ruled by you to get the country on its feet with the exiled rulers still out there? Does it work? What are the problems? What happens? DS9 really doesn't give us any clear right and wrongs at this point, the beginning of the series. It's complicated, which makes entertaining, suspensful and good drama. If it was simplistic, who'd watch?

[> [> [> [> Re: Personally I think the Narn-Centauri conflict on Babylon 5 captured real world strife the best -- skeeve, 13:57:20 04/19/04 Mon

Mira Furlan played Delenn on B5.
She thought that B5 painfully resembled events
in her homeland, the former Yugoslavia.
She emigrated from there in 1991.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Personally I think the Narn-Centauri conflict on Babylon 5 captured real world strife the best -- Vickie, 14:38:40 04/19/04 Mon

I believe she was specifically referring to the Earth civil war towards the end of season 4 (it had been brewing since mid-season-2 at least). She seemed to identify with the pain the characters went through knowing that to stay true to the ideals they had sworn to uphold, they had to appear disloyal to the political entity they had sworn to serve.

Her own character, Delenn, went through a similar though shorter arc when the Minbari suffered their own civil conflict in mid-season-4. It nearly cost Delenn her life.

Furlan's own experience with a cross-cultural theater troupe in her home country gave her first-hand experience with the pain of neighbor vs. neighbor conflict. Check out http://www.thegalacticgateway.com/mf/ for some first-person accounts of her experiences.

She apparently asked JMS (originator of B5 and writer of much of it) "Just when did you live in Yugoslavia?"

[> Re: "Heres the Rub: Heroes Don't Do That" -- anom, 23:29:43 04/17/04 Sat

AvsA, what Lindsey said in Underneath made me think of that earlier post of yours. And when I was going through some papers I'd gotten ready to recycle, I pulled out one w/this as the Quote of the Month on my Working Assets long-distance bill: "We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee" (Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund). Working Assets itself is an example of this: Its customers vote every year on which progressive nonprofit groups will receive a percentage of the money they pay for long-distance service (plus any amount customers round up their bills to). Each bill also lists 3 issues customers can (try to) influence by making phone calls, which the company doesn't charge for that month. So an ordinary activity, making phone calls, can become a way to help change the way the world is.

I thought a bit before including that word "help." But I think it's a key word here: very few of us are in a position to noticeably change the world, but we can all help to change it. It's the cumulative efforts of individuals, whether by making choices in how they live their own lives or by working together, that bring about those changes. I'm not sure doing whatever you do in your work or your everyday life is necessarily a distraction--it depends on the choices you make. You can check the labor practices & environmental records of the companies you buy from in--well, I was gonna say Shopping for a Better World, but apparently the latest edition is 10 years old! However, the Responsible Shopper website can help you find this kind of info, & Co-op America's online Green Pages focuses on green & socially responsible businesses.

You mentioned slavery; coincidentally, a couple of days ago, I received an email message from the American Anti-Slavery Group asking for donations of used computers from people who are upgrading. They're in the Boston area, but you can also make a money donation (click on "Donate" on the home page) & fill in "Computer Fund" in the "How did you hear about the American Anti-Slavery Group" field. And there are probably organizations in your area that could use any equipment you have that you could donate.

And it does make a difference. Brian Lehrer, who hosts a call-in show on my local public radio station, mentions every so often that if news stories played in accordance w/their importance, the lead story every day would be "40,000 Children Die of Hunger-Related Causes." But sometime in the last year, he interviewed someone from an organization (sorry, can't remember who or from which org.) that either fights hunger or keeps track of these things, who said that the number is now 30,000 a day. That's still horrible. But it's better than 40,000 a day. Progress is being made. We can't let the things we see getting worse keep us from seeing the things that are getting better...or how we can help make them better. And that's not mutually exclusive w/living your life & working on the small scale that most of us do. It does add up.

[> Re: "Heres the Rub: Heroes Don't Do That" -- Ann, 13:30:37 04/18/04 Sun

I was wondering recently how you were doing after your last series of posts. The concerns that Lindsay brings forth are needed and necessary although a little surprizing I thought. The W&H's of the world (IMO)encourage this lack of thought about the rest of the world's condition and our role in it. Noam Chomsky writes about this so well in "Manufacturing Consent".

As to Angel's role, I think, he should continue to strive and think about the big picture in addition to the small. You can't save everyone, but you can save those around you if you try. Harm's Way was a great example of this. The treatment of Harmony needs to be improved upon by those around her. This examination of all levels of hierachy is important and Whedon has done a good job with this in the ME-verse. It is a cliche now but "The personal is the political" is true.

[> [> Why Thankyou! -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:11:17 04/18/04 Sun

I'm very flattered that anyone was worried about my condition since that post. I've since been in a much better frame of mind, though that may be due in large part to a wonderful relationship I've recently become involved in rather than much in the way of global conditions improving very much.
The same questions still plague me, though the answers I received were immensely helpful. A number of people introduced me to organizations, some I'd already encountered and joined and some I'd never heard of at all, and I've since felt even more involvement because of it. I thank all that have contributed.
That having been said, its tough to feel any sort of good about not just the horrible circumstances that seem to be rather static (starving and whatnot)but the situation in Fallujah, Haiti, Sudan (still!), and Pakistan. I'm still trying to find a more satisfying feeling method of actual heroism in this world, but I'm thinking perhaps my disatisfaction may have something to do with my own thought patterns and pessimistic perception of the world. Maybe I need some good cognitive-therapy :)

[> [> [> From the Cautionary tale of Number 5 -- Rufus, 16:10:09 04/19/04 Mon

If we only consider the world as a whole big picture the problems can become insurmountable. In the ATS ep "The Cautionary tale of Number 5" the small picture surfaced...

GUNN: You got that file on the lady from the all soul's mass?

WESLEY: She's the most puzzling. The demon passed by over 20 people... so he could attack her.

GUNN: I know. We need to find its M.O., so Angel can guess its next move.

WESLEY: Does Angel seem all right to you?

GUNN: Yeah. Still adjusting to corporate life, I guess. Bit of a disconnect.

WESLEY: Disconnect?

GUNN: His word, not mine. But he's still doing his hero thing. Wait a minute. Didn't you say the homeless guy in the alley was a vet?

WESLEY: Yeah. Gulf War.

GUNN: And something about a Bronze Star. Bronze Star, lady in the church worked with gangs, this dude, a fireman.

WESLEY: Saved his crew in a fire. That's the thread, that's the M.O.?

GUNN: It's taking the hearts of heroes.

In the big picture of world interactions it's easy to overlook the heroes that walk beside us everyday. There is no magical act that will fix the worlds wrongs in one gesture or spell, but if people act in ways that connect them to the world by acts of compassion, self-sacrifice, the results can bloom exponentially. This is the point of the journey that the gang went through this year, the getting lost and drowning in the big picture causing a disconnect with the world around them.

Glad to see you are doing better.

[> [> [> [> Lindsey's Words -- Claudia, 15:50:59 04/20/04 Tue

I have a problem with Lindsey's little speech to Angel near the end of "Underneath". Through him, Whedon seemed to be pointing out that Angel had brought about an apocalypse by giving in to the life of a corporate executive at Wolfram & Hart's. By ignoring his duties as a "Hero", Lindsey accused Angel of accepting the world as it is, instead of trying to make it better by fighting its evils.

It seems to me Lindsey (and Whedon) do not understand that wrapping one's life around fighting evil or being the "Hero" is not really going to achieve anything. Not really. No matter how many apocalypses that Angel and the AI Team avert, no matter how many times certain aspects of life seem to improve, the world will not change. At least not 'underneath'. Evil will always exist. The person or persons that the AI Team will save . . . will eventually die. And for every step forward made by humanity, it will take two steps back. The AI Team (and on BUFFY, THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, the Scoobies) has been fighting a war that will never end. No matter how many battles they win or evil beings they destroy, the Team will never will the war against evil. And evil will never win. I think that Ambassador Delenn from BABYLON 5 said it best, "The war is never completely won. There are always new battles to be fought against the darkness. Only the names change."

One may ask, how can the AI Team save the world, if they do not fight? Is the fight really necessary? Or worth it? People would probably say yes. They will reason that despite its evils, the world can be a wonderful place. But is it really? Or is this all an illusion, harbored by humans? Is the fight against "evil" so important to humans, because they are afraid to die? Because they believe in the self-preservation of humanity? Instead of the world being wonderful, despite its evils, what if the world is a seething mass of ugliness underneath its beautiful surface. What if this is a state of existence that has never changed, and never will?

I am not a churchgoer. Nor am I an atheist, like Joss Whedon. I simply dislike organized religion and believe that spirituality is something that should remain a private matter for the individual. I don't think it should be a reason for social gatherings, or a moral code for the masses. My mother, on the other hand, is a Penacostal. Nearly two years ago, she had asked me to accompany her to a Penacostal Church conference in Phoenix. The conference had its usual mix of sermons and musical arrangements. However, one minister said something that caught my attention. He said that humans should not devote their full attention to fighting evil. Instead, finding God should deal with finding God. This seemed like a conservative Christian's version of self-realization. And as a liberal who dislikes organized religion, his remark seemed right on target for me.

Perhaps this is why I have so much trouble with Lindsey's words to Angel. I had the feeling that Whedon wanted us to believe how important it was for Angel and his friends to fight evil - to fight "the good fight". Or to be heroes and champions. Yet, by focusing upon their "heroic" journey, the AI Team may end up ignoring something more important - namely self-realization. By focusing their attention on "the good fight", the AI Team may not take the time to learn about themselves. To find the inner spirit within them. By doing the latter, the gang would have the opportunity to prepare themselves for a better world following their deaths. Somewhere similar to where Buffy's spirit had found brief happiness, following her death in BtVS's "The Gift".

Fighting the "good fight", I believe, is not the way to achieve spiritual contentment in the end. Or the Great Reward. Even Buffy had discovered this. Granted, she was able to reside in some kind of spiritual haven for a brief time. But in the end, she ended up back on Earth, near the Hellmouth. She had probably thought that being the Slayer and sacrificing herself would finally give her a chance for the rest she had so much desired. Perhaps the real reason Buffy never had the chance to enjoy her "reward" is because she had never bothered to prepare herself for it, in the first place. Sacrificing oneself in a grand gesture just did not give her the reward she wanted. However, she now has a second chance. One of the things I liked about BtVS's "Chosen" is something that many fans disliked - her "cookie dough" speech. Granted, the words had sounded a little silly and immature, but the idea behind her words seemed sound. Buffy had come to the realization that she needed a little self-realization to become a better and happier person - to find herself. She needed to discover who Buffy Summers really was and not define her existence around a boyfriend, or her position as a Slayer or a "champion".

I wish I could say the same about Angel and the AI Team, but after listening to Lindsey's words, I fear that they will never achieve Buffy's ephinany. It seemed quite apparent that Whedon wants to focus upon the importance of Angel's role as a hero. This also seem apparent in Angel's words to Connor in Season 4's "Deep Down" - "But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done, or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world is what it should be, to show what it can be."

Poor Angel. Talk about self-delusion. In the past, he had seemed so focused upon being a champion and trying to make the world a better place. During Season 5, he had made the mistake of simply going through the motions, wallowing in his guilt surrounding Connor and giving in to Wolfram and Hart's plans for him. But Lindsey (and possibly Whedon) want him to make an even bigger mistake - namely re-focus his attention to fighting evil and being a hero. In the end, being a champion will not get Angel anywhere. Nor will it make the world what "it should be". Why? The world will never really change. And by being a "champion", Angel might fall into an even bigger trap than being Wolfram and Hart's puppet, which is the same trap that Buffy nearly fell into back in BtVS's Season 7. By focusing his life around being "a champion", Angel might end up following the old Watcher Council's mistake by succumbing to ruthless self-righteousness and an arrogant belief of one's goodness. These are the very traits that led the old Council to their destruction. A fate I believe that Angel would probably like to avoid.

[> [> [> [> [> Even small changes matter -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:30:42 04/20/04 Tue

Of course, I'm coming at this from the perspective that the world is a nice place because, so far for me, it has been. But, even if that's not the case, then making the world closer to a good place is still possible.

You say the war will never end; that's probably true. But the conditions the war's fought under can change. There will always be evil to prey off people, but how much or how successful it is can change. Saying there's no point in being a hero because you can never really win seems to mirror what Angel felt at the end of "Reprise" when he went to sleep with Darla and try to lose his soul. But he came to a realization after that, the titular epiphany of the episode, that just because there's never a complete victory doesn't mean you shouldn't keep on fighting. There are people out there who are alive because of Angel; sure, they all will die someday, but that doesn't mean there's no point in giving them more time to enjoy life. If surviving becomes meaningless because we all must die someday, then I don't see what your motivation for not commiting suicide is. I think it is worth living life, and worth preserving the lives of others, and generally trying to make the world a little better than it is, because there is joy to be found in life. There are jokes, family, love, friends, movies, TV, books, amusement park rides, ice cream. There are plenty of things in life that I love, and so I will cling on to life so I can enjoy them for as long as possible. You seem to be saying that if something isn't perfect, it's worthless; luckily, I am not such a perfectionist. There's a difference between a totally miserable world and a world that's got plenty of problems but also some great joys. Being a hero means trying to make life better, not perfect; even just one more person who gets to lead a happy and full life, perhaps even achieving the self-realization you seem to cherish, is worth fighting for.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Wrapping One's Life -- Claudia, 07:51:43 04/21/04 Wed

If Angel and Company want to fight evil, then fine. Let them fight evil. But what I'm trying to say is that Lindsey's words seem to indicate that Angel needs to concentrate on being a hero, to be saved, or to find himself. He doesn't. Being a hero isn't what Angel's life should be about. What his life should be about is finding himself. Finding out what the real Angel - or the real Liam is all about. Slaying vampires and demons will not help him along that road. By focusing all of his attention on being a hero, he is in danger of focusing too much on the world at large, and not enough on his emotional and spiritual journey.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel isn't trying to find himself; he's trying to recreate himself -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:10:38 04/21/04 Wed

After a hundred years of commiting every atrocity known to man, Angel's got a pretty low opinion of his own nature. As such, rather than trying to find himself (which could simply lead to a confirmation of his own worthlessness, a problem he's dealt with for some time) Angel's trying to remake himself. He wants to improve himself, become someone better, a hero.

Also, as someone else pointed out, the demons and monsters of the Jossverse act as metaphors for problems people deal with in life. Someone who does a good job of literally fighting their demons on "Buffy" and "Angel" is metaphorically dealing with the problems of their lives.

Finally, you say that Angel finding himself is more important than being a hero, but, by being a hero, he's saving the lives of other people who might not have had the opportunity to find themselves otherwise. If finding oneself is all the really matters in this world from your perspective, than Angel being a hero certainly helps service that.

[> [> [> [> [> Define the Apocalypse -- Lunasea, 05:47:48 04/21/04 Wed

I know I'm going to regret this, but I am getting really tired of seeing Joss' story/message so badly twisted. At this point, reading your posts is like hearing the Gospel being used to justify hatred and war.

The words of Dan Aykroyd are really coming to mind, but I'm not going to resort to that. Your entire premise rests on a literal interpretation of the show. Maybe you should scroll to the top of the message board and actually read Joss' own words. Since you have shown to be lazy in the past, I will do this for you. "When somebody says there is a philosophy behind 'Buffy' that is the truth. When they say there is symbolism and meaning in what we're doing, that's true too." --Joss Whedon

Do you know what symbolism means? I will look that up for you too.

sym·bol·ism ( P ) The practice of representing things by means of symbols or of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or relationships.

Since we don't live in a world with demons, I think it is safe to assume they are symbolic. Joss is using them for symbolism. On Buffy they represented the internal issues of the characters, frequently called "our inner demons." What do you think demons mean on AtS?

Now take that and figure out what THE Apocalypse that Lindsey refers to is. Lindsey isn't talking about all those pseudo-apocalypses that Buffy or Angel stopped. This is the big one, the actual apocalypse. What do you think Joss is trying to symbolize with this that would be in line with how the show has symbolized things in the past?

I doubt you will find too many people here that are willing to discuss a literal interpretation of the show. The quotes at the top are there for a reason. First one is "You don't sit back on the couch watching 'Buffy,' you have to sit forward and think about it." --James Marsters. That is what this board is about, sitting forward and thinking about the show. A literal interpretation of the events of the show is not doing this. You will find that criticisms of the show that are based on this are not received well here.

Sorry to speak for the board. I don't think any will disagree with what I have said. We are called the Existential Scoobies for a reason.

I will end with a quote with Dan Ayroyd, since you have tried to race bait earilier: "We must come to the point where we realize the concept of race is a false one. There is only one race, the human race."

[> [> [> [> [> Self-Righteous -- Dlgood, 11:46:39 04/21/04 Wed

One may ask, how can the AI Team save the world, if they do not fight? Is the fight really necessary? Or worth it? People would probably say yes. They will reason that despite its evils, the world can be a wonderful place. But is it really? ... Instead of the world being wonderful, despite its evils, what if the world is a seething mass of ugliness underneath its beautiful surface. What if this is a state of existence that has never changed, and never will?

I can direct the same question toward your vaunted quest to "find the inner spirit". Is it really necessary, important, or worthwhile? What if our inner spirit is just as much a seething mass of worthlessness as the world is? After all, isn't the world just an aggregate of the individuals that comprise it? What then makes this pursuit of the self any different or better than any other heroic journey, other than by being even more self-involved?

by focusing upon their "heroic" journey, the AI Team may end up ignoring something more important - namely self-realization. By focusing their attention on "the good fight", the AI Team may not take the time to learn about themselves. To find the inner spirit within them. By doing the latter, the gang would have the opportunity to prepare themselves for a better world following their deaths.

Wow. In the attempt to dismiss Angel's attempts at heroism as self-righteousness, you've run off and embraced self-righteousness in the opposite direction.

You save lives, not to be a hero. You fight, not to be rewarded. You don't fight for an "end". There isn't an "end". There shouldn't need to be.

In fact, that there is no end at all, is at the same time, the most discouraging and the most liberating thing behind "fighting the good fight". There is really is a very simple, stripped down reason to "fight the good fight". Because it really is a good fight, and because you can. That's an incredibly empowering realization.

While "Self-Realization" might feel all well and grand, it's not worth all that much when it comes at the cost of someone else's life - a lesson Gunn has learned through his brain-enhancement debacle.

Can you actually prepare yourself for a "better world following death" without trying to build a better world to live in now? Are you even remotely prepared or qualified for such a better world, if you don't value your own world or the other people in it?

I would submit that the answers to the above questions are "No".

[> [> [> [> [> [> Self-Righteous, Huh? -- Claudia, 13:21:34 04/21/04 Wed

OH MY GOD!

After reading some of the responses to my post, I think my view of the world and humanity has lowered a notch further. My God! I try to post a message on my opinion of Lindsey's speech in "Underneath" and I end up being torn to pieces by some of the members on this forum.

Now, I realize that I'm an unpopular member of this forum (and don't expect me to leave any time soon), but judging from some of the responses, I see that my post had really disturbed a lot of people. The only one who had responded in a reasonable manner was Finn McCool, even if I didn't agree with him. But the others . . . good grief!

I never realized that my view on the world and humanity would disturb people to such a degree. If you want to believe that this world is basically wonderful . . . be my guest. If you want to believe that it is so important for Angel or other Jossverse characters to devote their lives to karate-chopping, staking, stabbing and shooting various vampires and other demons, fine. But don't expect me to share it. Nor do I feel that my view should garner such hostility, especially from those like Lunsea and Dlgood. The last two were exceptionally hostile. Why was it so necessary for you to attack me on my view on spiritualism or self-realization? Especially since the topic of religion has been touched on both shows? Did you find my view disturbing? Does it go against your morality code? Are you so hostile, because it doesn't conform with the views of most people? What? If you didn't agree, why didn't you just say so? Why was it so important to you to attack me in such a hostile manner?

Or maybe it isn't my view that had generated such a hostile response. Were you all disturbed that I would criticize Joss Whedon on such a "grand scale"? Is Whedon, God in your view? Do we have to agree with everything he says in his TV shows, to be a fan of BtVS and AtS? I don't think so. I'm a fan of Joss Whedon. I believe that he has created two exceptionally first-class TV series and an outstanding saga. But he is not perfect. And I do not agree with everything he says - including the words he had put in Lindsey MacDonald's mouth in "Underneath". Nor do I believe that I have to.

Dlgood, Lunsea? I was merely expressing my view. My opinion. Nor was I trying to start a war or quarrel on this forum. But . . . I should have known better. After all, you were responding to a post from me - Claudia. Or maybe your hostility had something to do with my view on the topic. Whatever it was, I thought your response to my post was unecessarily hostile. And . . . quite frankly, I feel sorry for you.


Let the hostility continue!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self-Righteous, Huh? -- Dlgood, 16:03:35 04/21/04 Wed

Thank you for confirming my point about your prior comments. You state, as fact, that the idea of "fighting the good fight" instead of pursing "self-realization" is self-righteous.

When I question your arguments, and ask you to defend them, you fail to do so. Instead of responding to my own queries, all of which directly address your own argument, you resort to a series of incoherent rants - most of which bear absolutely no relevance to my prior questions.

All the while proclaiming your own superiority and merits. This is a very lovely illustration of self-rightous behavior.

If you wish to ask why you recieve such criticism, my answer is simple. You invite it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is this another word you need defined for you? -- Lunasea, 16:23:13 04/21/04 Wed

Actually, I believe you succeeded in posting your opinion, if that is in fact your actual opinion. There are few reasons that you wouldn't be allowed to post your opinions, so you didn't try. You actually did. As for being torn to pieces, your hyperbole really does nothing to support you or your position. The people here, myself included, have shown a great deal of restraint. Besides it is a message board. We cannot throw you to the lions. A martyr complex won't win you points here.

Did that particular post disturb anyone more than usual? I doubt it. Different people reach their breaking point at different points. Mine was repeatedly seeing Joss attacked for holding a view/writing a story which he neither holds nor wrote. I do not believe him to be infailable, but I'll be damned if I stand by while he (or any of the writers) are being attacked for things they didn't do or say.

In case you didn't notice I didn't even discuss your view as valid or invalid. I said that you were attacking something symbolic as something literal. I said your attack was invalid not because your position was but because your attack was not relevant to what Lindsey said. Perhaps the difference confused you.

Superhero isn't an actual designation in this world. Even real life heroes don't put hero on their resume. They are typically referred to with other job descriptions: Fireman, police, doctor, priest, soldier, sailor, pilot, etc. Angel's title "Champion" is a symbol for something. I suggest you learn about the hero's journey if you want to actually understand the story that Joss and company are writing. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have more patience than I do that might be willing to explain it to you. There are some excellent stuff in the archives that goes into this. Perhaps someone will suggest something particular.

I have a question for you, not that I expect an actual answer. You made a point of saying that you won't leave this board. I want to know why you want to be at a place that 1) you won't respect by following the rules against polynimity or personal attacks, 2) you say is openly hostile to you, 3) you compare to other boards saying they are much better because of whatever.

One other quick thing. We do have some devout Christians here that hate seeing the Lord's name taken in vain. Unless you are referring to your actual God in the first line of your response, I request that you respect the deep beliefs of some held here by refraining from using this word lightly. You are free to ignore this and I will define your right to do so, but your lack of respect isn't winning you any more points.
The End well yes and no -- heywhynot, 17:15:54 04/17/04 Sat

Was reading the "Watch with Kristin" about Wonderfalls and noticed this bit about Angel:
"Still, the best news is this: According to sources, the finale is supremely open-ended (Amy says it "opens new doors" and "doesn't tie up any strings"), and I hear the Powers That Be at the WB have approached Joss Whedon about doing at least a movie-of-the-week or two (possibly as many as six) next season--thanks in large part to the folks at Save Angel. "I think a Buffy movie, or an Angel movie-of-the-week is more likely to happen now," James said, "and they may be given better budgets, seeing this kind of interest, because there's a feeling that there's a guaranteed audience. So, the effort that I've seen, it is not in vain.""

So instead of a full season basically it would be at max a half season (6 two hour movies=12 episodes). A compromise, oh the irony of this coming out around the showing of "Underneath".

Replies:

[> God I hope even some of this is true! -- Masq, 09:30:45 04/18/04 Sun

The story is not over, even though there has been many references this season to past seasons, wrapping up of some character's story lines, and a full-circle look at Angel's mission in recent episodes.

And I'm glad to know the fan's efforts have at least been heard by the PTB's.

[> [> Re: If official, then it gives plenty of time..... -- Mike, 11:47:30 04/18/04 Sun

Man, I hope this is official good news, if so, it now gives plenty of time for the cast and crew to work out a storyline that will lend a terrific closure and proper sendoff for the series. However this half-season unfolds, it should now have a definite grand arc to end the series for good on a high note. Even though I can feel it that this season will end on a high note of its own. After all, ANGEL never disappoints, especially with season finales.
And one more thing, the eps for this season have gotten better and better. Hooray!!!!!
Greek Mythology? - Spoilers for "Underneath" -- Athena, 23:36:48 04/17/04 Sat

I may be overreaching, but I noticed some similarities to Greek mythology in "Underneath". The "holding world" of the Senior Partners bares some similarities to the Greek underworld of Tartarus.

Lindsey was trapped in a world with no memory of his past life. While it may not have seemed like torture, he went through the same sequence daily, never finding out if his 'son' passed his test and never succeeding in avoiding the Wrath, his torturer and jailer, in the basement. His actions were entirely fruitless and until Angel arrived, he was doomed to repeat them again and again.

One main feature of Tartarus was the Pool of Forgetfulnes from which the spirits of ordinary men and women would drink, leaving them without the slightest memory of their past life. Another feature was the Punishing Ground where those who had done evil in life woud suffer under the whip, words and other torments of the Three Furies. It's interesting to note that the name of Lindsey's jailer, "wrath", is another world for "fury".

Many of the tasks given to spirits in the Punishing Ground were repetitive and neverending. For example, Sisyphous, who had betrayed a secret of the God Zeus, was doomed to roll a boulder over a hill. Everytime he almost succeeded to get it to the top, it would fall back down and he would have to start again. Similarly, Lindsey betrayed the god-like Senior Partners and is doomed to his repititive torture.

Replies:

[> Also, Illyria is the name of a provence in Ancient Greece IIRC -- Majin Gojira, 12:08:01 04/18/04 Sun

Which should I buy first.... -- ghady, 01:39:20 04/18/04 Sun

.... Angel S2 or S3?? I'm very confused. I'm saving up money to buy them, and by next monday, i'll hae enough money to get one of them. The other one I'd have to get at the end of May. So please help me with this.

Replies:

[> You definitely need to see them in order... -- KdS, 02:10:25 04/18/04 Sun

.... and S2 is probably the better of the pair, so I think you should definitely get S2.

[> In my opinion -- Seven, 07:39:37 04/18/04 Sun

It depends on this

Have you seen all the episodes for each season?

If yes, then I would get season 3 for two reasons.
1. It has more relevence to this season especially in coming episodes (no spoilery, just based on next weeks teaser)
2. I like it better as a season. The problem with season two is the Pylea arc. Not bad, but not what it should have been.

If you haven's seen all the episodes of both seasons, buy season 2 so you can see it all in order.

If you've seen all season 2 but not of 3, buy 3 and vice versa.

JMHO

7

[> [> Re: In my opinion (FEW QUESTIONS) -- ghady, 09:35:09 04/18/04 Sun

Well, I decided to get S3 first.
HOWEVER, I DO have some questions:
1) How does Gunn become part of the group?
2) How does Lorne become part of the group? And why is he called the Host?
3) Why doesn't Angel become Angelus when he sleeps with Darla?
4) What happens to all the lawyers that Darla and Dru eat at the big lawyer party?
5) How does Angel get back into Angel Investigations? Does he simply say he's sorry?
6) What happens with Darla and Dru? They are supposedly the Big Bads for S2, but they're not around in the final episodes.
Thanks

[> [> [> Re: In my opinion (FEW QUESTIONS) -- Bjerkley, 09:58:45 04/18/04 Sun

Let me start off by saying that season 2 is well worth watching. Some of the greatest moments are contained in this season, and my answers can only give but a grey depiction of what happens. There really is no substitute to watching it!

1) How does Gunn become part of the group? Gunn was the leader of a streetfighting vampire gang, who helps out Angel a few times and gradually becomes part of the group.

2) How does Lorne become part of the group? And why is he called the Host? Lorne originally ran a kareoke bar, of which he was the host. He could read destinies, so Angel and co periodically come to the bar to have theirs read, and gradually becomes assimilated into the group - an ongoing process into season 3

3) Why doesn't Angel become Angelus when he sleeps with Darla? Because Angel only turns into Angelus when he experiences a moment of perfect happiness. What he felt with Darla was perhaps the opposite, a moment of perfect despair. Which ironically had the effect of him finding his path again.

4) What happens to all the lawyers that Darla and Dru eat at the big lawyer party? With the exception of Lilah and Lindsay, they die. Although Holland Manners returns for one of the best scenes of the entire show, in Reprise.

5) How does Angel get back into Angel Investigations? Does he simply say he's sorry? Basically yeh. He helps get the gang out of a difficult situation, apologies and buys Cordy some clothes. Although he is no longer the leader, a point which got lost somewhere in season 3

6) What happens with Darla and Dru? They are supposedly the Big Bads for S2, but they're not around in the final episodes. Darla and Dru run off to lick their wounds once set on fire. Dru heads over to Sunnydale to try and get back with Spike (in the Buffy episode Crush), and Darla first tries to get Angel to lose his soul, then runs off until.... season 3. Their random disappearance was largely due to the real life unavailability of the actress who plays Darla, the wonderful Julie Benz.

[> [> [> FEW ANSWERS -- KdS, 10:01:16 04/18/04 Sun

1) Gunn is introduced as a leader of a vampire-fighting street gang towards the end of S1. In his first episode his sister is vampirised, forcing him to stake her. Over S2 he gradually becomes more and more associated with Angel, Cordelia and Wes, until finally he breaks with his old group altogether. Quite why is still the subject of fannish debate too lengthy to include here.

2) Lorne is initially the telepathic and prophetic Host of a demon karaoke bar called Caritas. He initially becomes associated with Angel and company when Angel goes to see him a couple of times to use his psychic ability and magical knowledge. They become increasingly close when Lorne has to go to Angel for help to stop an Apocalypse, and then when a demon from Lorne's home dimension Pylea breaks through into LA and Cordelia becomes accidentally trapped in Pylea. Why he finally gives up Caritas is shown in S3.

3) Because "true happiness" does actually mean perfect bliss, and isn't a euphemism for orgasm as many people thought. Angel had sex with Darla in a state of despair, hoping to lose his soul. As such happiness was very far from his mind.

4) Nothing. They're dead.

5) Broadly speaking, yes. He rescues them from a bunch of very nasty demons, as well.

6) After Darla is revampirised, Angel tries to burn Darla and Dru to death with petrol. Dru is so shocked by this that she gives up on Angel and goes back to Sunnydale to try and patch things up with Spike (See BtVS:Crush). Darla hangs around still trying to attack Angel, until finally, in a fit of depression, he rapes her (if she hadn't co-operated) in the hope that orgasm will make him lose his soul. When it doesn't, he tells her very convincingly to leave LA on pain of stake. She does, until a shocking development in S3.

[> [> [> [> Finally decided what to do -- ghady, 01:47:06 04/19/04 Mon

Yea I decided (for the last time) that I'm gonna get S2 first. Why, you ask? Because over here, we only have the US version of Angel, which costs $80. I've saved $150 dollars now, which is what S3 costs over here, since it's the UK version. So, since S2 is NOT as expensive as I thought it would be, then i can get S3 by then 10th of May (whereas my previous calculations lead me to believe that i would be able to buy it on Mayb 30).. SO it's all good..

[> [> [> [> [> Me, I think that's the right decision -- Pip, 02:01:53 04/19/04 Mon

I've yet to see most of the first 13 episodes of Season 4 BtVS(I only managed to catch Pangs and Hush), and even in S7 I was occasionally caught out by references back. Buffy and Angel build on previous events a lot.

Season 2 AtS is an enjoyable watch, as well, and sets up an awful lot of S3. Even the notorious Pylea arc is good. Just just treat S2 as two seasons, one broadcast immediately after the other, but with different lengths. 'Angel problems' is one season arc, finishing first, then there's a mini-series arc about Lorne and Fred for the final few episodes.
Buffy related tattoos -- Nino, 07:53:48 04/18/04 Sun

I was wondering if anyone had any Buffy related tattoos or if that was way past the obsession line. I want to get a Joss-quote, and i can't decide which one is best...let me know what you think or if you have any other suggestions:
--Make your choice: are you ready to be strong?
--I walk with heroes.
--I'm cookie dough.
--I'm under your spell. (this one could have a cool little magic design to go with it)
--Where do we go from here?


-or- (non-Joss quotes that i love)
"Without passion we'd be truly dead."
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." (this one is super long...prolly not a good choice)

Well what do you think? Can you think of any great Joss one-liners to add to the list?

thanks :)

Replies:

[> Re: Buffy related tattoos -- LeeAnn, 13:32:18 04/18/04 Sun

"Hello, Cutie!"

"This usually hurts!"

"It's a thing"

"A Happy Meal with Legs"

[> [> Re: Buffy related tattoos -- skeeve, 09:48:15 04/19/04 Mon

My first choice: none at all
Second choice:
something short not likely to be annoyingly misunderstood.
That leaves out "Happy Meal With Legs" and
"Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex".
"That's not where I dangle it" is a bit iffy,
not to mention long.
"Men are evil" might be short enough.
"What rhymes with lungs?" is good, but long.
"How many times do I have to kill you?"
is long and painful, but fun.
"What rhymes with lungs?"
is a bit shorter and less painful.

[> Re: "Fire bad, tree pretty" -- Liv, 20:40:50 04/18/04 Sun


[> [> Re: "What would Buffy do" -- Brian, 21:18:13 04/18/04 Sun


[> Re: Buffy related tattoos -- angel's nibblet, 02:01:42 04/19/04 Mon

I would probably get:

"Love isn't brains"

or you could go with LeeAnn's suggestion of "It's a thing." I use that all the time now in conversation! Lots of little Buffy-isms have found their way into my vocabulary.

[> "Bite Me"? -- Ashamed to Say, 11:30:21 04/20/04 Tue

Spoiler : Underneath: Lindsey and the PTB/SP?? -- luvthistle1, 09:40:11 04/18/04 Sun

Did Eve statement that she was created by W&H Senior partners ,reminds anyone else of Jasmine s's statement to Angel, about why Connor was created?

so W&H Sp can create people , just like Jasmine/The ptb can. so is it possible that," W& H senior partners" and "the powers that be", could be one of the same?

I think they are, if you consider that the powers that be hasn't really been involve since season 3 ( well, I do not count the whole jasmine season 4 thing). Since the oracle was destroy, we really can't be sure that Angel was actually in contact with the PTB at all, considering that the only thing he had was Cordy's vision, which was sent to her by Jasmine. Jasmine who was suppose to be good, yet she killed, or cause to be kill, a lot of people just to come into this world. she wanted people to worship her, and only her, while forgetting their family's and friends. If Jasmine was a power that be, why did her motive seem so selfish? ( she didn't think of all the people the beast killed, the people who died when the sun was out, nor Cordy's life after she was born. nor did she talk about fighting the "first evil" in sunnydale.)

If the "Power that Be" are not working with W& H, why did they send Cordy to stop Angel from leaving W&H, why didn't they wake her sooner, why haven't they sent angel and new guide?. I believe the PTB and W&H are one of the same, or Angel was never saved by the PTB, in "Amends", but save by the first, or something else. Actually, Angel haven't really been in contact with the PTB, since Doyle died. so, that could be when W&H took over from there.

If the Sp created Eve, might they had created more people like Eve? Lindsey seem to be the only surviving member of W&H old team, who was able to escape with his life, ... but why? Lindsey had always been given an second chance, MR. Manner seems to have liked keeping Lindsey around, yet we never learned what made Lindsey so darn "special".
Could Lindsey had been created by the Sp?

while we all know Lindsey background story, how he was one of 6, or 9 kids, yada yada, but we do not know if the information we know about Lindsey is true. we never seen his family members, nor have we ever seen him have contact with any of his family members. so who to say if he actually did have family at all. If Lindsey, was created like Eve, than it will explain why W&h never killed him, and why he was so easy caught in "your welcome", the whole thing was to allowed Angel to feel comfortable about working at W&H. If Lindsey ( who was shown to be smart in the past) really did not want to get caught, than why would he use the name Doyle? send all the people home, as well as send Spike to kill Cordy, knowing that Cordy would be close to Angel ( if that really happen , which I think it only happen in Angel's dream, considering the little to no emotions shown by the fang gang).. all those would trigger an alarm in Angel, especially the name Doyle, so what was his plan exactly?

so did Angel really defeat Lindsey? or could it be all part of the SP plan to keep Angel busy. Gunn had information put in his head, which lead him to where he could find Lindsey. Gunn, Eve, and Lindsey all wasn't given any information that they weren't suppose to have, which reminds me of what The first evil" said to the scoobies in First date" "JONATHAN/FIRST (O.S.)
You only hear what I want you to hear. You only see what I want you to see. which bring me to another point. Lindsey tells Angel that the Apocalypse is here, right under him. as in Underneath him, could that be as same as 'From beneath you, it devours". just a thought.

Replies:

[> Re: Spoiler : Underneath: Lindsey and the PTB/SP?? -- Evan Schiller, 10:10:47 04/18/04 Sun

Hmm... I don't remember the Jasmine details that well... I remember that she was responsible for the visions getting passed from Doyle to Cordelia, but she's not the one who sent the visions, was she? If so, then I pretty much agree that there's a good chance that the PTB and the W&HSP are one and the same. Just one thing to add, though... couldn't it have been Jasmine who saved Angel from hell according to this theory, and also sent the snow, and maybe even whistler and doyle?

[> Very interesting -- Cheryl, 12:31:19 04/18/04 Sun

Or, if the PTB and the SP really are separate entities, was Lindsey maybe then created by the PTB? And now the "children" of the PTB and the SP are taking the game to the next level?

[> [> Re: Very interesting -- Alistair, 12:42:00 04/18/04 Sun

The PTB were on Earth before the demons or humans or anyone else. There were dark ones among them who became the demons, and eventually sired off Illyria. Illyria knows of the Wolf Ram and Hart, and she calls them weak. I doubt that she is part of some greater plan. While it does seem like W&H are the antithesis to the PTB

1) Vocah was sent by them to cut off Angel's pipepines to the PTB
2) Jasmine's lackey killed off everyone who worked for the senior partners on Earth
3) The senior partners never manifest directly, and have a conduit just like the PTB

The partners are younger then Illyria or the PTB. I think they just accumulated a great deal of power once the Old Ones were banished, "buffed up" as Knox said. They seem to have a presence is many dimensions, and probably rule some dimensions.

I think the Senior Partners seek to create a new world order. They have been known to come and go from Earth as they please (75 year review) so their plan is not to manifest on Earth, but to add the Earth to their interdimensional empire.

[> [> [> Re: Very interesting -- Mike, 18:51:32 04/18/04 Sun

It has been a hellraising mission for Angel, to be the Hero, the Champion, helping the helpless; and Wolfram & Hart's ultimate plans for him have been, now apparently,
to keep him busy from his true purpose in finding redemption. This path to redemption includes the endless stream of helping the helpless, as Doyle told Angel from the beginning that "it's not just about saving lives, it's about saving souls". Through these five years, Angel has
found himself repeatedly trying to stop the great evils of the world. Angel has continually been expecting a big-banging, fiery-infested, immensely-demonic apocalypse from W&H, yet this expectation and his defeating of other evils has diverted him away from the real W&H apocalypse. Now,
Lindsey has revealed that the big one has been here all along and Angel's perception among other things have deluded him further away from preventing the apocalypse.

Thinking back, ever since 1st Season's end, Angel was named a pivotal figure in W&H's forthcoming apocalypse. A key player whom the Senior Partners wanted to have around, to play by their rules. For a long, long time, until recently, it was made unclear whether Angel would play for it or against it. On another note, Angel's friends were all good.
There were no descendants into darkness, and the fight looked a lot more simple - fight the evil, save the day,
having a family of heroes.

Into the 2nd Season, a few months pass by as Team Angel log in their victories until later it is decided they shouldn't keep score. Darla's resurrection from W&H, once discovered,
distracts Angel as he gradually tries to save mortal Darla.
The fight to bring down W&H becomes much more important to Angel than helping people. Holland Manners tells him, or tries to sell him, the news about "Hell's on Earth". ((Holland's replacement, Nathan, had said that it was always in W&H's interest to make Angel as grey as possible because of the apocalypse. Of course, Angel doesn't meet W&H's standards till a few years later)) After Angel has an epiphany, he realizes the "smallest act of kindness is the greatest act in the world". For a long time after this, Angel seems to have gotten his head straight about helping people, saving lives. It also seems that Angel's had some influence on Lindsey, hence, the former golden boy decides to leave the firm alive and well and with the key, essential information about W&H's apocalypse.

Into the 3rd Season, Team Angel is growing into a bigger family with the addition of two more players, and later the impossible. Angel fights the good fight along with Cordelia, Wesley, and Gunn; Fred and Lorne gradually become heroes in their own right through further episodes. Once the possibility of Angel having a son is in order, Team Angel and W&H are at serious blows again. Yet, W&H were mainly falling into the backdrop, coincidentally once Connor's arrival came to pass. There were other foes after the baby, and W&H just seemed like any other foe. Although, later on their tampering with Angel's blood using Connor's began to set things in motion again for the side of evil. Afterwards, W&H were less formidable. Nevertheless, definitely by this time, Angel was diverted again from his true calling because of preoccupation with losing Connor, later reclaiming Connor, and dealing with his friends' other dramatic happenings.

Into the 4th Season, Team Angel's members were beginning to descend into darkness, the first being Wesley. Metaphorically, Angel had his descent into darkness (bottom of the ocean), yet once he came back he was still set on the big picture. Angel tells Connor about the harsh reality of the world and heroes' destinies to fight for a better world. It is this harsh reality of the world that W&H already have setting in motion, a new world order, humanity's descent into total darkness. However, Jasmine and The Beast arrive and destroy W&H's LA branch, sans Lilah. Her apocalypse rivals W&H's: a light, giddy, enslaved state vs. a dark, despairing, controlled state. Apparently, W&H waited for Angel to take care of Jasmine before re-opening its LA branch. W&H begin their true plans to get Angel out of the way of their true apocalypse by taking advantage of Angel's failure to raise Connor, failure to mold him into a sane hero with purpose, direction. It is this failure that W&H uses to get Angel to take over W&H. The deal becomes set and the distraction gets bigger for Angel and his friends.

Now into the 5th Season, Team Angel are technically on the side of evil, trying to fight for the good but the diversion is full-fledged and W&H is winning against him. Angel has become helpless, isolated, fallen, all of his true calling out the window. The fighting of the evils this season have been distractions, engineered to keep Angel away from the main, real evil that has transpired - W&H's present control over humanity. Not only this revelation, but Angel has also faced tragic losses - Doyle, Connor (the deal, still alive); more recently, Cordelia and Fred. And his remaining friends- Wesley, Gunn, Lorne - have descended further into darkness and despair, unable to really help the helpless. Wesley's given up on humanity, Gunn's filled with remorse, Lorne's dulled out. Spike appears to have the clearest head out of them all, he has been out there fighting the good fight. Angel has kept the deal in place for Connor, otherwise, he'd leave in a heartbeat. Notice, Angel's remaining friends are exemplifying the humanity state that W&H's apocalypse is all about. They appear to be, as Lindsey says about everyone else in the world, slipping into degradation and entropy.

Angel's fight for redemption has been foiled by his own undoing, his intentions to fight for a better world using certain resources have misdirected him right into the hands of W&H. Angel's greyness has come to the fore this year and his friends' greyness have caused them pain, torment, suffering. Angel has been horribly played out, taken advantage of, a pivotal figure whom otherwise might have easily prevented W&H's apocalypse. Hopefully, Angel will finally realize for good that to help fight for a better world he will have to integrate himself in it. To help one soul at a time could mean Angel will be on the right track, for real this time. His path to redemption may last, for instance, another hundred years, but he will not be an unwilling lackey anymore. It is now time for Angel to regain his true calling and to one day be a Hero for all of humanity.

[> [> [> Re: Very interesting -- Mike, 18:53:27 04/18/04 Sun

It has been a hellraising mission for Angel, to be the Hero, the Champion, helping the helpless; and Wolfram & Hart's ultimate plans for him have been, now apparently,
to keep him busy from his true purpose in finding redemption. This path to redemption includes the endless stream of helping the helpless, as Doyle told Angel from the beginning that "it's not just about saving lives, it's about saving souls". Through these five years, Angel has
found himself repeatedly trying to stop the great evils of the world. Angel has continually been expecting a big-banging, fiery-infested, immensely-demonic apocalypse from W&H, yet this expectation and his defeating of other evils has diverted him away from the real W&H apocalypse. Now,
Lindsey has revealed that the big one has been here all along and Angel's perception among other things have deluded him further away from preventing the apocalypse.

Thinking back, ever since 1st Season's end, Angel was named a pivotal figure in W&H's forthcoming apocalypse. A key player whom the Senior Partners wanted to have around, to play by their rules. For a long, long time, until recently, it was made unclear whether Angel would play for it or against it. On another note, Angel's friends were all good.
There were no descendants into darkness, and the fight looked a lot more simple - fight the evil, save the day,
having a family of heroes.

Into the 2nd Season, a few months pass by as Team Angel log in their victories until later it is decided they shouldn't keep score. Darla's resurrection from W&H, once discovered,
distracts Angel as he gradually tries to save mortal Darla.
The fight to bring down W&H becomes much more important to Angel than helping people. Holland Manners tells him, or tries to sell him, the news about "Hell's on Earth". ((Holland's replacement, Nathan, had said that it was always in W&H's interest to make Angel as grey as possible because of the apocalypse. Of course, Angel doesn't meet W&H's standards till a few years later)) After Angel has an epiphany, he realizes the "smallest act of kindness is the greatest act in the world". For a long time after this, Angel seems to have gotten his head straight about helping people, saving lives. It also seems that Angel's had some influence on Lindsey, hence, the former golden boy decides to leave the firm alive and well and with the key, essential information about W&H's apocalypse.

Into the 3rd Season, Team Angel is growing into a bigger family with the addition of two more players, and later the impossible. Angel fights the good fight along with Cordelia, Wesley, and Gunn; Fred and Lorne gradually become heroes in their own right through further episodes. Once the possibility of Angel having a son is in order, Team Angel and W&H are at serious blows again. Yet, W&H were mainly falling into the backdrop, coincidentally once Connor's arrival came to pass. There were other foes after the baby, and W&H just seemed like any other foe. Although, later on their tampering with Angel's blood using Connor's began to set things in motion again for the side of evil. Afterwards, W&H were less formidable. Nevertheless, definitely by this time, Angel was diverted again from his true calling because of preoccupation with losing Connor, later reclaiming Connor, and dealing with his friends' other dramatic happenings.

Into the 4th Season, Team Angel's members were beginning to descend into darkness, the first being Wesley. Metaphorically, Angel had his descent into darkness (bottom of the ocean), yet once he came back he was still set on the big picture. Angel tells Connor about the harsh reality of the world and heroes' destinies to fight for a better world. It is this harsh reality of the world that W&H already have setting in motion, a new world order, humanity's descent into total darkness. However, Jasmine and The Beast arrive and destroy W&H's LA branch, sans Lilah. Her apocalypse rivals W&H's: a light, giddy, enslaved state vs. a dark, despairing, controlled state. Apparently, W&H waited for Angel to take care of Jasmine before re-opening its LA branch. W&H begin their true plans to get Angel out of the way of their true apocalypse by taking advantage of Angel's failure to raise Connor, failure to mold him into a sane hero with purpose, direction. It is this failure that W&H uses to get Angel to take over W&H. The deal becomes set and the distraction gets bigger for Angel and his friends.

Now into the 5th Season, Team Angel are technically on the side of evil, trying to fight for the good but the diversion is full-fledged and W&H is winning against him. Angel has become helpless, isolated, fallen, all of his true calling out the window. The fighting of the evils this season have been distractions, engineered to keep Angel away from the main, real evil that has transpired - W&H's present control over humanity. Not only this revelation, but Angel has also faced tragic losses - Doyle, Connor (the deal, still alive); more recently, Cordelia and Fred. And his remaining friends- Wesley, Gunn, Lorne - have descended further into darkness and despair, unable to really help the helpless. Wesley's given up on humanity, Gunn's filled with remorse, Lorne's dulled out. Spike appears to have the clearest head out of them all, he has been out there fighting the good fight. Angel has kept the deal in place for Connor, otherwise, he'd leave in a heartbeat. Notice, Angel's remaining friends are exemplifying the humanity state that W&H's apocalypse is all about. They appear to be, as Lindsey says about everyone else in the world, slipping into degradation and entropy.

Angel's fight for redemption has been foiled by his own undoing, his intentions to fight for a better world using certain resources have misdirected him right into the hands of W&H. Angel's greyness has come to the fore this year and his friends' greyness have caused them pain, torment, suffering. Angel has been horribly played out, taken advantage of, a pivotal figure whom otherwise might have easily prevented W&H's apocalypse. Hopefully, Angel will finally realize for good that to help fight for a better world he will have to integrate himself in it. To help one soul at a time could mean Angel will be on the right track, for real this time. His path to redemption may last, for instance, another hundred years, but he will not be an unwilling lackey anymore. It is now time for Angel to regain his true calling and to one day be a Hero for all of humanity, and the WB.
Classic Movie of the Week - *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* - Part III ( Conclusion ) -- OnM, 17:29:54 04/18/04 Sun

- ( Continued from Part II ) -



*** My God..... it's full of chicks! ***

One of the things that I really didn't notice until the third time that I saw Revolutions was not only how it
emphasized the presence of non-caucasian persons, but also how subtly the film embraces feminist concepts other
than the most visually obvious one of women as warriors (e.g. Trinity or Niobe or Charra). This may seem to be an
odd observation, considering the oft-repeated comments about how 'macho' or 'Ramboesque' the battle for Zion
was, and when considering the simple fact that Neo, the 'savior' of humanity, is a male.

But things aren't as simple as they first appear, and as to the masculine figure of Neo saving the day, I've already
pointed out that (at least in my interpretation of how the final events transpired), the actual savior of both humanity
and the machine civilization is a female figure-- The Oracle.

Presented for your inspection, the following observations to ponder:

a) The Oracle is not only represented as a beneficent feminine figure who helps Neo along his path to enlightenment,
'she' is, by the end of the trilogy, strongly suggested to be a god-like figure, a top-level programmer of equal (or
even greater?) abilities than The Architect.

b) The Oracle was supposedly created by The Architect, but was programmed to be not only sentient, but
intellectually independent and self-reliant. Interestingly, this would seem to run counter to the Western creation
mythology in which Eve is created to be subservient to Adam. The more subservient creations in the Architect's
grand design would seem to be the Agents, which are always depicted as being male in appearance. And, when
Smith gains independence from the Source, his program turns to the task of destroying/disabling life, the
theoretical antithesis of the female role of birthing/enabling it.

c) In the first film, Neo dies and it is Trinity that effectively resurrects him, because of her love for him. In
Reloaded Trinity dies and Neo resurrects her, because of his love for her. The key item of note here is not
that he 'returns the favor' (although from a basic story level, he is), but that in doing so, Neo makes a large step
forward on his path of enlightenment by altering 'literal reality', not just the 'false' reality of the Matrix. (Recall that
the crew of the Nebuchanezzer is stunned, because Neo has just done something that should be impossible-- healing
Trinity's dying real body back on the ship, even though he is still within the Matrix. This is also the very first clue in
the series that there may be layered Matricies, not just a single Matrix).

d) In Revolutions, after Neo is blinded by Smith, it is Trinity who has the responsibility of getting him to the
machine city. Neo makes the comment that "You'll have to drive". Not too much longer after this scene, the captain
of the Hammer remarks (with extreme respect and admiration) to Niobe, who is piloting the ship through a
mechanical line (a supposed impossibility), "Damn, woman, you can drive!"

e) Male figures in many of the battle scenes and related events concerning the battle for Zion regularly state situations
in terms of "it can't be done", "it's pointless", "it's impossible", "I don't believe" etc. etc. By and large it is the
female characters who not only express faith and hope, but turn out to be correct in the final analysis. For example, it
is Niobe who volunteers to search for the missing Nebuchanezzer in defiance of the wishes of her lover, Lock.

f) During the battle for Zion, while the major portion of the army does its 'Rambo' number on the invading machines,
we see that it is the more 'female' types who are pivotal in ultimately saving the day. First, we have Zee and Charra,
who take the on a more guerrilla-style of fighting by sneaking around and incapacitating the digging machines that
threaten to bore through from the dock to Zion itself. After Charra is killed, it is Zee who takes the message to the
Kid (another much less than traditionally macho figure) that he needs to get the gate open for the Hammer to get in
and use the EMP to stop the machines. He succeeds in doing so, and of course it is Niobe who is piloting the
Hammer.

I do wish to point out that in all fairness, despite the depiction of a conventional, large scale, ultra-violent
guns'n'robots style of combat with all its testosterone-laden metaphorical shadings, the simple fact is that if those
warrior guys hadn't done what they did, none of what the 'feminine' element did would have been of any ultimate
value. Fighting off a quarter-million single-minded sentinels calls for massive retaliatory firepower, and if the machines
had not been sufficiently delayed, Neo and Smith's mano-a-mano would have been decidedly pointless. In reality,
the ultimate reading of the fight for survival is a humanist one, not a one-sidedly feminist or masculinist depiction. The
elements are different in both intent and execution, but are complimentary and one does not succeed without the
other. From the scene right after the Hammer has miraculously made it back to the dock, and everyone is cheering
the heroes of the moment:

Morpheus: You did it.
Niobe: No. We did it.
Morpheus: You're a hell of a pilot.
Niobe: Some things in this world never change.
Morpheus: But some things do?
Niobe: Luckily, some things do.

g) Trinity and The Oracle aren't Neo's only guides to 'enlightenment', and yet another highly complementary
male/female relationship shows up in a previous, much quieter moment in the film. At the Train Station, Neo meets
Rama-Kandra and his wife and daughter:

Neo: I know you.
Rama-Kandra: Yes, in the restaurant of the Frenchman. I am Rama-Kandra . This is my wife Kamala, my
daughter Sati. We are most honoured to meet you.
Neo: You're programs.
Rama-Kandra: Oh, yes. I'm the power plant systems manager for recycling operations. My wife is an
interactive software programmer, she is highly creative.
Kamala: What are you doing here? You do not belong here.
Rama-Kandra: Kamala! Goodness, I apologize. My wife can be very direct.

Rama-Kandra is not dismissive of his wife because she is 'direct', he is only concerned that Neo not interpret the
directness as some form of criticism. Neo already understands this, though, and very soon he gains another critical
bit of knowledge, or perhaps a better choice of word is 'understanding':

Neo: It's okay. I don't have an answer. I don't even know where 'here' is.
Rama-Kandra: This place is nowhere. It is between your world and our world.
Neo: Who's the Trainman?
Rama-Kandra: He works for the Frenchman.
Neo: Why'd I know you were going to say that?
Rama-Kandra: The Frenchman does not forget and he does not forgive.
Neo: You know him?
Rama-Kandra: I know only what I need to know. I know that if you want to take something from our
world into your world that does not belong there, you must go to the Frenchman.
Neo: Is that what you're doing here?
Kamala: Rama, please!
Rama-Kandra: I do not want to be cruel, Kamala. He may never see another face for the rest of his life.
Neo: I'm sorry. You don't have to answer that question.
Rama-Kandra: No. I don't mind. The answer is simple. I love my daughter very much. I find her to be the
most beautiful thing I've ever seen. But where we are from, that is not enough. Every program that is created must
have a purpose; if it does not, it is deleted. I went to the Frenchman to save my daughter. (he pauses, seeing
confusion written on Neo's face) You do not understand.
Neo: I just have never...
Rama-Kandra: ...heard a program speak of love?
Neo: It's a... human emotion.
Rama-Kandra: No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies. I see that you are in love.
Can you tell me what you would give to hold on to that connection?
Neo: Anything.
Rama-Kandra: Then perhaps the reason you're here is not so different from the reason I'm here.

Once again we see the quietly presented inversion of the conventional Western male/female roles. Rama-Kandra
states that "I'm the power plant systems manager for recycling operations. My wife is an interactive software
programmer, she is highly creative." These two people seem very complimentary to one another, at least based
on the limited time we get to see them on screen. I liked the fact, though, that while Rama describes himself in a
somewhat masculine role as a 'power plant systems manager', it is clear from both his vocal inflection and body
language that he regards Kamala's talents as being superior to his own. Also, an 'interactive software programmer',
would be both literally and metaphorically a 'programmer of programs', which when you think about it is another
way of describing the physical role of conception, birth and child-raising.

h) A small item, but I couldn't help but think of Riley desperately clutching on to Buffy's scarf (after Adam had badly
wounded him and he is trying to recuperate in the Initiative's infirmary) when I saw Link place Zee's necklace
around his neck while going into battle on board the Hammer, and the warm and gently humorous reunion that takes
place after the Hammer zaps the machines with the EMP in the dock:

Zee: I knew you'd come. I knew it! (the two embrace passionately)
Link: I made a promise.
Zee: (noticing the necklace, and seemingly surprised) You did wear it!
Link: Are you kidding? I'm never gonna take it off!

i) Speaking of feminine costuming, after several viewings I couldn't help but notice that Neo's long coat tended to
hug his upper body but flared out wildly below the hips when he moved rapidly, and so strongly suggested something
akin to a skirt during the slo-mo shots in the various fight scenes. Reeves himself, physically, is hardly the Stallone or
Schwartzeneggar type, and so he gets away with this somewhat more androgynous look without appearing
un-masculine. But still-- a skirt allusion? Interesting.

j) Cogent cognition, courtesy of fresne: My housemate saw it before I did and all she would say was, it's all
about being "the cup" and not "the sword". It was all about choice and tests and being willing to be a cup that carries the light that streams the world and not a sword to cleave the same. and also: Smith, who replicates himself, but does not create. Trinity as heart made outward through expression.

k) Finally, even on the 'bad girl' side of the train station, Persephone sides with the protagonists on two seperate
occasions. In Reloaded, she aids Neo in removing The Keymaker from the clutches of the Merovingian in
exchange for "kissing me as you would her", referring to Trinity of course. Persephone may be a program, but she
seems to be just as easily 'infected' by the concept of love as any other human, and realizes that the strictly 'cause
and effect' relationship she shares with the Merovingian may be practical, but certainly isn't ultimately satisfying. In
the second instance (in Revolutions), Trinity gets to present a clear-cut example of potential cause-and-effect
to the Merovingian, or 'Merv' as she humorously puts it, with gun to his forehead. Merv hesitates, analyzing the
sitch, trying to decide if Trinity will really pull the trigger or not (and effectively kill everybody in the room, since
dozens of weapons are simultaneously pointed everywhere). Persephone then pushes him in the direction he's
already likely leaning, but despises having to admit; yes, she will. She's in love. Nothing else matters. Cause
and effect, my dear.


There are certainly other examples which you can ferret out for yourself to illustrate that despite being heavy on the
action, the Matrix trilogy nevertheless bears a noticeable feminist slant, especially in its 'theology', and one that is
further enveloped in an overall humanist philosophy. Now, lets talk karma.


*** My karma ran over my chameleon-- or was it my donkey? ***

Another possibly justifiable complaint about the Matrix films is that that characters behave more like icons than like
fully fleshed-out human beings. I cannot answer this complaint definitively, but I will point out that there is a
reasonable artistic intention that could be behind the choice to do this, and that I frankly do lean in the direction that
this was a conscious choice on the part of the Wachowskis.

One of the things that never fails to amaze me is that if you just peruse a large enough collection of films, you can find
connections between the strangest of themes, and sometimes those connections appear in a way that begs any other
explanation but inexplicable serendipity. A few weeks ago, prior to writing this essay/review and in fact even before
the Revolutions DVD was available, I happen to read a review of an unusual film made decades ago that I
had never heard about, but apparently is considered to be a classic effort by an admired filmmaker.

The film was titled Au hasard Balthazar, or in literal English, "The Donkey Balthazar", and the review was by
Roger Ebert, for the Chicago Sun-Times. I'll except a few small portions ('~~~') of the entire article, which (as of
the moment) can be found in the Sun-Times archives at an address I'll post in the Miscellaneous section at the end of
this essay.

~~~ Robert Bresson is one of the saints of the cinema, and "Au Hasard Balthazar" (1966) is his most
heartbreaking prayer. The film follows the life of a donkey from birth to death, while all the time [allowing] it the
dignity of being itself--a dumb beast, noble in its acceptance of a life over which it has no control. Balthazar is not
one of those cartoon animals that can talk and sing and is a human with four legs. Balthazar is a donkey, and it is as
simple as that. ~~~

Neo and the Oracle, as they meet for the final (?) time:

Neo: You helped me to get here, but my question is why? Where does this go? Where does it end?
Oracle: I don't know.
Neo: You don't know, or you won't tell me?
Oracle: I told you before. No one can see beyond a choice they don't understand, and I mean no one.
Neo: What choice?
Oracle: It doesn't matter. It's my choice. I have mine to make, same as you have yours.
Neo: Does that include what things to tell me and what not to tell me?
Oracle: Of course not.
Neo: Then why didn't you tell me about the Architect? Why didn't you tell me about Zion, the Ones before
me - why didn't you tell me the truth?
Oracle: Because it wasn't time for you to know.
Neo: Who decided it wasn't time?
Oracle: You know who. ( she points at the Temet Nosce sign above the door )


~~~ What we see through Balthazar's eyes is a village filled with small, flawed, weak people, in a world where
sweetness is uncommon and cruelty comes easily. That is what we see--but what does Balthazar see? The genius of
Bresson's approach is that he never gives us a single moment that could be described as one of Balthazar's "reaction
shots." Other movie animals may roll their eyes or stomp their hooves, but Balthazar simply walks or waits, regarding
everything with the clarity of a donkey who knows it is a beast of burden, and that its life consists of either bearing or
not bearing, of feeling pain or not feeling pain, or even feeling pleasure. All of these things are equally beyond its
control. There is however Balthazar's bray. It is not a beautiful sound, but it is the sound a donkey can make, and
when Balthazar brays it might sound to some like a harsh complaint, but to me it sounds like a beast who has been
given one noise to make in the world, and gains some satisfaction by making it. ~~~


Neo with Rama-Kandra, at the Train Station:

Neo: When is the train due?
Rama-Kandra: It's already late. It's not like the Trainman to be late.
Neo: You think it has something to do with me?
Rama-Kandra: I cannot say. Who knows such things? Only the Oracle.
Neo: You know the Oracle?
Rama-Kandra: Everyone knows the Oracle. I consulted with her before I met with the Frenchman. She
promised she would look after Sati after we said goodbye.
Neo: Goodbye? You're not staying with her?
Rama-Kandra: It is not possible. Our arrangement with the Frenchman was for our daughter only. My wife
and I must return to our world.
Neo: Why?
Rama-Kandra: That is our karma.
Neo: You believe in karma?
Rama-Kandra: Karma's a word. Like 'love.' A way of saying 'what I am here to do.' I do not resent my
karma - I'm grateful for it. Grateful for my wonderful wife, for my beautiful daughter. They are gifts. And so I do
what I must do to honour them.
Sati: Papa, the train!
Rama-Kandra: Yes! Find your bag, quickly!
Neo: Can I carry that for you?
Rama-Kandra: All right.


~~~ Although the donkey has no way of revealing its thoughts, that doesn't prevent us from supplying
them--quite the contrary; we regard that white-spotted furry face and those big eyes, and we feel sympathy with
every experience the donkey undergoes. That is Bresson's civilizing and even spiritual purpose in most of his films;
we must go to the characters, instead of passively letting them come to us. In the vast majority of movies, everything
is done for the audience. We are cued to laugh or cry, be frightened or relieved; Hitchcock called the movies a
machine for causing emotions in the audience.~~~

~~~ Bresson's most intriguing limitation is to forbid his actors to act. He was known to shoot the same shot 10, 20,
even 50 times, until all "acting" was drained from it, and the actors were simply performing the physical actions and
speaking the words. There was no room in his cinema for De Niro or Penn. It might seem that the result would be a
movie filled with zombies, but quite the contrary: By simplifying performance to the action and the word without
permitting inflection or style, Bresson achieves a kind of purity that makes his movies remarkably emotional. The
actors portray lives without informing us how to feel about them; forced to decide for ourselves how to feel, forced
to empathize, we often have stronger feelings than if the actors were feeling them for us. ~~~


Neo with Trinity, at Zero-One:

Neo: What is it, Trinity? What's wrong?
Trinity: I can't come with you, Neo. I've gone as far as I can.
Neo: Why? ( he feels around her body, discovers just how badly she has been hurt) Oh, no. Oh no, no, no.
Trinity: ( trying to hold on long enough to say what she needs to say ) It's all right. It's time. I've done all
that I could do. Now you have to do the rest. You have to finish it. You have to save Zion.
Neo: I can't. Not without you.
Trinity: Yes, you can. You will. I believe it, I always have.
Neo: Trinity... Trinity. You can't die. You can't. You can't.
Trinity: Yes, I can. You brought me back once, but not this time. ( Neo begins to quietly cry, trying
desperately to muffle his sobs. Trinity pauses a beat, then continues ) Do you remember... on that roof after you
caught me... the last thing I said to you?
Neo: You said, "I'm sorry."
Trinity: That was my last thought. I wished I had one more chance, to say what really mattered, to say how
much I loved you, how grateful I was for every moment I was with you. But by the time I knew how to say what I
wanted to, it was too late. But you brought me back. You gave me my wish. One more chance to say what I really
wanted to say... kiss me, once more. Kiss me.

( Neo kisses her tenderly. Trinity looks peaceful, then her body slowly goes limp as she dies. Neo sobs, his pain at
her death clearly evident although we cannot see his damaged eyes behind the blindfold )


~~~ Now here is the essential part. Bresson suggests that we are all Balthazars. Despite our dreams, hopes and
best plans, the world will eventually do with us whatever it does. Because we can think and reason, we believe we
can figure a way out, find a solution, get the answer. But intelligence gives us the ability to comprehend our fate
without the power to control it. Still, Bresson does not leave us empty-handed. He offers us the suggestion of
empathy. If we will extend ourselves to sympathize with how others feel, we can find the consolation of sharing
human experience, instead of the loneliness of enduring it alone. ~~~


And there's not very much else I can add to that, so I won't.


*** OK, I mean-- you've seen one star child, you've seen them all, right? ***

Well, dear friends, you've all been extremely patient with me as I've rambled about here, so I reckon it's about time
to wrap things up. I got to cover most of the things I was interesting in discussing, and it's my hope that even if my
points of argument don't help to persuade any of those who openly disliked the film to give it another chance-- after
all, you like what you like, and don't what you don't-- at least they'll gain a bit of understanding as to why the
Wachowskis do have their ardent admirers, this delighted Matrix fan among them. Thanks for staying tuned!


Neo: I can't beat them.

Trinity: What'll we do?
Neo: Go up, over them.
Trinity: What?
Neo: The sky... it's the only way.

Trinity: Then up we go.

( They rise past the cloud cover and fly up into the sky. A stunning glory of real sunlight bathes their faces )

Trinity: (awed) Beautiful......



E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

-- OnM



*******

Technically, there is no 'no':

Matrix Revolutions is available on DVD, as are the first two films of the trilogy. Revolutions was
released in 2003, and run time is 2 hours and 9 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 2.35:1, and is
presented as such on the DVD, so it is a help if your video display is a fairly large, preferably widescreen design. The
filmakers constantly utilize the entire frame compositionally, so don't even think about renting a pan'n'scan
(cropped) version, or you'll literally miss half the visuals. Also, if you happen to own a really excellent home theatre
system, this film, like the two before it, pretty much define the current state-of-the-art in technical achievements for
sound quality.

The film was both written and directed by Andy Wachowski & Larry Wachowski. Producer credits go to Andy
Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, Joel Silver, Bruce Berman, Grant Hill and Andrew Mason. Cinematography was by
Bill Pope, with film editing by Zach Staenberg. Production design was by Owen Paterson, with art direction by Jules
Cook, Mark W. Mansbridge, Catherine Mansill and Charlie Revai. Costume Design was by Kym Barrett.

Original music was by Don Davis, Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek, Tom Tykwer and Ben Watkins. Non-original
music was by Duke Ellington (for the song I'm Beginning To See The Light) and Django Reinhardt ( for the
song Nuages). The original theatrical soundtrack was released in all standard digital theater formats, the
DVD soundtrack is in Dolby Digital 5.1 for both English and French versions. There is no commentary track on the
main disc, but there is a second 'bonus features' disc with numerous extra goodies, including various 'making of'
featurettes.

Cast overview (in credits order):

Mary Alice .... The Oracle
Tanveer K. Atwal .... Sati
Helmut Bakaitis .... The Architect
Kate Beahan .... Coat Check Girl
Francine Bell .... Councillor Grace
Monica Bellucci .... Persephone
Rachel Blackman .... Charra
Henry Blasingame .... Deus Ex Machina (voice)
Ian Bliss .... Bane
David Bowers .... Q-Ball Gang Member #1
Zeke Castelli .... Operations Officer Mattis
Sing Ngai (as Collin Chou) .... Seraph
Essie Davis .... Maggie
Laurence Fishburne .... Morpheus
Nona Gaye .... Zee
Dion Horstmans .... Q-Ball Gang Member #2
Lachy Hulme .... Sparks
Chris Kirby .... Mauser
Peter Lamb .... Colt
Nathaniel Lees .... Mifune
Harry Lennix .... Lock
Robert Mammone .... AK
Joe Manning .... First Operator at Command
Maurice Morgan .... Tower Soldier
Carrie-Anne Moss .... Trinity
Tharini Mudaliar .... Kamala
Rene Naufahu .... Zion Gate Operator
Robyn Nevin .... Councillor Dillard
Genevieve O'Reilly .... Officer Wirtz
Harold Perrineau Jr. .... Link
Jada Pinkett Smith .... Niobe
Kittrick Redmond .... Second Operator at Command
Keanu Reeves .... Neo
Rupert Reid .... Lock's Lieutenant
Kevin M. Richardson .... Deus Ex Machina (voice)
David Roberts .... Roland
Bruce Spence .... Trainman
Richard Sydenham .... Dock Sergeant
Che Timmins .... Radio Bunker Man
Gina Torres .... Cas
Clayton Watson .... Kid
Hugo Weaving .... Agent Smith
Cornel West .... Councillor West
Bernard White .... Rama-Kandra
Lambert Wilson .... Merovingian
Anthony Wong .... Ghost
Anthony Zerbe .... Councillor Hamann

*******

Miscellaneous Dept:

Item the 1st: Matrix Revolutions transcript excerpts were provided by:

http://www.starhtml.de/matrix/revolutions-transcript-original.txt

( Transcribed by: furiosity, pixel8or, CTM, and Ouroboros. Some additional descriptive text and text formatting was
provided by OnM during the composition of this essay. My sincere thanks and appreciation go to the transcribers! )

Transcripts are provided for the enjoyment of fans of The Matrix Trilogy and for reference purposes and do
not intend any copyright infringement. The entire content of these transcripts are the property of Larry and Andy
Wachowski, AOL Time Warner, and Village Roadshow Pictures.

***

Item the 2nd:

Excerpts from Roger Ebert's review of Au Hasard Balthazar copyright 2004 Roger Ebert and the Chicago
Sun-Times. Link for the review:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2004/03/031901.html

***

Item the 3rd: Need a break from big-time philosophizing?

Be sure to check out the recently released 20th Anniversary DVD edition of Ron Howard's film Splash,
starring a very young Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah. The film has never looked better video-wise, and the
commentary track by Howard, his screenwriters and the film's producer is eminently nifty. Low in carbs, too!

***

Item the 4th: (and words to the wise):

Never watch The Matrix and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure on the same day.

............ fresne


*******

The Question of the Week:


( Note: Time slowly passes, nothing much seems to happen. Finally, a voice calls out. )


Astronaut: So, what's the question?

Caveman: Me tired. Sleep now.

Astronaut: Well, OK. Just post 'em when you've got 'em, and I'll see you again sometime!

*******

Replies:

[> Re: *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* - Part III ( Conclusion )Spoilers for "Enter the Matrix" -- tost, 20:29:57 04/18/04 Sun

"For example, it is Niobe who volunteers to search for the missing Nebuchanezzer in defiance of the wishes of her lover, Lock."

The video game does shed some light on this particular incident. In one of the "movies" we see Lock and Niobe in his room. He explains his plan and tells her that her ship will not be needed. When asked why he explains that the E.M.P. on the Logos is to small to be of use. However the impression I got was that Niobe thought he was being the "man" keeping his "woman" out of harms way. It adds an interesting co-text(?) to the subsequent events.

Great post. I always enjoy reading your reviews and have rented several tapes based on your recommendations. I have not been disappointed.

[> [> "too" of course -- tost, 20:32:41 04/18/04 Sun


[> Would just like to make a few points point . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:01:57 04/18/04 Sun

First, Neo reviving Trinity was never considered impossible, I don't think. Yes, he saved her real body from dying, but she was only dying in the first place because of an injury incurred in the Matrix; and, if the problem occurs inside the Matrix, then it falls within Neo's preset abilities to affect it.

Second, from "Revolutions", I got the impression from the Oracle (assuming what she said was the truth) that there weren't multiple levels of reality. She said Neo could sense the Sentinels and destroy them because he was linked to the machines, both inside and outside the Matrix. To me, this seems to indicate that Neo merely has a psychic connection the machines, not that the world he's come to know as real is simply another construct.

I'm not going to bother discussing the philosophical points you make because Eastern thinking has never been my thing. I find the whole mode of thinking used by most Eastern philosophers and theologians to be both confusing and repugnant on an instinctual level. As such, I wouldn't understand most of those themes if they were there, and they'd only decrease my enjoyment of "Revolutions" even further if I did (assuming that the bar can possibly be set any lower).

Lastly, a question: I recently watched "The Animatrix" on Cartoon Network, and I was wondering if you could explain the endings to two of the shorts, namely "World Record" and "A Detective Story". In both shorts, something happened with the main character at the end that I didn't get. I didn't understand what the athlete getting out of his chair was supposed to indicate (was he recovered, or was he simply standing once only to fall back down?). Also, what was the detective doing pointing a gun at the Agents? I mean, he didn't seem to be dying despite the gunshot, and is there anything we're supposed to assume happens on the train, or did they just decide to leave it without resolution?

[> [> Re: Would just like to make a few points point . . . -- tost, 01:44:07 04/19/04 Mon


This is a conversation between director Takishi Koike and an unidentified producer who asked the questions which is on the commentary track of "World Record"on the DVD.

Q: Finally we're at the last cut. Did you have a have an image of this hospital as well?

Koike: Leading up to the hospital is a lot of action so I wanted to cool down here and have the audience have a chance to organize everything that has happened and to have that lead to the climax.

Q: I see.

Q: In the end we see whether or not he is able to stand and as the director I'm sure there's a message in that.

Koike: Yes the main character is able to go into[get out of..tost] the Matrix but to make it so it can be interpreted either way by the audience. Whether he became free or not can be decided by each person depending on that person.

Q: ... Which ever way...

Koike: Yes

Q: Do you personally have and opinion as to which it is. It might take the fun out of it but...

Koike: I just want people to choose which ever choice pleases them. that would depend on how the audience feels about this last scene then they first watch it.

Q: And these crosses, are they a motif in that sense to?

Koike: Yes. I had a lot of fun, being given this opportunity.

Q: Thank you very much.


They mostly talked about animation. A writer would have been nice. At any rate no Joss Wheaton commanatary.

I am reminded of Joseph Cambell talking about a "peak experance" he had when running for Columbia.

[> [> Possible answers -- OnM, 06:40:28 04/19/04 Mon

*** First, Neo reviving Trinity was never considered impossible, I don't think. ***

You are not incorrect, because I believe the scene was left deliberately ambiguous, as is the case on your #2 point, below. Nevertheless, it depends on how picky you want to be regarding the 'rules' of the Matrix and the 'Real World' of Zion and the hovercraft that Trinity's physical body is in. In the first film, we are told that if someone dies in the Matrix, their physical body dies in actuality. So, when Trinity is shot in the heart, she dies. Now, if the other people on the ship were to immediately perform surgery and attempt to revive her, that is one thing. But Neo is still within the Matrix, and therefore he cannot in theory affect a physical action in the 'real world' of the ship. But, he does-- he removes the bullet from her body, somehow repairs the tissue damage, and then squeezes her heart to bring her back to life. He is in the Matrix, but these things happen in the real world. This is why the crew incredulously proclaims that Neo has 'done the impossible'. Is it psychokinesis? That's one explanation, the other would be the multiple Matricies, and that Neo has moved up another level in his ability to control the 'programming' within them.


*** Neo could sense the Sentinels and destroy them because he was linked to the machines, both inside and outside the Matrix. To me, this seems to indicate that Neo merely has a psychic connection the machines, not that the world he's come to know as real is simply another construct. ***

This is the same sitch as the above, namely that you can have more than one explanation. Which one you favor is completely a matter of personal preference. Your theory is logically valid taking into account the information presented by the story. So is mine.


*** I find the whole mode of thinking used by most Eastern philosophers and theologians to be both confusing and repugnant on an instinctual level. As such, I wouldn't understand most of those themes if they were there, and they'd only decrease my enjoyment of "Revolutions" even further if I did. ***

I understand this; I often strongly feel the same way about much Western theology, but I can say that this does not seem to create any real personal dissatisfaction for me when I watch these movies, or for that matter when watching BtVS or Angel, where Joss and his writing team regularly do the very same thing-- write so that there are multiple interpretations. As I said in my essay summation, you like what you like.


*** The Animatrix etc. ***

Tost has a good response to your 4th point, and I'll gladly defer to him/her on the subject since I've only made a single pass through The Animatrix to date; thus my memory of many details is poor.

[> [> [> Trinity wasn't damaged in real life, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:04:34 04/19/04 Mon

Morpheus says in the first movie that the reason people killed inside the Matrix die is that "the body cannot survive without the mind". Trinity's mind was killed inside the Matrix, and so could no longer perform the functions (breathing, heart beat, etc) needed to keep her body alive. Neo revived Trinity's mind within the Matrix, though, and, once that returned, Trinity resumed normal vital functions. Trinity's physical body never suffered any damage, it simply ceased to function when her mind was killed and began working again when Neo revived her mind.

[> [> [> [> I'll have to research this a bit, but... -- OnM, 19:41:47 04/19/04 Mon

.... throughout the series, there were depictions of persons' real bodies being damaged by actions that took place within the Matrix. For example, people whose bodies started bleeding when they were engaged in fighting. I think there was more to it than just 'the body cannot live without the mind'. Right here and now in the real world, a person's heart, lungs, etc. can be kept functioning even though they are technically brain-dead. So, it seems likely that the machines could easily do the same. That being the case, why not just 'reboot' the program?

Interesting point, though. Anyone else have a solid read on this?

[> [> [> [> [> I do remember Neo getting a nosebleed in "The Matrix" -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:27:49 04/19/04 Mon

But that could either have been a psychosomatic injury or it could have been stress related (emotions can bring on nosebleeds afterall). Also, is there can be psychosomatic injuries can occur, then maybe psychosomatic healing can as well.

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - *Thus Codeth Zarathustra* - Part III ( Conclusion ) -- DorianQ, 22:13:59 04/19/04 Mon

Thank You. I knew there was a reason that I liked this movie. Is there any way you could expand at all on the theme of choice versus cause and effect or even if they are oppositional, especially in relation to the end? I am a little unclear. Once again, Thank You.

[> [> I do intend to respond, but need a few days-- it's an interesting question. -- OnM, 04:52:34 04/22/04 Thu

Caught in a busy time at the moment, but I'm not ignoring your request for more detail. Should have something by Sat or Sun.

:-)

[> All great! Plonking in some thoughts about 'Pi' -- MsGiles, 05:58:37 04/21/04 Wed

Don't call me a plonker!

I look forward to watching the trilogy again and then reading your notes again. Very interesting.

On the basis of one-time viewings of the last two (I saw the first one a couple times) I did have some thoughts, but my memory gets worse and worse, so I apologise if this is has a high idiocy content.

The first film in the series strongly reminded me of the indie fim 'Pi' (Aronofsky, 98) (NOT'Life of Pi'!) which I'd seen a short time before. 'Pi' starts in a very similar way: a gifted young male programmer (though Max is more of a mathematician) in his solitary techno cats-cradle of a room being led, almost despite himself, towards a revelatory discovery. The room is womb-like, the lad connected almost umbilically to the network of processors. I suppose one of the subtexts of this and of the Matrix is to do with the state of obsession and how it changes our actual experience of the world.

'Pi' does not go on to posit a world created by programming, though there is a link. Max is pursuing the idea that mathematics underlies the workings of the universe at a fundamental level, and he is trying to find a mathematical proof for it. It's a concept that might relate to The Matrix's 'higher level' that Neo learns to affect when he revives Trinity in Reloaded, in the sense that programming is based on mathematical principles. In 'Pi' the revelations which increasingly wrack Max are to do with advanced mathematics, in the form of the Fibonacci series and (tangentially) the solution to Pi, coming together with the mysticism of the Kabbala, the hidden numbers which underly creation in hermetic Jewish tradition (I think).

In some ways the result is the same. Reality becomes increasingly fractured, and a series of authoritative outsiders (albeit with their own agendas) nudge the hero deeper and deeper into revelation or psychosis. Ultimately he must make a choice, he must either abandon his line of enquiry or risk losing the world he knows, and possibly himself.

However, in 'Pi' the revelation is unbearable, agonising. Max must back away from it or be destroyed. While Neo finds himself by following the white rabbit, Max loses himself.

The feel of 'Pi' is very much urban grunge: vandalism, litter, graffitti. This contrasts with some of 'The Matrix', particularly the CGI in the machine world, but relates strongly to some of the sequences I liked best: the meeting with Morpheus in the empty grand hotel, the meeting with Oracle in the run-down apartment block, the showdown with Agent Smith in the subway. After Neo leaves his job and the smart office where he works for a software corparation, most of the 'matrix world' sequences are very tarnished, the shabby underside of the urban environment providing an effective contrast to the shades-and-shininess affected by the digital terrorists in their incursions. Like the 'matrix world', the human environments in the 'real world' of the ship are rusty and worn, and the clothing of the guerrillas seems to be knitted (badly) out of old dishcloths, contrasting with there shiny fantasy-wear in mworld

The following Matrix films seemed to iron out some of these contrasts, leaving the 'real world' grittiness and privation, on the ships and in Zion, to contrast with 'matrix world' fantasy. The realities constructed by machine intelligences like the Architect and the Merovingian tend towards the lush: gleaming techno in the first, neo-baroque in the second. Even the urban settings tend to be less decayed, the tower blocks and motorways better kept. When the subway makes a reappearance in the last film, it's a shiny subway, brightly lit, not a bit like the goomy, vandalised concrete where Neo faces down Agent Smith.

The likeness to Pi disappeared for me right at the end of the first Matrix film, when we see the enlightened Neo fly up into the sky, past the camera. I said to myself Aha! It's a superhero film. A subtle, thoughtful and cleverly plotted one, but that's its driving rationale, that's its genre. This thought coloured my viewing of the next two films: the assumption that the aesthetic was fundamentally comic-book (in the tradition of Blade. I have a lot of respect for the comic-book genre, the likes of Hellboy, for example. I think when films draw from this mindset, rather than than from the more conventional literary sf/fantasy heritage, it shows. The comic-book aesthetic is heavy on dramatic, practically metaphorical visuals to tell the story, low on verbal rationalisation. I think that's partly why early adaptations of comic-books were often rather poor (I'm thinking Modesty Blaise, Tank Girl) and still often misfire. They try to fit comic-book logic and pacing into a literary mold, and it just tends to look crap: posy and illogical. The Matrix films weren't adapted from a drawn series, but I feel that they fit into this storytelling mode, and I thought they did what they did exceptionally well, in the context of this film sub-genre, and raised the bar quite a few notches.

To conclude, I think perhaps Pi was essentially a literary film, whereas the Matrices were comic-book (for want of a better term) in heritage, and I suggest that one of the reasons so many people disliked the second two is that the first one drifted towards the literary, and set up a confusion of expectations.

[> [> Comic Book Heritage... -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:22:34 04/21/04 Wed

You're quite right about it have comic book 'heritage', and that's due in no small part to the fact that

a)the Wachowski bros did do comic books, for Marvel

and

b)The entirety of all three films was actually drawn, not storyboarded in the simple, traditional sense, but painstakingly illustrated like one gigantic graphic novel. Visual storytelling was the only way the Bros could pitch the movie to lunk-head Hollywood execs who didn't get it from just reading the script.

[> [> [> influence on movies -- MsGiles, 03:58:17 04/22/04 Thu

That's interesting

I suspect that when we take a step back, we're going to see a huge swathe of visual and storytelling influence on movies (and TV, thinking of Joss) from the 80's90's onwards coming via people who were immersed in Marvel/DC/Dark Horse etc in their impressionable youths and have now reached positions where they're writing/directing.

And increasingly also the influence of games, on how movies look, tell stories, and are read by audiences. And how they're packaged/sold. Not sure how this will be manifested, beyond the initial rather halting 'Resident Evil' and 'Tomb Raider' type experiments.


Current board | More April 2004