apr_p.html TEXTStMl } >)^ x mBIN
April 2001
April 2001 posts
How Buffy defeats Glory -- VanMoodySenior,
13:58:41 04/01/01 Sun
I have given this some thought and I believe the only way they
could destroy
a god is for that god to surrender. How could Buffy do this? She
gets kicked
around every time she meets Glory. I believe the solution is for
Buffy to
convince Ben that leaving our dimension and going back to another
one is the
right thing to do. Once she knows the nature of Glory and Ben,
that they are
of the same essence cohabiting in the same body, she should set
her sights
on getting to Ben. What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Buffy defeats Glory -- Ben/Glory, 15:24:53 04/01/01
Sun
Do we know if they are two beings-one body?
Or are there two bodies out there that happens to frequently change
between
Ben and Glory?
Ben could be the answer. However I think what will destory Glory
is time.
She has frequently mentioned that time is short.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How Buffy defeats Glory -- VanMoodySenior, 15:48:43
04/01/01 Sun
Good point about time. It reminds me of the old Dracula movie
with Peter
Cushing and Christopher Lee. Dracula wants to put Nina in the
grave so he is
digging, but the sun is about to come up. He just ran out of time
and got
fried by the sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Buffy defeats Glory -- L45648, 12:02:05 04/02/01
Mon
What if in order to kill or defeat Glory you have to stop the
combining of
Ben and Glory. If they are of the same essence that is. If that
could be
done and Buffy could somehow get Ben on "her side" then
maybe he could tell
her how to kill Glory. Since we have seen in the episodes that
Ben isn't
that fond of Glory in the first place.
Vamps & the Cross -- Solitude1056, 17:56:46 04/01/01 Sun
This deserved its own thread, since it's divergent from the Gods
& Demons
idea, I thought...
I have always wondered if Vampires would be scared of religious
symbols in
other religions such as the Star of David, or a statue of Budha.
Or is it
just crosses? It would be weird to see a jewish vampire being
scared of a
cross. Why would they believe it has power as a vampire, when
they didn't
believe in the Christian Faith when they were alive. Please respond
with
your thoughts and anyone else that wants to. VMS
Next week's movie: "Fearless Vampire Killers" by Roman
Polanski.
More later, dinner is ready! *g*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Wiccagrrl, 18:25:22 04/01/01 Sun
It's a great question...one I've wondered for a while now. It
basically
comes down to a question of whether the symbols have power because
people
believe in them, or if they really are empowered by a higher being.
Also,
whether that higher being is the "god" of any one particular
religion, or if
he/she/it is more all-encompassing than that.
I do think other religions' symbols would be equally as powerful-
moreso if
they were they symbols of the religion that the vampire and/or
the person
trying to protect themselves believed in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- JollyJeff, 19:55:28 04/01/01
Sun
I remember hearing somewhere on the show (or from Josh himself)
that
different demons come from different dimensions, that the Christian
"Hell"
doesn't really exist.
But maybe vampires come from a dimensions that strictly follows
Christian
beliefs. Maybe vampires are hardwired to be harmed by Christian
symbols
because creatures from that dimension believe in Christianity.
Who knows,
maybe werewolves are scared by the Star of David but nobody ever
tried it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- SingedCat, 20:25:08 04/01/01 Sun
OK, here's my theory--
At some point in history, vampires as a race ran afoul of that
particular
church, and lost. The old church is fraught with rituals and magic,
not to
mention witchunts. My guess is there was a mass extermination
which may have
nearly wiped out the vampiric populace, and left the surviving
race with a
kind of curse. The ability for the church to do that was probably
lost in
the years of peace afte that, where vampires became folktales.
Looked at
this way, it doesn't make Christianity the one true religion,
any more than
the other cults that can do magic are the One True Whatevers.
Sound good?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooh, I like that. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:30:17 04/01/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- VanMoodySenior, 09:22:27
04/02/01 Mon
I like your theory. It would be a good flashback sequence of Buffy
or Angel.
Just imagine the Master being one of the vampires that survives
such a
vampiric hunt. I have often wondered if they would show how the
Master
became a vampire and show how he got so powerful. It would be
interesting to
watch. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- purplegrrl, 09:40:32 04/02/01 Mon
Christianity is one of the few religions that attempts to conquer
through
belief. However, in some parts of Europe the belief in vampires
was so
strong the Church could not eradicate it. Therefore, the Church
used this
belief in vampires to its own end. Historically, the early Church
told the
vampire-believing masses that the reason members of their community
became
vampires was because they did not believe in God and the Church.
Of course
part of the reason the Church wanted to eradicate or at least
diminish the
belief in vampires was because they drank blood. Blood was considered
sacred
and belonged to God, representing the sacrifice Jesus made to
save mankind
from sin. So a creature that drank human blood would be considered
especially evil. The Church went further in saying that the way
to combat
any vampires that did exist was with the crucifix (or cross),
the Eucharist
wafer, and holy water. Garlic, wooden stakes, and beheading a
vampire were
incorporated from the folklore tradition.
The talismans of Christianity have become so ingrained in the
vampire
mythology that I doubt few people would believe a vampire who
was turned
aside or defeated by a Star of David or Buddhist prayer wheel.
Even Willow,
good Jewish girl that she is, nailed crosses/crucifixes to the
walls of her
bedroom when Angelus was on the rampage. There is a scene in the
movie "Love
At First Bite" where Dr. Rosenburg (Richard Benjamin) shows
Dracula (George
Hamilton) a Star of David. At first Dracula flinches in an attempt
to
protect himself and then realizes what the doctor is holding.
Dracula
suggests the doctor go and find himself an nice Jewish girl. Dr.
Rosenburg
says, "Rats, it's the other one, isn't it!", meaning
that vampires are
frightened/held at bay by a cross (Christian talisman) not a Star
of David
(Jewish talisman). Although this scene is played for laughs, it
does show
how ingrained the idea is in our culture.
Part of what makes Christian talismans so powerful against vampires
is our
belief in them. We believe vampires will be repelled by them.
And because
this belief is pervasive in Western culture, the vampires are
repelled by
the site of the crucifix/cross, are burned by holy water, and
Eucharist
wafer inserted into the dirt of their coffins makes them unusable
for the
vampires. It is my contention that this belief would be effective
even
against vampires that pre-date Christianity, although possibly
to a lesser
degree. Humans believe that Christian talismans are effective
against
vampires, and the vampires believe this too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Malandanza, 10:13:55 04/02/01
Mon
***Part of what makes Christian talismans so powerful against
vampires is
our belief in them. We believe vampires will be repelled by them.
And
because this belief is pervasive in Western culture, the vampires
are
repelled by the site of the crucifix/cross, are burned by holy
water, and
Eucharist wafer inserted into the dirt of their coffins makes
them unusable
for the vampires. It is my contention that this belief would be
effective
even against vampires that pre-date Christianity, although possibly
to a
lesser degree. Humans believe that Christian talismans are effective
against
vampires, and the vampires believe this too.***
I remember vaguely an X-Men comic I read when I was much younger
where the
X-Men battled Dracula. Wolverive tried to repel him with a cross,
but
Dracula brushed him aside as he was an atheist. Nightcrawler succeeded
with
a Star of David because he did believe. I have seen other vampire
movies
where an insufficient faith rendered the cross less effective
against the
most powerful vampires. In the Buffyverse, I believe that faith
in God is
irrelevant to the ability of a cross to repel vampires (think
of human Darla
keeping Angel at bay with a cross). It is possible that the faith
in the
symbol as a proof against vampires is what drives the vampires
away (the
cross acts as a focus for the human will) -- but even here, we
run into
problems. Consider the test Angel had to pass in an attempt to
save Darla --
the crosses on the floor burned him as surely as if they had been
held by
the Pope. But perhaps Angel's faith in the crosses is what powered
them.
Then consider Holy Water -- in Buffy's 18th birthday test, she
switches
regular water with holy water for the insane vampire -- the vampire
has no
way of knowing that he is drinking holy water, so why does he
die?
Similarly, when Angel immerses his hand in holy water, he does
so without
being told that it is anything other than tap water -- yet it
burns him. It
seems to me that, in the Buffyverse, the vampire destroying properties
of
Christian relics are entirely independent of faith -- whether
it is faith in
Christianity or faith in the item. An atheist armed with a cross
is just as
dangerous to a vampire as a born-again Christian or a devout Catholic
wielding the same weapon.
As for other religious items driving off vampires -- I think that
the
Watcher's Council would have, at some point in its history, investigated
the
possibility. Giles would have told Willow "Oh, by the way,
Stars of David
work too" if other religious items worked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- VanMoodySenior, 16:24:47
04/02/01 Mon
I suppose my thinking goes this way. What would happen if a man
became a
vampire and had never heard of Christianity? Let's say it was
in the jungle
wilds of Africa where missionaries had not reached yet. I just
don't
understand how a vampire would be turned away by a cross if had
not heard of
Christianity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Diana Michelle,
18:27:01 04/02/01 Mon
I think it would still work. At least in the Buffyverse, faith
is not needed
to have symbols of (Christian)faith work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Crosses PreDate Christianity -- Scott L, 11:45:12 04/02/01
Mon
The symbol of the cross was used to mark graves and as a device
of torture
and execution long before Christ. It is the fact that Jesus was
executed on
a cross that has made it a symbol of Christianity.
Purple Grrl's theory makes very good sense from a literary point
of view.
For the Buffyverse my theory is whatever meaning the cross held
B.C. is the
meaning that holds the Vamps at bay today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Crosses PreDate Christianity -- Solitude1056,
19:00:55 04/02/01
Mon
Purple Grrl's theory makes very good sense from a literary point
of view.
For the Buffyverse my theory is whatever meaning the cross held
B.C. is the
meaning that holds the Vamps at bay today.
It's still rather disengenious, IMO - since it's not like we've
ever seen
Vamps held back by someone forming a "plus" sign with
two sticks. And then
what explains holy water - which by definition is blessed by a
Xtian priest?
It appears that like it or not, this might be one that's immovable
by virtue
of the accepted viewpoint, hammered in by two centuries of Xtian-viewpointed
writers, who carried on the literary tradition. Hm. Allow me to
introduce
y'll to my pal William of Occam... he has this razor, you see...
*grin* I
don't know if Joss ever intends to play with this aspect the way
he's played
with others in the vampire tradition - the sleeping at night,
direct sun,
etc - but I can hope.
Btw, about that Polanski reference... in it, someone tries to
hold off a
vampire with a crucifix, who looks at it & shrugs. "Vat you
trying to do
wit' that?" the vamp says. "I vas JEWISH."
hehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Crosses PreDate Christianity -- Scott L,
19:27:43 04/02/01 Mon
--It's still rather **disengenious**
God, that's my *favorite* word. So, I have to accept that someone
used it to
refer to my theory
Since the episode that showed Willow using crosses as part of
the
"uninvitation" charm, my roommate and I have done smatterings
of research on
why crosses have been used as markers of death for as long as
they have. We
haven't taken a very academic approach and the most we found referred
to the
four elements and the four cardinal points -- yadda, yadda, yadda.
I promise to step up my research, now that I know that there's
a grown up
audience that has an interest.
Holy water is another issue altogether. I can't remember, do Buffyverse
vampires have a thing about crossing running water on their own
power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Crosses PreDate Christianity -- VanMoodySenior,
22:19:03
04/02/01 Mon
I believe crosses were used to mark graves b/c it was a Christian
that died.
It is just a mark of the persons faith. I actually liked the answer
in an
earlier post which said the cross might have revulsed vampires
before Jesus'
time. I had not thought of that possibility. Thx. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- L45648, 11:56:28 04/02/01 Mon
If you have seen the movie Dracula 2000 you find out that the
dracula in
that movie was a religious figure back when Jesus was alive. (Won't
tell you
who if you haven't seen the movie.) Now I don't think that in
Buffy/AngelLand they went in that direction to explain the fear
of religious
symbols. Maybe the vampires that lived back in those times feared
religious
symbols because it was part of the society the humans lived in.
And since it
was everywhere they found that since they were evil that it had
a harmful
affect on them because they weren't human or because they were
"stuck"
between being alive and dead?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Adam and crosses -- Rufus, 14:22:51 04/02/01 Mon
Last season Adam went to the vampires and got them to work twords
his goal
of destruction. He did say some interesting things about vampires:
Adam: "You fear death. Being immortal, you fear it more than
those to whom
is comes naturally. Vampires are a paradox........Demon in a human
body. You
walk in both worlds and belong to neither."
Adam convinced the vampires that the reason they reacted to the
cross was
because they believed they would. He had them face their fear
of the cross
and work past their fear. They eventually ended up killing people
in a
church and this is what the one vamp said:
Vampire: "It's hard to believe. I've been avoiding this place
for so many
years, and it's nothing. It's nice! It's got pretty windows, the
pillars,
lots of folks to eat. Where's the thing I was so afraid of? You
know the
Lord? He was supposed to be here. He gave us this address. Well,
we'll just
have to start killing off His people, see if he shows up."
Well, He may not have shown up but 2 slayers did. But it's interesting
about
belief. How you can react to something because you expect to.
If these vamps
could work past their fear, is it real, or a leap of faith that
should have
died with their humanity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Adam and crosses -- Masquerade, 14:31:27 04/02/01
Mon
It's not clear he ever got them past their fear or their physical
reaction
to the cross. What he got them to face was their fear of being
in a church,
which we know from Angel's many forays is not ipso facto dangerous
for a
vampire. As long as s/he keeps their hands to themselves. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Adam and crosses -- VanMoodySenior, 22:22:02 04/02/01
Mon
I bet if those vamps had been touched by a Bible,cross, or holy
water it
would have worked. They pretty much stayed in the middle of the
church from
my recollection. I enjoyed your thoughts. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Jen C., 17:27:12 04/02/01 Mon
I seem to recall that crosses were originally sun symbols - maybe
that is
why they have particular power to harm vampires?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- purplegrrl,
08:28:27
04/03/01 Tue
Okay, since hardly anyone seemed to like my theory that Joss & Co.
are just
following the vampire mythology in making crosses and holy water
repellant
to vampires, I had some additional thoughts.
1. To borrow from Joseph Campbell and Jung: It is part of our
"collective
unconscious" (Jung's phrase) that vampires are repelled by
crosses and holy
water. It is ingrained in us by literature, movies, television.
We don't
have to "believe" in the particular faith symbolized
by the cross to "know"
vampires will be repelled by them. This is best illustrated by
Willow
(Jewish girl) nailing crosses to her bedroom walls to ward off
Angelus. This
may also explain how Adam was able to convince his vampire minions
that they
could enter the church and wreck havoc - he somehow overrode their
instinctive knowledge/reactions.
2. Since magic works in the Buffyverse and religion hasn't been
really
shown, could crosses and holy water have attained the status of
*magical*
objects rather than *religious* objects? This could explain how
they are
able to work against vampires without their knowledge (did Angel
know the
font was filled with holy water in "The Trial"?; a vampire
from the Amazon
rain forest who had never been exposed to Christianity) or belief
(Jewish
vampires, pre-Christian vampires, etc.). Crosses and holy water
are spelled
to react to the undead - a type of "reactive magic."
The spell lies dormant
until it is activated by the touch or presence of a vampire. The
magician/witch/spellcaster does not have to present for the spell
to be
effective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- Solitude1056,
09:44:05
04/03/01 Tue
Okay, since hardly anyone seemed to like my theory that Joss & Co.
are just
following the vampire mythology in making crosses and holy water
repellant
to vampires [...] To borrow from Joseph Campbell and Jung: It
is part of our
"collective unconscious" (Jung's phrase) that vampires
are repelled by
crosses and holy water. It is ingrained in us by literature, movies,
television.
I liked your comments. Not saying I care much for the narrow (one-religion)
perspective in vampire myth, but that's how it is. Like I said
in another
post, there's this guy I know, William of Occam... *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- purplegrrl, 12:42:41
04/03/01 Tue
Well, Joss professes to be an athiest, and he uses Christian symbols
to
repel vampires, so go figure.
[IMO, I think we are so desparate for new episodes that we will
see hidden
meanings and philosophical twists in *anything* pertaining to
the repeat
episodes! ;-) We haven't had a good clothing discussion lately.
:-D How
about the philosophical aspects of hospital food!? Or Cordelia's
shorter
hair? Or why free nachos would attract the morally ambiguous crowd?
Okay,
possibly enough silliness for now.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- Scott L.,
16:30:42 04/04/01 Wed
I completely agree that Joss is using traditional vampire traditions
in
Buffy, and some of that is steeped in things we consider to be
Christian
symbolism. But since it offends my sensibilities so much to ignore
the world
religions and practices that Christianity borrowed a lot of its
symbolism
from, I want to explain away that one path.
If it boils down to Christian symbolism for the sake of Christian
symbolism,
I think we need to keep in mind that Vampires are demon spirits
from heck.
They would have heard of the Christian symbolism even if there
host from the
Amazon hadn't.
I absolutely love your theory that symbolism takes on a magic
of its own so
that regardless of faith or foreknowledge, the symbol of torture
and death
(the crucifix) and the symbol of batism and rebirth (holy water)
would have
power over even a vamp who didn't know it was there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional
thoughts -- purplegrrl,
09:18:13 04/05/01 Thu
I know we're all anxious for new episodes to start, and to a certain
extent
I can understand people's offended sensibilities about only Christian
symbols repelling vampires (unfortunately that's tradition and
I've tried to
explain the historical reasons for it), but I really don't think
there is
anything deeper to "crosses and holy water repel vampires"
than the
mythology was already firmly established and Joss & Co. just used
it as it
was. I don't think this means they have ignored other religions
or world
views. For example, where other Western writers might have made
the big bad
demon who was guarding the pregnant woman a Christian when he
turned to the
side of Good, Joss & Co. made him a Buddhist.
If you think about it, crosses and holy water are just about the
only
Christian symbols seen on the shows. And they are not used as
objects of
worship, merely as talismans against evil. These objects are simple
and
widely understood, even by people who don't believe in their religious
value. I think we would question just as deeply if Joss & Co.
had decided
that crosses and holy water *didn't* work against vampires, or
if symbols of
other religions (Star of David, Buddhist prayer wheel) *also*
worked against
vampires. I think Joss has enough on his hands detailing and explaining
the
workings of the Buffyverse without recreating every part of the
vampire myth
in toto.
Yes, we've seen churches on BtVS and Angel, but they are more
of just a
building where part of the story takes place rather than a holy
place where
the faithful come to worship. They are not central to the shows'
themes.
Angel's redemption doesn't require that he start attending church.
Even
though she is a warrior for Good, Buffy does not have the need
to armor
herself in the "word of God," such as Joan of Arc would
have.
"Religion" as we have seen it in the Buffyverse is really
only about Good
vs. Evil (which is pretty much what all religions are about anyway).
The
Good helps, enlightens, redeems. The Evil hinders, corrupts, destroys.
I hope this doesn't sound too "soapbox-y." :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- Rufus,
17:37:08
04/03/01 Tue
I go with number one about collective unconscious reactions and
add to it
the fact as symbols of good the cross and the holy water repel
vampires as
they are infected with evil. Angel still has the resident demon
somewhere in
there so the cross still works at it reacts to the demon that
Angel still
is. Call the burning of the skin evils allergic reaction to good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- VanMoodySenior,
20:25:42 04/03/01 Tue
Now this is what I don't understand. Are we then saying that the
star of
David is not a symbol of good? Or what about any other religious
symbol? I
kind of like the preJesus explanation. Maybe there was a curse
many many
years ago placed on all vampires and they passed it on to all
the vampires
they made, and so on and so on. Doesn't this just bug the stuffins
out of
ya? Take Care VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- Rufus, 20:59:24
04/03/01 Tue
The reason that the vampires don't react, that we know of to other
symbols
of good, is simply because we are used to the mythology of the
vampires
being almost always specific on the Cross as a symbol that repelled
vampires. This is only a rule in the Buffyverse and some other
books I'm
sure that there are stories that don't mention fear of Crosses
or any
religious symbols at all. So in the Buffyverse, if it works use
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- OnM,
20:44:53 04/03/01
Tue
I would say that both 1 & 2 are correct-- originally it was a
spell cast
that gave these objects the power to repel vampires and/or induce
a state of
fear in them. After that the power of the collective unconscious
(which you
will recall I've essayed about at least twice now in relation
to odd
happenings in the Buffyverse) takes over, and the universe adapts.
It is also quite possible for objects and spell to predate Christianity.
Many factions of Christianity, especially the Catholic church,
adapted
aspects of 'pagan' religions in order to absorb those believers
into it's
own fold of belief. (A classic example is how Christmas came to
be
celebrated on nearly the same day as the winter solstice, a tradional
day of
worship for many pre-Christian religions, even though Jesus was
actually
born sometime in the summer or fall, by most historical accounts.)
The spread of Christianity would only have accelerated the power
of the
collective uncon. to spread the original spell. Soon it is a part
of the
fabric of the 'created' universe, and so all a vamp has to do
is exist in
our universe to be affected.
It would have been interesting to see if those vamps Adam was
teaching did
learn to resist this particular aspect of their existence. Also,
recall from
S1 that The Master had some manner of control over the way crosses
affected
him, and also his bones did not turn to ash when he was dusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- Virgill Reality,
13:30:50 04/09/01 Mon
A reply in general to all the postings made on crosses, holy water,
etc.
It is normally the case in vamp mythology that faith is required
in addition
to the cross to repel a vampire, but as is already know, vamps
in the
buffyverse are repelled by the cross on its own.
It is implied that vampires fear the cross itself, and it is implied
that
vampires have an inherent fear of God, presumably because they
are demons
themselves. One posting made a point of whether or not a vamp
born without
knowing anything of the Christian faith would still be repelled
by Christian
Holy objects. I think the answer would be yes. The reasoning is
that the
behvior of a vampire is independent of the human preceding it,
that person
is regarded as dead when reborn as a creature of darkness. As
the person is
reborn as a demon, he or she also inherits with the demon blood
the inherent
fear of Good (or God) that comes with it.
As for all this about Holy Water being an accidental magic spell,
that is
matter for opinion. The fact is it is blessed in the name of God
and by that
it is able to be used as a weapon against darkness.
Virgill
Anybody catch the preview for the next Buffy? -- AngelVSAngelus,
18:11:22
04/03/01 Tue
There was a scene of a funeral for Buffy's mom, and Buffy looks
to be in
what I like to differentiate as Sad Buffy mode, as opposed to
Angry Buffy
mode. She was crying and saying that she wants to do the things
her mother
used to do, because when she stops she's truly gone. Angel makes
a guest
appearance in Sunnydale to comfort his ex-lover, and the two look
very
benign.
And that surprises me, because they've grown apart in their own
respective
worlds so much that I would have thought they'd have trouble communicating
anymore, or maybe even still have some animosity toward each other
left over
from their previous encounter when Angel was harboring Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anybody catch the preview for the next Buffy? -- VanMoodySenior,
20:32:40 04/03/01 Tue
Death has a way of making very important disagreements fade away.
Will this
be a buffy-angel crossover? The reason I ask is they didn't have
a preview
of the next new Angel show. I watch on WGN out of Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OT - for VMS -- purplegrrl, 08:32:51 04/04/01 Wed
I thought WGN no longer carried WB programming. Or do they have
different
listings for Chicago and non-Chicago viewers? I know I used to
be able to
get Buffy and Angel on both my local WB station and on WGN. But
that stopped
about 3 years ago or so.
Just wondering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT - for VMS -- OnM, 09:08:04 04/04/01 Wed
I thought the same... I used to get my tapes off of WGN via DirecTV
satellite, then they announced the ending of their affiliation
with the WB,
and I had to go back to plain ol' cable.
Are they back on? I'd love to get a sat feed again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT - for VMS -- VanMoodySenior, 10:55:36
04/04/01 Wed
I think it is a Chicago thing. When I was on vacation in southern
Indiana a
few weeks ago WGN did not carry Buffy and Angel but an Indiana
station did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anybody catch the preview for the next Buffy? -- Marya,
01:30:27
04/04/01 Wed
That animosity was pretty much resolved in The Yoko Factor when
Angel came
back to Sunnydale to apologize. There lives have gone in seperate
directions
but they still respect and care deeply for each other. I think
the next
episode will demonstrate that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just friends? -- OnM, 07:32:04 04/04/01 Wed
Yes, I had thought of the same thing, just could remember the
ep title.
Spike had stated previously that Buffy and Angel could 'never
be just
friends'. Wondering if their relationship could/will evolve into
that, or is
he right, and will they always exist in that state of arrested
romantic
tension?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Wiccagrrl, 18:07:32 04/04/01
Wed
I find it hard to see them ever becoming "just friends"
There will always be
an undercurrent. But I do think that Angel is one of the few people
that
could get through to Buffy at this point in her life. And part
of that may
be because they've been estranged. This is someone she loves,
who she knows
cares very much for her, and is someone she can break down in
front of
because she doesn't have to face them every day... Plus, he's
one of the few
people in her life who she has never really felt she needed to
"be the
strong one" for. She can lean on him. So I think he may be
able to break
through some of the walls she's built up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> All threads lead to Spike -- Traveler,
21:03:30 04/04/01 Wed
I wonder how Spike and BuffyBot are doing? Does he know about
Buffy's
mother? Most likely, he wouldn't be happy to see Angel with Buffy
again in
any capacity. Maybe Spike kidnaps her and leaves the BuffyBot
for Angel :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: All threads lead to Spike --
Rufus, 22:05:47 04/04/01 Wed
Can Angel lose his soul with a robot? Sorry couldn't help thinking
of the
implications of robot lovin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm just _not_ going to go
there! (NT) -- Marya, 00:36:18
04/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Marya, 00:33:22 04/05/01
Thu
I think there is a tie between them that can never really be severed.
I know the B/A shippers are devoted to the idea of their romantic
everlasting love. But I for one am very content with the idea
of a love
based on understanding and respect that is outside of romance.
I was much
relieved when I found out Angel was returning for the funeral.
It signaled
to me that Joss & Co know there is still more to their story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Marya, 00:17:22 04/05/01
Thu
"will they always exist in that state of arrested romantic
tension?"
Ooo, nice phrase. And I say yes. But "arrested" is the
key. They both know
it can't go anywhere, especially Angel after IWRY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Dee, 08:53:50 04/05/01
Thu
But angel could be human someday...yes, I am one of the incurable
romantics
who wants to see them together again. They play off each other
so well that
it's a pleasure to watch them. (Although I could be reconcilled
to them
being apart if Buffy ended up with Zander...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Marya, 14:48:43
04/05/01 Thu
The whole point of IWRY is that even if Angel became human it
wouldn't work.
The Oracles made it pretty clear that Angel's presence in Buffy's
life would
shorten it. Even if you figure the Oracles were just making a
prophecy and
Buffy has beaten those before, it still wouldn't work. Buffy likes
her human
loved ones to stay as far out of danger as possible, and Angel
would really
chaff at taking a back seat to the action. That's one of the big
reaons
Buffy and Riley didn't work out either. Riley was also a man of
action. He
couldn't handle being back-up guy.
When you think about it a lot of Buffy's romance problems stem
from the fact
that she falls for the same type, namely thrill junkies. Angel
in all three
of his personas: Liam, looking for adventure; Angelus, always
wanting
something new; Angel, hero complex. Riley, definately hero complex.
Even her
short lived romances: Owen, "wants to be danger man;"
Scott Hope, attracted
to Buffy as "a force of nature;" Parker, "id boy"
thrill of the conquest.
And she knows it's a problem too. That's why she nipped Owen in
the bud, and
tried to end it with Riley before it started. What she needs is
a stable guy
whose content to just be there for her when she needs him whether
with
inspiring words or a shoulder to cry on and whose self identity
doesn't
depend on doing the manly danger thing. Know any candidates?
Besides I kind of like a love story about two soul mates who by
all rights
should be together but cruel fate has torn asunder. That's why
I hope for as
much interplay between the two shows as Joss & Co can manage.
So we can all
wallow in Buffy and Angel's deliciously painful destiny of being
always
together but forever apart. *sigh* Now that's ROMANCE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Elizabeth,
17:01:06 04/05/01 Thu
"The whole point of IWRY is that even if Angel became human
it wouldn't
work. The Oracles made it pretty clear that Angel's presence in
Buffy's life
would shorten it."
That's not what they meant at all. What they told him was that
Buffy was
destined to (or was very likely to) die in the coming apocolypse,
and that
Angel as a mere human man could do nothing to prevent that. He
asked to be
made a vampire so he would have a chance to save her. That doesn't
mean
Angel's being human = Buffy short life under any OTHER circumstance.
In fact, once Buffy gets to an age where she's past her prime
and hands the
slayer ring to the next slayer (Faith, or Faith's successor) she
could have
a good relationship with a human man (any man, including mortal
Angel), even
if he had a "thrill seeker" streak in him. She wouldn't
be putting him in
the line of fire all the time once she was retired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? --
Wiccagrrl, 18:12:10 04/05/01 Thu
Gotta agree...IWRY did not mean that it would never work for Buffy
and
Angel. IMO it meant that that was not the time. What was the point
of the
Shanshu prophecy if IWRY meant Angel was never gonna be in a position
to
become human? The decision that was made in IWRY, the lessons
there, had to
do with that particular point in time. It wasn't the right
circumstances/time to walk away from the good fight. At some point,
hopefully, he'll be allowed (and allow himself) some peace and
happiness.
And my little B/A 'shipper heart can't help but equate that with
eventually
finding his way back to Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends?
-- Rufus, 19:22:40 04/05/01 Thu
I have been watching with interest Angels progression. Before
I wasn't sure
he was the guy for Buffy because he had a strong streak of pride
that I
could see would continue to get him into trouble. When he is able
to come to
Sunnydale to comfort Buffy it will show not only love but a new
level of
maturity that he lacked before. The old Angel may have just stayed
in LA
unable to deal with seeing Buffy with the added element of grief.
Now he is
able to put his self interest aside and be there when she needs
him. Part of
Epiphany was to show that Angel had faith where there was none
before, now
he has become more interested in the lives around him. He was
a spectator
before, now he is anxious to join the lives he watched from the
sidelines
before. It is not just a gesture to a old girlfriend to come to
Sunnydale,
but one of kindness to put his feelings of longing aside just
to be there.
Add enough small acts of kindness together and what do you get?
I think
Angel just may find the answer to that question in time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel preview -- Traveler, 13:26:04 04/05/01 Thu
straight from tvguide.com:
"Angel Investigations may be together again (under new management),
but that
doesn't mean the family is ready to add a new sister.
While the crew tracks down a cult of vampires led by a former
motivational
speaker (Pat Healy) with a wicked pyramid scheme, Cordelia (Charisma
Carpenter) gets a surprise visit from her old high-school buddy
Harmony
(Mercedes McNab). Unaware her flaky pal's a bloodsucker, Cordy
mistakes
Harm's strange behavior for lesbianism---until the truth comes
out (so to
speak) in a call to Willow. Much to the dismay of her co-workers,
the ever
loyal Cordelia resolves to give her undead friend a chance at
fighting for
the good guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel preview -- AngelVSAngelus, 07:53:02 04/10/01
Tue
That all sounded cool until the part about giving her a chance.
Damnit,
she's soulless! Cordy should know better
Do family members outside of Sunnydale have false memories of
Dawn? --
AngelVSAngelus, 17:47:51 04/03/01 Tue
Here's something I've wondered for a while:
Are Buffy's family members outside of Sunnydale affected by the
spell that
made Dawn human? I was thinking that there would be a funeral
for Joyce, and
that Buffy's family would be there. BUt would they know Dawn as
her sister?
How would Buffy's father react to her? And how would she react
to him, for
that matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have false memories
of Dawn?
-- Leaf, 19:49:59 04/03/01 Tue
I think that other family members well especially her father would
have
memories the monks should have thought that far ahead and cosidered
the
family. but the people who I'm not sure about is the LA crew,
Angel,Wesley
and Cordelia do they have memories of her? We know Dawn has memories
well of
Angel at least but does that extend to him?I don't think any of
them has had
any contact with the Scoobies this season. I'm of the opinion
that the
memories could be triggered maybe when you come in contact or
someone talks
about her. just one of my half cocked theories that don't have
a solid base
(I have dozens of those) *g*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale... -- OnM,
20:25:57
04/03/01 Tue
*** "I'm of the opinion that the memories could be triggered
maybe when you
come in contact or someone talks about her." ***
Hummm, no, Leaf, not a half-cocked theory. Scroll down a mite
and read
through Solitude 1056's thread below, 'Why is Dawn, Dawn?'. Many
theories
abound, yours is very much like mine, and I generally don't publish
theories
unless they are at least 3/4's-cocked, preferably even 90%-cocked.
;)
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale...
-- Marya, 01:36:47
04/04/01 Wed
Maybe we all need to ease off on the cocking 'cause it may be
about to
backfire on us. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't it usually? ;) -- OnM, 07:34:26
04/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: CAUTION - board isn't automatically
noting 'NT' for no
text posts (NT) -- OnM, 07:43:29 04/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have false
memories of
Dawn? -- purplegrrl, 09:33:23 04/04/01 Wed
I think there are a couple of explanations for the memories that
people have
of Dawn.
1. The spell the monks cast was *extremely* intricate and elaborate.
They
introduced false memories into *anyone* who came into contact
with the
Summers family in the last 14 or 14-1/2 years. Everyone from the
Scooby
Gang, Giles, and Angel to Hank's business associates to school
friends, day
care providers, store clerks, etc., were given the appropriate
false
memories of Dawn. The memories of family, the Scooby Gang, Angel
would be
the most elaborate - remembering specific interactions. Other
peoples'
memories would be gradationally less specific - Hank's coworkers
would
remember he had two daughters; store clerks would recognize her
face; school
friends would remember that she sat next to them in class. This
represents a
tremendous amount of work on the monks' part. They had to have
been planning
this spell for a very long time, waiting for a time they needed
it.
Otherwise, how could they have done such an elaborate spell on
the run, in a
panic, in the short time frame while Glory was breaking into this
dimension?
Also, how would the monks know when they would need this spell?
Was it a
generic "mass false memory" spell that could be tailored
to accomodate
specifics?
2. The monks planted specific false memories in those that would
be most
affected by Dawn's presence - Joyce, Buffy, Hank. Perhaps they
also gave
some false memories to those closest to Buffy - Willow, Xander,
Giles,
Angel, Riley, possibly Oz. However, the monks may have put a type
of
"reactive magic" spell on Dawn herself. That way those
people who come in
contact with Dawn (or if a family member mentioned Dawn - meaning
that the
name "Dawn" in connection with Buffy and her family
would also have to be
spelled to invoke false memories) would have false memories overlaid
on
their real memories of Buffy and her family. They would believe
they knew
about Dawn from whenever they met Buffy or another member of the
Summers
family - living in L.A., their move to Sunnydale, etc. This could
explain
why Angel, Wesley, and Cordelia haven't mentioned Dawn - the false
memories
of her have not been activated. I think this would be a slightly
simpler
spell to work. However, it is still intricate and elaborate. A
lot of
forethought had to go into the creation of the spell. This is
not something
the monks just thought of while on the run from Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have
false memories of
Dawn? -- Marya, 00:57:43 04/05/01 Thu
This spell is indeed intricate. The idea of a "mass false
memory spell"
seems to me impractical. I've always favored the virus approach,
with each
person being infected with the memories when they come in contact
with
someone who already has them. But what stumps me is how the memories
themselves are manufactured once the person is infected. The memories
all
seem to be very specific for everyone, not just generic. One possible
explanation is that the memories are provided by the individual
based on his
or her own preconceptions and experiences. OTOH this would not
explain
shared memories. Where the heck would they come from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: DNA = Do Not Attempt this at home!
;) -- OnM, 20:41:28
04/06/01 Fri
*** "One possible explanation is that the memories are provided
by the
individual based on his or her own preconceptions and experiences.
OTOH this
would not explain shared memories. Where the heck would they come
from?" ***
I figured the same thing, but imagine it like transmission of
DNA from
parent to offspring, except there are many more than one parent/offspring
involved. Each contact presents the total current memory mix,
the new
recipient takes whatever fits, discards the rest, and then interpolates
the
remainder into his/her particular memories. (You add an artificial
intelligence processor to the mix, and the memories all get interpolated,
weighted to the most likely set of occurrances for the new contact).
Hummm, figure about a 1000 GHz processor oughta handle it? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have
false memories of
Dawn? -- Cleanthes, 13:54:31 04/07/01 Sat
In order to "plant" Dawn in this universe, the universe
had to be altered.
Once that's allowed, why is it any more difficult for all and
sundry to be
affected than for just a few people?
I don't think the monks planted false memories at all. Instead,
they looked
for something that might have been. Joyce might have had a second
daughter.
Then, the monks changed the universe that {was} into the universe
that
{might have been}. EVERYONE was changed, but the insane still
"remember" the
old universe. (which is why they're insane -- eg. not in touch
with reality)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale
have false memories
of Dawn? -- Rufus, 20:47:45 04/07/01 Sat
How does that explain the fact that the monk Buffy spoke with
said they
built the memories in Buffy and the rest of the people involved.
It does
make sense to rearrange reality to accomodate new potential but
I still
think that the people closest to Dawn would have the memories
built in as
Dawn is only about 6 months old. As for the people that are insane
they are
outside reality an fiddling with reality wouldn't effect them.
The fact that
Dawn would be open to detection by snake and wolfe types does
open a
possible storyline for Oz to return. Would he see her as she really
is when
he is a wolf or all of the time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of
Sunnydale have false
memories of Dawn? -- Cleanthes, 13:24:52 04/08/01 Sun
Fascinating point about using Oz to detect Dawn - great catch.
The monk said they "built" the memories? I don't remember
the exact wording,
but that's not quite how he put it, if I remember right..
Anyways, the monk would have access to more than one "might
have been" and
could choose which one to "build" the spell around.
Nothing on the show so far suggests that the monks used the power
of the key
to make the key human --- that's just what I think would be neat.
{smile}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Do family members outside
of Sunnydale have false
memories of Dawn? -- Rufus, 14:44:44 04/08/01 Sun
"Nothing on the show so far suggests that the monks used
the power of the
key to make the key human -- that's just what I think would be
neat."
Actually, yes, the show does suggest your theory of entelechy....in
Blood
Ties Spike says:
Spike(reading from Giles journal): "The monks possessed the
ability to
transform energy, bend reality..." "They had to be certain
the Slayer would
protect it with her life. So they sent the Key to her in human
form...in the
form of a sister."
Nothing suggests they used anything but the power of the key to
transform
the key from potentiality to actuality.
In No Place Like Home the monk further backs up what you say:
Monk: "The abomination...found us. We had to hide the Key...Gave
it form.
Moulded if flesh , made it human. And sent it to you."
Buffy: "My memories...my mom's"
Monk: "We built them."
Buffy: "Then unbuild them. This is my life you're..."
Monk: "You cannot...abandon.."
Buffy: "I didn't ask for this. I don't even know what..what
is she?"
Monk: "Human. Human, now, and helpless. Please, she is..an
innocent in this,
and she needs you."
Buffy: "She's not my sister."
Monk: "She doesn't know that."
So, what else do you think the monks used to make Dawn, but Dawn
herself.
They may have moulded her, determined her form, but Dawn is Dawn
is the Key.
As for the memories, he did say that they were built..so how far
reaching is
their ability to bend reality? I'm surprised that no one has pointed
out
that the monks did what has always been considered a function
of God, create
a person. They would though have to follow a few rules and I don't
think
that they could totally change reality but bend it to accomodate
Dawn...if
they could do much more then they would have been able to defeat
Glory. But
the knowledge alone to make a person and build memories is enormous.
My
question is that if Dawn is now human then why do those outside
of reality
see her as the key? Is the energy of the Key a soul?
It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a poll is in
order. --
OnM, 21:27:11 04/03/01 Tue
Well, only one more week of 'encore performances', and then we
can all get
our fix! ;)
It's been said before, but worth saying again, even though I know
I'm
preaching to the converted ;) -- a Buffyverse repeat is still
better than
most shows' new eppies, something that I was reminded of again
tonight while
watching Angel-- oh, man, what a great ep!
There's that little rush that comes when he shuts the doors on
the lawyers
and one part of you is going yes! yes! yes! they are *so* getting
what they
deserve! -- and the other part of you is going, Oh God, what is
he doing??
Now *that's* craftsmanship!
So, to the subject of the poll: Who do you think are the best
actors in the
B/A'verse? This occurred to me while watching Darla, Drusilla,
Lindsey,
Holland et al do their thing tonight. What gifts these people
have, as do
nearly all the fine people whose talents grace these creations.
It's almost impossibly hard to figure this out, but to make things
at least
a little easier, narrow your choice to just three persons, mostly
turn off
your forebrain, and vote for who, whenever they appear on screen,
at
anytime, for long appearance or short, makes you go 'wow!'
My votes, in alphabetical order, and the eps to drive home the
already
obvious:
Eliza Dushku - This Year's Girl/Who Are You?
Juliet Landau - Any ep she's in, but esp. Redefinition
James Marsters - Fool For Love
So, my fellow Profundits, what think ye?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Nina, 22:18:01 04/03/01 Tue
I've been on the quiet side these last days... unable to come
with anything
worthy to say. So OnM your thread is just perfect for my tired
little grey
cells.
Only three... okay.
Sarah Michelle Gellar in "The body"
James Marsters in "Fool for love"
Michelle Trachenberg in "Blood Ties"
I guess I am pretty impressed when actors are able to show vulnerability!
As for guest stars I'd go with:
Clare Cramer (not sure how to spell her name though) I Love the
way she can
switch from madness to playfulness. She's doing it effortlessly
and it's so
wonderful to see her in action.
And Harry Groener as the Mayor. He got me me riveted to my seat
in each of
his appearences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Rufus, 00:05:26 04/04/01 Wed
Okay I have to pick three? Here goes.....SMG for The Body....ASH
for
Checkpoint and Helpless....Marsters for FFL....with special mention
for JB
and her performance at Caritas because I know OnM enjoyed it so
much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm sorry, this is an impossible poll -- Marya,
01:23:04 04/04/01
Wed
The treasure trove of talent on these shows is just too rich and
diverse to
reduce to "three favorites." So my vote goes to the
production team that
continues to cast so perfectly.
Yeah a big cop out, I know. *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: We feel your pain... ;) -- OnM, 07:18:22
04/04/01 Wed
*** "So my vote goes to the production team that continues
to cast so
perfectly." ***
So true, cop out or no... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Max, 22:26:54 04/03/01 Tue
"There's that little rush that comes when he shuts the doors
on the lawyers
and one part of you is going yes! yes! yes! they are *so* getting
what they
deserve! -- and the other part of you is going, Oh God, what is
he doing??"
He is doing things the Chicago Way!
Too bad he wimped out at the end!
Epiphany. No, he is running away from his destiny. But as Nikita
found out
sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sometimes being Ruthless is necessary for a greater
Good -- April,
23:14:31 04/03/01 Tue
Sometimes ruthlessness is necessary to fight a greater evil.
I was cheering when Angel locked the door. It showed that he finally
understood what it was all about.
However he should have been waiting outside afterwards to make
sure that Dru
and Darla didn't escape. Perhaps set the house on fire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Uh, hijack thread much? -- OnM, 07:25:02
04/04/01 Wed
This topic is already being dicussed in a thread further down
the board.
Please scroll, t'ank yew veery much! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Felix, 23:35:00 04/03/01 Tue
"There's that little rush that comes when he shuts the doors
on the lawyers
and one part of you is going yes! yes! yes! they are *so* getting
what they
deserve! -- and the other part of you is going, Oh God, what is
he doing??"
I don't think "getting what they deserve" should come
into the decision (it
was just an happy side effect). We must not look at the decision
emotionally, but weigh the advantages and disadvantages.
First had Angel been slayed trying to protect the lawyers, that
would be bad
for humanity and good for Wolfram and Hart. But if he saved the
lawyers,
that would assist evil Wolfram and Hart in their war against humanity
as
well. So either outcome would have served Wolfram and Hart's benefit,
and
made them stronger. So Angel did the only thing that didn't serve
Wolfram
and Hart. He locked the door and walked away. He didn't fall into
that
no-win situation.
Had there been some larger benefit to saving the lawyers, then
no matter how
distasteful that would have been, Angel should have saved them.
Has nothing
to do with "deserve", or "fair" but has everything
to do about what course
of action increases or decreases humanity's chances against Wolfram
and
Hart.
But as stated above, had Angel tried to save the lawyers, it would
have only
strengthen Wolfram and Hart's hand. Angel had to walk away.
That was the only rational decision Angel could have made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- verdantheart, 07:15:50 04/04/01 Wed
There are many fine performances in Buffy and Angel, but I would
have to go
with James Marsters. He's the reason that I tune into the reruns
-- to see
how he does it (acting-wise, that is). He's able to do the comedy
without
undercutting the serious aspects of the character. Plus, he's
one of a mere
handful of actors (as in male) who can shed a tear without it
seeming forced
or uncomfortable. He's expressive without being broad; nicely
nuanced.
He's the one actor that I'm really looking forward to seeing in
a different
role (OK, I saw him in The House on Haunted Hill, but that was
a pretty
limited role).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- The Godfather, 08:49:17 04/04/01 Wed
SMG: Becoming 2, Amends, The Body
ASH: Passion
ED: Sanctuary, 5X5, This Years Girl
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- purplegrrl, 08:55:50 04/04/01 Wed
OnM, definately agree with you about Juliet Landau. I especially
liked her
scenes with James Marsters and David Boreanaz in Buffy-Season
2. If I hadn't
seen her in something else (an episode of "La Femme Nikita")
I might be
inclined to think she really was mad!
David Boreanaz. Partly because I think he has been underrated
as an actor.
Favorite eps? I Only Have Eyes For You, I Will Remember You, episode
about
the Ring of Amara, episode where Angel only speaks on voiceover
(sorry, I'm
bad with episode names). I know there are others, but I can't
think of them
at the moment.
A tie between Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters. She can
really emote
and he has some of the best lines on the two shows.
Runners-up include: Anthony Stewart Head, Alexis Denisof, Julie
Benz.
The whole cast, crew, and production staff are great. There are
holes in the
whole fabric of the Buffyverse when any of them leave (Doyle,
Joyce)
My two cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Solitude1056, 10:48:53 04/04/01 Wed
Agree about Juliet Landau - at first I thought, what a whacko
character...
but her reappearance this season on Angel seals me as a fan. When
she
remarks about entering the 20th cen., and Angel tells her it's
the 21st,
that quirky way of just passing noting when she says, "oh,
I'm still
lagging." Definitely a comedienne but very subtle - mark
of a true artist
IMO.
SMG in the Body, and Becoming 2, natch.
Michelle T. in whichever episode it was that she discovered she's
the key -
Blood Ties, I think?
Anya in the Body - waitaminnit, ALL of the cast in The Body.
Spike in FFL. Definitely.
Doyle in Hero, Cordy in Room W/a Vu - quite a gamut in the space
of one
hour.
Ooops, more than 3. My bad. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Diana Michelle, 15:26:42 04/04/01 Wed
First of all, I think that all of the four main BtVS actors are
brilliant.
Of the supporting cast and Angel, I am most impressed by:
1. Michelle T., who has made Dawn a wonderful and delicately nuanced
character.
2. Christian Kane, who blows me away with the thin line Lindsey
walks.
3. Eliza Dushku, who is just amazing.
4. J. August R., who has made Gunn such a fun character to watch.
5. Alexis Denisof, who made me first dislike, then adore Wesley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- VanMoodySenior, 16:29:44 04/04/01 Wed
I like:
James Marsters
SMG
Juliet Landeu
I don't have a favorite episode really. I enjoy them all. Actually
the guy
who played Adam was pretty cool. He was believable. The reason
I picked
James first is when I see him on another show I am so amazed there
is no
accent. He really throws me for a loop when he acts like himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Shaglio, 07:20:20 04/05/01 Thu
I'd have to go with:
1) James Marsters - especially in FFL because I almost didn't
recognize him
at first when they flashed back to 18th century England. To go
from
portraying the Big Bad to portraying the shy, desperate William
shows that
he has good range.
2) Juliet Landau - it's hard enough to "act" like a
normal person, but I'd
imagine trying to act insane is more dificult since in real life
(I'm
assuming) she's sane. It mustn't be easy to act as something your
not, but
then again that's the definition of acting. So my point is
3) Nicholas Brendan - especially in the latest rerun where he
went from
goofy, jovial Xander to caring, sensitive Xander when he was talking
to
Buffy in the warehouse. Plus he sort of remings me of myself :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Dee, 08:48:18 04/05/01 Thu
I think you have to first define which season you want to give
the "great
acting" award in, then go to the actors. There are so many
great moments
from the first 4 seasons that I would have to give separate awards
for each
year!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Boreanaz -- Unsung Hero, 14:51:46 04/07/01 Sat
David Boreanaz has shown us many versions of himself on the show:
Angel
Angelus
Overly sensetive Angel(Sense and Sensibility)
Angel as Jay Don as Angelus(The shroud of rahmon)
Drunken lay about Angel
But the biggest testement to his skills was Amends, the only Buffy
to nearly
make me cry, with his dramatic scene on the hilltop, ready to
die. He's
easily the best in my opinion.
Marsters is definetly a close Second, giving us a wholly characterised
villan(who are harder to play than heros) with good and bad points,
a
likable and hateable villan. Christian Kane also does this on
a nightly
basis, being a damned impressive Villan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: allyson h -- iphi, 02:20:38 04/09/01 Mon
Tough one, but after serious consideration
allyson hannigan in döppelgangerland
normal willow pretending to be vamp willow,... wauw
Joss on the Soul from COA... -- Rufus, 21:06:08 04/02/01 Mon
I found this more complete quote on the soul from City of
Angel...http://www.cityofangel.com/behindTheScenes/index.html
The article was written from Swoop, headwriter, COA
Here's the question from the audience member:
Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of
a soul is? And
what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes
clear
from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and
human
attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates
vampires from
humans if it is conscience?"
JW: "Um, very little.(laugh) Essentially, souls are by their
nature
amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided
by. Most
people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good,
you feel
good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star.
They believe
in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe
it in a way
that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can
attach to
someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that
person
happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort
of become, an
example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more
completely
conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the
wrong thing.
His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans,
is the
opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind
of like a
spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions.
But
they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OT to Rufus and any other DCW's -- OnM, 21:33:28 04/02/01
Mon
Saw this article on page two of yesterday's Phila. Inquirer, thought
you'd
appreciate it. Headline:
"Thanks to a cat, Sweden is spared panic"
STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Anyone who has ever lived with a cat can
imagine how
few felines ever make it into the ranks of heroes and martyrs.
But Bits, the late companion of journalist Erik Fichtelius, is
now
celebrated across the Swedish countryside for saving this country
from the
evils of industrialized farming and the livestock diseases wreaking
havoc
elsewhere in Europe.
Bits, named for her affinity for computers -- or perhaps the attention
Fichtelius paid them -- died more than a decade ago after falling
ill in
1985 from pet food that contained pulverized meat and bone meal
from lame
livestock.
*******
The article goes on in more detail, but essentially Fichtelius,
who was head
of the consumer affairs section on Swedish radio, prepared an
hour-long
documentary on the feed industry practices. The report so horrified
pet
owners that the government imposed an immediate ban on animal
additives in
pet food. From there things developed that have led the Swedish
to have what
is apparently the safest, most disease-free livestock in Europe.
"As for Bits, she is now celebrated as the sacrificial heroine
who saved a
national industry", says the journalist, lamenting only that
in her
lifetime, "she never really got her claim to fame".
I would give you a link directly to the article, but I couldn't
find it
listed among the paper's online stuff. The general link to the
Philadelphia
Inquirer is:
http://web.philly.com/content/inquirer/home/
Maybe if you e-mail you could get a link or have them send a copy
to you.
G'nite now!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT to Rufus and any other DCW's -- Rufus, 22:06:51
04/02/01 Mon
I bet you never figured that you would be linking a Philosophy
Board to an
article on a martyred Cat....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss on the Soul from COA... -- The Godfather, 12:58:10
04/03/01 Tue
*Yawn* That's a far way from saying that a soul has no presence
and is
virtually useless..it just seems to say that evil can do good
to please
others but not because it's their nature or really even what they
want to
do..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> By that logic -- Greta, 07:47:14 04/04/01 Wed
no one with a soul can become truly evil. The poor dears just
do evil to
please others; they don't really want to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: By that logic -- The Godfather, 08:42:04
04/04/01 Wed
See I don't believe in that. I believe a soul supplies teh ability
to choose
between right and wrong and that's where society divides..straight
down that
line. I truly believe we are predisposed towards more humane emotions
and
benevolent emotions but that we also possess free will which allows
us to
throw away such nusances as predisposition..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Logic of Souls & free will -- Solitude1056,
10:58:01 04/04/01
Wed
Actually, I took Joss' intentions as a bit backwards from Greta's.
If a soul
predisposes you towards good, and a lack thereof predisposes you
towards
evil, we'd have one pretty boring show. But Joss has made it clear
in the
past few seasons - and came as close to heavy-handing the message
on huge
billboard on Angel as he ever has - that humans are perfectly
capable of
doing evil. As a matter of fact, humans - given that they have
the ability
to be/do good - are even more so on the evil half when they choose
to. Why?
Because of the choice thereof.
I'd say, neither evil nor good is natural for humans, but that
the soul
gives us the choice to pick which we'd prefer. Without a soul,
we'd be
predisposed towards evil, and to do elsewise may be choice but
it's fighting
instinct. And instinct seems to be a larger factor than some of
us realize,
sometimes. To a certain extent, you've lost your free will once
an instinct
looms so large over your daily existence (junkies must get high,
vamps must
eat/kill). Sure, you could suspend that instinct momentarily for
various
reasons if they're important enough to you, but it's going to
be a constant
battle with your demon(s).
A soul, on the other hand, does not present this driving instinctual
need -
and by that token perhaps it is what frees us. Perhaps the universal
joke is
that by having a soul, and free will, means that we're not necessarily
predisposed towards anything, and we can - and will - make or
remake
ourselves as we go along. I don't see vamps or any other addictive
personality managing that, not on a continual long-term basis,
because
they're going to be constantly fighting the instinctual need/demon
inside
them.
On the other hand, my existential background may be rearing its
head
again... oh, the absurdities! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free will --
The Godfather, 11:51:14
04/04/01 Wed
I'll subscribe to that.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free
will, credit to tGf --
Solitude1056, 12:24:15 04/04/01 Wed
Heh, yeah, I figured as much - what you saw was the original version.
I was
going to add a remark to the extent that I was pretty much rephrasing
your
comments with added observations... and then error, error, will
robinson!
the servers went funky for several minutes, and when the dust
settled... the
unedited was what you got, sans credit for your comments that
sparked mine.
Blame Canada!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah yes, the beloved
voy.com server -- Masquerade,
13:09:21 04/04/01 Wed
As long as you don't blame me! I've been sending detailed "bug
reports" to
the PTB's here per everyone's comments on such bugs. The virtual
silence at
masqthephlsphr@yahoo.com is deafening.
Hopefully, they're just too busy fixing bugs to bother with me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> As a Canadian I'd like
to protest:):):):):) -- Rufus,
13:25:07 04/04/01 Wed
We are good suppliers of Cats and Chocolate, the computer problems
can only
be attributed to the PTBs....the little scamps...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> bwahahaha. - OT
-- Solitude1056, 13:38:20 04/04/01
Wed
Figured I'd see who wouldn't be able to pass that one up... now
I know! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free will --
Rufus, 13:54:48 04/04/01
Wed
Maybe Spike has some sort of brain damage due to the shocks from
the
chip:):) If a person has enough damage to the brain I think the
demon that
is the vampire would be stuck in an uncooperative shell. With
Spike the chip
has neutralized his evil drive to an extent and he has had to
adapt to the
presence of the chip. He still kills, but he has adapted and switched
from
human targets to demon ones. He said so himself that he's not
too popular
amongst his former mates anymore. He still wants to slash and
bash, he just
has to be carefull of who he goes after.
The person I'd like to see go through the process of finally choosing
a side
is Lindsey. He was brought up in a home that though poor sounded
like they
were good people. So, will he give into the evil and fear of poverty
and
finally choose evil for good, or, will he give into the instinct
that must
be telling him that people that are willing to sacrifice their
children to
get ahead are not the type of company to keep. It's the traumas
in our life
that sometimes make us change the type of people we are.
JW said that both good and evil were on a spectrum but start at
the middle,
so that leaves alot of room for choice to determine actions. With
vampires
the only variable that can account for the range of choice is
the
memories,and personality, or the philosophical ghost of the host.
In humans,
we can freely choose to be evil. And if you read the paper and
watch the
news you can see that alot of people exercise that choice everyday.
With
people it's greed and lust and fear that can make us go bad. What
would make
a vampire choose good acts but the same emotions. The lack of
a soul only
gives a being the preference for evil, it doesn't guarantee that
every act
the vampire does will be evil.
If a Vampire was all demon I would say that the choice for good
couldn't
exist. The Vampire is the result of an infection of the human
host, so there
is the demon in control, but, it's forced to comply with a human
brain, and
it's memories, and habits from the personality. The Demon corrupts
but
doesn't erase totally the person who once was. Therefore you get
a demon
that is considered the lowest form of demon because of the presence
of the
human it once was. I don't think that the demon can love because
of evil
inside but the love the person who used to be could feel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free
will -- The Godfather, 15:12:46
04/04/01 Wed
See I don't see that the chip has neutralized her will to kill
at all..only
blunted it..he's simply changed targets to ones he can attack..that
doesn't
mean given the opportunity and chance that he wouldn't go after
the ones he
really wants..he's just not stupid enough to want to deal with
a zap to the
brain...
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free will --
Marya, 01:05:35 04/05/01
Thu
"On the other hand, my existential background may be rearing
its head
again."
Ya' think?! *g*
who do you want to see back? -- JBone, 21:27:50 04/03/01 Tue
with all the rumors of special guest stars and crossovers and
the like, who
would you like to see come back to BtVS for an appearance or two.
I've heard
the rumors about Riley, Oz, Faith, Joyce, and the cast of Angel
making their
appearances. All of which I would enjoy, but the two that I'd
really like to
see are Robia LaMorte as Ms. Calendar, and Max Perlich as Whistler.
Whistler's appearance on the show was all too brief IMHO. And
Jenny was
always such a lighting rod for the show.
A couple more are Principal Snyder and Ethan Rayne. These were
always fun
characters who were used well. Maybe I should have shut up before
I added
this paragraph, its always the hanging around and adding on that
gets me in
trouble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- OnM, 22:15:54 04/03/01
Tue
The one actress, who if she *doesn't* appear, will really, *really*
leave me
ultrabummed-- Eliza Dushku. She could carry her own series, if
she wanted
it, which apparently she doesn't, but who knows? Angel S3? I'm
currently
thinking about another micro-fanfic to post concerning her (speculative)
fate at the end of this season, but won't post it for another
week or so.
Like your suggestion about Robia LaMorte. Of course, Jenny is
dead, but
since this is the Buffyverse, why should that stop her?
Oz good. See Oz again.
The Mayor. Another dead guy, but see R. LaM above re: so?. Would
like to see
Faith confront his ghost. Would be an interesting conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: who do you want to see back? -- Marya, 00:45:06
04/04/01 Wed
Anyone could come back using wrap-arounds and flashbacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> NOOOOO! NO MISS CALENDAR!!! -- AngelVSAngelus, 07:50:48
04/10/01 Tue
As a comic book fan I am ALL too familiar with the effect that
resurrecting
characters whimsically can have on the integrity of a story. If
a character
is dead they should stay that way unless there is one HELL of
a reason to
bring them back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: NOOOOO! NO MISS CALENDAR!!! -- Solitude1056,
08:23:16 04/10/01
Tue
Alrighty then. I got yer drift - since it seemed appropriate to
"show" Jenny
when Dru bedazzles Giles into giving away the secret so Angelus
could end
the world, etc, etc. But I never really got why it was Jenny specifically
who was chosen as the face of the First Evil. Other than gratuitous
re-visiting by the actress, or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Jenny as agent of First Evil -- purplegrrl,
08:47:14 04/10/01
Tue
I think the reason why Jenny was chosen as the agent of the First
Evil to
entice Angel to kill himself was that hers was the death that
Angel would
feel the most guilty about. Angel/Angelus didn't kill Jenny to
feed on her -
he just killed her. And after he knew that she was working on
a spell to
restore his soul. So if Angel could be guilted into destroying
himself (thus
eliminating his potential as a Warrior for Good), Jenny's face
on the spirit
of the First Evil would be the way to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jenny as agent of First Evil
-- Solitude1056, 11:27:41
04/10/01 Tue
Ah, again I abase myself before The Purple One (no, not the artist
with the
funky symbol, the other one) - thanks for explaining so well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> You are most welcome -- purplegrrl,
13:05:07 04/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> bringing characters
back -- JBone, 21:47:22 04/10/01
Tue
After they turned Angel evil in season 2, I was dead set against
bringing
back as a good character. Then I saw the way Joss and Company
did it. Since
then, if I wanted to see a character back on BtVS, I swore I wouldn't
doubt
their ability to do the impossible with established characters,
good or evil
(and Jenny can be either). Here's to the writers of BtVS - "grunt!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- The Godfather, 08:45:47
04/04/01 Wed
Angel, Cord and Wes..and Whis. That's my dream-team guest-star
foursome.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rats are us -- Brian, 09:28:47 04/04/01 Wed
Ok-Amy's mother having been trapped in a cheerleading award
statue is still in the old destroyed high school when an earthquake
hits and
the statue falls down into the hellmouth, and she escapes, and
returns with
vengence on her mind. In a witchy battle with Willow and Tara,
she is
defeated, and through magic, Amy is deratted, and Mom takes her
place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Lucifer Sponge, 11:55:05
04/04/01 Wed
I'd kill to see Amy come back. Do you hear me? KILL!!!
What I'd like to know is how'd they do it? I mean, would it be
a comical
episode, or an emotional one?
On the one hand, it would be a potentially funny episode. But
on the other
hand... Amy's missed like, 2 to three years of her life. Becoming
human
again and realizing that could be a really traumatic experience.
Although... if they tried to do a really serious episode about
a rat
returned to her human form, I don't think anyone would buy it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Brian, 12:58:25 04/04/01
Wed
And if Amy came back would she still be the same age, two human
years older,
or older by rat years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Marya, 13:03:03 04/04/01
Wed
I've worried about Amy for some time. We haven't seen her little
cage in
Willow's room and no one has mentioned her. I've owned pet rats,
and
although some can live as long as five years, the average life
span is two.
Is it possible Amy has succumbed to old age and the producers
are just
keeping the painful truth from us? Of course there is the matter
of her
mystical nature, so do the rules of normal rat biology apply?
Or can she
continue her rat existance indefinately, until someone can undo
the spell?
When they do, will she have aged as a human or will she be returned
exactly
as she was? And does she know who she is, aware of the dilemna
she put
herself into?
These are the questions that really keep me up at night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- purplegrrl, 14:37:05
04/04/01 Wed
Assuming Amy is still around, I think she is aware of her situation
- a
human consciousness in a rat body. There was an episode (I think
after Oz
left in season 4) where whatever magic Willow was doing caused
Amy to return
to her human form temporarily. She looked pleased that she was
a human
again. But then she became a rat again.
I was kind of thinking about the lifespan of a rat, too. Perhaps
her life as
a rat is magically extended because Amy is not a "real"
rat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Wiccagrrl,
18:01:47 04/04/01 Wed
Well, she was mentioned fairly recently...I think it was in Triangle-
Willow
mentioned having something to try to derat her but that it just
seemed to
make her really smart. So I think Amy's still around. (If she
gets smart
enough, maybe she can hint to Willow how to derat her.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Marya,
23:52:21 04/04/01 Wed
OK, I had to go check the transcripts on that one, and sure enough
Willow
says what you said she said. Good to know at least Amy's still
with us. Now
sleep I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- swyrlz, 13:49:08 04/04/01
Wed
hmmm I bet if that happened, she would run around biting people
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- swyrlz, 13:45:36 04/04/01
Wed
Snyder was fun?
well yes ...if you count the time Buffy insulted him
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: who do you want to see back? -- Luna, 18:51:24
04/04/01 Wed
The Whistler most definitely. I miss him sooooo much. His moments
in
Becoming were so heartbreaking because he knew what was going
to happen and
he didn't want Buffy to get hurt, and you could tell he cared
about Angel A
lot. It's funny how he's never been mentioned by anyone, Though
I doubt
Angel would ever bring him up because it would remind him of his
terrible-*cough* pathetic-*cough* past. And to Buffy he's probably
of the
past.
I want Faith of jail! Yeah she killed a guy, but it was an accident
and I
think her temporary nervous break down is enough of an excuse,
The WC should
get somebody (Angel maybe) to get her into training again.
Oz. Who couldn't love Ozzy-wolfboy, he's infectious. Xander mentioned
him
recently(can't remember which ep) and Will gave him a bizarre
look. Could
there be Willow/Oz tension still brewing under the surface??
Ms. Calender. I only saw the end of season 2 so I never really
got to see
her (as herself you know) And some kind of weird J/G moment would
be
intresting. Hmmmmmm
The Master--Again--I so loved him!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: who do you want to see back? -- JBone, 18:54:45
04/04/01 Wed
well, snyder was pretty funny in Band Candy... what i actually
meant was it
was fun when he was in a scene because someone always had a great
line.
Anyway, I'd like to see Snyder get some post-mortem comeuppance.
But only
for laughs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- Wiccagrrl, 19:02:22
04/04/01 Wed
Faith, Joyce, The Master, Angel, Jenny Calendar, Cordy (just cause
I wanna
see some good X/C interaction) and Oz.
I know, I'm not asking for much, am I? :)
Vampires' Regrets ? -- Vulpes, 18:26:37 04/04/01 Wed
I just saw the reruns of The Trial and Reunion. After all that
work, poor
Angel did merit some compensation - a roll in the hay with Darla
(Reprise)?
In Reunion, Darla was beating the ___ out of Dru for turning her?
I wished
the writers would have explored Darla's feelings about being turned
again. I
wonder do vampires have any regrets about becaming vampires?
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vampires' Regrets ? -- Wiccagrrl, 18:55:55 04/04/01
Wed
I think it depends on the vamp and, more importantly, on the circumstances.
I don't think that Spike (or Darla the first time) or Angelus
regreted it.
But they had a certain amount of choice. Angelus turning Dru and
Darla's
second turning are a bit different because they were essentially
forced.
Darla, after her first initial reaction, seemed glad to have been
turned
again. But she lashed out at Dru at first because Dru turned her
against her
will. She clearly tells Angel that she's not sorry he didn't get
to her in
time, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I found it telling... -- Greta, 06:53:53 04/05/01
Thu
That Darla was happy to be a vampire again only after she had
her first
taste of human blood. Then in "Epiphany," she said something
to Angel about
a bitterness where the soul had been (where is that precisely,
slightly to
the left of pancreas?;), but that blood would wash it away.
I want to know more about that space between turning and feeding.
De-rating Amy -- Lucifer Sponge, 19:19:14 04/04/01 Wed
This is a third season issue, but hey... I've just decided to
bring it up
now.
Did anyone notice that in Gingerbread, Willow -didn't- use the
same reversal
spell as Amy did in Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered?
AMY said "Goddess of creatures great and small, I conjure
thee to withdraw.
Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart."
WILLOW said "Diana, Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart.
Goddess of
creatures great and small, I conjure thee to withdraw."
This has been pestering my since the first time Gingerbread aired...
is this
the reason Willow can't cure Amy? Because she can't even get the
incantation
right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: De-rating Amy -- Diana Michelle, 16:02:24 04/05/01 Thu
You mean that she's just got it backwards and threw in an extra
goddess.
Sheesh. Wasn't anyone listening when Amy de-ratted Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: De-rating Amy -- ENDER, 16:31:57 04/05/01 Thu
"AMY said "Goddess of creatures great and small, I conjure
thee to withdraw.
Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart."
WILLOW said "Diana, Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart.
Goddess of
creatures great and small, I conjure thee to withdraw." "
I checked the shooting script to see what it said, and actually
both Amy in
BBB and Willow in Gingerbread use the same incantation- the second
one you
listed.
"Diana, Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart. Goddess
of creatures great
and small - I conjure thee to withdraw!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: De-rating Amy -- Lucifer Sponge, 20:19:29 04/05/01
Thu
That's what the shooting script said, but that isn't the line
they shot.
Sometimes they wind up changing things somewhere between the script
and the
actual shooting of the script. I think that's what happened here,
because I
-memorized- what Amy said in BBB, and was -real- confused when
I heard
Willow say it so differently in Gingerbread.
Native Earth (regarding Reunion) -- Vickie, 19:06:19 04/05/01
Thu
I know that Jos is not using the whole vampire's native earth
tradition. But
watching Reunion (AtS) last evening, I thought it would be really
fun if he
did.
Then Darla's native earth would forever be SuperSoil or
something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Native Earth (regarding Reunion) -- Solitude1056, 19:58:31
04/05/01
Thu
I'm not sure what you mean - "native earth"? Is that
like that particular
dirt is your own home or something? (I don't usually do the vampire
literature routine, which is why it surprised me when I got hooked
on
BtVS... so forgive my cluelessness!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Native Earth (regarding Reunion) -- purplegrrl,
08:34:08 04/06/01
Fri
I think the "native earth" thing started with Stoker's
"Dracula." Basically
it is that vampires must spend their resting/sleeping (i.e., daylight)
hours
in or connected to soil from their country/locale of origin. This
is why
Dracula has numerous boxes/coffins of Transylvanian dirt shipped
to Carfax
Abbey when he moves to England. Dracula sleeps in these dirt-filled
coffins.
(Which ultimately leads to his downfall, as Dr. Van Helsing & crew
are able
to track Dracula via his trail of dirt-filled coffins in various
locations
around London.) I think the sleeping on native soil thing has
something to
do with re-newing a vampire's undead existence.
However, since "Dracula" not all vampires have been
shown needing to sleep
on their native soil. Others have been shown to only need a sample
of their
native soil kept close to them (I think Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's
St. Germain
does this).
Joss chose to not require his vampires to sleep in coffins like
many of
their literary predecessors. They also don't require their "native
soil." I
think what Angel meant when he said that Drusilla was a traditionalist
and
what Drusilla was doing by burying Darla in the nursery planter
was burying
the body so the vampire could rise from the grave, not that Darla
had be
connected to her "native soil" in some other way. (Which
could beg the
question, where is Darla's native soil - Virginia where she was
originally
human and first vamped, or L.A. where she was magically reborn
as a human
and then re-vamped.)
Buffy and Dawn relationship -- Jessica, 14:11:27 04/06/01 Fri
I love the interactions between Buffy and Dawn and since Buffy's
mom is dead
Dawn is technically the only close family that Buffy as. This
season it was
interesting to see Buffy with a sister because it was a new kind
of
relationship and I did like seen how she was jealous of the relations
Dawn
had with Joyce. Now Buffy will have to be a parent to Dawn so
new
responsabilities and new stories, plus Dawn will keep Buffy grounded
and
prevent Buffy from having a death wish now that her mother is
dead since she
as to take care of her. I just hope that Dawn will be there for
the next
season and many more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Dawn relationship -- FanMan, 14:59:12 04/06/01
Fri
Remember "listening To Fear"?
Joyce could see that Dawn wasn't "real"
But she told Buffy that Dawn still felt like a daughter.
Joyce asked Buffy to be like a mother to Dawn if she died.
Buffy was distruaght over her mothers'illness and didn't
want to think about Joyce dead.
I think she will remember that conversation in one of the
episodes after THE BODY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn relationship -- Jessica, 18:45:57
04/06/01 Fri
I think so to, Dawn will be the main reason Buffy has to go on
because she
promised her mother that she would take care of Dawn. I think
she might
remember that conversation when her father comes to town to take
Dawn.
Who I would like to see back -- VanMoodySenior, 15:35:23 04/06/01
Fri
I wanted to start my own thread b/c it seems when you are on the
bottom of
the pile nobody gives any interaction. I would like to see Angel's
father
again. There would have to be some way Angel is contacted or contacts
him,
and then they can get some things out in the open. I was watching
the
prodigal last night, and Wesley was talking to Angel about not
getting
involved with Kate's Dad because he knew that what he was doing
was illegal.
Angel says something very interesting to him, "Wesley sometimes
the price we
pay for the choice we make is not commesorate to the offense".
I think what
Angel was talking about was his choice to leave home. Since he
left he
became a vampire who killed and tortured people, regained his
soul and
wallowed for 100 yrs, lost his soul again, went to hell for a
100 or so Hell
years, and now is getting kicked around by demons night after
night.
I would like to see Angel and his Dad patch things up. Darla said
he would
never approve of him in this life or the next, but what if Angel's
dad knew
that he was a warrior for good? Could he then get some type of
approval from
his father he never got when he was alive? I think it would be
a good show
and very touching. Angel could deal with issues he has. Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who I would like to see back-Why not -- FanMan, 16:48:33
04/06/01 Fri
That would be cool.
I think that the only way that would be realistic would be using
a mediam,
or a seance.
They could tie it in with Epyphany,by having Angel say that part
of his new
perpective on life includes selfanalasyss of himself and what
about his past
makes him the way he is.
Another way would be seeing Buffy dealing with her mother's
death, and all the flashbacks/regrets that accompany it.
This could make Angel think about his relationship with his own
parents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who I would like to see back -- Rufus, 17:37:33 04/06/01
Fri
Liams relationship with his father was at a stalemate, neither
man was going
to budge. If Angel was able to meet his father again what difference
would a
few hundred years make? For one, Angel has had a chance to grow
up. He now
thinks more of others than just himself. His circumstances are
so different
now that I imagine he would be able to see what time he wasted
battling with
his father. I'm sure his dad would be able to hit a few hot buttons,
but,
Angel is different, the times are different. One fact that wouldn't
change
would be that the demon in Angel killed his whole family, it would
be a very
sad meeting. I do wonder if Angel would see his father much differently
after so long being an unpleasant memory? And how would the reality
of
murder taint the meeting? Could or would there be understanding
and
forgiveness by both parties?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Who I would like to see back -- FanMan, 18:27:03
04/06/01 Fri
Good point Rufus.
Angel meeting his father now would be very auckward.
Liam's father remembering being murdered by his own son.
That would be hard to orgive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Who I would like to see back -- Unsung Hero,
17:17:13 04/07/01
Sat
However, according to most sources on the idea of heaven, peace
is achieved
by people who go there. Traditionally, transcending into Heaven
comes hand
in hand with acceptance and forgivness, and by those standards,
Liam's
Father probably has already forgiven him, and it very proud of
the work
Angel is doing in LA.
the real big bad -- JBone, 22:35:17 04/06/01 Fri
By my own personal estimate, there is only one season where the
obvious big
bad turns out to be the big bad for the season. I speak of, for
example, the
master of season 1. Spike and Dru looked liked the big evil for
season 2,
but that turned out to be Angel. Season 3 came back to the middle
a little
with the tipped off Mayor, but a brassed off slayer in Faith.
Quatro has the
Initiative and Prof. Walsh being upstaged by the demon-cyborg
Adam.
I have no spoilers, nor would I want any to trespass this thread.
As far as
I'm concerned, spoilers ruin the experience. My point being....
who will
ultimately be the big evil for the year? The past seasons just
about rule
out the obvious (meaning Glory). If you don't have any spoilers
but great
speculation. I can't help but believe that Faith would have something
positive to do with the finale. That whole 7-3-0 speech just was
too
pointed. Since I can't accept Glory as the "big evil",
I could be convinced
of many other things. There are only 6 episodes left in the season.
And I am
dying to view it.
God, I love this show. I've been thinking too much. Love that
soccer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the real big bad -- Wiccagrrl, 23:39:28 04/06/01 Fri
There has usually been a switch, although this year we've passed
the point
where the switch usually occurs (during Feb Sweeps, around the
13th or 14th
ep)I think it's possible that Glory/Ben/the Third Hellgod (who
we haven't
seen yet) will turn out to be the big bad this year. The only
other real
possibilities I see are Spike (who had a serious change in his
circumstances
recently) or possibly Anya (getting her powers back) but I would
have
thought that would have happenned a bit earlier in the season
if they were
gonna go that direction.
They've done the big switch pretty regularly, it would almost
be a bigger
shock if Glory did turn out to be the real threat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the real big bad -- Traveler, 01:21:36 04/07/01
Sat
Call it a hunch, but I really doubt that it will be Spike. Firstly,
I don't
think people can quite see him in that role anymore. Secondly,
he still
seems to have some not completely malignant fixation on Buffy.
sort of small spoiler below
.
.
.
The tvguide.com preview of the next Buffy mentions that Spike
will help Dawn
try to resurrect Joyce through black magic. (Although how he can
help her do
THAT is anybody's guess)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the real big bad -- Wiccagrrl, 10:51:29
04/07/01 Sat
I also tend to doubt it'll be Spike, but I could easily see this
obsession
of his on the slayer turning very ugly. Love and Hate can be very
closely
related, and in this case possibly more so than usual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Don't be too surprised.... -- Unsung Hero,
14:45:28 04/07/01 Sat
I wouldn't rule Spike out. As far as being "The Real Big
Bad" this season, I
wouldn't say it's Spike(Glory is way more dangerous just by exsisting,
seeing as how he's just a Vampire), but don't be surprised if
Spike turns
out to simply be the same thing he always was: A killer.
I don't really want to get into Spike redemption stuff....I'm
all for seeing
Spike a good guy.....I'm just saying don't be too shocked if it
happens.
Remember the Fox and Scorpion parable: A Fox reluctantly agrees
to carry a
Scorpion across a river, and half way across the Scorpion stings
him. The
Fox asks: "Why did you do that? Now we'll both die."
and the scorpion
replied
"It's my nature"
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the real big bad -- Ramo, 13:23:01 04/07/01 Sat
I agree with you that though it seems Glory/ the Demi-gods appear
to be the
problem of the season, Spike and possibly Anya might also pose
a threat.
Despite seeing Spike very sensetive and human-like this season,
I would
think he's starting to give up on Buffy. The episode "Crush"
felt like a
turning point, and now he seems to be building the Buffy Bot,
which probably
won't turn out well.
Anya--well I think she's having some identity issues. After Joyce's
death,
she must be scared of dying herself and might consider going back
to the
path of immortality.
I also think that every season has its theme, last season's theme
being
freedom (first year of college). This year's theme is Buffy's
identity, as a
slayer. Buffy's been trying to discover more about her slayer's
powers this
season through Dracula, Spike, and the end of last season's first
slayer. I
think the theme of slayer identity will be stronger than any other
theme
from the other seasons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the real big bad -- Max, 23:57:06 04/07/01 Sat
If Faith does return, I believe it will be to Angel, not to Buffy
(she has
worn out her welcome in Sunnydale).
Perhaps she can give Angel the courage to do what needs to be
done. Put
things back into the proper perspective.
Angel has shown he that she can be one of the good people. She
does have
within her the ability to do good. Now she must show Angel how
he can
fullfill his destiny.
I think she can play the same role of mentor for Angel as Madeline
played
for Nikita. Show him that there are more important things at stake
then
personal principles. Angel is so focused on "saving his own
soul" he forgot
about others and the need to save humanity as a whole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the real big bad -- Liz, 00:50:01 04/08/01 Sun
Madeline thought herself a bad person after accidentially killing
her
sister. But somewhere along the way she found out that she could
be a force
of good in the world.
Faith as well, through the help of Angel, has now realized she
can be on the
good side.
I think you are correct about Faith assisting Angel now that he
has lost
focus due to Holland's mind games. She can show Angel that sometimes
to be
kind you must be cruel.
I would love to see her pitted against Lindsey. Somehow, I think
if that
happens, it wouldn't be a hand he would have to worry about losing.
Buffy telling her father about the slayer thing -- Jessica, 18:49:42
04/06/01 Fri
I wonder if Buffy will tell her father that she is the slayer
and that Dawn
is the key to make him reconsider taking Dawn away. Legally he
would get
custody of Dawn, maybe that's what will help change is mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy telling her father about the slayer thing -- Wiccagrrl,
20:06:15 04/06/01 Fri
She'd have to have some serious proof, or else he's more likely
to think
she's gone over the edge after her mom's death and fight even
harder to get
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy telling her father about the slayer thing
-- FanMan,
20:21:59 04/06/01 Fri
Also there is not enough info on Buffy's father to say how he
would react to
anything supernateral.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy telling her father about the slayer
thing -- imCJfatone,
22:15:00 04/06/01 Fri
He lives in LA. Refer to the IWRY ep. Shouldn't he know about
Supernatural
stuff.
LOL, I mean if your in the buffyverse you should know, you know.
Like how
you know the sky is blue.
No seriously now.
B is in a state of "wiggieness" and I don't think telling
her father about
her being the choosen one will help in her current situation.
I just think
it would add on to the big bag of bricks B is carrying on her
back.
It sucks, I hate the fatalism. You know it's like hero = fatalism..
Whats
that about.
Bai.
Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc. -- imcjfatone,
23:08:18
04/06/01 Fri
QUINTON TRAVERS: Glory isn't a demon.
BUFFY: What is she?
TRAVERS: She's a god.
GILES: ... Glory and two of her fellow hellgods ruled over ...
one of the
more seriously unpleasant demon dimensions.
BUFFY: Okay, so, we know where Glory's from. What do we know about
her? You
know, she's tough, yeah, but, but no bolts of lightning, no blasts
of fire,
shouldn't a God be able to do that kind of stuff?
GILES: Uh, usually, yes, but um, being in human form must be severely
limiting her powers. All we have to worry about right now is she's
immortal,
invulnerable, and insane.
XANDER: A crazy hellgod? And the fun just keeps on leaving.
GILES: From what I've been able to gather, her living in this
world is ...
seriously affecting her mental state as well. She's only being
able to keep
her mind intact by, uh, extracting energy from us. Well, from,
from the
human brain.
So. Is she a God, Godling, Demigod, Diva or Avatar, etc.???
The term they use in the BU is 'Hellgod.' Let's break it down.
Someone
please :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc. -- Wiccagrrl,
23:33:50
04/06/01 Fri
Well, the implication seems to be that in her natural state, she's
a
full-blown god (with a small g as opposed to the Christian "GOD")
Even now, with her powers severly limited, she's still immortal
and
invulnerable. So a case could be made that she's still a god,
just in human
form. Demigod usually means "half-god", as in one parent
god, the other
human. That doesn't seem to apply. And people have discussed the
term Avatar
far better than I could, so I'll let them tackle that one, but
it doesn't
seem the best description of Glory's condition to me.
There is so much we don't know about Glory- what she does and
where she goes
when Ben is around, what the key does, if she'll regain her powers
when/if
she gets the key. So I think a lot of those answers (which we'll
hopefully
get in the next few eps) will help clarify what Glory really is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc.
-- Rufus, 23:49:30
04/06/01 Fri
If Glory is a god (small g)what is more powerful than a god? Did
the demons
from her dimension get fed up with worshipping and decided to
rid themselves
of that obligation? If so, then why send her here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars
etc. -- Wiccagrrl,
00:04:25 04/07/01 Sat
Or she or one of her fellow hellgods did something that backfired
and led to
her current situation. She (they?) may be powerful but not necessarilly
infallible. She certainly isn't all-knowing, at least not in this
world.
(She's seen Dawn twice and still doesn't seem to have a clue that
this is
her key)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars
etc. -- imcjfatone,
00:15:52 04/07/01 Sat
"what is more powerful than a god? "
The higher ranking ones.
The ones that deal with issues of divine foreknowledge, omniscience,
and
timelessness. Somewhat like the Trandtional Christian God. Ya
know.
Glory appears to be low class god material. Word. Like upper class-
middle
class-low class. She falls in low class. When I mean class I'm
talkin' power
based.
I mean if she can get to a point of being in her god form aka
not human form
with the limitations. Why not stick with that and use your power
to the
maximum potential and flip sunnydale upside down to get the key.
Rather then
messin' around with lower beings. I mean come on even the Oracels
didn't do
that. And they weren't gods.
Glory should change her tactics, fooling around with mortals thats
so low.
LOL.
But I guess she can only stay in Buffy's reality in human form.
Couldn't she
just use her god inherent abilities in her other reality when
in full-god
form to effect Buffy's reality?
I'm assuming when in this full-god form. She has certian limitations
as
well. Yes, she can cause earthquakes and bolts of lightning yada
yada. But I
guess she really can't get the key that way since its in Buffy's
reality. Or
she could just be choosing to do it this way for the kicks. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas,
Avatars etc. -- Unsung
Hero, 14:37:57 04/07/01 Sat
My theory is that since the key was sent to Earth(mortal realms),
Glory had
to go there. Now, way back in Season 3 Anya said that we had never
seen pure
demons before until The Mayor changed. Perhaps reality isn't stable
enough
for a true god like being to just walk around. There have to be
rules that
keep the world from exploding, a sense of balance(hence the Powers
that Be
and the warriors) that keeps her from being big god-like being.
In this case, Glory and Ben are gods, but not neccesarily Gods.
Isn't it
possible that "god" with a small "G" could
be a status symbol, like King or
Queen? They rule a certain dimension, but aren't neccesarily Omnipotent
in
any way. They have said that this dimension is pretty damned nasty,
but it's
not "Hell" exactly, as in the place where bad people
go after death. It
could be all talk. I mean, we know they're older than written
word, so
perhaps they just got here first? I mean, you can raise children
to believe
anything as long as all the pieces fit. Glory,Ben and this third
hellgod
could have started thier hell dimension, gathered demons and said
"Oh,and
we're gods. Check this out..." and burnt things to a crisp,
tortured people
and generally made themselves look like bad mama jammas, and no
one's going
to challenge that they're not gods.
I believe it's simply a case of a powerful creature that loses
it's source
of power, or a weapon of some kind, and has to depower itself
as part of a
basic metaphysic law to come after it, forcing it to take on a
human form
that limits it's abilities. We're not talking satan or anything
like that,
just a very powerful force that claims god-hood that needs "The
Key", and
has run up against a common Vampire Slayer, who is going to prove
a little
more than they can handle.
That's all rather scatterbrained, but I think it might make sense.
:-)
nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas,
Avatars etc. -- OnM,
15:12:58 04/07/01 Sat
I've posted about some of this stuff before, but a quick summary
of my
thoughts, and then an observation or two:
godhood = ability to manipulate matter/energy by force of will/mind
alone.
Could be technologically or metaphysically based.
It logically follows from the above that you could manipulate
your own
personal matter/energy (i.e. your body or form) to effectively
achieve
immortality.
An 'advanced' god might also have the ability to manipulate specetime,
which
could allow for prescience or the ability to exist corporeally
in higher
dimensions than the 3 or 4 we occupy.
If a god conventionally exists in higher dimensions, it may require
giving
up some abilities to exist corporeally in lower dimensional states.
First
think of describing a cube to someone who only exists in two dimensions.
Now
think of the cube actually *existing* in two dimensions, and you
see the
dilemma. This leads to the following theories:
1 > Glory is analagous to a hypercube projected into 3D (cubical)
spacetime.
2 > The brainsuck is not extracting 'sanity', but is refreshing
the 'pattern
buffer' Glory needs to exist as a 3D manifestaton in our reality.
3 > If the pattern degrades too far before refreshing, an alternate/previous
pattern emerges (Ben?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings,
Divas, Avatars etc. --
Virgill Reality, 12:02:27 04/09/01 Mon
A lot of complicated theology comes into play when pondering Glory's
true
nature. Travers implied a distinction between demon and god, but
how exactly
do the two differ when dealing with powerful beings? Throughout
the series,
demons have been worshipped as much as gods/goddesses, so how
does this not
give them godhood? If the definition of a god is a being able
to influence
this reality, then by this demons would also be gods as they have
given
power to some of the show's villains.
In the Hindu Pantheon, there are over 3000 "gods" and
"goddesses" but in
truth there is only one Supreme God and all other powers answer
to the One.
This may also be the way it works in the Buffyverse, woho knows?
In
Christian theology, some argue satan to be a god, but he still
has his
limitations.
There was also some implication in the Angel episode "I've
Got You Under My
Skin" that demons in Buffy's continuity answer to satan,
so it may be that
in the buffyverse there are "head powers" if you will,
for both the forces
of Good and the forces of darkness.
Even if Glory answers to neither Power, she is still a rebel,
and may still
be described as "fallen." By this reasoning, I think
it's logical to treat
Glory as one of the more highly powerful demons, rather than a
god.
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings,
Divas, Avatars etc. --
purplegrrl, 08:37:39 04/10/01 Tue
Not that I necessarily think that computer analogies are the answer
to
everything, but this makes a certain amount of sense.
Isn't there a sci-fi short story about a two-dimensional creature
who
witnesses a three-dimensional creature/object passing through
his
two-dimensional universe? If a cube intersects with a two-dimensional
plane
with its side, the cube will appear to be an unchanging square.
However, if
the cube intersects the plane with an edge or corner, it will
appear to be
constantly changing. Or the two-dimensional creature may think
that what it
sees of the cube is a series of unrelated creatures or events.
If a creature
of four dimensions moves through our three-dimensional world,
we can only
observe it and explain it in terms of three dimensions. This could
explain
Glory, Ben, and a third hellgod to be named later. When Glory
changes into
Ben, and vice versa, we may be experiencing a different portion
of the
four-dimensional object that is the hellgod triumverate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very cool analogy, pg!
-- Masquerade, 10:31:16 04/10/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc.
-- Solitude1056,
06:53:36 04/08/01 Sun
Wiccagrl said:
Avatar ... doesn't seem the best description of Glory's condition
to me.
I'm not sure, but I think I disagree! Can't be certain, though,
because my
Inside Source is gone for the weekend. But if Avatar = manifestation
of a
God (whether 100% or part is variable), if Glory appeared on this
plane in
that physical form, she's an Avatar. In that sense, the Avatar
is the
fleshly vessel. I was assuming that Avatars gotta be born from
someone, but
I wouldn't be surprised if I asked the Inside Source when he gets
back & he
tells me that there's also Hindu stories of Avatars appearing,
en toto, as
adults or near-adults. If that's true, and Glory's wrapped flesh
around
herself to enter our plane, then she'd be a type of Avatar.
I don't know about the designation of God vs. god - much less
the idea of
comparing a Joss-God to the Xtian-God, since the Buffyverse doesn't
seem to
mention a traditional God that often, if at all. And even then,
there's not
much action on the part of that Xtian God, so there's little to
nothing to
compare gods vs Gods, or to use as a basis to say the Xtian one
is a
capital-G. Unless one argued that a God's sound & fury is in direct
proportion to its lack of power - going on the old saying that
a chihuahua
will always be quicker to fight than a great dane, since the chihuahua's
got
more to prove...
Or something like that. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars
etc. (Spoilerish,
Blood Ties) -- Wiccagrrl, 09:06:55 04/08/01 Sun
Well, like I said, I don't claim to be the expert on Avatars,
so I could
very well be wrong in that department:) I do think that the show
hinted at
the distinction between "God" and "god(s)"
in Blood Ties...with the fight at
the beginning, and the minion asking the Knight if he really thought
"He"
would help you...the interesting thing being that when it was
"time to test
the minions's faith", Glory *did* show up to save the day
(at least from the
minion's point of view)
I don't think that it's necessarilly the Xtian God, but I do think
that they
have more than once hinted at a "God", higher being,
TPTB, whatever phrase
you want to use. One that, at least at the time being, seems far
more
all-knowing and all-powerful than Glory. Will Joss ever pin down
these types
of definitions? I don't know. I kinda doubt it, actually.
Angel killed one of the Senior Partners -- VanMoodySenior, 16:43:55
04/11/01
Wed
Angel took the glove and put it around the Kleynack's neck so
it must have
killed it according to Denver.
Denver carrying an open book: "Legend says that the Kleynach
rose up from their demon world, raped and pillaged the villages
of man
and all who fought against them were incinerated, whether they
struck with
fist or sword. But one brave and worthy knight - he had a glove.
(Drops the book in front of Angel, displaying a rendition of the
glove)
Fashioned and blessed by all the powers of light. And whoever
wore
this glove could kill the Kleynach just by grabbing it at the
throat."
Since the Senior partner had to come as a Kleynack to come into
our reality,
then Angel killed one of the Senior Partners. What will this mean
since
Angel has had his Epiphany? They won't just forget about him will
they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel killed one of the Senior Partners -- FanMan, 17:01:54
04/11/01
Wed
You forgot the conversation Angel had with the Host.
The Host said that the more powerfull demons could manifest in
our reality
in different forms,the reason that it chose the Kleynach form
is because
that demon species could come and go to our reality fairly easily
using th
enchanted ring.
When I saw that scene, it seemed to mean that the senior partners
were
something like Glory in that they could not manifest thier full
power in the
Earth/Buffyverse. So, my oppinion is that Angel merely destroyed
a temperary
corperaeal body of A REALY BIG BAD....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel killed one of the Senior Partners -- VanMoodySenior,
17:40:51 04/11/01 Wed
Angel asked the host if it could be killed and the host said Yes,
that it
was one of the downsides of being here. This thing could be killed.
I get
from that that Angel indeed killed a SP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel killed one of the Senior Partners
-- FanMan, 22:43:30
04/11/01 Wed
Sorry, I have only seen Epyphany once when it was originally broadcast.
I was quoting from memory....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel killed one of the Senior Partners
-- Masquerade,
09:20:28 04/12/01 Thu
I agree with FanMan. The Senior Partner manifested itself in a
corporeal
body which Angel killed, sending the SP scampering back to its
own
dimension:
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/a23.html#da
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good for Angel -- Max, 18:24:30 04/11/01 Wed
About time Angel evened the score a bit.
No tears here. In fact I say Bravo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, but I'm sure Wolfram and Hart are bristling...
--
AngelVSAngelus, 22:25:54 04/12/01 Thu
And I'm thinking Angel may have some hell to pay from them. Which
will be
interesting: With Wolfram and Hart hunting after him for revenge,
will Angel
relapse from his Epiphanous state to Total War? Will his friends
question
their trust for him with the lawyers still in the equation? Unfortunately
it
doesn't look like next week's ep answers that. But it does have
some fun
with Harmony in it :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Yeah, but I'm sure Wolfram and Hart are
bristling... -- Max,
20:08:36 04/13/01 Fri
...will Angel relapse from his Epiphanous state to Total War?
"
We can only hope. Total War Angel never let a mass murder go free
to kill
innocents.
Actually I consider this a relapse. Total War Angel would just
be Angel
coming back to his senses.
I believe Angel's true epiphany was in the cellar. It was there
he realized
that this was war. The best way to lose a war when your don't
realize you
are in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, but I'm sure Wolfram and Hart
are bristling... -- Jen,
22:05:10 04/13/01 Fri
I cheered when Angel shut the door behind him. He finally realized
what it
was all about. He finally realized what must be done to win.
I hope he recovers from this relapse very soon. For as you say
Max, the best
way to lose a war is when you don't even realize that you are
in one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Wolfram and Hart are only part of
a much larger picture... --
AngelVSAngelus, 22:23:28 04/13/01 Fri
Angel's mistake, the one he is correcting now, is a)He forgot
why he was
fighting, and b)he forgot what. You encourage Total War Angel
for realizing
what it took to win the war with Wolfram and Hart, but his war
is not with
them. Its against EVIL. Wolfram and Hart are a part of this adversary,
but
the means with which he was attacking them and the reasons for
doing so
(hatred) were only contributing to their victory. Also, on the
subject of
Angel letting Darla go? You're right, it was wrong, but the fact
that Angel
is not infallible is what makes him a character with depth. That's
called
good writing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wolfram and Hart are only
part of a much larger
picture... -- Max, 11:53:14 04/14/01 Sat
I see Holland has fooled you as well as Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Jeeeeezzzuzzz, dude,
its a friggin' TV SHOW --
AngelVSAngelus, 21:38:23 04/14/01 Sat
A fictional character fooling a real person? Yeah... Don't you
think you're
taking this show a BIT too seriously? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE
the show,
might even go so far as saying I'm obsessed, but you seem a little
AGRESSIVE
in your disagreement with me. Just don't want to see anyone get
mad over
opinions of fictional entertainment, is all.
Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Halcyon, 04:57:09 04/12/01
Thu
I would like to discuss the problems i personally had with the
way Into The
Woods was written. Firstly I am not a big fan of Riley - his macho
posturing
and whiny self pitting routine are just so tiresome. Lets list
some of the
problems I have with how Marti Noxon wrote his exit.
1: Riley had become addicted to Vampires biting him, what will
happen when
the miltary finds out about his addiction, presumably he will
be in a
position of authority within the miltary, how will his fellow
officers view
him? - he is fratenising with the enemy after all! Also in the
previous
season he had disobeyed the orders of his superior officers why
in the hell
would he been allowed back into the Miltary in the first place?
2: The whole crappy propaganda speech that Xander gave to Buffy
at the end
of the esp about him being the guy who came along once in a lifetime
- WHAT
A LOAD OF BULL.
Spike is the one who hit the nail on the head about Riley not
being the long
haul guy if he had been the long haul guy he would not have been
paying
vampires to feed on him, he would not have been lying to Buffy
for weeks, he
would not constantly blamed Angel and Dracula for his own stupidity.
Neither
Angel or Dracula made Riley go to those Vampires.
3: His whole machoism - one of the problems he had with Buffy
was that she
was superior to him physically and did not stroke his ego while
her mother
was sick with a brain tumour. Maybe if he had spoken out to Buffy
sooner, he
would not have resorted to other women to satisfy him.
4: The way the esp ended, with the heroine running to catch up
with the big
jerk who had been lying to her and cheating on her. This was written
by a
feminist?
5: He appeared to have no other reason than Buffy to stay in Sunnydale,
his
whole life revolved around her.
I really believe that Riley was ultimately a one dimensional character
and I
am glad to see the back of the bland and tiresome prick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Liam, 10:13:00 04/12/01
Thu
Halcyon,
I agree with what you said. One of the problems I have with Riley
is the
fact that he was introduced as a member of the Initiative, an
incredibly
lame subplot which was partly responsible for, in my opinion,
making the
fourth season of 'Buffy' the worst ever. Dealing with your particular
points:
1. I agree completely with you on this. No matter what my rank,
I wouldn't
want a person who disobeyed orders and (worse still!) abandoned
his men for
a piece of skirt.
2. Again, I agree with you completely. I was annoyed that Buffy
got involved
so soon after her traumatic relationship with Angel. It would
have been more
realistic for her to concentrate on her studies, then a little
later, get
involved with someone. It would have been a nice storyline, showing
that a
girl didn't need to get involved with a guy to be 'complete'.
For that
reason, I always thought that Riley was rebound guy, particularly
because
Buffy never told him to his face that she loved him. (Her statement
to Angel
in 'Sanctuary', that she loved him, was just to get back at the
former.)
3. To be fair to Riley (I never thought that I'd type those words!),
it
seemed to be the fact that Buffy would not open up to him _emotionally_
that
was the problem. This does not, however, justify his visits to
those vampire
hookers.
4. My own view about the end of the episode was that Buffy, even
had she got
to Riley in time, would have not known what to say, for the reason
that he
was 'rebound guy'. Why didn't she throw something at the helicopter?
If
anyone had the strength and accuracy, it would be her.
5. That was a big problem for me. After all, he was still a graduate
student
and a teaching assistant. That kind of study and work would certainly
have
taken up a lot of his time; yet the episodes never showed or mentioned
this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- imcj, 12:13:20
04/12/01 Thu
1. A) how will his fellow officers view him?
GRAHAM: What about Riley? Agent Finn. I'm telling you, sir, if
we go in for
a sweep and drop, he's definitely a guy we want on the team.
RILEY: What do you need me for?
ELLIS: I think you can handle yourself. And I always need bodies.
I'm not
gonna lie to you. It's the real deal. High risk, low pay, and
seriously
messy. We ship out for Central America tomorrow midnight. Now
maybe civilian
life is working out for you... and maybe not. Midnight. Tomorrow.
The
decision's yours.
I think with this current mission ranks don't matter more or less.
It just
seems Major Ellis needs bodies, as many as he can get to fight
off the
demons in Central America that are breeding. It sounds like a
Special
Operations, and Riley with his track record from being in the
Initiative and
high involvement w/ HSTs would qualify for Major Ellis. If at
all they look
at his civilian life, I doubt it for now. But I do agree, I would
not want
one of the members of my unit to be 'not all right up in the head.'
So yes,
this could pose a problem possibly in future eps.
B) Also in the previous season he had disobeyed the orders of
his superior
officers why in the hell would he been allowed back into the Military
in the
first place?
Well, he disobeyed the Initiative which was a government project
that when
it failed was cemented down and never talked about again. Kept
it on the DL.
RILEY: I'm a civilian.
ELLIS: You're a soldier.
RILEY: I quit the government a long way back.
ELLIS: We're not government. We're army.
GRAHAM: Just like you.
ELLIS: It's not the Initiative, Finn. We don't do experiments.
None of us
give a damn what makes monsters tick. We just stop 'em.
So there is a distinction made that whatever power Major Ellis
works for,
it's not the government. (I'm not saying it isn't funded by them
though.)
2 and 3. The whole crappy propaganda speech that Xander gave to
Buffy at the
end of the esp about him being the guy who came along once in
a lifetime -
WHAT A LOAD OF BULL.
XANDER: If he's not the guy, if what he needs from you just isn't
there,
let him go. Break his heart, and make it a clean break. But if
you really
think you can love this guy ... I'm talking scary, messy, no-emotions-barred
need ... if you're ready for that ... then think about what you're
about to
lose.
I think partly yes. Because Xander had no clue of the reality
that was going
on between Buffy and Riley. He just observed things when they
were together.
And he only acted when he saw Buffy wigging. But Xander wanted
to help,
because he knew. Riley was a good thing for Buffy. IMO he was
a good thing
for her. Or at least at first. Somewhere along the lines, when
Riley lost is
chemically enhanced powers, they started to fall. And things began
to
spiral.
Spike is the one who hit the nail on the head about Riley not
being the long
haul guy if he had been the long haul guy he would not have been
paying
vampires to feed on him, he would not have been lying to Buffy
for weeks, he
would not constantly blamed Angel and Dracula for his own stupidity.
Neither
Angel or Dracula made Riley go to those Vampires.
It's not entirely his fault nor is it entirely Buffy's fault.
If anyone is
looking for someone to blame or point a finger rat it would be
the both of
them.
RILEY: I think, when this thing started, it was just some stupid,
immature
game. I wanted to even the score after you let Dracula bite you.
BUFFY: I did not *let* Dracula-
RILEY: I know. On some level I know that. But I was still spun.
I don't
know, I - I wanted to know what you felt. I wanted to know why
Dracula and
Angel have so much power over you.
BUFFY: You so don't get it.
RILEY: I wanted to get it, Buffy. I wanted to get you.
BUFFY: So this is my fault? Hey, gee, Buffy's so mysterious, I
think I'll go
out and almost die. I think I'll go and let some other w...
That's so BULL. How could he get what Buffy was feeling with Angel
and
Dracula, by getting sucked by two bit whores? Minus one for Riley.
He has no
argument here. Then he flips sides it and blames Buffy directly
rather then
indirectly.
BUFFY: Fine. Fine! Tell me about your whores! Tell me what on
earth they
were giving you that I can't.
RILEY: They needed me.
BUFFY: They needed your money. It wasn't about you.
RILEY: No. On some basic level it *was* about me. My blood, my
body. When
they bit me ... it was beyond passion. They wanted to devour me,
all of me.
BUFFY: Why are you telling me this?
RILEY: It wasn't real. I know, it was just physical. But the fact
that I
craved it ... that, that I kept going back ... even if it was
fleeting, they
made me feel like they had such... hunger for me.
He ha some valid points. It was WRONG that Riley was substituting
his lack
of Buffy for Vamps.
He was aware it was only physical and was aware of the damage
it would crash
on Buffy. And he is very sorry for this. Yet he didn't stop and
he kept
going back. It wasn't about wanting to know what Buffy felt when
she was
bitten. It was about his lack of love from Buffy. So it ends up
Riley's
reason his real reason was not to find out what it was like for
Buffy, but
that Riley wasn't getting an attention from Buffy.
BUFFY: And I don't ... make you feel that way? How on earth can
you compare
me to that? How can you tell me you understand what those vampires
are
feeling? You aren't a passion to them, you are a snack! A willing,
idiotic
snack.
RILEY: No, I know exactly what they feel when they bite me, because
I feel
it every time we're together. It's like the whole world falls
away. And all
there is is you.
BUFFY: And you think that I don't feel the same way about you?
How dare you
tell me what I feel?
RILEY: You keep me at a distance, Buffy. You didn't even call
me when your
mom went into the hospital.
BUFFY: Oh, I'm sorry. You know, um, I'm sorry that I couldn't
take care of
you when I thought that my mother was dying.
Buffy's argument like Riley's is half and half valid. True Riley
shouldn't
have done what he did on behalf of his lack of Buffy. But Buffy
is at fault
too for not being more open to Riley, for not letting him in for
not letting
them share the sorrow and pain and anger and all. IMO that's what
part of a
relationship is, your a unit your one you share with each other
your
problems and you get through them together. But Since Buffy is
a Slayer she
can't, she functions differently. She functions in the way that
"I have to
deal with this alone, I should be able to deal with this, I'm
the chosen
one."
RILEY: It's about me taking care of you! It's about letting me
in. So you
don't have to be on top of everything all the time.
BUFFY: But I do. That's part of what being a slayer is. And that's
what
this is really about, isn't it? You can't handle the fact that
I'm stronger
than you.
RILEY: It's hard sometimes, yeah. But that's not it.
And Buffy Makes her points that this si the way she works, she
is a Slayer
and if she doesn't know it all ready. She deals with her life
in that view
of Fighting as One. Then she flips sides it and uses her knowledge
that
Riley isn't to fond of the fact that she's superior towards him.
Minus one
for Buffy.
BUFFY: Then what? What else do you want from me, Riley? I've given
you
everything that I have, I've given you my heart, my body and soul!
RILEY: You say that, but I don't feel it. I just don't feel it.
BUFFY: Well, whose fault its that? Because I'm telling you, this
is it, this
is me. This is the package. And if it's so deficient that you
need to get
your kicks elsewhere ... then we really have a problem.
And this is where it all really boils down to. The truth of all
this. Is not
because Buffy is the Slayer or Riley went around getting sucked.
It was
about the openness of their relationship. The communication the
lack of. If
Riley had spoken out to Buffy about his feelings maybe it wouldn't
have led
him to being sucked by whores. If buffy would have let her defenses
down and
let the one person who she would have known would have helped
her and lessen
her pain in. She wouldn't be in this situation.
4. I dunno about that one. It empowered Buffy, Riley was the one
being
passive and waiting. Buffy was the one running to what she wanted.
But I
dunno.
My own view about the end of the episode was that Buffy, even
had she got to
Riley in time, would have not known what to say, for the reason
that he was
'rebound guy'. Why didn't she throw something at the helicopter?
If anyone
had the strength and accuracy, it would be her.
So true, I was expecting her to at least jump or do some Slayer
related
skill. Hey throw something, jump do something. Not stand there
and yell when
he can't hear you. I mean come on Buffy, you have super powers
for a reason.
In short, she did make it in time, and she could have done so
much more.
Based on her skill level.
5. That's true. That's what makes it suck. Because in the truth
of the
matter. He really did not just care for Buffy, but he truly loved
her. And
since it appeared to him that she didn't love him back anymore.
He up and
left.
That was a big problem for me. After all, he was still a graduate
student
and a teaching assistant. That kind of study and work would certainly
have
taken up a lot of his time; yet the episodes never showed or mentioned
this.
Wasn't that all just part of his undercover thingy back when he
was with the
Initiative?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Lachelle,
14:34:08 04/12/01
Thu
I liked Riley at first but I think he turned into a jerk. He may
have loved
Buffy but in many ways he did not show it. It did not surprise
me when he
told Xander that Buffy did not love him. But my biggest problem
was that he
never said anything to Buffy. He continued having sex with her
even though
he felt it was empty. The guy had some serious issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No one is to Blame -- Mary, 20:22:46 04/12/01
Thu
Sometimes in love things happen.
And no one is at fault. No one is to blame.
If Buffy really loves him she would look through the hurt and
accept him and
let him into her heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No one is to Blame -- The Godfather,
11:05:46 04/13/01
Fri
That's just it..she never did love him. She was comfortable with
him around
her and she liked the physical aspect but she never created any
type of
emotional tie to him..
It was for the best, any guy who would cheat and then say that
it was more
passionate and right than the girl who's bed he had just left
isn't worth
much anyways..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. --
Joann, 20:33:56 04/12/01
Thu
My biggest issue with Riley was that I always felt he wanted to
control her
and when he found it was impossible he whined and carried on and
did
everything but jump up and down in her face. He shifted the blame
to her for
his inadequacies.
Yes he wanted to know what *power* Angel and Dracula had over
her because
that is what he wanted. I didn't see any love there just love
used as an
excuse to try and control the slayer. He went with vamps because
he paid
them and thus controlled them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: all in all -- imcj, 20:37:09
04/12/01 Thu
All in all in the end, Buffy came to her senses and wanted Riley
back,
reguardless of his actions or their issues.
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: all in all -- The Godfather,
08:03:21 04/13/01 Fri
Which is probably the most immature thing she has ever done. She
knew she
didn't love him..he was a walking sex supplier..and addictions
don't die
easy. They were DOA. Buffy ran after him because she got scared
of being
alone..that's just plain selfish..and insulting.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: all in all -- Scott
L., 19:01:26 04/15/01 Sun
I don't agree. I think she ran after him because she realized
that she
hadn't been giving her all in the relationship, that she was as
much to
blame for their problems as he was, and that she should -- at
the very least
-- apologize.
I agree, their relationship was doomed. It wasn't the right time
for them.
In my experience, if it wasn't the right time the first time around,
the
right time aint' never gonna come.
Too bad. They could have been good for each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- VanMoodySenior,
22:13:09 04/12/01
Thu
I think you are being a bit harsh on Riley. He isn't perfect,
but he sure
gave up a lot being with Buffy. He gave up his career. He was
always there
for her. She shut him out of her life, and only wanted him around
when it
was good for her. His love for her kept him around too long. He
should have
left earlier. I do not believe there is anything wrong with being
macho. It
is what we guys do. It is also what most girls like about us.
VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Rufus, 23:38:45
04/12/01 Thu
I go with the fact that it's no one's fault. There was a situation
that both
people were ill equipped to handle. Both Buffy and Riley were
used to being
in control, being able to fix problems. Then both were faced with
a problem
they couldn't handle the usual way they were used to. If we look
past the
fact that Riley was going to a brothel to why he was there it's
clear it had
less to do with sex and more to do with finding what he thought
was missing
in his life...being needed. In the search to be needed he mistakenly
thought
that Buffy needed a man with a bit of the monster in him. His
trips to the
vamp hooker weren't for sex but the rush of feeling needed...he
became an
addict like alot of mortals have through the ages. Be it drugs
or bites, the
addict is deluded into thinking they have found a solution. Then
the
solution becomes the problem.
Buffy thought that she was in control until her mother became
ill then she
shut the world out trying to find the solution to her problem...her
fear of
being left alone.
Neither party ever wanted to hurt the other but they did...if
they could
take their actions back they would. Now both hopefully have learned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Solitude1056,
11:03:58
04/13/01 Fri
I agree - Riley's character suffered a bit from not being as
"go-go-company-line" as he needed to be, in the beginning.
(I, for one,
never really caught on that him leaving the military was such
a world-ender
for him, since he'd played the role more like a follower and less
like a
military lifer kind of goon.) So given that the character got
off on a rough
start, that made it just that much harder for us to relate to
him, because
the audience wasn't catching on that he was so turned upside down
by what
he'd done.
And again, there's a bias on the part of Scooby-fans, who tend
to see the
Buffy side of things, or the Xander side of things, or the Willow
side of
things, and forget that there really is always "another side."
In this case,
since we - as the audience - had the omniscience to be able to
see
everything going on with her mother (at least as much as Buffy
was), it's
hard to remember that Riley doesn't know 80% of that until way
after each
fact. If we were kept in the dark as much as Riley, we'd probably
be posting
some pretty whiny messages too.
I do know what it's like to lose someone when a relationship ends
badly, and
that feeling that you can't breathe. It's a universal thing, although
it
feels at the time like you're isolated from everything. That isolation,
though, can become your backbone and protection - "no one
else is going to
do that to me," even though you don't realize it. It takes
a lot more
maturity than most people have, at the age of 20, to work through
that & let
someone else in. Xander was right on target when he nailed Buffy
to the
emotional wall for shutting down with Riley. Yes, it's nice to
have someone
around to stave off the terribly loneliness at having that much-loved-person
gone, but it's not doing you any good & it's demeaning to the
person who's
become your consolation prize.
In that sense, I did feel a great deal of sympathy for Riley,
altho I
couldn't empathize with his means to compensate. A companion/lover
is
someone you can lean on, when you need it - we saw that, in stark
comparison, when Willow broke down at the news of Joyce's death.
She broke
down in front of Tara - none of this "be strong for her"
- and Tara's
response was to comfort her and help Willow get into a coping
mode. That's
not being weak on Willow's part, and it's not clinginess or controlling
on
Tara's part. That's what true friends/lovers do for each other,
and it's
what Buffy never let Riley do. This isn't Riley's fault, and hard
as it may
be, Buffy is not a perfect character - neither written nor played
that way.
Kudos to finally revealing the character development in Xander,
too -
because he's been shown as someone who observes, but he finally
got the
chance to speak up. A good friend doles out a reality check to
another when
she's being, in the words of Giles, "profoundly stupid."
Buffy running to
get Riley wasn't an act of immaturity - it was perhaps one of
the first
truly adult things she's done, but we'll never get to see if she
could have
carried it through. As Xander pointed out, being in love is messy.
People
are messy - and Buffy was insulating, and isolating, herself from
dealing
with that messiness again. And in the process, she was shutting
out someone
who might've been a true "long haul guy" despite Spike's
observations
elsewise.
Riley wasn't whining or clinging - he was trying repeatedly to
break down
that wall around her heart. I've had one around mine, before,
and I've been
fortunate to have a Riley-like person bang away at the walls.
It takes time,
and if it doesn't work, you can't blame it all on Riley - he did
his best,
given the situation, to be "there" for Buffy. But he's
not a mindreader, and
if Buffy's going to use his "thereness" only at her
own convenience, then
that's her issue, not his.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Scott L., 18:30:42
04/15/01 Sun
>>1: ...what will happen when the miltary finds out ...he
is fratenising
with the enemy after all!
Didn't seem to bother members of the military who kept Vietcong
concubines.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, I'm saying that a military
complex is
already morally compromised and may not give a damn.
>>2: ... guy who came along once in a lifetime
>>...Riley not being the long haul guy
>>...he would not constantly blamed Angel and Dracula
Riley *is* the kind of guy who comes along once in a lifetime.
He is smart,
sensitive, strong, brave, and loyal. I know I just described a
Saint
Bernard, but its more rare when it comes to humans.
Buffy *treated* Riley like the rebound guy. She shoved him aside
when she
wanted to do other things and whistled for him when she wanted
sex. His
great weakness was putting up with her crap. The bad thing is,
he may have
confronted her on it earlier, but she was going through too much
for him to
dump something else on top of it. But she, never, never showed
him the
respect he showed her.
Riley always took complete blame for his failings in the relationship.
Buffy
tried to twist his words, but he acknowledged that it was his
fault, his
problems, his feelings, but she never opened up her feelings to
him.
>>3: His whole machoism
>>Buffy was..superior to him physically
>>Maybe if he had spoken out to Buffy sooner...
Buffy is the "macho" one. She was always, "I don't
want you on patrol, I
want you safe at home where you won't get hurt." If a man
had said that to a
woman, feminists would have jumped on his back for being macho.
But, when
Riley tries to offer some kind of assistance for the gang, she
treats him
with less dignity than she treats Xander on patrol. Sad, very
sad.
He should have spoken to Buffy sooner, but there wasn't a good
time. He was
just figuring out the problems in the relationship, that Buffy
was hiding
stuff from him, when Joyce was in the hospital. How insensitive
would *that*
have been, "I know that you are in pain right now, but we
need to talk about
us." She would have went ballistic.
>>4: The way the episode ended...
With Buffy realizing that she was wrong and needed to apologize
and see
where she could take the relationship, if anywhere. Spoilers for
Intervention say that Buffy is concerned that she cannot love.
She should
be.
>>5: He appeared to have no other reason than Buffy to stay
in Sunnydale,
his whole life revolved around her.
Relationships often start that way. He thought he was going to
stay on and
fight the good fight with his lover at his side. Buffy didn't
want that, she
wanted a trophy-wife.
Their relationship was role-reversal. Buffy is shown as strong
and
emotionally distant. Riley tries to live as her equal, but is
rejected on
that level. He finds solace in the arms of someone who can show
him that he
is necessary. His decision to leave can be seen as the male equivilant
of a
bra-burning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Kudos for a great summation (NT) -- Solitude1056,
10:47:32 04/16/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- lachelle,
11:26:13 04/16/01
Mon
I was not a huge fan Angels or Rileys and I think most of the
problems in
B/R relationship was just that they were two different people
wanting two
very different things. I am kind of surprised though that the
writers of
Buffy had her jump into another steady, committed relationship
after Angel.
I am twenty and in college and college is all about going out
and dating
around having fun. Buffy should have gone out more and dating
before getting
involved w/ Riley. That is what most people in her age range do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Riley's behaviour towards Buffy. -- Liam,
10:32:11 04/17/01 Tue
The problem, lachelle, is that Buffy is not like people in her
age range.
She can't date in the normal manner because of her slaying duties,
something
we've seen as early as 'Never Kill A Boy On The First Date'. Unless
she's a
fan of one night stands (as with Parker), she can only get involved
with
someone who both knows about her slaying and who accepts it, which
eliminates a lot of potential candidates. Indeed, her two serious
relationships, with Angel and Riley, were in the nature of 'office
romances', people whom she got to know via her slaying.
demons and humans -- Trevon .L.Jackson, 18:03:04 04/13/01 Fri
In the t.v showe of btvs demons where the first ones on the planet
earth,humans came after.where did the demons come from?who made
them, and
when did the humans come to earth? In fact.who made the humans?
was it god
like the christin religion who made demons and humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: demons and humans -- Virgill Reality, 12:16:54 04/14/01
Sat
**In the t.v showe of btvs demons where the first ones on the
planet
earth,humans came after.where did the demons come from?who made
them, and
when did the humans come to earth? In fact.who made the humans?
was it god
like the christin religion who made demons and humans.**
They aren't very clear on that one are they? There is an aspect
from the
film "Tales from the crypt: Demon Knight" in which the
main character
reveals the movie's premise (paraphrased)
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,
and the earth was
void and without form, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
But the
darkness wasn't empty, for demons roamed within it, scratching
at the earth.
So God created light, and the demons fled."
That's basically the plot, and it sounded so much like Giles'
lecture in The
Harvest (The world is older than any of you know...) that I was
thinking
these two shows could run in the same continuity. It may also
explain why
demons are afraid of the cross, given that in the film one demon
present at
the crucifixion was burned with Christ's blood.
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: demons and humans -- Halcyon, 03:14:48 04/17/01
Tue
I'm guessing the First had something to do with the creation of
demons.
Nate
The Traitor That Betray's Himself -- Eania Snow, 04:49:32 04/14/01
Sat
Even a Traitor can betray himself and some good could come of
it. How do you
think this applies to Spike and Angel?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Traitor That Betray's Himself -- Eania Snow, 23:16:48
04/14/01
Sat
I got the orginal quote wrong someone sent it to me again. It
goes
"A Traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not
intend."
I see Spike as a traitor to his kind and a traitor to his side
now (That of
evil). However I don't see him as being good. He is betraying
the side of
darkness in order to gain affection from Buffy (which is not working).
Im
guessing Spike with eventaully betray himself and do something
selfless for
Dawn soon. I think the Buffy angle is almost dead.
Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla(spoilers?)
-- Scott,
01:21:04 04/08/01 Sun
Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla, when both
of them had
the opportunity (it wasn't that they tried and they escaped).
Buffy had an opportunty in Innocence (Act Four - in the Mall).
Angel had couple of opportunities in Reunion but hestitates. And
more
recently in epiphany where he could have caught her off guard
but lets her
go. He even admits later "I probably should have killed her."
But that will
be small comfort for the family of her next victim.
These acts (or I should say inactions) have resulted in getting
innocents
killed.
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla(spoilers?)
--
Wiccagrrl, 09:10:58 04/08/01 Sun
It's easy, from a detached POV, to blame them for not acting in
these cases,
but the truth is they were both dealing with fighting enemies
they once
cared deeply about (have a hard time saying "love" when
it comes to A/D but
even there a case could be made.) It's just not so easy to turn
those
feelings off and on when they become inconvenient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla(spoilers?)
--
Scott, 09:56:51 04/08/01 Sun
Still, it cost people their lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing
Darla(spoilers?)
-- imcjfatone, 15:15:20 04/08/01 Sun
But if you think about it. They were 'meant' to die reguardless
of. If we
use the predestination notion. Those so called innocent ppl. Were
meant to
die. Reguard less of the actions of Buffy and Angel. I agree however,
that
yes ppl did die. But you just can't turn off emotions like with
a snap of a
finger. Buffy IMHO can't be blamed for choosing not to Slay Angelus.
Reguardless of her feelings towards him. If you go into it in
a linear
fashion. The number of ppl Angel has saved now some what I guess,
balance
out the death of those innocent. Or something like that. But for
sure Buffy
was not going "oh if I don't slay him, and when he gets his
soul back he'll
save lots of ppl and everything will be peachy.."
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Responsibility -- Solitude1056, 19:33:03 04/08/01
Sun
Being honest here, if Angel could up 'n dust Darla once she vamped,
I'd have
a lot less interest (and empathy) for the character. Taking the
ol'
addiction analogy for being vampy, I couldn't (and haven't) been
any better
myself, as A Regular Person (TM) at shutting off my love for someone
who's
become addicted. I certainly couldn't relate to a character who
could - and
I'm not sure, intuitively, that this is a character I'd trust,
as a result.
Buffy's strength is that she continues to love despite some pretty
horrible
odds. If we are to believe, as an audience, that she really does
love, to
the depth of her soul, then we're gonna be a little surprised
that she can
up & do away with an ex just because he, and his behavior, has
become
inconvenient - on any level, to any extent.
Sure, you could argue morally that she and Angel carry responsibility
for
the actions of another that they didn't stop. The same argument's
been
carried into the US courts numerous times against bar owners who
didn't take
car keys away from obviously drunken clientele. I believe this
distinction
has already been discussed here - that one can have responsibility
for the
results but not necessarily be the direct cause. Fact is, to say
Buffy's
responsible (in a causal sense) for Angel's unsouled actions not
only raises
moral questions but also major questions about his own responsibility.
But the bottom line is that I don't think it's fair to expect
someone to act
so contrary to their previous choices. It'd be no better than
deus ex
machina, I believe it's called, that audience-betraying plot device
where
the hero suddenly has a certain useful 'power' of some sort that
hadn't
previously been revealed. Foreshadowing is one thing - ie, if
we'd seen that
Buffy was ambivalent about Angel & could care less if he lived
or died - but
a radical turn counter to our previous expectations would've been
a cheap
move on the part of the writers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 'Buffy's strength is that she continues
to love...' - Nicely
put, Sol! (n/t) -- OnM, 19:46:28 04/08/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Nicely putting is hard work! (n/t) --
Solitude1056, 07:20:29
04/09/01 Mon
thankee! ahhh, your kind words sustain me as I recover from ...
trying to
write intelligibly on a weekend.
hehe. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Tell me about it! ;) -- OnM,
19:31:18 04/09/01 Mon
That Woods guy seems to do it pretty well, though.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Responsibility -- Rufus, 14:18:43 04/09/01
Mon
Are you telling me that to defeat Glory they may need a "god
in the
machine"?:):):)
As for Angel I think some of us forget that Angel has killed Darla
once
already. As for the blame game if anyone holds the most responsibility
for
Darla being here it's the people who conjured her up...Wolfram
and Hart. To
blame Angel for showing the humanity to hesitate to kill her makes
me wonder
what we all would do in a similar situation. Gunn may have been
able to kill
his sister but he also feels the loss as was shown in the ep with
the
shroud. Gunn has alot of repressed feelings that are just under
the surface.
We can't keep second guessing people when it comes to killing.
We aren't in
the same situation. And sometimes things happen when they should,
not when
we want them to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla(spoilers?)
--
Rufus, 20:17:38 04/08/01 Sun
Joss has always pointed out how hard it is to kill someone you
know. Angel
was Buffy's first love. Even though he turned into Angelus she
couldn't get
past the fact that here was the man she loved. Angel had chances
to kill
Darla but in Reunion he paused because it's hard to kill someone
you hoped
so much for, when they look into your face and call your name.
In Epiphany
Angel had slept with Darla the woman who made him a vampire. He
didn't kill
her. There is more to it than the fact they had just spent the
night
together. Darla the woman who damned him to walk at night, saved
him. She
was the reason for everything, his unlife, his need for redemption.
She was
part of his despair. But, she saved him, he had his Epiphany because
of her,
he regained his faith in his redemption because of his involvement
with her.
To put the responsibility of future murders on Buffy and Angel
is unfair.
The people who do the killing make the choice to kill. Buffy and
Angel could
have stopped the killing of Angelus and Darla but their humanity
and
compassion wouldn't let them. It's hard to kill, it's harder to
kill those
you know. Buffy ended up having to send Angel to hell, Angel may
end up
killing Darla. The moment they cease to care about what they do
and why they
do it they will become the monsters they protect us from. The
moment they
become monsters they may lose the inner guide that tells them
why and who to
kill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla(spoilers?)
--
VanMoodySenior, 21:28:10 04/08/01 Sun
This is very true. I went back and reread the first two episodes
of Buffy,
and you could tell that Xander had a hard time believing Jessie
wasn't him
anymore. This is why Giles goes into the speech about how when
you look at
Jessie you are looking at the thing that killed him. Jessie is
gone. Even
though they know it mentally, they can't seem to get it emotionally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing
Darla(spoilers?)
-- Ben, 00:10:04 04/09/01 Mon
"Xander had a hard time believing Jessie wasn't him anymore.
This is why
Giles goes into the speech about how when you look at Jessie you
are looking
at the thing that killed him. Jessie is gone. Even though they
know it
mentally, they can't seem to get it emotionally."
Gunn got it. And he didn't even need Giles to explain it to him.
Buffy and Angel were both selfishly putting their own emotional
feelings
ahead of the safety of others. And that is just morally wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not
killing
Darla(spoilers?) -- Liam, 05:31:58 04/09/01 Mon
I have to agree with Ben on this issue. Gunn is, I feel, the bravest
character in either 'Buffy' or 'Angel' because he _deliberately_
staked the
vampire who bore the face of his beloved sister.
While Xander accidentally staked the vampire who bore Jesse's
face, at least
he did it; so he earned the right to criticise Buffy about Angelus.
He was
right to say that a reason for her wanting his soul restored was
that she
wanted her boyfriend back. We have to remember that Xander is
a character
with no great intelligence like Giles or Willow and no super powers
like
Buffy; yet he was able to do the right thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not
killing
Darla(spoilers?) -- VanMoodySenior, 14:15:27 04/09/01 Mon
Gunn got it quicker. But he didn't start fighting his sister right
when he
found out. He waited. And you know Gunn never waits when it comes
to killing
vamps. It was because there was extra emotions involved because
this used to
be his sister. I would agree with you that he was far more dutiful
than the
others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel
not killing
Darla(spoilers?) -- Jill, 19:22:23 04/09/01 Mon
Gunn feels guilt over not being able to prevent his sister from
being
vamped, not over slaying the beast with her face after the vampire
killed
his sister.
He realized that his sister was gone.
At least he doesn't have to feel the guilt over all the people
vamp sis.
killed because he let her go. As he didn't let the vampire go
unlike Buffy
and Angel.
Angel let a cold-blooded creature back on the streets to terrorize,
torture,
and kill innocents and all he could say was "I probably should
have killed
her".
Duh!
Strange concept of "morality". Letting a killer free
resulting in more
people dying. Some epiphany.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing Darla(spoilers?)
--
Ben, 00:06:31 04/09/01 Mon
I don't think sparing Darla as a "favor" to her because
she "saved" him, was
the moral thing for him to do.
As a result of this act of "mercy" or "returning
a favor" innocent people
will die. Angel should have taken that into consideration.
I think it was very selfish on Angel's part. "Oh, and by
the way the next
time I see you I will have to have to kill you", promises,
promises, and
even so how many will die before then?
Angel and Buffy are both very responsible for the deaths that
would have
never happened had they slayed their former lovers. It wasn't
a case of them
escaping, but a concience choice to let the go. It was a selfish
act of them
putting their own emotional issues ahead of the safety of others.
Gunn on the otherhand slayed the vampire his sister became immediately.
That
was a very noble and selfless act on his part. Showed much maturity.
Both
Angel (even though he is 200 years old) and Buffy better grow
up and stop
acting like Dawson Creek teenagers or more and more people will
die as a
result of their very selfish attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy not killing Angelus, Angel not killing
Darla(spoilers?)
-- Brian, 08:11:01 04/09/01 Mon
All three of these characters have different world views, and
different
awarenesses of their relationship to the world. Buffy and Angel
are
Romantics. That's one of the reason we care so much about them,
that we are
so intrigued by their story. They constantly question their feelings,
their
beliefs, their actions. They always hope for a better future,
a better
choice. Gunn is a realist. His life was always one of hard choices.
He makes
them, and thinks about the consequences later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well put, Brian -- Solitude1056, 09:02:02
04/09/01 Mon
I was thinking 'bout Gunn vs. Buffy/Angel, but couldn't figure
how to
characterize it. Romantic vs. Realist! Great way of putting it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well put, Brian -- Jill, 20:56:54
04/09/01 Mon
The vampire that inhabited the body of Gunn's sister didn't have
a chance to
kill anyone.
I respect Gunn, but as for Buffy and Angel, their failure to slay
their
former lovers was selfish and immature.
And cost people their lives!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> reality check -- purplegrrl, 12:14:59 04/11/01
Wed
If Buffy had killed Angelus in Season 2 (not merely sent him to
hell), he
would have been destroyed, turned to dust - no Angelus, no Angel,
no
Angel:The Series - and we wouldn't even be having at least half
of this
discussion.
To put this debate in Realverse terms: Could any of us automatically
send a
loved one (parent, child, spouse) to be executed for heinous crimes
they
committed (murder, etc.) without our emotions for that person
entering into
the picture?? And to put in the same light as Buffy and Angel,
could you
execute them yourself, not relying on some third-party justice
system to
flip the switch or inject the poison? Time and again we hear relatives
of
convicted criminals say, "But he/she was such a good person."
Wouldn't we
want our loved one to have the possibility of repenting and atoning
for
their crimes by serving a prison sentence rather than being executed?
Our
feelings for the person and our denial of the horrible things
they have done
want them to be given another chance to make things right rather
than taking
away all chances permanently.
And just because Gunn didn't have Giles to tell him that vampires
are demons
in human form, not the human whose face they are using, doesn't
mean he
didn't learn that lesson the hard way from personal experience.
His
vamp-sister may not have been the first vampire wearing a loved
one's face
that Gunn had to destroy.
Despite its theme of vampires, magic, etc., the Buffyverse is
well steeped
in real characters with real emotions and real failings. In very
typical
science-fiction fashion, Joss & Co. use the supernatural to comment
on
everyday life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: reality check -- Jill, 19:48:20 04/11/01
Wed
Angel knows Vampires.
After all he (was/is) a Vampire.
He knows by letting one go free people will die. After all when
Buffy let
Angelus go free, he didn't become a Vegan.
Angel shouldn't have given another thought to slaying Darla. After
all he
knows more than anyone how dangerous she is.
There's a reality check for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> This is the return of "moral" Angel? --
Jill, 00:42:43 04/09/01 Mon
Spoiler space
"Angel at the door, spins around, grabs her (Darla's) wrist.
He could take
her. A beat between them. He makes a choice.
ANGEL
You did me a favor tonight. Now I'm
going to do one for you -- get dressed
and get out. Because the next time I see
you, I will have to kill you."
Angel might as well have said to Darla "since you did me
a favor tonight, in
return I will allow you to go around killing people for a little
bit
longer".
Should Angel now be held responsible for the deaths of the people
Darla will
kill? Of course, he is as responsible as she is. No, I take that
back. ANGEL
IS MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS, as he has a soul and can appreciate
the
moral consequences of actons. Darla is just like a wild beast.
She is just
doing what is in her nature.
Let's put it another way. Say Angel went to a zoo and opened the
cages of
the lions, tigers, and bears. Is he responsible for all the deaths
of the
people those creatures would kill? After all, it isn't Angel doing
the
killing.
Leaving Darla unstaked was like leaving a loaded weapon around
a children's
playground. It can only lead to tragedy.
This is the return of the "moral" Angel? I think humanity
was safer with
amoral Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: This is the return of "moral"
Angel? -- Brian, 08:23:13
04/09/01 Mon
I think you have to look at Angel's emotional state at the time
of his
words. Darla had given him back hope. She had saved him from despair,
from
becoming Angelus again. How could he then stake her and turn her
to dust?
It's not in his emotional makeup. Angel needs time to think and
process, to
find the emotional fortitude to kill Darla. To me, that's what
makes him a
hero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: This is the return of "moral"
Angel? -- Ida, 18:30:12
04/09/01 Mon
"How could he then stake her and turn her to dust? "
Because if he didn't innocent people would die. Or I should say
will die
since he didn't.
I agree with Jill. Innocent humans have much more to fear from
"romantic"
Angel than they did from "Section One" Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Section One" Angel?
-- Brian, 05:31:10 04/10/01 Tue
If you can't save yourself, you can't save anyone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Section One"
Angel? -- Jim, 06:21:50 04/10/01 Tue
Only by abandoning your own needs can you save others.
Total war Angel was having an effect. That is why Holland was
called in from
beyond the grave.
And if you think Total War Angel was cruel. How cruel is it to
let a mass
murder free to rampage and kill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Balancing action
with hope -- Brian, 13:55:10
04/10/01 Tue
Could'a, would'a, should'a, but only if-
Angel and Buffy are thinking, reflective people (Romantics, if
you will).
They are not killing machines. Each of them has to achieve some
state of
emotional balance before they can act. It is their greatest strength.
It is
what separates them from the ceatures they slay, and it is what
gives them
hope. Without hope, Buffy is not an effective slayer. Without
hope, Angel
sinks into despair, and tries to destroy himself. Buffy and Angel
understand
about the need for redemption.
After all, they've been to hell and back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why fight? --
Rufus, 17:00:17 04/10/01 Tue
I see that alot of us still think that there is a battle that
can be won by
becoming the evil force we combat. There is more to this than
a one time
win. Holland Manners says it best:
Angel: "You're not gonna win."
Holland: "Well - *no*. Of course we aren't. We have no intention
of doing
anything so prosaic as 'winning'."
Angel: "Why fight?"
Holland: "That's really the question you should be asking
yourself, isn't
it? See, for us, there is no fight. Which is why winning doesn't
enter into
it. WE - GO - ON - NO MATTER WHAT. Our firm has always been here.
In one
form or another. The Inquisition. The Khmer Rouge. We were there
when the
very first cave man clubbed his neigbour. See, we're in the hearts
and minds
of every single living being. And *that* - friend - is what's
making things
so difficult for you. See, the world doesn't work in spite of
evil, Angel.
It works with us. It works because of us."
Then Holland shows Angel home office which is our world:
Angel: "This isn't.."
Holland: "Well, you know it is. You know *that* better than
anyone. Things
you've seen. Things you've, well-done. You see, if there wasn't
evil in
every single on of them out there, why, they wouldn't be people.
- They'd
all be angels."
This knowledge is what made Angel lose hope. His battle is futile.
No matter
what happens how much evil he used to get the job done, he would
only feed
the Senior Partners, not destroy them. What he found in Epiphany
was hope,
faith, in the presence of despair. If his battle was to be endless
then he
decided to give it meaning. He may not be human but he decided
to become
more humane. You can't destroy evil with evil, you only feed it
and become
evil yourself. You use good to defeat evil. You use the one thing
that evil
fears.....good. When Angel used the evil tactics of the Senior
Partners to
defeat them, he became their devoted son. The Senior Partners
cultivate and
encourage evil. Every evil act retaliated to with evil, only begets
more
evil, and humanity loses. This isn't a battle that Section One
can
win....evil can't be destroyed. It can be defeated, but not with
evil.
To those who think that Angel should have killed Darla, fine,
he even thinks
he should have, but he couldn't. That ability to be humane will
be what will
be the deciding factor in the eternal battle with evil. Darla
had already
been killed by Angel once. If she kills again it's her free will
not nature
that will do the killing. Wolfram and Hart created Darla, they
are the ones
that made her a vampire again. If you want to play the blame game
start at
the source. If you want to win a battle make sure the other side
is even
thinking of winning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why
fight? -- Robin, 18:44:57 04/10/01 Tue
"Holland Manners says it best:"
And that doesn't worry you. That Holland said it.
Angel's true epiphany came in that cellar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Holland and truthfulness... -- OnM,
20:25:59 04/10/01 Tue
*** "Holland Manners says it best. And that doesn't worry
you. That Holland
said it." ***
In James Morrow's novel 'Only Begotten Daughter', one character
remarks of
the Devil,
"He lies. Not always, but often."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why
fight? -- Robin, 18:50:56 04/10/01 Tue
"If you want to win a battle make sure the other side is
even thinking of
winning."
At least they understand that they are at war with Angel. Angel
realized he
was at war in the cellar, and then allowed himself to get confused
again.
Angel had a chance to slay Darla. That he didn't is ultimately
his, and not
Wolfram and Hart's fault.
There is enough blame to go around. Sure blame Wolfram and Hart,
chalk it up
with all the other crimes they have committed against humanity.
But we must
also hold Angel responsible for having the ability to put an end
to this
horror and refusing to.
Too bad Gunn wasn't in that room. He would have known exactly
what to do!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You can't
destroy evil with evil -- Ben, 20:38:53
04/10/01 Tue
Except for Hitler,
Freeing the slaves
Gaining our independence
etc. etc.
Sorry. Good people have been destroying evil with evil for years.
All that Evil needs to win is for good people to stand by and
do nothing.
Kind of like what Angel did when he let Darla go out to kill more
people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Returning a favor
by allowing people to die! --
Robin, 18:38:24 04/10/01 Tue
Angel said he was "returning a favor".
So, as a result of Darla doing a favor, she is allowed to kill
more people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Returning
a favor by allowing people to die!
-- Jill, 20:12:42 04/10/01 Tue
And she wasn't even intending to do Angel a favor.
This really is unforgivable on Angel's part.
Those who say she shouldn't have been slayed don't have any better
excuse
than "Angel didn't feel like it".
Gunn on the other hand would have slayed the bitch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
TV Reality -- Brian, 08:01:04 04/11/01 Wed
Of course, Angel couldn't stake Darla as her contract has, at
least, six
episodes to go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I find it so odd -- Yancy, 23:20:12 04/10/01 Tue
I find it so odd that people got so upset that Angel would walk
away from
stopping the lawyers who caused Darla to be revamped from being
killed?
But couldn't care less about all the people Darla will kill as
a result of
Angel letting her go after receiving his so called epiphany.
I can't see the difference except that the lawyers were in large
part
responsible for their deaths.
Epiphany...may have a spoiler or two. -- Rufus, 02:01:49 04/08/01
Sun
Angel has been in a battle of wills with W&H all season. W&H were
willing to
sacrifice anyone, use anything to get Angel to turn evil. Angel
bought into
that line when in Redefinition, he readied himself to destroy
W&H at the
source, the Senior Partners. But in using evil to destroy evil,
Angel would
only have given W&H what they wanted and increased their power.
Angels
despair didn't happen after the evil acts he did to win the battle
(the
tasting,ect), but in the truth that evil lives in the hearts of
every living
being....evil can't be destroyed. Everything Angel had done to
win, like
letting the lawyers die at the tasting and firing the gang, was
pointless,
only resulting in more evil. Then the woman who started everything,
Darla,
saved Angel. In giving into despair, Angel gave into Darla to
lose his soul,
and he got back his Epiphany.
So how does this work? What result can we expect from Angels moment
of
clarity? Well, first off, Angel stops using evil to attempt to
destroy evil.
It's futile and only adds to the evil whole, making W&H very happy.
Angel
has decided to start with small acts of kindness...why? I think
Angel has
finally gotten smart. You can't destroy evil, it exists in everyone
waiting
to be encouraged to grow. Wolfram and Hart aren't just a bunch
of lawyers,
they have existed in one form or another since mans beginning.
W&H
encourages humanity to be evil using our own greed, fear, and
desire to get
results. They encourage, we choose to act on evil desire. Every
evil act
increases the evil whole. So if you can't destroy evil what do
you do? You
defeat it using kindness to encourage and increase good as a whole.
Every
good act diminishes the power of evil and W&H, evil is never
destroyed but
defeated one kind act at a time. This doesn't mean that Angel
won't kill
demons to protect humanity. It does mean that Angel can see past
his petty
conflict with W&H to the big picture. So we see that in the big
picture
nothing matters.....no final battle to be won...no reward...now
what?
Freedom....freedom for Angel and humanity to choose the type of
world we all
live in. We are the ones that choose evil or good.....what we
encourage in
our own hearts. I know that W&H would rather have a world of evil
and human
suffering, but one less person is playing the game using W&H's
rules. I
think Angel has changed the game in mid play.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Epiphany...may have a spoiler or two. -- VanMoodySenior,
14:03:30
04/08/01 Sun
I am not sure I believe the notion that there is not a big win
somewhere in
the future. I think Holland is lying when he tells Angel this.
He said it to
cause Angel to do exactly what he did, turn to despair. The funny
thing was
when Angel gave all of his despair to Darla he received insight
to what
really mattered. And that is people. Angel, if he is to be the
warrior of
good has to care for and love people. He lost that when he was
going after
Darla and W & H.
I hope Anne gets to see the improved Angel because I believe she
would be a
humanizing influence for Angel. Here is a girl that really loves
people
because she has been down the road of despair herself. I hope
Joss develops
her storyline a bit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Epiphany...may have a spoiler or two. -- Max,
14:26:43 04/08/01
Sun
I think Holland was playing mind games as well.
Total War Angel was making progress. Holland has effectively removed
the
threat that Angel was becoming by stopping Angel from doing things
the
Chicago/Section One way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Epiphany...may have a spoiler or two. --
Rufus, 15:05:54
04/08/01 Sun
I agree that Holland was playing the Total War game with Angel,
and Angel
was buying into it. But, Angel has ceased playing the game by
Hollands
rules. What Holland was after wasn't the winning of one war, one
conflict,
but the creation of conflict to increase human suffering. When
human
suffering increases the power of evil increases exponentially.
Or, the more
you add evil to the equation the more evil is able to multiply
or expand
itself. That's why evil or Total War doesn't work in the case
of W&H, you
only get more evil and suffering. Which is what W&H want, not
a win over
just one battle. So Angel has realized that to stop evil from
growing and
overtaking the balance of good, he has to change the game. This
is where the
simple acts of kindness come in. It's a start to multiplying and
adding to
the balance of good in the world. If evil can be multiplied by
itself then
so can good. Angel will still defend humanity against demons but
he has
ceased playing by the rules of Wolfram and Hart. Instead of blindly
using
the will to destroy a single identifiable opponent, Angel has
realized that
the conflict is about the balance of good and evil. It is an endless
task.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Epiphany...may have a spoiler or two.
-- Max, 20:11:36
04/08/01 Sun
While good people can defeat evil (like in WWII) they can only
do so by
resorting to evil means (like bombing cities).
I think that the true Epiphany for Angel came in the cellar. It
was then
when he realized that this was, as much as he would like to think
otherwise,
war. And if he was going to win it, then he would have to match
evil with
evil.
Or to say it another way, start doing things the Chicago way.
Jim Malone: You wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls
a knife,
you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send
one of his
to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. And that's how you get
Capone!
- The Untouchables
the mortal body -- imcjfatone, 14:43:31 04/08/01 Sun
Glory is a god in her own right. However, the question I propose
is this:
Since Glory left her true plane of existence one of the 'nastier
demon
dimensions'.
And reached Buffy's plane of reality. And thus now she is in a
human vessel
a body from Buffy's reality (I assume).
Does this then aside form her inherent hellgod powers and need
for neural
brain energy limit her more so, because she is inside a human
body?
Does she now follow under the same laws of Buffy's world too now
as a
mortal? Aside from the 'she is immortal and invulnerable
' part.
If she were to choose another body rather then her current one.
Would she
have different limitations... Would that immortal and invulnerable
aspect
carry on with her when she inhabits another body?
Would her predestination be different then now because she is
within a new
body?
What would happened to the first body that Glory inhabited?
And if the body she choose to inhabit was say one of the scoobies,
would the
effect be somewhat similar to the Vamps; That their soul would
go to the
ether or would the soul of the true body owner inhabit with glory's
essence
at the same time?
This is all of course under the assumption that Glory can jump
to mortal
bodies and go or enter whom ever she so wishes. Whether they are
born an
avatar or not. Basically any Joe or Jane.
What do you think? Thanks
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the mortal body -- Vulpes, 16:35:59 04/12/01 Thu
I think you are basicly right.
I think that any body has its limitations.
OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- fresne, 23:08:13 04/08/01
Sun
Okay, this is sort of off topic, not being philosophical, but
in as much as
it is about Buffy...and literature and stuff, well, anyway.
Sometimes my housemate and I are given to acts of extreme literature.
Which
really doesn't explain how we came up with the idea, (there's
a long story
associated which I won't even begin here) but we've spent the
long rerun
season entertaining ourselves by gender reversing Pride and Prejudice
and
populating it with Buffy characters and gratuitous Buffy references.
(Search
and Replace is a wonderful thing)
Character substitutions were chosen based on absolute wrongness
and the
bizarre picture it gives.
If anyone is interested, well, here's the url.
http://lifeamgood.com/01aprbuffy.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- Brian, 07:09:37
04/09/01 Mon
Sick, sick, and very twisted: I loved it! A collection of inspired,
zany
choices in the characters. Have only gotten through the first
two chapeters,
but I am chortling too loudly for my fellow workers. Will have
to read the
rest at home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- Masquerade,
09:32:31 04/09/01
Mon
Have you ever visited the BtVS/Angel "Filk" site on
my links page? It's
basically devoted to BtVS/Angel-versions of literary classics.
http://randomimage.com/buffistafilk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- Rufus,
16:25:04 04/09/01
Mon
You guys are corrupting innocent me...I haven't laughed so much
in a long
time. Thanks for the links.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- fresne,
09:26:11 04/10/01
Tue
You know the odd thing is that I hadn't noticed it, although normally
that's
the sort of thing I scour for.
Very cool. I particularly liked the Bronte/Buffy. Angel makes
a perfect
scarred and sere Mr. Rochester. Darn now, I have to go watch the
Dalton
version again.
And I'm glad people are finding Buffy/P&P evil and scary. We certainly
enjoyed perpetrating it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- OnM, 20:14:51
04/09/01 Mon
You guys are scaring me now...
If you managed to do this in just 5 weeks of reruns, what's gonna
happen
over the summer?
(~sighs~)
Talented, clever, perverse people are SO annoying!! And here I
thought I was
being so hip with the Kwisatz Haderach theory...
Lastly, thanks for the links! Looks like a lotta cool stuff to
check out,
and reality-altering deities know I don't spend nearly enough
time on the
net!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- Nina,
20:25:12 04/09/01
Mon
Thank you, I spend the last 3 hours laughing like crazy in here.
It is
absolutely clever. So many little details ring so true that it's
even
chilling! :)
Wonderful work and thanks for the link!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OnM we must be slipping if it took us this long to
scare you:):) --
Rufus, 21:02:32 04/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- Solitude1056, 12:10:07
04/10/01
Tue
I'd say the author is probably spinning in her grave right now
- fast enough
to create electricity. *grin*
'Tis a pity, I've never actually read Pride & Prejudice (nor have
I seen any
movie version). I'm afraid that in my doddering old age, when
there's
nothing I've not read except James Michener novels or Pride & Prejudice,
that in desperation I may choose Pride & Prejudice... only to
discover that
despite senility and false teeth, my reading is still colored
by the
long-past memories of Buffy, Spike, and Cordelia in a red coat
uniform.
Yikes!
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy -- Rendyl,
08:47:32 04/11/01
Wed
You don't have to actually read it. Wishbone (the little dog on
PBS) does an
abreviated version of it in one of the episodes. He makes a wonderful
Mr.
Darcy. (evil grin)
If you get through Pride and Prejudice and we are 'still' in reruns
give the
Hercules/Buffy crossover a try. It is called "When Hellmouths
Collide" and
Giles is especially funny in it. I think you can find it at
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/chimera/index2.htm .
Disclaimer: The above message has no redeeming philisophical value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT: Sortof Pride and Prejudice/Buffy --
Rufus, 15:12:06
04/11/01 Wed
Thanks for yet another link to pass the time with....plus more
stuff to
scare the heck out of OnM.
Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- Halcyon, 02:21:33 04/09/01
Mon
I would like to discuss the way Xander has always acted to Angel,
it just
seems a bit bizarre how he reacts towards Angel when he is currently
dating
someone who inflicted almost ten times the amount of suffering
that Angelus
did for over a thousand years and he stills acts like a jerk towards
Angel,
who is constantly striving to atone for Angelus's actions. Is
it too much to
hope that dating Anya will lead to Xander developing some compassion
for
Angel? Is it all right because he has fallen in love with Anya?
Angel is someone who deeply regrets what Angelus & Liam did, whereas
Anya
has displayed no signs of regretting what she did as Anyanaka.
Do not get me
wrong Anya is one of the most amusing characters on Buffy,but
it seems
strange that Xander can acts so spitefully towards Angel and does
not seem
to see how much of a double standard he is displaying. Anya was
someone who
inflict pain and death for 1120 years yet he does seem to act
the same way
as he did towards Angel as he does toward her. The only reason
i can come
with for his behaviour is that Angel/Angelus's behaviour affected
him
personally viz Jenny Calender's murder and him almost being killed
by
Angelus in Bewitched, Bewildered & Bothered whereas Anya(anka)
actions never
personally affected him.
Then we have Buffy's attitude towards Faith, the whole reason
for Buffy
showing up in Los Angeles in Sanctuary was to get revenge on Faith
for her
actions towards Joyce and Riley, again it seems bizarre that Buffy
has
accepted Anya into her circle of friends and she acted like such
a cow
towards Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- change, 04:58:14
04/09/01 Mon
> I would like to discuss the way Xander has always acted to
Angel, it just
> seems a bit bizarre how he reacts towards Angel when he is
currently
> dating someone who inflicted almost ten times the amount
of suffering that
> Angelus did for over a thousand years and he stills acts
like a jerk
> towards Angel
I don't think Xander's acted like a jerk to Angel since he started
dating
Anya. Xander didn't really start dating Anya until season 4. By
that time,
Angel had already left for LA. There's been very little contact
between them
since then. We'll have to see what happens when they meet again
in a future
episode.
> Then we have Buffy's attitude towards Faith, the whole reason
for Buffy
> showing up in Los Angeles in Sanctuary was to get revenge
on Faith for her
> actions towards Joyce and Riley, again it seems bizarre that
Buffy has
> accepted Anya into her circle of friends and she acted like
such a cow
> towards Faith.
My take on Buffy in Sanctuary is that seeing Angel cuddling Faith
was more
upsetting to her than anything else. Remember that she's always
been
suspicious that Faith was after Angel (remember Enemies and Earshot).
Also,
she was still in love with Angel, and (as we found out in Into
the Woods)
was not really in love with Riley. Bottom line: She came to LA
to hunt for
Faith, and to visit Angel. When she gets there, she finds Angel
and Faith
making out (at least it looks like it to her), and freaks out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- Halcyon,
07:11:44 04/09/01
Mon
But she should of know better - Angel would have never of hurt
her in that
way. Xander still hates Angel - witness his discussion with Riley
in The
Yoko Factor about Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- The
Godfather, 10:11:53
04/09/01 Mon
You don't know better when emotions are involved..and Angel isn't
perfect..otherwise this Darla storyline would not have occured..Angel
is
still a man..and Buffy flared..her actions and comments weren't
right but
they were understandable..
You can't hold human beings to a level of emotional perfection
where they
step back and weigh every situation..it just is not how things
works..Buffy
walked in and saw someone who had JUST gotten finished hurting
her holding
her beloved..who left her because he couldn't give her perfection..it
was a
shock and she reacted in a very 19 year old way..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- The Godfather,
09:32:43 04/09/01
Mon
I tend to think that Anya is misunderstood..her reactions in the
Body
clearly showed a blatant misunderstanding of life and death..she
really
didn't comprehend the consequences of actions that result in either..
I also think Anya feels a level of certain justice is involved..people
came
to her for revenge and help..she didn't go out seeking to hurt.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Anya's hypocrisy, or lack thereof -- Solitude1056,
12:04:55 04/09/01
Mon
Good point about Anya's attitude - would an executioner "regret"
his job,
and the time s/he spent fulfilling what was determined by other
folks, in a
process s/he was only involved in, at the end? I'm not sure -
perhaps some
do, but perhaps many don't. In that analogy, Anya was not judge
or jury -
she left it to the women requesting her help to determine whether
the
intended victim was innocent or guilty. And it seems that frequently
she
didn't even determine the sentence; she just carried it out. Hence
her
discounting her own responsibility on a large moral scale for
any lives that
were wrecked - a bit of a cold attitude, but then again - how
else could you
deal with a 1000 years of executing and still stay sane?
Anya's frequently referred to her days as a demon as "the
vengeance
business," which IMO is a little different from "random
mass destruction."
She was also a tool of the lesser gods/lower beings (whatever
those are),
but doesn't seem to have been stupid. Remember her comments to
Xander about
a few young women who called her to curse an ex-boyfriend, then
called her
again for another guy, and then again for another one... Anya's
definitely
at least got enough wherewithall to say, "hey, maybe the
guys aren't the
problem, here," but she considered what she was doing to
be a job - not
necessarily a must-do in the sense of vamps & kill-to-eat routine.
And that's also tempered with the fact that she relished doing
her job well
- a trait that's shown up in her pride at working for Giles. So
yeah, I can
see how she'd be prideful about having taken a job & been very
good at it.
But the consequences of her action, while fulfilling that job,
were probably
usually distant. She'd be long gone by then, and it doesn't seem
like she
was in the forgiveness business, just the vengeance part. Very
much a come
in, clean house, leave without a backwards glance. Now she's around
to see
the consequences & I can imagine that's hitting pretty hard -
just like it
does any other human being, when it's time to grow up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Anya's hypocrisy, or lack thereof -- The
Godfather, 12:25:13
04/09/01 Mon
She seems so very distant to it all..I don't think she even ever
really
understood what killing someone meant..by the way, did we ever
have proof
that Anya murderered someone..I know she changed people and destroyed
lives..but did they ever actually say she killed? We know she
did but have
they said it?
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Anya's hypocrisy, or lack thereof
-- VanMoodySenior,
14:26:32 04/09/01 Mon
She would kill someone if the girl asked her to. She was a vengeance
demon.
She did say once about how she turned a guy into something that
exploded. I
can't remember the exact reference. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya's hypocrisy, or lack thereof
-- The Godfather,
14:27:51 04/09/01 Mon
Thanks. But to a level that still absolves her of some of the
guilt..it was
not her idea to kill the man, she was merely acting within her
office..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya's hypocrisy, or lack thereof
-- Solitude1056,
21:17:17 04/09/01 Mon
Well, let's see...
from The Prom:
"...so she wished her husband's head would explode, which
was great except
we were standing three feet from him at the time. What a mess.
Of course,
during the plague it was always parts falling off, that got pretty
old,
since they pretty much were anyway..."
from Graduation:
"Lo-Hash was ... It-it decimated the village within hours.
Maybe three
people got out. I've seen some horrible things in my time. I've
been the
cause of most of them, actually, but this..."
from Pangs:
"I inflicted a lot of putrefying diseases on men when I was
an avenging
demon..."
from Something Blue:
"I only wish I had my powers back. I'd liquify his entrails
for her."
from Buffy vs. Dracula:
"It was a great spell. I made this jerk incredibly fat, like
a human
minivan."
from Into The Woods:
"I made this one guy spontaneously combust, and he set his
whole village on
fire."
So... that enough evidence to continue debating quite happily?
(It's late,
or I'd finish with the few last quotes - I'm sure there's more
in there in
the most recent episodes.)
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya's hypocrisy, or lack
thereof -- The Godfather,
08:00:26 04/10/01 Tue
I was just asking. I knew she had. Thanks.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya's hypocrisy,
or lack thereof -- Solitude1056,
08:20:40 04/10/01 Tue
NP - I wasn't sure, myself, not really having paid much attention
to her
before the past few episodes. So I figured just in case anyone
else was
curious... hey, it's a way to kill off one more week of No New
Episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Anya's actions -- purplegrrl, 08:10:11 04/10/01 Tue
***a blatant misunderstanding of life and death..she really didn't
comprehend the consequences of actions that result in either***
In this respect Anya is very childish (not child-like). She often
does not
*want* to understand. She just wants things to be the way *she*
wants them
to be.
Anya may have been "doing her job" as a vengence demon.
But if D'Hoffran's
attempted recruitment of Willow is any indication how Anya got
the position
(and I believe we were told it was), then Anya *chose* to become
a vengence
demon. She chose to inflict pain, suffering, and death on men
who may or may
not have deserved it for a thousand years. This is more than just
doing
one's job. This is inflicting her own childish sense of right
and wrong on
the world. Vengence does not think with the cool, rational head
of justice.
It speaks with the gut, with the emotions, out of a darker place.
Anya should be taking responsibility for her actions as a vengence
demon -
and she has shown little if any regret - because she chose the
position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- VanMoodySenior,
14:29:01
04/09/01 Mon
One difference in Anya and Angel is Xander has seen Angel do his
evil work.
He only hears about what Anya has done. This is just human nature.
If it
doesn't affect you then you are not as worried about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- Rufus, 14:42:17
04/09/01 Mon
I remember after the second world war alot the the officers in
the German
army used the excuse that they were only taking orders. If you
do an evil
act, the fact that someone asked you to doesn't give you any less
blame for
carrying out a request. Anya had choice over her actions. He pride
in her
work made everything she did, that much more horrible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- The
Godfather, 14:51:35
04/09/01 Mon
But doesn't understanding of actions stand for something? If anything
the
Body really showed that she really didn't grasp the consequences
of what she
was doing...
-Shawn
AIM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites?
-- Rufus, 16:03:32
04/09/01 Mon
If you go back to the Wish when Anya was introduced, you will
see that the
people didn't call Anya she sought out her "clients".
Anya may not fully
comprehend all of her actions yet but she has questioned them.
I think that
would make a good story following on the heels of Joyce dying.
The demon
Anyanka was fully aware of the human suffering she brought to
the world, the
human Anya is only catching on to the concept of consequences.
It's easy to
be an instrument of vengeance, but vengeance is never sated a
Giles
said...it leads to more and more suffering. Anya is slowly learning
to be
human and with that will come awareness of what pain and suffering
is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites?
-- Masquerade, 16:54:54
04/09/01 Mon
"Anya is slowly learning to be human and with that will come
awareness of
what pain and suffering is."
Oooh, brrr, Ruf!
I just had an image of the Gypsy elder standing over souled Angel
right
after the gypsy curse saying, "You will know what True suffering
is!"
And Angel getting all wide-eyed as the demon's memories come to
him and he
realizes with his human soul the significance of them.
Anya is WAY overdue for this moment, IMO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Anya & Willow - Job Offers
-- Solitude1056, 17:23:27
04/09/01 Mon
Remember how Anya was upset that Willow had been offered "her
old job"? That
humorous aspect of the demon-job offer overshadowed the real punch
of the
issue: Willow wasn't about vengeance, but thanks. Ok, so it could
be argued
that Anya - somewhere in the mid-800's or so - was a bit more
awestruck at
demons & stuff, but I realized that's fallacial given that she'd
already
turned her boyfriend into a troll. So Willow being more worldly-wise
doesn't
explain her decision versus Anya's.
I'm thinking that Willow's reason for turning the job offer down
was that
she didn't want to exact vengeance on anyone - Anya apparently
jumped at the
chance. We're not talking the nicest kind of person, who'd take
that job
offer. Maybe a thousand years (and knowing any of her human family
is dead &
gone beyond memory at this point) has tempered her. Maybe we're
underestimating the writer's assumptions about what remembering
"a thousand
years" - that's fifty generations, folks - would do to a
person. Angel was
non-human for what, 150 years? - hardly long enough for the memory
of "being
human" to fade. A thousand years is a LOT longer, and maybe
it's only now
that Joyce has died that Anya might start to wonder about her
own family,
buried back there in the past - assuming she can even remember
them. If not,
then that part may never sink in, and she'll only do her learning
by
projecting backwards upon her past actions through a glass darkly
of her
current society/family's standards.
The key there is that she's got to fully integrate her new family's
standards - and see herself as part of them - before she can realize
how
much the vengeance business is against their morals. I don't see
her - yet -
as thinking of herself as one of them. It's like culture shock,
of the worst
kind. You know you're now in a part of the world unlike what you're
used to,
and at first you deny the reality ("When I get my powers
back, you'll all
grovel!"), then you accept that you're a citizen ("oh,
right, make fun of
the newly human"), and eventually you learn to think of yourself
as part of
your adopted land. She's identified herself as human, but now
she has to do
the next step: identify herself as part of humanity. There's a
difference,
subtle, but it's there.
Willow had the strength to say no, and the disinclination for
the power,
because she's already powerful by virtue (to some extent) of being
part of
something. Anya isn't yet part of something, so her old job still
holds a
lure: in it, she may have been a cog, but she was a useful cog.
She had a
purpose, no matter how shallow or destructive it may be by other
people's
standards. In some ways, her defensiveness and refusal to publicly
regret
her past may be her way of holding onto her self-identity, the
same way
ex-pats will continue to call themselves citizens of their homeland
well on
into four or five decades of living in the new country. I don't
think Anya
is yet secure enough in her place with the Scoobies to allow any
of them
(except perhaps Xander) to see internal changes - another reason
her
outburst in The Body was so astonishing. It was the first time
she came
close to truly being human (that we've seen), and acknowledging
it around
someone else. She's definitely someone who keeps to herself -
which makes
sense. After a thousand years of being on-your-own, it can't be
that easy to
suddenly open up at what, relatively speaking, is only a few minute's
time
in the scope of things.
A'course, the spoilery threads hint at a change for Anya coming
soon... but
no specifics - yet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- Wiccagrrl, 17:30:45
04/09/01 Mon
I actually think that the A/X and B/F relationships/ interactions
are some
of the most interesting and complex on the show. In both cases,
there is a
whole lot of jealousy mixed in, plus on B/X side a lot of righteous
anger to
hide behind. Both were cases of pretty extreme betrayal of the
group's
trust. (Anya became human before joining the SG, and hasn't done
anything at
this point to show that she isn't worthy of that trust) And unlike
Anya,
Buffy and Xander had to live through Faith's and Angelus' attacks.
They
don't remember the "Wish" world. They know what Anya
used to be but it
doesn't have the same impact that going through the realization
of what
someone who was once on the inner circle had become.
Buffy/Xander see Faith/Angel as dangerous/sexy/the type of "person"
they
will never be (and claim they wouldn't want to be, but I don't
think that's
100% true)
Angel/Faith see Xander/Buffy as having the semi-normal life they'll
never be
able to have, but also as self-righteous goodey-two shoes at times.
(Buffy has the family, friends, love that Faith is aching for.)
On the Xander issue, though...I have always felt that he had/has
some
serious boundary issues when it comes to Buffy's love life. It's
probably
because he was (and arguably still is on some level) in love with
her, but
he seems to have this belief that he knows what Buffy needs/should
want in
the love department. Riley was the flip side of the Angel situation.
Xander
hated Angel, spared no opportunity to mention that fact. Xander
really liked
Riley, and also spared no opportunity to mention that fact. The
end of ITW
is the clearest example of this to me...when he actually asks
her "why
wouldn't you" (beg him to stay) calls Riley "the one
that comes along once
in a lifetime" and essentially lays the blame for this failed
relationship
at her feet by saying she shut down after Angel left, etc etc.
Xander has
always had sort of a strange relationship with the men in Buffy's
life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- Solitude1056,
12:06:12
04/10/01 Tue
Xander hated Angel, spared no opportunity to mention that fact.
Yeah, but originally it was just "I don't trust that guy,"
and a lot of that
was because it was Buffy - the one Xander had a crush on - that
"that guy"
was interested in. Best friends (especially those nurturing secret
crushes)
tend to be a bit protective, if not possessive - see Willow's
reaction at
hearing that Faith & Xander had sex. The turning point was when
Angelus went
bad - it confirmed every suspicion Xander had, and he was one
of the only
ones who couldn't just forgive & forget when Angel regained his
soul &
returned to S'dale.
Xander may be simpler than the rest of the crew, but he sees clearer
these
days. Spike cuts to the chase about people in an acerbic reality-check
manner; Xander can, too, but doesn't seem to say as much about
it. He just
observes, and he takes his time before saying anything. (Note
the expression
on Xander's face while watching Buffy & Riley, after Riley admitted
that his
love wasn't requited.)
It's not an easy ethical question. Good, evil, good again: do
you forgive &
forget for what someone else did? Buffy was willing to try, Giles
rationalized his anger over Jenny's death in the face of Angel-with-a-soul,
somehow each Scooby came to grips with it - except Xander. If
he has a flaw,
it might be that he won't allow for extenuating circumstances
when those
circumstances damaged people he loves.
Ok, so I'm at work, so it's a little disjointed...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites? -- Wiccagrrl,
19:48:06
04/10/01 Tue
I think Xander's reaction to Angel *always* had to do with Buffy.
Partly
that Angel was interested in her, but more importantly, *she*
was interested
in him. And I think that had to do a lot with Xander's insecurities.
Angel
was dangerous, sexy, superhuman, dark and mysterious. None of
those really
apply to Xander. (Well, ok, maybe sexy, but a very different kind
of sexy)
Now, I'm not saying that Xander didn't have reason to distrust
Angel (and
once the Angelus switch happened, things get even murkier) but
I always felt
that there was an intensity to his reaction to Angel that went
far deeper
than the surface "he's a bad guy- kill him")
Now, fast forward to Riley, who is a good, wholesome, all-american
boy. Joe
Normal, in spite of the Initiative connection. And Xander adores
him. And
really supports B/R. Why? Because this is the *kind* of guy he
thinks she
*should* want. Because he can relate to Riley.
I think a lot of the same dynamic is at work with B/F. Buffy reacts
so
strongly to Faith because part of her fears that Angel can
relate/empathise/be attracted to a "bad girl" like Faith
easier than he can
to Buffy, who is, I think, only half kidding when she says she
hates being
"the good one". And I think Buffy also reacts to Faith
in such an intense
way because she knows that Faith is a living, breathing "There
but for the
grace of my friends and family go I"
I think Angel and Faith are so uncomfortable for Xander and Buffy,
hit such
a sore nerve, because they show them some uncomfortable truths
about
themselves. They are a sort of Dark Mirror, and one that neither
Buffy nor
Xander particularly want to look into.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Are Buffy and Xander hippocrites?
-- Rufus, 20:22:37
04/10/01 Tue
What you said about Buffy and Faith is very true. What would Faith
had been
if she had been cared for sometime in her early years? Frequently
you react
violently to aspects of yourself you see in others. Now she will
be able to
identify with the lonley afraid aspects of Faith, now that Joyce
is gone.
Where will demon Spike go when he dies? -- Ash_McClain, 07:55:54
04/09/01
Mon
This question assumes that Spike continues to do good, despite
the fact that
he has no remorse for his past crimes. Lets say that he discovers
he likes
being the good guy, even though it is for selfish reasons (respect,
friends,
money, etc.). Now, when he finally dies, will Spike (not William,
who will
probably go to heaven once his body has finally been destroyed)
got back to
hell, or will he have earned a slightly better fate than that.
After all,
the forces of good can use all the help they can get. What are
your
thoughts?
Here's one to start it off: He dies, then gets reincarnated as
a human. With
a conscious, he becomes a warrior for the light.
Next :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he dies? -- The Godfather,
09:26:54
04/09/01 Mon
If Spike were to do good, it would be because of his soul was
somehow
anchored to his body..I still don't believe that vampiric demons
are capable
of benevolent actions..but he surely would not be rewarded grandly
for
self-serving actions no matter the outcome..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he dies? -- Vulpes, 13:53:17
04/09/01
Mon
By the way, what is the name of that good demon that helped Angel
find his
way? I think he (the good demon)may go to heaven. But as for Spike,
I think
he will go where all vampires go.
It is true that evil men can do good deeds and good men can do
evil. So I
think Spike will go the way of the other vamps, unless he can
understand
that his natural ways as a demon will not pan out in the long
run and look
for savation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he dies? -- The
Godfather, 13:56:11
04/09/01 Mon
Problem is Spike has to do it for more than just because being
evil won't
pan out for him..he has to do it because he truly is driven to
it and needs
to breathe salvation..if it's just another course because the
other sucked,
he's doomed to failure.
The demon's name was Whistler.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he dies? -- Ida, 18:26:35
04/09/01 Mon
"Not William, who will probably go to heaven once his body
has finally been
destroyed."
Perhaps I don't understand the concept of Vampires in the Buffyverse.
I
thought the soul of the person vamped leaves the body.
Therefore William has been in heaven (or in hell) for the last
100 years.
That is of course if there is a heaven in the Buffyverse.
"Where did she go?"
-Dawn in "the body"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he dies? -- Morgane,
09:52:26
04/10/01 Tue
Well, you're right for the soul leaving thing, but I don't think
the soul go
to hell or heaven. It probably goes in a kinda waiting area, or
something
like this. Because if it goes to heaven or hell, it would mean
that, when
vampires have their soul back (like Angel), the soul leaves hell
or heaven
to get back in the body which I really don't think it possible.
The
Buffyverse is really hard to understand, even harder that the
realverse,
because JW appears to have a very precise idea of the supernaturals
and the
metaphysics rules, and everything appears to follow these rules
(which we
don't really know). In the realverse, I really don't believe there
are rules
at all, so it's, in a way, simpler...
So, I believe that in the Buffyverse, when vampires die, their
soul leave
the "waiting area" and go to heaven or hell, not before
that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he dies?
-- Robin, 18:55:17
04/10/01 Tue
So then Slaying a vampire not an act of killing, but actually
freeing a soul
that is trapped in the middle. Saving the soul as it were.
What can be more noble than that.
To "spare" a vampire is an act of condemnation. For
it allows the victim's
soul to remain trapped.
The greatest act of love Buffy could show Spike would be to slay
him.
Perhaps it's her hatred of him that doesn't allow her to set him
free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Where will demon Spike go when he
dies? -- Morgane, 13:13:01
04/11/01 Wed
"So then Slaying a vampire not an act of killing, but actually
freeing a
soul that is trapped in the middle. "
Maybe you're right, but if the soul go to a middle space, it doesn't
necerily mean that is a bad place. I don't see it as a purgatory
of some
kind but simply as another dimension or something like that(maybe
there's no
shrimps but it's not such a suffering ya know). So if the soul
is supposed
to go in hell, it's probably a much better place. So the nobility
of the
"freeing act" mostly depends on the soul and what's
his future.
"The greatest act of love Buffy could show Spike would be
to slay him.
Perhaps it's her hatred of him that doesn't allow her to set him
free."
Well, Buffy doesn't know the soul of William, she had never met
him. She
knows Spike as he is now. So, it would free his soul but doesn't
prove
anything about Buffy's feelings for him. Annother thing, these
theories we
speak about, she doesn't know about them, and in The Body, she
proved that
she had no idea of what is going on up there. So, it can't be
her hatred of
Spike that prevent her to slay him. Even if it's not love, it's
probably
some kind of attachment that does that. He represents a big and
important
part of her life, so it's pretty normal that she has trouble to
slay him.
I Was Made to Love You -- Lucifer Sponge, 13:48:06 04/09/01 Mon
Remember that rumor that was running around about Britney Spears
doing a
guest appearance on Buffy? Anyone but me wondering if she was
supposed to
play the robot girl in I Was Made to Love you? The thought just
occured to
me. It would make sssssoooooo much sense.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I Was Made to Love You -- The Godfather, 13:57:54 04/09/01
Mon
She was. Joss said she turned down the role because she thought
it poked too
much fun at her. Geez, whatever happened to actors with a sense
of humor?
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I Was Made to Love You -- Lucifer Sponge, 14:55:19
04/09/01 Mon
Wow, I was right? Hmm.
You know, she poked fun of herself on the Simpsons... you'd think
she could
just swallow her pride and do it again.
Not that I'm complaining, though. I wasn't exactly looking forward
to her
appearance.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I Was Made to Love You -- AngelVSAngelus,
09:42:21 04/14/01 Sat
Yeah, I think the actress that got the part did a much better
job than she
could have anyhow. And as Willow and Xander pointed out, much
more
attractive :)
April 2001 Posts
Master Vampires -- Virgill Reality, 13:57:10 04/09/01 Mon
Does anyone have any thoughts about what made the Master the Master?
Giles
mentioned him as being the oldest vampire on record, which means
that
another vampire must now be the oldest one alive. Surely then
there is
another Master Vampire around somewhere?
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Master Vampires -- The Godfather, 14:26:47 04/09/01
Mon
There are likely many master vamps spread throughout the world
and deep in
hiding. It's one of my two pet theories about next season:
1) That the great evil from next season will be a Master Vamp
and in fact
near the beginning of Angelus's blood-line. Only he won't be disgustingly
evil not cheesily sexy..he will be brutally handsome, painfully
sadistic..a
real chess player in the sense of the word..
2) That Giles will get kidnapped mid-season. It's been said that
Tony asked
for his load for next season to be lightened a bit..so I hypothesize
that
six eps in, Giles will be kidnapped for the bulk of the season
kicking off
into an urgent and frantic arc involving the search for Giles..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Master Vampires -- Wensleydale, 04:59:35 04/10/01 Tue
Kakistos was much older than the Master, no? "So old that
his hands and feet
were cloven." From what I can remember (and I can't remember
whether this
was mentioned on the show or elsewhere), the Master was only about
600-or-so
years old when he died. As someone on a board pointed out (sorry,
can't
remember who it was), Angel spent a bloody long time in hell.
A lot longer
than the 400 years it would have takem him to catch up to the
Master's age -
and, if I remember correctly, the Master only looked the way he
did because
he was supposedly so old? Maybe I misremember. Very possible.
Likely, even.
(And the Master had the same appearance back in 1609 in Darla,
too, when he
would've been a young'un of only a couple of hundred years.)
What does all this mean? I'm putting it down to continuity errors,
or
deciding to change vampire mythology once they knew the show was
going to
continue for several more seasons. Or my bad memory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I have been wondering, when is Angel going to develop
fruit-punch
mouth? -- AngelVSAngelus, 07:32:37 04/10/01 Tue
I think that the reason he hasn't shown the tale tale signs of
demonic aging
is because the soul within him counteracts that aspect of demonic
presence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I have been wondering, when is Angel going
to develop
fruit-punch mouth? -- The Godfather, 07:59:02 04/10/01 Tue
Well also by vampiric standards he's still a young'n. He's a powerful
one
from strong bloodlines but he is still only 250 years old..it's
likely that
the weird cloven crumpling doesn't occur until they get much higher
in the
count..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I have been wondering, when is Angel
going to develop
fruit-punch mouth? -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:55:13 04/10/01 Tue
Yeah, I just envision an episode much down the line where the
teaser is
Angel awakening for another day of demon slayage only to find
that his hands
have been replaced with cloves or his ears with horns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I have been wondering, when
is Angel going to develop
fruit-punch mouth? -- The Godfather, 13:28:05 04/10/01 Tue
I imagine it's gradual..much like human aging only when they hit
the older
then sin age, it's much more severe..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have been wondering,
when is Angel going to develop
fruit-punch mouth? -- Halcyon, 01:00:50 04/11/01 Wed
But Angel spent centuries in Hell, why has that time not affected
his
physical appearance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have been wondering,
when is Angel going to
develop fruit-punch mouth? -- Ramo, 12:16:19 04/11/01 Wed
Good point, maybe they have a different aging process in that
dimension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Five words: David
Boreanez is DEAD SEXY --
AngelVSAngelus, 22:30:21 04/13/01 Fri
Fruit punch mouth would ruin that. That's why he hasn't changed
in
appearance, I suppose.
Anya and Giles -- Michael, 15:48:10 04/09/01 Mon
Here's something else that might have affected Anya.
While one has the body of a demon, one tends to acquire
the mind of a demon. Giles knows this from personal
(demonal?) experience. Giles only had the body of a
demon for a few hours. The affect on his mind wore off
fairly quickly. Anya had the body of a demon for
centuries. Perhaps it's no wonder that that humanity
thing is still a work in progress.
BTW did Anya have a choice about which wishes she granted?
My recollection is that someone suggested that if she had
had a choice, then she would have waited for Cordelia to
make a different wish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya and Giles -- VanMoodySenior, 17:27:08 04/09/01
Mon
Great points about the human-demon psyche. I thought Anya had
to do what was
asked of her if the wish had to do with vengeance.
Gods and demons revisited -- Virgill Reality, 06:40:11 04/10/01
Tue
Hi, I posted this message as a reply further down the line, but
as everyone
knows things don't get no attention there, so if it's all the
sam,e with you
I decided to reprint it further up top. Cheers.
Author: Virgill Reality
Subject: Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc.
In reply to: OnM's message, "Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings,
Divas, Avatars
etc." on 12:02:27 04/09/01 Mon
A lot of complicated theology comes into play when pondering Glory's
true
nature. Travers implied a distinction between demon and god, but
how exactly
do the two differ when dealing with powerful beings? Throughout
the series,
demons have been worshipped as much as gods/goddesses, so how
does this not
give them godhood? If the definition of a god is a being able
to influence
this reality, then by this demons would also be gods as they have
given
power to some of the show's villains.
In the Hindu Pantheon, there are over 3000 "gods" and
"goddesses" but in
truth there is only one Supreme God and all other powers answer
to the One.
This may also be the way it works in the Buffyverse, woho knows?
In
Christian theology, some argue satan to be a god, but he still
has his
limitations.
There was also some implication in the Angel episode "I've
Got You Under My
Skin" that demons in Buffy's continuity answer to satan,
so it may be that
in the buffyverse there are "head powers" if you will,
for both the forces
of Good and the forces of darkness.
Even if Glory answers to neither Power, she is still a rebel,
and may still
be described as "fallen." By this reasoning, I think
it's logical to treat
Glory as one of the more highly powerful demons, rather than a
god.
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> powers-dimensions-govern over? -- imcj, 12:42:59 04/10/01
Tue
.... so it may be that in the buffyverse there are "head
powers" if you
will, for both the forces of Good and the forces of darkness.
Even if Glory answers to neither Power, she is still a rebel,
and may still
be described as "fallen." By this reasoning, I think
it's logical to treat
Glory as one of the more highly powerful demons, rather than a
god.
I do agree that there are powers higher ones involved within the
buffyverse.
Who in my view choose to not be so omniscience. I think there
was a theory
regarding the Omniscience of God, within the realms of the Traditional
Christian version. And how to give man kind true freedom, he has
somehow
decided to not know everything in the universe in advance. It
was some
theory Arthur Peacock gave called "Self-Limited Omniscience
of God."
I think these Higher Forces choose to do something similar to
that end. That
they have limited themselves. Either by their own will or by the
Major
Forces.
That is where my true theory comes in.
[The Powers]
Ultimate Forces:
- God
Major Forces:
- Powers of Divine
- Powers of Neutrality
Higher Forces:
- Powers of Good
- Powers of Evil
My question is regarding to the different realms and dimensions
shown on
Buffy. Does each form of reality have it's own set of powers?
Or are these
powers all encompassing and the same through out all these different
realities? For example: do the PTB also govern under the same
laws they do
in Buffy's and Angel's reality compared to wherever reality Glory
came from
or the hell dimension where Anne was held in.
If you were in Glory's Situation -- Vulpes, 09:22:48 04/11/01
Wed
The Key was taken from you. You want to go home. Your brother
is no help.
He's wants to date your enemy. Some monks stool it. And they gave
it to a
slayer, who has it or knows where it is. You talked with her about
returning
it. You sent an agent(snake)after it. What next?
If you were in Glory's situation, what would you do to get the
key back?
I thought of kipnapping one member of Buffy's family and demand
the key's
return. Since Buffy's mom is dead, that only leaves Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: If you were in Glory's Situation -- VanMoodySenior,
14:01:23 04/11/01
Wed
I think of it this way, Glory says that it is her key, but that
does not
mean she actually owns it. Anothing thing is we don't know what
the key is
and what it does. So far a lot of people have tried to make educated
guesses, but we don't know for sure. Perhaps Glory stole the key
or
imprisoned it in the other dimension. Who knows. I think Glory
would kill
Buffy's family and friends before she would kidnap them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> would Buffy and Ben ? -- imcj, 14:30:45 04/11/01 Wed
Do you folks see anything there? I mean if it was worked out and
they did go
out for some coffee? Could there be 'major sparkage'. ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: would Buffy and Ben ? -- Wiccagrrl, 15:44:08
04/11/01 Wed
They've only had a few on-screen scenes together, but I don't
see a whole
lot of chemistry there. Besides, considering his close ties to
Glory, I'm
betting he won't be around after the season finale (just speculation,
of
course.)
It was the coffee-asking thing that really convinced me these
two are a
no-go. It was *too* cute- too forced. I think that was intentional,
but
overall it gave me the impression these two weren't gonna end
up together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Chaos can acheiver order. :-) -- Unsung Hero, 16:06:02 04/11/01
Wed
I'd start tearing that bloody town apart, killing indiscrimently
till Buffy
came out and told me. If she didn't, I'd kill friend after friend
until she
was broken and demoralised. In fact, in my opinion, that's the
only way to
beat Buffy:
Kill Giles first, then everyone except Willow and Dawn in any
particular
order, kidnap Willow and Dawn and torture them and torment Buffy
and then
kill them, and then send a number of underlings, Vampires, humans,
demons to
attack her., and then a demoralised and broken Buffy would come
to fight,
and then she's easy pickings.
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Chaos can acheiver order. :-) -- Vulpes, 16:22:04
04/11/01 Wed
Dear Unsung Hero
I WOULD NEVER WANT TO BE YOUR ENEMY !!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Chaos can acheiver order. :-) -- JoRus, 13:04:07
04/12/01 Thu
And then you could salt the earth so that the city could never
rise again,
wait, that's Scipio Africanus, a role model for Roman generals.
Ok, to be
serious here...Glory is feeding on the population to remain present,
healthy, sane...however you want to put it. I think she's totally
distracted
by her lack of able minions, and handicapped by insanity and a
need to go
shopping (Buffy could set a trap for her baited with a trail of
500.00
Manolo Blahnik spiked heels, that's how to defeet Glory). Glory's
not
killing much, because it would be like going to the fridge and
stomping a
head of lettuce...you might want to eat it later.
What place does Wesley play in the Apocalypse? -- VanMoodySenior,
15:14:52
04/11/01 Wed
In "Happy Anniversary", the Karitos Host is talking
about Angel's gang whom
he left. He is the quotes,
Host runs a finger across the top of a desk: "Or a duster,
buster.
I don't know why you fired those three plucky kids. They were
good
company. Not to mention, Cordelia? Uh! Hot-o-rama! In the 'oh
my
sizzling loins' sense of the word, if you know what I mean. And
the
British boy? He's gonna be playing a *huge* - well. "
Angel: "Are you gonna get to the world ending or are you
just
gonna chat until it does?"
What does the host mean by Wesley playing a huge-well? What was
he about to
say? Was he talking about the apocalypse? If not then what? VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What place does Wesley play in the Apocalypse? -- Wiccagrrl,
15:48:01
04/11/01 Wed
definitely thought he was talking about the Apocalypse. As to
what that role
is...*shrug* We don't know enough to even really guess at the
specifics, but
we can assume that Angel, and probably based on that comment,
Wesley, will
be major players.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What place does Wesley play in the Apocalypse? -- Unsung
Hero,
15:58:48 04/11/01 Wed
Wesley's "huge part" could be the apocolypse, or maybe
something else. In
the Buffyverse everyone needs to know the plural of Apocolypse(as
Riley
would say), so this could mean anything from the confrontation
against
Glory(Perhaps Wes will be the one to figure out how to beat her),
or
anything from now to the end of the Angel series. Angel's role
in the
"Apocolypse" (as in the one Holland Manners brought
up in the elevator) is
unclear as well, since he's either going to cause or end it....but
maybe
this won't be so big. Angel's show is far less grand than Buffy,
as in he
doesn't fight end of the world bringing monsters like The Judge,
he helps
people, fights the smaller battles, fighting for good one victory
at a time.
This big Apocolypse could tie into W&H's own analogy of being
"the evil
inside everyone", with Angel making a serious contribution
to expelling
that, or at least helping to make the good side slightly more
dominant.
Wesley already had made a rather large contribution to Angel's
mission, in
fact he took it on himself as the new leader of Angel Investigations.
Wesley
already had a big part in that mission. However, knowing The Host,
Wes
probably will do something huge to save the world, and I'll be
cheering when
he does. :-)
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> On the other hand... -- Solitude1056, 18:50:17 04/11/01
Wed
It could just a sneaky move by the writers to reassure us that
Wes isn't
about to be killed off like Doyle... *sniff*
(hehe)
Why Spike Loves Buffy -- FanMan, 16:49:59 04/11/01 Wed
In FFL we got to see the origins Spike, and the original reason
why Spike is
obsessed with Buffy.
Spike has tried to kill Buffy multiple times. He has learned the
hard way
that Buffy is more recourcefull than the two Slayers he killed.
Untill Buffy
fought Adam her Slayer powers were equal previous Slayers. Spike
is a
hunter, and a hunter trying to catch an elusive prey must study
the prey.
Originally when Spike was spying on Buffy, it was to understand
her. Once
Spike learned how Buffy opperated he could explouit her weaknesses,
and
destroy her. But what happened is Spike began to understand Buffy
too well;
he developed a form of empathy for her. Not emotional, or morall
empathy,
but an intillectual understanding for her personality. So Spike
started to
understand Buffy's morality, ie anytime he did something immoral
it would
not be offensive to him, but he started understanding why it would
offend
Buffy.
Previous threads have explored Spike's personality, and a good
description
of his aggresion and bravado is that it is to hide the weak/sensative
mortal
he used to be. Also he is a follower; Drusilla,Angellous, and
now Buffy. He
does hate Buffy, but becuase his self-image is based on outside
oppinions,
he is defining himself within her worldview.
Spike loves Drusilla, and that love neccicarilly includes everything
evil
and perverted about her. In The Crush Spike got nostalgic about
the evil
that Dru showed him; he explored the depths of evil within himself
to
impress Dru. However, Buffy is his focus now. Spike complained
that all that
he used to be-a copycat/follower of Dru- is gone and that all
that is left
is Buffy. Spike has grown to understand Buffy so well that he
is starting to
actually care about things the way she does. Spike loves Buffy
because she
is like a mirror; he can only see himself the way Buffy sees him.
From the
way Buffy treats Spike, it seems that she knows he is mostly selfish
and
evil. But she knows that however rude he is there is something
good within
him. Buffy can't hate Spike.
Sorry, I can't explain the last part better...:)
LASTLY Spike is still evil,with one exception;Spike cares about
anything
Buffy does(although not as much as she dose...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Spike Loves Buffy -- The Godfather, 16:55:30 04/11/01
Wed
Couldn't disagree more but really not interested into jumping
into this
again. I tend to think Buffy doesn't hate him because she's apathetic
towards him..she doesn't anything him..she justs wants him away..Buff
is not
a hateful creature. Hate is a very strong emotion. As for good
in
Spike..show me it where it doesn't concern himself and we'll chat.
-Shawn
Out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Spike Loves Buffy -- FanMan, 17:12:50 04/11/01
Wed
That is a good point. Buffy is too forgiving, I do think Spike
is still
evil, and if Spike had treated me like he has treated Buffy, I
would not
have shown as much tolerance as she did.
However, I still think that just like Spike loved Dru's evil,
he also loves
Buffy's good.
Spike's conflict is that he is evil, but a small part of him loves
the good
in Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hunters & their prey -- Solitude1056, 19:09:31
04/11/01 Wed
Spike's conflict is that he is evil, but a small part of him loves
the good
in Buffy.
Your rephrasing mangled it - I preferred it better the first way!
See Spike
as a hunter, who's smart enough to study his prey (after getting
his ass
kicked, though, hehe), who's begun to empathize with the prey.
It's an
interesting footnote.
Turning it around, it makes you wonder that if Buffy say Angel
as "just
another vampire" (albeit with a soul, whatever that is) and
other vampires
as able to do the things she thought were Angel-only traits -
such as love,
be hurt, hope, etc - then she'd empathize with them by virtue
of extending
her understanding of Angel to them. If she does that, it can get
harder to
kill them. She'd have to distance herself from the humanity that's
her
strength (read: her community) to dust vamps, because she'd be
seeing the
vamps themselves as a type of humanity... Yikes.
This touches on another thread - that of humanity & the ability
to kill -
but it might be a good analogy. If my diet included dogs, could
I also keep
one as a house pet, knowing that it may be my next meal? That
attachment we
form to another creature, and the care/attention we give it (even
if it's
only the benefit of the doubt in the case of another human) can
distract a
hunter from the sole purpose of being a "hunter": kill
the prey.
I'd continue the thought but it'd hijack the other thread... maybe
one of
you can start up a new thread, combining the two (hunters & humanity
&
empathy) if you want, or I'll do it later after dinner. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hunters & their prey -- FanMan, 22:39:54
04/11/01 Wed
In this country people have an aversion to eating pets becuase
they
"humanize" pets. Dogs are food in other countries. However
dogs are an
evolved group of species, thier nich is as human companions/farm
servants
like hunters dog or sheep dog. I think also part of the evolution
of dogs is
that they have a sort of instinct about how to cope with humans,
wolves do
not because they have never been domesticated.
However, farmers have no problem eating a pig, or chicken, or
other 'food
animal' that they have an emotional atachement to. Even if the
chicken is
cute, and follows you around all the time becuase you give it
food; when
you're hungry that chicken is dinner. Spike has a dysfunctional
emotional
view of Buffy, what he calls love might just be his hunter stomach
saying "I
need prey"...:):)
sorry if the farmer reff. is offensive to anyone, it was my example
of how
people can love thier food.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Spike Loves Buffy -- Lynn, 19:08:05 04/11/01 Wed
I understand what you're saying in regard to Spike having an intellectual
understanding of Buffy's personality. He does have a talent for
finding out
what makes people tick, and since he's been chipped his major
form of
entertainment it skewer the SG and Buffy every chance he gets.
I do think he
has developed some empathy for Buffy, I think he has always had
a
professional respect for her, even though they are on opposite
sides. I
think he loves her as much as he can, being what he is. I believe
he will
never be totally good, as he has that pesky demon to contend with
who will
always lead him into trouble. Which makes me kind of sad for him,
he has
just enough humanity (remember he and Dru almost got zapped by
The Judge) to
be able to empathize with Buffy but not enough to be truly in
her world. I
think Joss has been true to what he has said of Spike in the past
- he may
be sympathetic, but never nice, as he wouldn't be much fun to
write for :)
I'm not one of those who necessarily believes his character has
been totally
ruined. We're merely seeing the aspect of Spike's personality
that usually
is suppressed by the demon, now his demon is being suppressed
by the chip.
Godfather, I agree with you in that we have not seen any unselfish
Spike
behavior, and until we do, we can't make a judgement as to how
much he has
really changed. And maybe, if he does, it won't be for Buffy,
but for
perhaps Dawn - he knows she is The Key, and has the potential
to be a danger
to her - what will he do if faced with the decision to give her
up to save
himself?
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Spike Loves Buffy -- Vulpes, 19:42:39 04/11/01 Wed
Does goodness mean always selflessness?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Spike Loves Buffy -- Joann, 21:11:45 04/11/01
Wed
I don't believe that Spike loves Buffy. I think he is so weak
now that he
identifies with his captors which is sort of what the SG is and
Buffy is the
leader. So what he feels isn't love. It's a perverted response.
I don't think Buffy hates Spike. She dislikes him intensely. Buffy
has a
good heart that has no hate in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Spike Loves Buffy -- The Godfather, 08:45:37
04/12/01 Thu
Not always. But actions done under the design of winning something
doesn't
do that..when Spike starts doing good because it's right he'll
be gaining
points..
-Shawn
What would Anya do if Xander ever Cheated? -- Vulpes, 18:48:45
04/11/01 Wed
What would Anya do if Xander ever cheated on her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Two words -- Solitude1056, 18:51:44 04/11/01 Wed
Go ballistic.
(with her history, what were you expecting?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Two words -- Rufus, 20:13:52 04/11/01 Wed
Solitude, somehow I didn't think those were the words you were
going to
use...now I am having a giggle fit.
I remember back to Pangs when Anya read out to Xander all the
diseases that
were to be had way back when. I think Anya just may start at the
funny
syphillis then work up to real vengeance....get over him and lose
interest
in getting even with him...you never know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> would Xander cheat -- JBone, 20:24:10 04/11/01
Wed
I agree that if Xander cheated, Anya would go OJ, despite her
proclamations
that she has grown and would never hurt Xander. But I wonder if
Xander would
cheat now. I realize that he has before, on Cordy with Willow,
but I'd like
to think he learned from that. IMO I think if Xander thought that
he was
about to cheat, he'd break up with Anya first. And I'm talking
about
cheating, not flirting. We all need to flirt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: would Xander cheat -- Rufus, 20:46:59
04/11/01 Wed
I think if she were going to get him for flirting he may never
want to leave
the house......I mean I agree with you. I'd still like her to
read out his
punishment to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: would Xander cheat -- Wiccagrrl,
21:02:30 04/11/01 Wed
I find it kind of interesting that, since Triangle, Anya has been
fairly
outspoken about how not-jealous she is ("letting" him
dance with Buffy,
saying she doesn't care when she catches him checking out other
women, etc.)
Do you think she came to the conclusion on her own after talking
to Willow
that she'd been overreacting and her jealousy was unwarrented?
And applied
that to the other women Xander came in contact with? Do you think
Anya and
Xander sat down and had a nice long chat after the troll thing,
and he told
her this is something they needed to work on? And at the same
time tried to
reassure her that she had nothing to worry about? Do you think
there *is* a
connection?
I have a hard time seeing Xander cheating on her, but at the same
time he
has something of a wandering eye. He appreciates an attractive
woman, and is
pretty terrible at hiding his, um...admiration. But acting on
it? I'm
doubtful. If nothing else, I'd hope his sense of self preservation
would
make him think twice before even *considering* cheating on Anya.
Besides, they had W/O, X/C, and to some extent B/R all break up
after
infidelties of sorts(there were also many other issues, but then,
aren't
there always?) I'd be surprised if they went that direction again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: would Xander cheat --
Rufus, 21:19:49 04/11/01 Wed
Both Willow and Xander have a wandering eye.....and both have
girlfriends
that could really make them suffer for it. That is what I call
playing with
fire. I find it funny that in Xanders chats to Anya about proper
behavior he
didn't include his own in the lesson. I wonder what Xander would
do I Anya
had some male attention? She's not exactly ugly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: would Xander cheat --
JBone, 22:12:52 04/11/01 Wed
I have a hard time seeing Xander cheating on her, but at the same
time he
has something of a wandering eye.
Although I am not prepared or authorized to speak for all men,
I can say,
when I've been in relationships, I've never stopped enjoying the
eye candy.
If Xander didn't at least appreciate beautiful women, he probably
wouldn't
enjoy sporting events, action movies, or eating of the beef.
As for Anya, uh boy, anything can happen with this firecracker.
I think she
sees herself as growing, mature person, only, I think she doesn't
has any
idea how far she has to go. I mean at some point over 1100 years
ago, she
was a normal person who caught her boyfriend cheating on her.
Things went
badly. And since it was a failed relationship that had her crossing
into the
demon realm in the first place... This is her second chance, and
so far the
biggest hurdles for her and Xander to jump has been when they
went for a
couple days without sex and she was jealous of Willow. Not exactly
character
building stuff. Basically, Anya is fooling herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, Xander would cheat -- Joann,
21:03:01 04/11/01 Wed
He did it once and he would do it again. I noticed his eyes are
always
wondering especially with robo girl. Also he has affection for
Buffy and
Willow that could go into romance if circumstances were different.
And I
think there would be hell to pay from ANya. SHe isn't even civilized.
It
takes more than just looking human to be human. She is not a good
or bad
human. She's just not human. I don't care what she says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Two words -- imcj, 02:05:51 04/12/01 Thu
oh I thought the two words were
"KILL HIM"
guess not, LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Two words -- Solitude1056, 08:41:31 04/12/01
Thu
Naw... no killing, not right away! Anya had enough vengeance experience
to
know the fine art of torture. It doesn't usually involve a quick
death,
since the point is that the victim has to really suffer - and
you can't
suffer when you're already dead.
(Really, I'm a very nice person. I don't know how I'm aware of
these tidbits
o' cruel pyschology.)
Darla's Exit -- Vulpes, 18:54:22 04/11/01 Wed
Darla cleared out of Lindsey apartment. Where did she go and what
will she
do next?
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Darla's Exit -- VanMoodySenior, 22:15:53 04/12/01 Thu
I would like to see her come to Sunnydale to try and kill Buffy.
I thought
perhaps her and Dru would both come, but only Dru showed up, and
that was to
get Spike. I am sure Darla hates Buffy because Angel loved her.
It would be
interesting to see them go at it in a fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Darla's Exit -- Max, 23:58:54 04/17/01 Tue
First I am sure she will go out and get a bite.
Smart Move Angel. Well, you probably won't know her victim so
it's ok.
How old is the Master? -- Vulpes, 19:46:14 04/11/01 Wed
Who was the Master in mortal life?
How old is he?
And is that what vampires look like after several hundred years?
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How old is the Master? -- Wiccagrrl, 20:36:38 04/11/01
Wed
Well, Darla is already four hundred years old, and he was already
old enough
to have changed into this current form at the point when he first
turned
her. Doubling Darla's age (if he'd been the age she is now when
he turned
her, and she showed no sign of getting fruit punch mouth) I'd
say at the
*very* least 800 years, probably much older.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How old is the Master? Other favorites before
Darla -- Vulpes,
09:40:03 04/12/01 Thu
Thanks Wiccagrrl
Do you think the Master had other favorites before Darla?
slayers and vampires -- Trevon .L.jackson, 22:43:35 04/11/01 Wed
what makes a slayer powerful enoght to kill vampires when they
have the same
powers?Are the slayers at a haier level then vampires in power?How
isit for
Buffy to be able to kill 7 vampires at a time like the wher nathing
?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: slayers and vampires -- FanMan, 23:03:15 04/11/01 Wed
The Slayer is very different from vampires.
Vampires "breed" or increase thier mutation by infecting
humans that are
near death from bloodloss.
Slayers are chosen by some unknown proccess, all that is known
is that a new
girl becomes the Slayer when the current one dies.
Vampires are undead and have multiple vulnerabilities.
Slayers have no known physiological vulnerabilities.I mean not
any more than
regular humans.
Vampires lose thier soul and good qualities are twisted into some
evil
version of thier original personality.
Becoming a Slayer does not change the chosen ones morality or
personality.
The vampires get more strength and better reflexes, read a previous
thread
on vampire physiollogy.
Slayers get strength and reflexes, but they also get an intuitave
understanding of combat, and Slayer-Sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: slayers and vampires -- imcj, 01:05:53 04/12/01 Thu
The Slayer.
SPIKE:
"After that, I was obsessed. I mean, to most vampires, the
Slayer was the
subject of cold sweat and frightened whispers...."
----
Buffy :
"I thought a professional demon chaser like yourself would
have figured it
out by now. - I'm the Slayer. Slay-er? - Chosen One. She who hangs
out a lot
in cemeteries? - You're kidding. Ask around. Look it up: Slayer
comma the."
go here: http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/slaying.html
Very good in dpeth look at what makes a Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Slayer Package -- Brian, 08:29:55 04/13/01 Fri
When Buffy is focused, there is no stopping her. When she's angry
and
focused, she can be a "killing machine."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Slayer Package -- FanMan, 15:03:43 04/13/01
Fri
Two other observations.
When Buffy is confused/not focused she is a lot closer to a normal
mortal
woman. When she fought the vampire at the end of The Body she
was definately
not at full efficancy.
In FFL Buffy was almost killed by a normal vampire.
In No Place Like Home Buffy fought a Goddess,and survived. Granted,
Glory
was not trying hard; but she did hit Buffy so hard that Buffy
broke a wall.
Maby the Slayers' Power is open-ended, but only enough power is
available to
handle a given situation.
Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish... -- FanMan, 23:36:58 04/11/01
Wed
One spoiller said that Buffy would get another visit from the
First
Slayer/Primitive.
To fight Glory I think Buffy needs to understand her Slayer powers
better.
Giles is helping her train her mind with focussing exercises and
meditation.
She is starting to look within herself, and is exploring her spirituality
or
subconcious.
When Buffy killed Adam we saw that she has the potential to do
a lot more
than mundane physical combat. Possible sources for Slay-Power;
humanities
universal life-force like the Jedi's FORCE, although that would
not explain
why there are only female Slayers! A goddess that is on the side
of humans
in the fight to claim BuffyEarth teritory, Slayers would be spiritual
channels for the primary aspects of the Goddess to act in Sdale.The
PTB cast
a spell on the First Slayer to help even the odds for humanity.A
primal
lifeforce that likes combat, and hopeless odds...LOL.
I'm waiting for Joss-god to clarify how the Slayers' powers work.
So far it
has just been Dracula and Primative telling Buffy that she doesn't
know what
she is/what's to come.
Blaaah! The WC has been around for centuries and they still don't
know much
about the origins of Slaypower. Buffy has proffetic dreams, but
they are
warnings about events or the current Bdale menace. Her preiciance
is a
totally subconcious ability/ or from TPTB like Cordy.
If you have any other ideas about what gives the Slayer her power
I would
like to hear them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish... pixies in my head
whispered it
-- imcj, 02:01:37 04/12/01 Thu
I'm still trying to figure it out myself.
I totally see your point.
There are aspects which are un clear to me.
Regarding the psychic visions. The premonitions if you will that
Buffy has.
Not to far off from Cordy's visions. But in a sense all a different
kind.
If you notice, Cordy has "straightforward visions"
Whereas with Buffy hers appear to be more "symbolic"
rather then "direct."
It isn't shown that all Slayer's have this ability. From what
I've seen.
Only Buffy has shown this talent. Which doesn't mean Slayers can
or cannot
have it? But it does seem to come in handy for Buffy, if she actually
sits
down and tries to understand them.
The source of these psychic visions is unclear. We are at a lose
when is
comes to these matters. For sure with Cordy it's definitely from
the PTB.
The characters who seem to possess psychic vision are Buffy, Drusilla,
and
Cordy.
All three have different style when it occurs. And I assume a
different
source. I mean why would the PTB be sending Dru psychic messages,
ya know.
Buffy's visions appear to be, as I said symbolic. And only seem
to occur
during sleep. She has visions where IMO every little thing has
a meaning and
the message of the vision is dependent on the interpretation of
it. I would
consider them prophetic visions
one of the many aspects found in being Clairvoyant. I assume Buffy
has had
this skill all her life, like her Slayer skills. I think it comes
with her
Slayer package.
Drusilla's visions appear to be more direct compared to Buffy's.
I doubt she
sees them like Buffy does. For one she is awake during these weird
yet funny
moments when she gets a vision. I swear she's cool she explains
them so
coolio. I always adore then LOL at her when she gets a vision.
Dru: "Eyes like needles. He sees you. Sees what you were.
You'll never be
alone again. He's watching you, my sweet, right now. He wants
to punish us.
He thinks we've been naughty. He remembers when you were warm."
Dru: "All in your head. I can see it. Little bit of ... plastic,
spiderwebbing out nasty blue shocks. And every one is a lie. Electricity
lies, Spike. It tells you you're not a bad dog, but you are."
Dru: "But it's so funny. I knew ... before you did. I knew
you loved the
Slayer. The pixies in my head whispered it to me."
Definitely Dru has a more wider range then Buffy, I would place
her as full
Clairvoyant. Her visions seem to surpass time and she knows when
things will
happened -- have happened -- are happening. Too bad she's a psycho,
but I
guess that's part of her charm. This talent Dru has had since
she was human.
One of the reasons Angelus picked on her was her gift of sight.
Cordy has direct yet sometimes vague but more so direct then Buffy's
or
Dru's. She gets headaches and pain with them too while awake.
It's been said
on the show they are sent via the PTB. And she is a seer. I guess
she would
fall under being Clairvoyant. Her seer abilities were transferred
to her.
She wasn't born with it.
Sorry dude I sorta went OT.
UH okay bye.
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish... pixies in
my head whispered
it -- Wiccagrrl, 11:46:30 04/12/01 Thu
It isn't shown that all Slayer's have this ability. From what
I've seen.
Only Buffy has shown this talent. Which doesn't mean Slayers can
or cannot
have it? But it does seem to come in handy for Buffy, if she actually
sits
down and tries to understand them
Actually, I think they do tend to come with the slayer package.
Ok, maybe
not *all* slayers have them, But in addition to Buffy, Faith pretty
clearly
had at least some prophetic dreams.
The Grad Day Two dream, where they appear to be interacting, and
Faith
"passes along" the info about the Mayor's weakness.
Even if you think that's actually Buffy's dream, you have "This
Year's Girl"
where it is *clearly* Faith's dream, and not only is it a revisit
of the
Grad Day dream (implying that *was* a shared dream) but Faith
makes a
comment about little sis coming (which foreshadows Dawn coming)
I do think the dreams are somehow connected to the slayer source.
It makes
sense, especially since in Restless, they were the first Slayer's
access to
Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish... pixies
in my head
whispered it -- imcj, 12:22:57 04/12/01 Thu
I was gonna put that down about Faith showing signs of this talent
too. But
hesitated to due to the "who's dream was it in" factor.
But I agree with
you. I do think it possibly is part of the Salyer Pakcage. ESP,
is so
clearly a slayer thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish...
pixies in my head
whispered it -- Wiccagrrl, 15:48:26 04/12/01 Thu
Well, in Grad Day there is doubt about whose dream it is, but
in This Year's
Girl, it is Faith's dream, so I'd say she does have some signs
of that gift,
too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish... pixies
in my head
whispered it -- Rufus, 15:24:23 04/12/01 Thu
There is a big difference between Buffy and Faith. Faith was more
interested
in what the physical power of slaying got her. Buffy has been
more involved
in actually helping others. When Faith was in Buffys body she
got a glimpse
of what really being the slayer could be...and I think she liked
it. Slayer
power needs to be practised, not used for gain. If Faith is able
to get past
her rage and fear she will be able to fully use her slayer power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish...
pixies in my head
whispered it -- Wiccagrrl, 17:46:00 04/12/01 Thu
I think Buffy is a very good balance between Kendra's approach
to slaying
(very matter-of-fact, all business, keep the emotions out of it)
and Faith's
(All emotion/adrenaline rush/ pure instinct) She's lasted this
long because,
yes, she has ties to the world, but also because she has managed
pretty well
at figuring out where the slayer ends and Buffy begins. She knows
how to
access her emotions to give her fighting that much more "punch",
but she can
also pull back from the darkness (unlike Faith, who pretty much
got
swallowed whole by it)
Now, will that still be true in the aftermath of "The Body"?
We'll have to
wait and see, but I'd bet yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy's psychic skills being separate
from her Slayer skills
-- Sebastian, 18:13:02 04/12/01 Thu
I just wanted to dispute that Slayer's have psychic powers.
In This Year's Girl, Faith's dream really was not prophetic. It
was
symboilc, yes, but it really wasn't prophetic.
It has been shown several times that Buffy's dreams are clearly
psychic. The
times when Faith and Buffy had a shared dream could have been
Bufy's mind
*actively* interacting with Faith's.
There has been instances of people showing individual powers -
Bethany's
telekinesis in "Angel" is one thing that comes to mind.
It could very well be that Buffy's psychic power could have been
her own
individual power that could have been triggered by the activation
of her
Slayer powers (we have to remember that a Slayer's power does
not activate
until the previous Slayer dies - at least - that's what I have
assumed)
Remember, Slayers have intuition (in terms of sensing vampires,
etc), but do
not neccesarily have psychic powers. Kendra and Faith nver exhibted
Buffy's
level of psychic power.
Thoughts?.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's psychic skills
being separate from her Slayer
skills -- Wiccagrrl, 18:19:46 04/12/01 Thu
Faith mentions "little sis coming" in the dream in This
Year's Girl, (Just
like she did in the GD dream) so there *was* some level of
prophecy/foreshadowing in that dream. (Little sis obviously refering
to
Dawn) Plus, they are making the bed, again, which ties it to the
Grad Day
dream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's psychic
skills being separate from her
Slayer skills -- Sebastian, 18:28:11 04/12/01 Thu
True - but wasn't that another instance of a shared dream?
I might be wrong - and please correct me if I am - but didn't
Buffy have the
dream too?
That's what I mean with Buffy's power *actively* pulling Faith
into the
dream.
I've read theories of people with psychic abilties being able
to enter a
plane of existance called the Astral Plane - and some are strong
enough that
they can pull someone with non-psychic powers into the AP as well.
Faith's dream could be an example of Buffy pulling her into a
shared dream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's psychic
skills being separate from her
Slayer skills -- Wiccagrrl, 18:40:07 04/12/01 Thu
In TYG? I didn't get the impression it was shared. It was a dream
Faith had
while in the Coma. But even if both were instances of shared dreams,
or if
Faith's dream in TYG was based on the shared dream of in Grad
Day, I think
that shows a certain psychic sensitivity, and/or a connection
between the
two (because of the slayer powers?) that can be most easily accessed
during
dreamtime. Faith and Buffy both experienced dreams that were in
the same
setting, doing the same things (making the bed) and referenceing
future
events. In Restless, the dreams are connected/shared because of
the spell
they did calling on the first slayer/source of slayer power. I
think there
IS a connection between slayer power and the psycic dreams. Buffy
may be
more sensitive for some reason, but it's not totally unrelated
IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's
psychic skills being separate from
her Slayer skills -- Sebastian, 07:55:44 04/13/01 Fri
You're right. I hopped on over to the Buffy Shooting Script site
just to
check - and the introduction scene where Faith mentions "little
sis" is the
dream when she wakes up.
I concur with your point. ;-)
ALTHOUGH....(I have to argue this a little more, of course). ;-)
........I
still think that Buffy's psychic powers are stronger than the
average
Slayer, IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Buffy's psychic skills being separate from
her Slayer skills -- Wiccagrrl, 08:30:30 04/13/01 Fri
Oh, I agree. For whatever reason, she does seem particularly sensitive
in
that department. She seems, in many ways, to be extraordinary,
even for a
slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's psychic skills being separate
from her Slayer skills -- Rufus, 14:58:37 04/13/01 Fri
If she is more sensitive it's because she has had a few things
happen that
to my knowledge haven't happened to slayers before. She has returned
from
the dead, and she has tapped into the power of the first slayer
to defeat
Adam. Her powers are growing because she has lived long enough
to use them,
and is open to different ideas helping her adapt. She is not just
an
instrument, she is independant of her source of information. With
this
freedom she has been innovative in changing the slayers function
from a
weapon to be used by the CoW to an individual capable of independant
thought
and action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Source of Slayer Power-spoillerish... pixies
in my head
whispered it -- Anthony8, 13:14:39 04/16/01 Mon
It seems to me that the prophetic dreams are part of the Slayer
package.
Moreover, they are not limited to symbolic images, but reveal
actual events
or even things that could happen if the Slayer does not take action.
Case in
point would be Buffy's dreams in the beginning of WTHM (showing
the dead
rising in concert with the Master's Harvest). Also, in the first
episode of
the series, in response to Buffy's claims that she's retiring
as a Slayer,
Giles makes the comment something to the effect of: "it's
not as if you are
having the dreams." This would indicate to me that "the
dreams" are part of
the Slayer's powers.
Darla & Angelus Time line. -- Halcyon, 05:07:00 04/12/01 Thu
I am submitting a partial timeline based on what he have seem
on both Buffy
& Angel just to clear some misconceptions I have seen on various
websites on
Angel and Buffy.
1609: Darla is sired by the Master
1727: Liam is born in Galway.
1753: Liam dies and Angelus is sired.
1760: Angelus's first meeting with the Master, Darla's sire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Darla & Angelus Time line. -- Halcyon, 05:26:31 04/12/01
Thu
Here's some bits I missed of the first post.
France 1765: Angelus and Darla are pursued by Holtz.
America 1799: Angelus sires Penn and becomes Penn's mentor and
encourages
the young vampire to feed on his family.
London 1860: Angelus torments and sires Drusilla.
London 1880: Drusilla growing lonely sires Spike.
Yorkshire 1880: Spike's actions force Angelus, Darla, Drusilla
& Spike to
flee London.
Borsa, Rumania 1898: Exactly 145 years after Angelus was sired
by Darla, she
brings a gypsy girl to feed upon. Angelus is cursed by the Kalderash,
he
flees back to where he and Darla are living, upon learning what
has happened
to Angelus she rejects him and drives him into the streets. He
attempts to
feed on a Rumanian woman but finds himself unable to do so. Darla
attempts
to get the Kalderash Elder to reverse the curse but Spike eats
the hostages.
1898-1900: Angel pursues Darla to China and tries to take up his
old life
during the Boxer Rebellion. He fails and flees with a young baby
from Darla.
1900: Spike kills his first Slayer.
Hyperion Hotel Los Angeles 1952: Angel tries to help Judy but
at the urgings
of a Thesulac demon she accuses him of murder and a lynch mob
hangs him.
Manhattan 1996: Whistler recruits Angel as a Warrior for the Powers
That Be.
Sunnydale 1996-1998: He becomes Buffy's ally and meets Darla for
the first
time since the Boxer Rebellion. Darla is staked for the first
time by Angel.
Sunnydale 1998: He loses his soul and Angelus is free after a
century.
Sunnydale 1998: Angelus is cursed again and cast into Hell for
the earthly
equivalent of 500 years.
Sunnydale 1999: The Powers That Be bring Angel back from Hell.
The First
Evil tries to corrupt Angel.
Sunnydale 1999: Angel leaves Sunnydale after breaking up with
Buffy.
Los Angeles 1999: With the help of Cordelia & Doyle he runs Angel
Investigations.
Los Angeles 1999: Doyle sacrifies himself.
Los Angeles 1999/2000: Wesley becomes a member of Angel Investigations.
Los Angeles 2000: Faith arrives in LA and turns herself into the
LAPD.
Los Angeles 2000: Darla is raised by Wolfram & Hart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Master Time line. -- Jenster, 15:05:18 04/17/01
Tue
This may be slightly off topic, but what was the Master up to
in North
America so early in the continent's history, and was it his origin,
do we
think?
Angel's Child -- Vulpes, 09:30:52 04/12/01 Thu
Do you remember in Darla, Angel saved the life of a missionary's
baby. I
wonder what happened to the child. I would like to see a show
were Angel was
somehow involved in the child's life. It would be interesting
to see the
child grow up and have Angel appear and reappear in the child's
life. The
child would grow up if male to be a boy then a teen, then a young
man and
then an old man. Angel would remain the same.
Any Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel's Child -- VanMoodySenior, 22:05:27 04/12/01 Thu
I got an idea. What if the child was an ancestor of Buffy? That
would be
ironic to say the least. But I think you have brought up an excellent
idea
for a show. I always like to see the flash back episodes. I would
like to
see an episode where we find out how the Master got so powerful
and how he
became a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> AnOther Idea for future shows (please add more PPL) -- Emcee003,
02:31:40
04/13/01 Fri
What about Flashbacks to other lovers of Angel, I mean there has
to be more
that what we know, or do we wanna know?????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: AnOther Idea for future shows (please add more
PPL) -- Wiccagrrl,
09:30:47 04/13/01 Fri
Humm, what would I like to see? Well, I'm just gonna throw out
my "wish
list" and comments about where I'd like to see them go with
some things.
On Angel...Cordy getting a storyline, more of Gunn's gang, possibly
some of
Wesley's backstory, hoping that Virgina isn't gone for good, more
about
Faith, Kate, the Host, and possibly some more flashbacks featuring
the
Master (cause he's cool) Getting kinda tired of Darla/Angelus
flashbacks,
unless they really add something to the story that we really don't
know. I
think they've covered most of the major turning points in that
relationship,
and I've enjoyed it thoroughly, but...time to move on. New stuff,
fine.
Flashbacks cause they look good in the period costumes? Pass.
In general, more interaction of the Bat Pack.
Angelus probably had many, many women...none of whom I'd really
consider a
major part of his story. I don't know that I really think Angel
had much of
lovelife between trying to go back to Darla in "Darla"
and falling for
Buffy. He seems to have pretty much shut himself off from both
humans and
other vamps. And yeah, it was 100 years, but I'm betting there
was no one
serious during that time. I think we've seen the most important
influences
on him as far as his love life goes, at least so far. We've seen
Darla (the
woman who led him into darkness), we've seen Dru (the living reminder
of
what he himself called the worst thing he'd done) and we know
about Buffy
(who, I would argue, helped him find a way out of the darkness.)I
wouldn't
mind seeing a new love interest, although at this point I think
that will
probably not be Angel's priority.
What would I like to see on Buffy:
Sticking to love-life issues for a moment, I'd like to see Buffy
stay single
gal for a bit. She's got so much going on in her life that I really
don't
see the need for a new guy at this point. Love W/T, and X/A. Would
like to
see them deal a bit more with Anya's past, but I think these two
couples are
very sweet. I would like Giles to have more of a storyline, and
I'd be
thrilled to see Olivia back in the picture. Or someone for him.
He deserves
a lovelife. And eventually, far down the line, maybe in the last
ep of Angel
(assuming Angel outlasts Buffy) I'd love to see B/A find their
way back to
each other, with many of their issues behind them (Angel Shanshuing?)
In more general terms, I'd like to see Buffy dealing with her
dark
side/slayer roots. Flashbacks to more slayers. I want to see Ethan
and Amy
come back for an ep or two. Faith. I think the aftermath of the
Body is
gonna be incredible, and I am looking forward to seeing how Buffy
and Dawn
cope.
More SG interaction, the gang pulling together like they should.
Getting
back to focus on the core four.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: AnOther Idea for future shows (please add
more PPL) --
VanMoodySenior, 13:12:26 04/13/01 Fri
I would also like to see other vamps who were sired by Angelus.
I really
liked the story of Penn, and I know there must be more out there.
This way
Angel continually has to deal with his past, which is what most
of us have
to do anyways.
How do watchers predict who will be next???? -- Emcee003, 11:52:37
04/12/01
Thu
Kendra(wot eva)and Faith has/d memorys of things with there watchers
meaning
that they had a watcher before "the Gift/powers" so
that means that the WC
know who could be next is this so or just a hole in the plot???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How do watchers predict who will be next???? -- imcj,
12:17:26
04/12/01 Thu
It does appear that the WC, has some knowledge of who are Slayers
and not.
Its not shown how they know this, just that they have pre knowledge
of who
will be called next and who has poetential in becoming a Slayer.
So it's not given whether they have this knowledge via supernatural
force or
not.
Your bet is as best as mine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How do watchers predict who will be next???? --
Wiccagrrl,
18:14:02 04/12/01 Thu
I always got the impression that they didn't know for sure, but
that there
were many possible candidates (Kendra was taken at a very early
age and
began to be trained. Buffy doesn't seem to have been found by
the WC until
after she was called. We don't really know when Faith was first
contacted.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How do watchers predict who will be next????
-- Rufus, 20:06:09
04/12/01 Thu
The Watchers aren't perfect (unless you ask them of course)but
it seems that
with 3 alchemists on the board of directors alone show that they
have
talents over and above of bookeeping. They did say that Buffy
was an
oversight and was missed somehow. They may have ways of finding
the slayer
that doesn't entail travelling until needed.
OT: Wicca if you are on aim mail me your name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> If they know, y not kill Faith and move
on??? -- Emcee003,
03:10:47 04/13/01 Fri
If this is so why do they not kill faith and start up with the
next slayer?
Or a less drastic option free Faith as part of a deal for control
on her???
Or is Faith just going to rot in a cell??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: If they know, y not kill Faith
and move on??? -- imcj,
07:07:39 04/13/01 Fri
The WC already tried to KILL Faith TYG.
It didn't work.
Going to jail was an attempt of redemption on Faith's behalf.
Maybe she'll show up for the 100th ep. And help out. Two Slayers
is usually
a good thing.
Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Nina, 12:03:44 04/12/01
Thu
(I haven't read any spoilers, so this post is merely exploring
some thoughts
and speculations.)
Last year Giles went through a life crisis. This year I believe
that Buffy
and Spike are going through one as well.
They are both exploring parts of themselves they wish wouldn't
exist.
Spike's humanity and Buffy's darkness.
I know I have been going from one side of the fence to the other,
but I am
tired of that. I'll take a stand and say that the way I see it
now, Spike
isn't going for redemption. He isn't going to be a good guy and
he isn't
going to be a bad guy either. So where do I stand exactly? I'll
go with my
third path theory.
The writers could go for redemption, for a love story, for a big
bad guy...
but I believe we've been fooled around once more. Because Spike
wants to
impress Buffy with good deeds we are asking him to redeem himself
and do
good deeds selflessly. It could be an option, but the more I look
at this
season the more I think that what's happening is not a redemption,
but Spike
having himself a life wish.
Think about it a moment. Buffy is the slayer. Because she has
a soul she is
on the good side of the spectrum, but her powers are rooted in
darkness. She
has a death wish. Whether she acknowledges it or not, death will
be a relief
for her as a slayer. She won't have to kill anymore. (I know some
people
disagree, but well it's my humble opinion here!)
Spike is a vampire. Because he has no soul he is on the evil side
of the
spectrum, but the the way I see it, as much as Buffy is rooted
in darkness,
he is rooted in the light, in life (what he used to be as a human).
To me
Spike has a life wish. He is not trying to redeem himself. He
is exploring
his humanity (like Buffy is exploring her darkness).
Redemptionistas (and I am still one of them) wants him to change
and do good
for good without asking for brownies points. But I think we are
missing the
real point. Maybe the ultimate path could be redemption, but I
don't think
it's going to happen this year. Spike is merely being seen trying
to fit in
as much as possible as a human. His crypt looks like a bachelor
apartment,
his relationship with Harmony was down right human, he's eating
and drinking
like a human, he tries to change and wear clothes to be more human.Not
good,
but human.
We are seeing his human side trying to kick in. In 'NPLH' when
he acts like
a teenage-William, in 'FFl' when pain in Buffy's eyes goes right
to his
heart, when old instincts take over (like opening the door for
Buffy in
'ItW' and 'Crush', giving a helping hand in 'LtF'), spending time
listening
to Joyce's story, needing to stage a fake date with Buffy at the
warehouse,
rehearsing his line (like Riley used to) in 'Triangle'...etc.
He is not doing any of this because he wants to be good. He just
craves for
humanity and somehow the romantic Spike has found his muse in
Buffy. She
impersonates life to him. He's fallen in love with her. With life.
I think the roots of Spike's love for Buffy are both the slayer
part and the
"alive" part of her. Darkness and light. Spike to impress
his muse tries to
change himself by becoming something he is not. He is not good.
He doesn't
have regrets. Probably never will either. But like a bug he is
attracted to
the light and needs to be near it and crushed by it if that's
the only
solution.
As long as we try do see Spike as becoming good and selfless we
can be
shocked by his behavior this season (the stalking guy, the chained
Buffy in
"Crush", the Buffybot...), but if we see Spike through
another perspective,
his behavior has been constant. He is exploring his life wish...
Like we all
have crisis in our lives he's having one right now. His human
side is way
too prominent for the ideal vampire model. He is dealing with
an internal
battle.
Buffy deals with her internal battle as well. In her case she
deals with her
boxes. Weird concept? Let me explain. The concept isn't mine (I
read it
elsewhere and bad me I don't remember the name of the poster!)
but I think
it explains Buffy pretty well. Psychologically, Buffy organizes
her life in
boxes. The slayer box, the mom box, The University box, the boyfriend
box,
Dawn box, Spike box, the SG box.... She has her boxes ordered
in her head
and expects each box to behave accordingly to what she believe
they are. An
example? I'll quote that line in 'Trianle' when she says to Dawn:
"Stop
being insightful, it's creepy". The insightful one is usually
Spike who is
creepy. Dawn has to stick to Dawn Box. Spike to Spike Box and
etc...
This year she is faced with her boxes not responding to her like
she wants
to. In NPLH Dawn Box is taking a blow. In FFL, The Slayer Box
is talking a
blow, in ItW Boyfriend Box is crushed, in "Crush" Spike
Box is crushed, in
"The body" Mom Box is crushed. All she still has is
Dawn Box, slayer Box
(but both have already received blows) and the SG box, but her
world is
slowly being crushed around her. It seems to me that Buffy's lesson
through
her personal crisis is to learn that she invented her boxes to
protect
herself, but that she can't live with boxes anymore. She has to
accept that
people are not always what they seem to be.
Well it's another way to look at things, but I like putting Spike
and Buffy
on a similar crisis path. Both looking at the extreme possibility
of their
spectrum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nina's Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Vulpes,
12:27:35
04/12/01 Thu
Great writting and great theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nina's Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes --
Ramo, 20:26:00
04/12/01 Thu
Wow!!!!! I've had these thoughts and theories about Spike and
Buffy (mostly
Spike), and there it is organized and put together in great words!!!
Personally, I'm not a redemptionist, and I'm glad Nina mentioned
that Spike
probably won't get any. It's just very depressing, because Spike
wants to be
on the good (or human) side, but they won't except him, so he
has no choice
but to go back to the evil side. He'll probably start inching
back to evil
by making the Buffy Bot.
Anyway, I'll just enjoy it while it lasts (I like Spike's new
lifestyle).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- JoRus, 12:31:40
04/12/01 Thu
I really like the Third Path you've got here, Nina...it's got
room for the
opposing viewpoints to make peace. The redemptionistas can still
allow for
Spike's behavior as a seeking of the light (any light...wait...it's
a bug
zapper! Can you tell I liked your analogy?). And the "Spike
is the very
heart (or unsoul, but prolly not lungs) of evil as a vamp"
camp to cheer up,
instead of wondering continuously why he isn't staked. I've long
thought
Spike isn't staked because he's watching Passions, aka soap operas,
or
eating onion flowers (a relative of garlic, mind you). Or decorating
with
garden gnomes. Spike and Harmony have been our most human vamps,
with human
flaws and riddled with human traits.And you're right about Spike
loving
life...he wants to snog Buffy, sure...but he wants to hang out
at the
Bronze, drinking microbrews, playing pool, listening to the Ramones...just
as much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- The Godfather,
13:28:41
04/12/01 Thu
My basic problem with that is that I don't really see Spike's
"love" for
Buffy as such. I tend to think that his helplessness and frustration
made
him subconsiously decide that since he couldn't act on his hate
for her, he
oughta to turn it into something that he could at upon. Even that
he's
screwing up brilliantly.
I can see where life wish comes in except that unlike Angel, he
isn't
seeking many human comforts. Angel went for a soft bed, Spike
still likes
his crypt..in fact his crypt is very much his sanctuary..and effortlessly.
He's not forcing it to be vamp-like..it's just his.
Sure he eats at the Bronze and hangs out but that has to do with
Spike being
a more social vamp...he hates being alone. And I think he does
want to
understand Buffy better so that he can figure out how to charm
her so he
haunts local hang-outs and watches.
That said though, he is still plainly disdainful of many things
human in
nature and of the weakness shown in them.
And I don't agree that Buffy is looking down the path of darkness..I
actually think for the first time in her life she is converging
on the
light..truth in her life. It's through a harsh tunnel but it's
there..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Rufus,
14:41:46 04/12/01
Thu
Well, I do see Spikes attention to Buffy as love. There are many
kinds of
love. I think his started as sexual mixed up with the fighting,
and has
evolved to more as he realised the truth. That's when he started
to try to
find the right thing to get her attention. The problem was that
before, to
get the proper attention from the girl(Dru),all he had to do was
bring home
some live take out....now he has to consider going against everything
his
nature has told him to do. His attempts have been both funny and
sad. He has
used vampire tactics to get the girl, and it doesn't work for
a mortal. If
he were his normal self he would never have considered the idea
of
chocolates or doing something to make Buffy happy at all, he would
have been
fixated on killing her to make the foreign feeling of love go
away. Buffy is
still in his mind as an ideal of a woman to love, Dru is the first
woman
that ever wanted him for himself. He seems destined to chase what
he can't
have.
With Buffy it is a different story, she has always chased the
normal life,
something she will never have. Even with Angel she tried to make
the
relationship "normal" in appearance, she even would
forget for a moment how
different her relationships and life was. One moment that I remember
was
when she opened the curtains burning Angel, she forgot and for
a moment felt
normal with a normal guy. Buffy is on a journey, it will be the
journey
through her darkness that will let her find the light, and become
happy with
herself and accept her life.
Spikes journey is still a bit uncertain. His case is akin to the
analogy to
addiction. Addiction to killing. He is in a prison, one who's
confines are
those of the chip. He also has a form of methadone in that he
kills demons
now. But killing demons doesn't give him the rush that killing
mortals used
to. So I reserve judgement for when the chip comes out to see
if he can stay
on the methadone and not get tempted to feel the rush of the real
thing. I
do see a chance for him to go either way. Once the idea of the
soul placing
the souled and souless on a spectrum both starting at the middle,
I thought,
that gives both parties room to choose which way to go. As we
have souled
people become truly evil, we have the chance that the souless
can have the
same chance to change. The funny part is that on both sides they
would both
be considered deviants. Even with our souled having their compass
set to
good a few lose their way never to return, can that happen with
any souless
beings?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- The
Godfather, 14:56:45
04/12/01 Thu
Somehow I got lost in the comparing of B/A to B/S..I guess I just
don't see
it..B/A may have hurt but they never wanted to hurt each other..I
don't for
a minute believe that a strong part of Spike's wnat for Buffy
is hurt
based..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Rendyl,
05:57:56
04/13/01 Fri
Does he/doesn't he...is he/is he not...redemption/evil/dancing
on the line
between...
Agggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(repeat the following until sanity reasserts)
Four more days to a new episode...Four more days to a new episode...Four
more days to a new episode...Four more days to a new episode...
(adding chocolate couldn't hurt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Solitude1056,
07:28:34
04/13/01 Fri
Very insightful & well-said!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Rufus, 15:23:10
04/13/01 Fri
If you want to think outside the box for a bit, consider some
of what the
writers have said. They used the term serial killer. So look at
serial
killers, how many are there in our population? Then consider souless
vampires. In our souled society a serial killer is far from the
norm, in
fact there aren't many of them. In vampire society being what
we call a
serial killer is the norm, something to strive for and be proud
of. Now for
a bit of irony. Most serial killers act upon sexual fixations
and fantasies,
now you have Spike with a sexual fixation with Buffy, he says
that something
is going on with me. He is changing and even he doesn't know why.
So, you
get a vampire that may be changing because of a sexual fixation
that would
make a human act out by killing, but with chip in place and the
time to
consider Spike is no longer considering killing Buffy. As we have
few serial
killers, what would vampire society consider a vampire that no
longer
murders humans? He would be thought of in a way that we consider
killers as
mortals. At this moment Spike is at the wrong side of the spectrum
to be
considered normal as a vampire. Do they punish vampires that don't
comply to
vampire society norms?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- The Godfather,
15:47:11
04/13/01 Fri
I dunno. I would think that were there a vamp court, their first
action
would be incarceration until teh chip could be removed..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's life wish and Buffy's boxes -- Nina, 15:56:26
04/13/01 Fri
I like your take on this Rufus. I think one of the great quality
of the show
is also to follow logically the psychology of the characters.
They are not
afraid to deal with difficult issues. Lots of people say: "Get
the chip out
of Spike's head". That's an option, but it's even more interesting
to deal
with the psychology of a killer unable to kill. As you say Spike
is now on
the wrong side of his spectrum. He's dealing with it, but not
happy about
it.
JW said that this year was about Family. Other people have said
it was about
identity. Each character is evolving from what he/she was in season
4. Giles
has found back his title and job, Xander has found a steady job
as well, a
place in the world (even a new apartment), Anya is slowly learning
what it
really means to be human, Willow and Tara are living their love
freely and
openly, Dawn has learn about her origins (well she doesn't know
everything
yet... but I guess she will!), Spike's way to deal with the chip
has made
him explore his human side, and Buffy has the weight of the world
on her
shoulder once again. She has to be the slayer/student/mom/friend/girlfriend
all at once.
What's really interesting is that they are not trying to push
the characters
around and make them evolve too fast. One step at a time (like
in real
life0. That's why when I look at Spike this season, it is consistent
for me.
JM said last year that what JW had planned for Spike was brilliant.
Let's
believe him! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Really nice post, Nina. (n/t) -- OnM, 21:49:33 04/13/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you! I just wanted to share the thoughts with
you all! :) --
Nina, 08:35:01 04/14/01 Sat
astral plane - slayer esp - Replies: from post down the list.
- Revisited --
imcj, 20:16:59 04/12/01 Thu
Sebastian: That's what I mean with Buffy's power *actively* pulling
Faith
into the dream.
I've read theories of people with psychic abilties being able
to enter a
plane of existance called the Astral Plane - and some are strong
enough that
they can pull someone with non-psychic powers into the AP as well.
Faith's dream could be an example of Buffy pulling her into a
shared dream.
Telepathy is the psychic phenomena by which communication occurs
between
minds, or mind-to-mind communication. Such communication includes
thoughts,
ideas, feelings, sensations and mental images.
It is safe to conclude that the dreams occurring with Buffy and
Faith in
'TYG' and 'GP2' are Telepathic in origin. Whether the two are
aware such a
connection is going on is another topic.
I highly doubt that either one of them (Faith, Buffy) were in
the Astral
Plane, AKA Astral World. I would say that the 'Restless' episode
would be a
more possible account for Astral World travel, because a dead
person's
(First Slayer) essence communicated with Giles', Buffy's, Xander's
and
Willow's mind.
Theosophical studies explain the Astral Plane or Astral World
usually as an
after-death abode
where communications occur between those that have passed away
into the
after life. When a human dies it is said that they enter the second
lowest
realm of seven realms of the Astral World. People with higher
thought levels
have a longer timeframe within this realm and viceversa, those
with lower
thought levels have a lesser timeframe.
However, it is possible among clairvoyants and ordinary people
to be aware
of the Astral World. They may enter the Astral world through Astral
Projection, the act of separating the Astral Body from the physical
body.
This projection may come when asleep, or through highly induced
trances or
using drugs. In both cases whether the living or the dead have
entered the
Astral World, an 'Astral Body' is present. The Astral Body is
the spiritual
ether counter part of the body.
This plane of reality is said to be between the mental realm and
the
elemental realm. There are seven dimensions or realities within
it. It is
also noted that not only human astral projections inhabit the
Astral World.
Non-human beings like fairies, devas, elemental spirits and demons
both evil
and good.
Heaven and Hell are also present in the Astral World.
There are as stated seven different realities or divisions with
the Astral
World. The lowest division is called Avichi, which is more or
less equal to
hell. It is very much similar to the Christian Hell, except for
the fact
that the Astral Bodies have the option in due time to pass this
division on
to a higher one if permitted, unlike the eternality torments in
the
Christian hell. In a sense Avichi is a purgatorial sate. The sixth
division
is where the Astral Body finds themselves in familiar surroundings
with
former friends and relatives these Astral Bodies do not realize
they are
dead. The next three higher divisions, is where Earthly cares
are
nonexistent. The next level up is the Spiritualistic realm. Where
inhabitants reside in a world created by their thoughts. All in
this realm
are formed through the influence of thoughts. The next realm up
is equal to
heaven. Where Christians and Hindus, etc., find heaven to be just
as they
previously conceived it before death. After this realm a change
occurs
within the Astral Body and it then enters the Mental World, after
along
timeframe without self-interest or goals.
I would place the 'Restless' EP in the either the Spiritualistic
realm,
which AKA is called 'Summerland.' Or the sixth realm/division.
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: astral plane - slayer esp - Replies: from post down
the list. -
Revisited -- Sebastian, 12:53:45 04/13/01 Fri
Thanks for the info - it has been awhile since I read materials
concerning
the Astral Plane - so its good to know that someone here can provide
some
background. :-)
I agree - I think Buffy and Faith's dream falls under the realm
of
telepathy/psychic dreams.
Although it still stands that Buffy's ESP powers are WAY above
average. Her
dreams in "Surprise", "Graduation Day" and
"Hush" (she daydreamed about the
Gentleman) are proof of that.
It really seems like Angel killed a Senior Partner -- VanMoodySenior,
22:00:41 04/12/01 Thu
Here we have the host and Angel talking about the Senior Partner.
Angel: "What is 'it' and how do I stop it?"
Host: "I don't know and you don't."
Angel: "Can it be killed?"
Host: "Most anything that can manifest in order to move in
this
dimension can be killed. Kinda the down side of being here. That
and the so-called 'musicals' of Andrew Lloyd Webber."
Then Angel talks to Denver.
Angel: "Look, will the ring get me there or not?"
Denver: "Well, you got to get it first. And to get the
ring you've got to kill the Kleynach."
Angel: "How?"
Denver: "You happen to be looking at the one guy who can
tell
you how."
Angel: "How?!"
Denver: "To kill the Kleynach and get the ring you need the
glove."
Denver goes and takes another book from a shelf.
Angel: "Okay, now you're making this up."
Denver carrying an open book: "Legend says that the Kleynach
rose up from their demon world, raped and pillaged the villages
of man
and all who fought against them were incinerated, whether they
struck with
fist or sword. But one brave and worthy knight - he had a glove.
(Drops the book in front of Angel, displaying a rendition of the
glove)
Fashioned and blessed by all the powers of light. And whoever
wore
this glove could kill the Kleynach just by grabbing it at the
throat."
Denver walks into another part of his store and comes back carrying
a mailed glove.
So from these two scenes we know that most things can be destroyed
if they
come into our realm. The host says it is the down side of being
here. Then
we find out that the SP comes in the form of a Kleynack demon
but that the
Kleynack can be killed if someone has the glove. So Angel got
the glove and
killed the Kleynack, and since the SP was in the form he was killable
according to the host. I at least see it this way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It really seems like Angel killed a Senior Partner --
Virgill
Reality, 14:22:36 04/13/01 Fri
I've just watched the episode as it happens, but a lot of questions
are left
unanswered. This senior partner was made out to be the big boss,
the one at
the very top of not only Wolfram and Hart, but all that is evil.
All the way
through I thought what the hell could be so powerfully evil that
Wolfram and
Hart shudder at its presence and everyone's running around like
whack to
appease it with animal sacrifices and black masses? The way it
was going I
actually thought they were talking about the devil himself! Bald
bossman
(can't remember his name) bows before the Kleynack, and then Angel
just
swoops out and kills it??? Just like that?? What the heck is going
on?? Am I
the only one who thought this didn't make ANY sense?
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It really seems like Angel killed a Senior Partner
--
VanMoodySenior, 23:59:26 04/13/01 Fri
One other thing that really convinces me that the Senior Parter
was killed
was what Denver said. He said that the Kleynack needed the ring
to get back
to his dimension. But when Angel grabbed it around the throat
the ring is
still in our dimension, and Angel uses it.
To answer some of your question I think we have to realize there
is more
than one Senior Partner. Even if Angel killed one of them, there
are
probably at least 8 more or so.
The reason why it seemed so easy to kill the Kleynack was the
glove. It was
blessed by all the powers of light. This means it is powerful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It really seems like Angel killed a Senior Partner
-- Scott L.,
10:40:29 04/16/01 Mon
>>and then Angel just swoops out and kills it??? Just like
that?? <<
That's like saying, "All Frodo did was drop the ring in the
crack of doom."
:-)
Angel had to go through several quests to get to the swooping
and killing
part.
Besides, as has been said. He's just one senior partner. The term
implies
that there will be more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It really seems like Angel killed a Senior Partner --
Rufus, 14:50:24
04/13/01 Fri
I found a reference to the Senior Partners in the shooting script
that never
made it to the show.
Holland: :The Senior Partners are evil and powerful beyond imagination,
and
you can try to fight them, but the source of their power...that's
beyond all
of us."
Then a reference to the tasting.
Holland: "When you locked those cellar doors and left me
to die, you reached
your Shanshu. In that moment. With that one act -- you were as
close to your
own humanity as you'll ever be. If there wasn't evil in every
single one of
them out there, why, they wouldn't be people. They'd all be angels."
When I considered Epiphany and the change Angel made it was before
I read
these words but they are what I was thinking of when I said that
you can't
destroy evil using evil means. If Angel killed a Senior partner
it wouldn't
matter as evil is so infinate that it would be like a drop in
the ocean of
evil. And with the evil in our hearts and minds they are only
our dark
angels of encouragement, one partner dead makes no difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It really seems like Angel killed a Senior Partner
--
VanMoodySenior, 00:06:16 04/14/01 Sat
Rufus, I am not sure how much I trust in Holland's word. I mean
he is evil,
so he could be a liar. Take for instance he told Angel that the
home office
was our reality. Then when Lindsey finds out that Darla has the
ring, he
says that they had to spend half the meeting to disenchant it.
This tells me
that Holland was taking Angel for a ride to stall him. If they
hadn't
disenchanted the ring, then Angel might have gotten to the Senior
Parters
and killed the whole lot of them, which would make up for......
lol sorrry I
love Denver's character. I don't trust Holland Manners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It really seems like Angel killed a Senior
Partner -- Rufus,
01:54:59 04/14/01 Sat
I never said trust the man but I think he is clear on one thing...evil
is in
our hearts and minds waiting for snakes like him to encourage
it. Just think
of him as a salesman for hell, each time we do something sh*tty
to each
other he rings a bell and gets a commission.
Slay-Power, RE earlier post -- FanMan, 15:17:30 04/13/01 Fri
I started a thread about the source of Slayer powers.
My post was about all of Buffy's abilities. All of the replies
focussed on
psychic abilities.
Any speculation on where her other abilities come from?
The psychic thread was cool though...:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Slay-Power, RE earlier post -- Wiccagrrl, 16:07:13 04/13/01
Fri
Very good question, but they haven't really told us enough to
have a good
answer. Obviously, it's supernatural. Probably either from a god
or some
other force for good. (Possibly even a demon, a similar situation
as vamps,
but seemingly more interested in fighting on the human side of
the
human/demon "war")
Whatever the source, based on the first slayer it seems to be
very ancient
and primal, and pretty dark in nature. Also, why a young female?
And why,
except for rare occurences (like, Buffy's near-death experience
triggering
the calling of a new slayer) why one at a time? If there were
too many,
would it dilute that basic power source? And, the first slayer-
was she the
first vessel for this power or is she the source itself?
Sorry, I seem to have more questions than answers on this subject
;) I'm
hoping that we'll get more clarification in these next few eps.
Restless and
B vs. D hinted at this being a big theme, I'm hoping that'll come
to pass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Slay-Power, RE earlier post -- Sebastian, 21:50:22
04/13/01 Fri
TV Guide.com said that "Intervention" - the episode
after the new one this
week (woo-hoo!) deals with Buffy re-encountering the first Slayer.
So maybe we will get some insight then.
One thing I'm curious about - something that Masquarade's site
has touched
upon - was Buffy's comment when she died in Prophecy Girl"
(season finale of
season 1).
When she was revived - Xander asked if she was okay - she said
something
along the lines of "I feel strong. I feel different."
I'm wondering - considering how good Joss is at remembering details
like
that - if it would be touched upon. Especially since that episode
started
the 2nd Slayer deal (Kendra, Faith and all those good storylines...)
And does that mean there's something different in Buffy's powers
in
comparison to other Slayer's? Something that makes her powers
superior?
Thoughts?....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Slay-Power, RE earlier post -- Jessica,
12:56:44 04/14/01 Sat
Maybe when she died it was like she was called again, so maybe
she as her
old powers plus a new batch of powers so she might be twice as
strong as
others slayers. Another possibility is that since Buffy is one
or the only
slayer who as lived for so long (we don't know), maybe the slayers
powers
grow stronger with time but since slayers usually don't last long
she might
be one of the first to push the limits of the slayers power. Or
Buffy was
special before getting called and thats why she's so strong and
still alive.
Classic Movie of the Week - Apr. 13th 2001 -- OnM, 21:33:36 04/13/01
Fri
"Isn't it amazing? Is this what you thought it would be?
I certainly
didn't."
*******
Hummm, that could cover quite a lot of ground, couldn't it? With
the
soon-to-be-recommencing of
Adventures in the Buffyverse, we will finally get a chance to
stop
speculating, and see just what's really
cooking in the cosmic kitchen for our heroine and her battle for
truth,
justice and fer-crying-out-loud, a
little less angst, por favor??.
Cause you never really, *really* know for sure, do you? You may
think that
you have everything all
perfectly sussed out, handle on the real truth, fates all in alignment,
nine
ball in the side pocket, and then
*whammo*, along comes Mr. Heisenberger and his evil girlfriend
Mistress
Chaos... and yer toast.
So, what with uncertainty being the only predictable thing in
life, it's not
surprising in the least that a like
situation should arise for one Daniel Miller, and quite a lot
of other
recently deceased people in this week's
Classic Movie, *Defending Your Life*, written and directed by
the very
funny, and slyly observant Albert
Brooks.
Movies whose subject matter concerns what happens after the Big
Sleep takes
hold of us have ranged in
temperament from the profoundly philosophical to the patently
ludicrous, and
Brooks' film offers plenty of
both, although the chewy, profound center is rather deftly hidden
under a
light, fluffy candy outer coating.
In his take on the afterlife, we get to see Daniel (also played
by Brooks)
waking up, uh, somewhere like
Earth, but not exactly like either. F'rinstance, it's bright,
sunny and
pleasantly warm all the time, and
everything is perfectly organized, the trams all run right on
time, and the
extremely friendly folks who are
running the show are so advanced that they use 40-50% of their
brains. (You
don't want to know how
much *we* normally use, trust me! ) He discovers that he, as with
everyone
else in 'Judgment City', is
here for several days to 'defend his life'. If the process goes
well, he
will be allowed to 'move forward' to a
higher plane, otherwise he gets to go back to earth and try, try
again.
According to his 'defense counselor',
played hilariously by Rip Torn, Daniel has already apparently
been back
nearly 20 times, but is reassured
that, "it's not so bad, some people have been back over a
hundred times."
Although, Torn remarks, "You
might not want to hang out with any of them!"
Along the way, Daniel meets Julia (Meryl Streep) who he finds
himself
instantly attracted to, and at ease
with. The only problem is that she seems to be doing a rather
effortless job
of defending her life, while
Daniel isn't doing too well. It's the fear thing, you see-- he
has it, and
she doesn't. She rescues family pets
from a burning building, he has an anxiety attack right before
a big speech
and is saved from podium
catatonia only by the miraculous occurrence of a gas leak which
forces
everyone in the audience to
evacuate the premises. Oh well...
So does it all work out? Of, course, but then you knew that 20
minutes into
the flick, or you should have.
This isn't one for deep thought, but if you have a Little Brain
like me, you
will have a delightful time
watching *Defending Your Life*. Plus, you get to eat all you want
to and
never gain weight!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical stuff and news you can use: (well, I hope! ;)
*Defending Your Life* is available on DVD. The film was made in
1991, and
running time is 110 minutes.
The DVD version is in a moderate1.85:1 widescreen, and so is quite
viewable
on most TV's 27" or greater
in screen size, sound is standard Dolby Surround in French and
English.
Extras include theatrical trailers
and cast / filmmaker profiles, but there is no commentary track,
which is
probably unnecessary anyway,
since Brooks pretty much puts it all into the screenwriting.
As I was waiting for the nice lady at the video store to ring
up my
purchases earlier this week, she asked if
I was interested in any pre-orders, and began to rattle off a
list of
upcoming titles. One of them was rather
startling, considering that it is still playing in many theaters
across the
country as I write these very words.
Yes, fellow movie freaks, believe it or not, *Crouching Tiger,
Hidden
Dragon* is scheduled for release
_This June_!!! I ordered one, natch, not going to pass up a discount,
but
this is one flick well worth full
price, which if you've seen it, that's one more thing you already
know. Oh
my, can't hardly wait to viddy
that one again... and again...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Get ahold of yourself man......;) -- Rufus, 01:50:18 04/14/01
Sat
I'm glad that the release of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is
making you so
happy. But don't lose it, you have a new ep on Tuesday to watch.
I loved
Defending your Life and thought if that was what I had to do in
the
afterlife I'd be so screwed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Get ahold of yourself man......;) -- OnM, 19:06:51
04/14/01 Sat
*** "and thought if that was what I had to do in the afterlife
I'd be so
screwed." ***
You, me and a couple million others, methinks! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Get ahold of yourself man......;) -- Rufus,
19:30:21 04/14/01
Sat
Redemption - the writer or teller of the best fan fiction of their
life.
:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Apr. 13th 2001 -- Nina,
08:51:35 04/14/01
Sat
Yeah! Another movie I have seen! It's been rather a long time
though and I
am not sure I'd be qualify to talk about it!
"Cause you never really, *really* know for sure, do you?
You may think that
you have everything all perfectly sussed out, handle on the real
truth,
fates all in alignment, nine ball in the side pocket, and then
*whammo*,
along comes Mr. Heisenberger and his evil girlfriend Mistress
Chaos... and
yer toast. "
I like that! This is true. We never know. It can also be true
for Buffy's
spoilers. Maybe the need to know is in the human nature, but it's
so much
more fun when you don't know. How life would be if we knew chapter
after
chapter what is going to happen? What if we could get spoilers
for our own
lives? What if we could figure out what would happen when we die?
How? When?
Where are we going after? Would life be as much as interesting
as it is
right now?
It's all about dreams, isn't it? The ability to dream and to be
surprised
and to let go with the flow. When I scroll down some message boards
I am so
surpised to see how so many people need to know. They can't wait
anymore.
They don't want to dream anymore. They want to know everything
even if they
know that the surprise will be gone. I didn't see "Dancer
in the dark" yet,
but a friend told me that one of the character was always leaving
a movie
before the end... to make sure she could make her own end and
keep her
imagination running.
Maybe when we die we will need to defend our lives. For now I
feel more like
defending my dreams! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Apr. 13th 2001 --
OnM, 19:05:00
04/14/01 Sat
*** "How life would be if we knew chapter after chapter what
is going to
happen? What if we could get spoilers for our own lives? What
if we could
figure out what would happen when we die? How? When? Where are
we going
after? Would life be as much as interesting as it is right now?"
***
Which makes me think of Vonnegut's novel *Slaughterhouse Five*,
where the
protagonist eventually learns the nature of time and that essentially
everything is fated, including the eventual destruction of the
universe. It
was a fascinating book, but for myself that's not a concept that
I
particularly enjoy thinking about.
I don't mind some general spoilers, if for no other reason than
that they
help me play the speculation game, which I find rather entertaining.
I've
checked out the wildfeed for one or two shows, but gave it up
because you
only get to enjoy the show for the first time, once.
I usually watch any given ep at least once more on tape, several
times for
the really best eps, but the impressions received then are different
than on
first viewing, it's more of an intellectual/technical impression
the
subsequent times, rather than emotional.
More speculation on the Third God (spoilerish, Forever) -- Wiccagrrl,
12:22:42 04/15/01 Sun
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space...Ok, so, according to the wildfeed spoilers, Joel Gray
does show up
in this ep (sounds like he helps give Dawn ingredients/advice
on a spell to
raise Joyce)
They don't say for sure that he's the third hellgod, but that
was what the
press releases had been saying, and he *is* on the show, so it's
likely true
that it's him.
For those who had been speculating on the names, though (Glory,
Ben...) he's
being called "Doc" Not sure how that ties in with previous
theories, but
thought I'd pass it along.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More speculation on the Third God (spoilerish, Forever)
--
Solitude1056, 15:01:19 04/15/01 Sun
Ok, I couldn't help myself... just can't wait til Tuesday! But
who is Joel
Gray? An actor, or the character's name?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More speculation on the Third God (spoilerish,
Forever) -- Rufus,
15:07:45 04/15/01 Sun
Solitude you don't know who Joel Grey is??? He was in Cabaret
with Liza
Minelli and has done alot of appearences in telivision and on
Broadway.....and his daughter is Jennifer Grey who was in Dirty
Dancing....I
think the characters name is Doc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> brain popculture synapse misfire -- Solitude1056,
21:39:17 04/15/01
Sun
Gee, and I have a copy of Cabaret right here... *g*
Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish for Forever)
--
Wiccagrrl, 12:48:17 04/15/01 Sun
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space
Ok, so again, from the Wildfeed- Spike does some pretty, um, out
of
character things in Forever. Things that make me go "humm"
Now, I've always
been one who really didn't think that Spike was heading towards
being
redemption or even rehabilitation. I had never seen anything in
his actions
that didn't seem basically in his own self interest (trying to
get the girl)
Plus, I really felt (and still do feel, in some ways) that they'd
be opening
up a huge can of worms if they made Spike or any vamp really capable
of
doing good. So I figured that probably wasn't where they were
going. And
then I read the wildfeed for Forever.
There are two major things he does in Forever.
The first are the flowers he brings to (I think) the Summer's
house. He runs
into Willow and Xander there, Xander chews him out for (he thinks)
cynically
using Joyce's death to get to Buffy. Spike goes off the handle,
saying that
he really liked the lady, that she was the only one who didn't
treat him
like a freak, etc. He drops the flowers and leaves. Xander's still
ranting
when Willow interupts him with the fact that Spike didn't leave
a card- no
note that it was from him. It wasn't to score brownie points,
because,
well...he didn't expect to get any credit. He didn't *want* Buffy
or anyone
else to know they were from him.
The second act is that he tries to help Dawn in a spell to raise
Joyce. Now,
the end goal Dawn has may not be a good, but Spike's reasons are
curious. He
tells Dawn he doesn't ever want Buffy to know he helped with this-
that
she's stake him if she knew. Dawn asks why he's helping, and he
says he just
hates to see the Summers' women taking it so hard on the chin.
So, not only
does he seem to want to help, but he's doing this *in spite of
the fact*
that he knows Buffy'd be upset if she knew (Of course, he doesn't
make the
leap to wondering if maybe Buffy'd be right in thinking this wasn't
a good
idea, but still...)
It's an interesting turn of events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spoilers.....from Forever -- Rufus, 15:13:06 04/15/01 Sun
Is it just me or does the Gohra demon sounds like the Mohra demon
in Angel
from last year?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish
for Forever)
-- Scott L., 19:16:26 04/15/01 Sun
I'll have to wait until I see the episode to be sure, but here
is my gut
reaction.
I doubt that Spike brought the flowers to make the family feel
better. It is
more likely that he brought flowers to put some kind of closure
on the loss
of someone who didn't treat him like a freak.
If that is the case, his action can be seen as selfish. He lost
something,
he feels bad about it, he wants the bad feelings to end.
I know that makes it sound like most American rituals surrounding
bereavement are selfish. I think that they are. But selfishness
isn't
necessarily evil. I see evil as taking action to harm another.
Selfishness
is a way to prevent or cure harm in oneself. It is a matter of
preservation
and vampires are survivalists. To survive for decades or centuries,
one
needs a certain amount of psychic tenacity. Selfishness is a means
to that
end.
I believe that Spike can show compassion, but he can never show
true
selflessness. That is against his nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish
for
Forever) -- Rufus, 19:46:48 04/15/01 Sun
Well, you can look at the flowers that way or you can consider
another
option. When Spike first started to try to get Buffys attention,
he used
everything he could so she would notice him. Everything he did
should have
had a neon sign above it saying.....Watch Spike be good....of
course she
didn't get it because it was more about Spike getting what he
wanted. When
he got the chocolates, that was a start at what a live person
may want(he
used to bring live gifts to get Drus attention), but he ended
up getting it
wrong because the chocolate was another attempt to be "Seen".
With the
flowers, that is the first time he did something that had nothing
to do with
getting something in return, he did it because at some level this
mortal
woman treated him with respect by treating him normally, that
got his
attention. That isn't a flame on how the SG has treated Spike
either. Joyce
treated Spike like he was one of the other kids in her life. Someone
that
Buffy may have brought home to hang around. Joyce never treated
him like a
freak. Joyce gave Spike cocoa and listened to his problems with
Dru, acted
like a mom. I think that touched Spike on a level he didn't realise
was
still there. The fact that he would have left the flowers with
no card or no
recognition is worth looking at in terms of behavior. Spike has
stopped
trying for attention and acted out of a feeling. I find that interesting
when you compare it to the spectrum of behavior the unsouled is
capable of.
You have to consider where did those feelings come from? Are they
real, or
another plan? Can Spike grieve for what he may have formerly considered
a
meal?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point?
(Spoilerish for
Forever) -- Annyka, 02:11:03 04/16/01 Mon
Yeah, I think it's possible for Spike to grieve for one particular
human
without it being a sign of an overall change of heart or character.
Consider humans, we can feel for animals - even love them in a
way - and we
mourn when a favourite pet dies. It doesn't stop most of us eating
hamburgers though...
Annyka.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point?
(Spoilerish for
Forever) -- Scott L, 04:58:02 04/16/01 Mon
Vampires have feelings, but they are never based on selflessness.
I've heard it argued that we humans are that way too, but I'm
talking the
Buffyverse, a mythological television realm where, according to
Joss, a
human's natural tendency is toward good -- helping others, a vampire's
natural tendency is toward evil -- harming others.
But both are emotional beings and emotions can make humans strike
out in
evil ways and vampires strike out in not so evil ways.
I don't think Spike's sacrifice of blooming things on behalf of
the dear
departed (as Anya might call a floral arrangement) is anything
more than a
way for him to deal with his loss.
Not evil, not good, not a step toward redemption, just flowers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning
point? (Spoilerish for
Forever) -- ALLFORBUFFY, 11:57:21 04/16/01 Mon
I THINK THE CHIP IN HIS HEAD IS SOMEHOW CHANGING HIM MAYBE IT
IS KILLING THE
DEMON INSIDE HIM. I MEAN IT MAKES HIM FEEL MORE HUMAN THAN DEMON.
HE STILL
MAY BE A VAMPIRE BUT I THINK THE CHIP ACTS LIKE A ARTFICIAL SOUL
MAKING HIM
FEEL EMOTIONS ALOT MORE. EVEN BEFORE THE CHIP HE HAD EMOTIONS
BUT THE CHIP
MAY BRING THEM OUT MORE. IT'S HARD BECAUSE EVERYONE DOSN'T UNDERSTAND
AND
TREATS LIKE CRAP EXCEPT JOYCE WHO TREATED HIM MORE LIKE A PERSON
THAN ANYONE
ELSE. THATS PROBABLY WHY IN TOMMOROWS EPISODE HE BRINGS HER FLOWERS.
I KNOW
HE'S A KILLER BUT EVEN KILLERS CAN CHANGE. EXAMPLES ARE ANGEL,
DARLA WHILE
STILL HUMAN, LINDSEY SAVED THE THREE SEERER KIDS, AND FAITH CONFESSED
TO HER
CRIMES. I THINK EVEN SPIKE CAN CHANGE IT GIVEN A CHANCE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever-
turning point? (Spoilerish
for Forever) -- The Godfather, 13:54:18 04/16/01 Mon
All four of those examples had a soul. All four of those people
had some
degree or another or remorse or at least some type of moralistic
issue.
Spike could never completely change. He could make an effort to
behavior but
his motivation would remain the same..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> the all-capital letters are *really*
hard to read (NT) --
Solitude1056, 18:35:19 04/16/01 Mon
thx :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish
for Forever)
-- JoRus, 15:50:16 04/16/01 Mon
I'd like to qualify this by saying I haven't seen "Forever"
yet. I really
like Nina's take on Spike...neither redemptionist nor solely evvveil...but
that Spike is a very human sort of vamp, with very human traits.
Humans can
be either bad or good, sometimes in the very same day. Is Spike
at a turning
point of sorts? Possibly. He's not being predictable, that I do
know. Do I
believe Spike wanted to leave flowers for Joyce...just because
he really
liked Joyce? Yes. Is there a negative interpretation for leaving
the
flowers? The unsigned, uncredited, just for Joyce flowers? No,
I don't think
so. I have no idea how I'll interpret other parts of the episode...I'll
have
to see it to have an opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish
for
Forever) -- The Godfather, 16:41:54 04/16/01 Mon
Just because someone can have compassion doesn't change what they
are. Spike
did good here..he gets a few points but that doesn't alter who
he is. And I
don't think this was a suprising action..I think considering how
well Joyce
has treated him..it was to be expected..he respected her..even
villains pay
tribute to those they respect.....Spike became more honorable
today(at least
until the BangaBuff) but that doesn't change who he is..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Honor & Happy Meals -- Solitude1056, 18:34:06
04/16/01 Mon
And I don't think this was a suprising action. I think considering
how well
Joyce has treated him. it was to be expected. he respected her.
even
villains pay tribute to those they respect.
And I think Spike is in some ways honorable, if only by his own
internal
code - he doesn't want to kill Buffy when she's down & out, for
instance. He
wants it to be a fair fight, one he just might not win. That way,
when he
does win, it's all the sweeter.
And I don't see vamps going about seeing every single person as
happy meal
on legs - some of them at least consider some humans as potential
long-term
companions, or else we'd not have had Spike in the first place.
He wasn't in
a position, most of the time, to consider Joyce a meal (even before
the
chip, Buffy kicked his ass several times), nor do I think he ever
considered
her a potential vamp. Attacking his enemies' allies isn't his
style, either
- Spike's too straightforward for Angelus' devious "destroy
everyone you
love" routine. So Joyce fell into a strange place for him,
thinking back to
their interactions. She was probably so thrown by Buffy being
the Slayer
that Spike was practically a normal person in comparison to the
overwhelming
news that her daughter fights night critters.
I mean, we're talking about a woman who looked Faith straight
in the face &
asked her if Faith was ever going to get around to killing her,
or was just
going to bore her to death. And despite the new experience of
vamps - back
in season one? - Joyce had no qualms about picking up an axe and
threatening
Spike. She may be a suburban single mom, but she's a good part
of why
Buffy's the way she is, and I think Spike has always recognized
that, and he
respects that, if is dismayed because it makes the Slayer-killing
fest that
much more impossible.
Above all else, Spike's got a romantic streak, and it's old news
in the
chivalry department to pay homage when an enemy dies. Joyce may
not have
been his dire enemy - like Buffy - but she's been Buffy's foundation.
There's got to be part of that playing a role, too... but again,
I suppose
I'll have to wait til tomorrow to see it & decide for sure, but
those are my
guesses based on the characters up to now. Only twenty-four more
hours! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Honor & Happy Meals -- JoRus, 13:13:07
04/17/01 Tue
Yes, the hot chocolate, talking about his relationship with Dru
scene was a
great Joyce/Spike moment. We're so afraid he'll take the opportunity
to
munch the slayer's mother...and both Joyce and Spike do the unexpected.
Great writing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Honor & Happy Meals -- The Godfather,
14:19:42 04/17/01
Tue
I don't see it as the unexpected. It didn't shock me at all to
see them
chatting it up..Spike respected her..he's acting within character
completely..he's a villain who grows attached to people and has
some
honour..some anyways..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish
for
Forever) -- Rufus, 18:27:50 04/16/01 Mon
I like how Nina mentioned boxes. It seems that when we limit a
person to
specific actions, we are set up to be surprised when they climb
out of their
box and show that you can never fully predict behavior. Joss has
shown us
that even though he may have started with evil being easy to identify
and
predictable, that he has slowly shown us that we can be limited
by first
impressions. I'm not saying that all vampires are capable of becoming
reformed, but as humans can be sometimes evil, why be surprised
when a demon
can sometimes do good. As soon as you deal with a demon hybrid
you must
consider all parts of the demon when you seek to define them.
The vampire is
the result of an infection of evil corrupting the original host.
Now the
merged being is predisposed to evil. The inclusion of the personality
and
memories of the host lead me to believe that you have to consider
what and
who the demon once was to predict possible behaviors. The vampire
if less
violent isn't so because of the infection of evil, but the habits
and
personality of the host. I see that as we are dealing with a spectrum
of
behavior it's possible for anything to happen. For the most part
the vampire
is evil, but we must consider the possibility of even one exhibiting
what
would in vampire society, deviant behavior. As I don't see all
humans as
good, I don't consider that vampires are strictly capable of evil.
That
doesn't mean I wouldn't be loathe to protecting myself against
danger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point?
(Spoilerish for
Forever) -- JoRus, 13:26:15 04/17/01 Tue
Yes, I liked Nina's boxes too...and I thought she had a good point
vis a vis
vamps and Buffy...things as competent as sentient beings just
don't fit well
in boxes. In fact, I was thinking about your posts about Buffy
and how she
copes with her albeit stressful calling...and boxes do seem to
be the
answer. I agree with where you are on the vamps and humans scale
(more of a
continum with many factors, yes?)...but I too would take precautions.
I'ts
like dogs...you might as well keep an eye on em, some are predisposed
to
bite. Actually, I am not surprised by Spike having compassion
at times,
though I was at first...he is just showing another of his human
traits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike, Harmony, and the Nature of the Beast -- Scott L,
05:00:08 04/18/01
Wed
Now that I've seen the episode I can say that although Spike (and
other
vampires) are capable of genuine affection, can bring flowers
to show their
grief, and not want to see people they respect "get it on
the chin," they
are beasts. They are first and foremost evil.
In the Angel episode, when Wesley (I think) describes vampires
as viscious,
soulless beasts, he apologizes to Harm, saying, "No offense."
She is
nonplussed and replies, "For what?" Vampires are evil.
They don't care that
they are evil. They have no remorse for their corruption, the
suffering they
inflict, and the deaths that they cause. Spike certainly falls
into that
category.
So, although vampires are capable of affection, I would not say
that they
are capable of remorse for their actions -- guilt, if you will.
Showing
affection isn't a turning point for his character, it is giving
us a deeper
understanding of him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's actions in Forever- turning point? (Spoilerish
for Forever)
-- Nina, 17:12:53 04/18/01 Wed
"Forever" deals with the aftermath of death. We see
how it affects each and
everyone of the SG. How they react. Spike's reaction is touching
and I
couldn't help but draw a parallel between Spike and Anya. Death
brings Anya
to think about life. And Spike is acting more and more like a
human.I don't
think he wants to feel that way, but just can't help it.
I thought they would keep Spike away from everyone for at least
an episode.
Play the seclusion part. But no, Spike needs interaction. He could
have left
the flowers on the grave, but no he took a chance to run into
someone (and
he did!) It's like a part of him needs to be with these humans
he loathes.
This reminds me of the movie "Goundhog Day" with Bill
Murray in which the
hero has to live the same day over and over again until he gets
it right. He
tries to impress the girl all along. Win brownies points with
her. It
doesn't work. He only gets her the day he doesn't try to impress
her
anymore. Somehow, Spike is a little like that character. He tried
to impress
Buffy, now he doesn't anymore. His ton of voice was serious. Gee,
he even
got to save Dawn. My little heart is really happy and even though
he is
probably cursed to do something nasty next week I am fairly certain
it will
be good comedy to watch!
By the way... thanks for liking the Box theory... but as I said
(and I feel
I ned to say it again) I can't take credit for it. I just borrowed
it from
someone! (just so we're clear and I don't feel like a stealer!
;)
The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible spoilers) -- Darrick,
19:05:35
04/16/01 Mon
I was reading an interesting exchange over on the Cross and Stake
message
board in regards to Spike's construction of a Buffy android. The
argument
was essentially over whether the creation of the BuffyBot, in
and of itself,
was evil enough to warrant a staking. I apologize in advance if
this has
been broached already.
Now, leaving aside the question of whether Spike has already done
enough to
warrent a staking(I believe so), how bad do you all feel Spike's
actions
regarding the BuffyBot will be? I think we can agree that it is
somewhat
pathetic, and more than a little unpleasant, but is it really
evil? What is
the practical difference between the BuffyBot and say... a blow
up doll, or
a vibrator,for that matter? This is assuming that Spike actually
intends to
use the bot
One immediate difference I can see is that he constructed the
Bot using
Buffy's private things. This is a real invasion of privacy and
amounts to
more of an identity theft than if he had merely created it in
her likeness.
There's also some question in my mind as to how self-aware these
robots are.
I had a pet theory that the only reason April even worked was
because they
were on the hellmouth and she was given her rudimentary sentience
by some
kind of magical energy. The level of ability she demonstrated
doesn't make
any sense otherwise. So, if the BuffyBot is self-aware, then I
would say
that Spike using her for sex through coercion would certainly
be akin to
rape. I doubt the bots are particularly intelligent however, so
I would rule
this problem out.
My opinion is that the most troubling aspect of the BuffyBot from
a moral
perspective is how Spike stole personal effects from Buffy to
construct it.
For this reason alone Buffy would be justified in taking out Spike
and the
bot, considering Spike's track record in the past.
On the other hand, some people (and I suspect Buffy will be included
in this
group) might take a more moralistic position, as if building such
a bot is
inherently wrong. It may be odd, and gross when you think about
the details,
but I tend to take the tack that as long as a behavior doesn't
hurt anyone
else, or society as a whole, then it's OK. There may be exceptions,
but
that's my general rule. The guy who built April wasn't wrong for
building
her in the first place, in my opinion, he was an ass for being
so rude and
manipulative to his human, sentient and self-aware, girlfriend.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Was there any evidence
that the
robots were self-aware? I'm just throwing this out there to see
what I
missed. However, the fact that Spike stole not just her face,
but some of
her identity, makes me interpret his actions as pretty low down,
and not
just unpleasant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible spoilers) --
Wiccagrrl,
22:13:17 04/16/01 Mon
I find it a little hard to explain exactly why, but in Buffy's
position, I
think I'd feel extremely violated. Talk about objectifying the
object of
your affection. This isn't just a case of a blow-up doll, either,
or even a
case like April, where the robot was created out of the blue (I
guess we
don't know that, but I'm assuming she wasn't really based on anyone
in
particular.)This was built as a Buffy-substitute, complete with
her face,
body, and possibly personality traits (we'll know more when we
see it)
And yes, it is partly that he used her stuff- the stuff he took
*from the
altar he had built to her* (Now, that was creepy) Since he can't
control/have the real Buffy, he's building himself one he can
control/have.
To me, that's hitting the danger zone, obsession-wise. Plus the
whole
question about how cruel this may be to the Bot (And Buffy saw
that April
was capable of being hurt and of loving someone, so I think she
may feel bad
for the Buffybot, too)
Now, does this warrent staking? I dunno. I am pretty firmly of
the belief
that she probably should have staked him ages ago. And definitely
towards
the end of Crush. But she seems to have some qualms about staking
vamps that
she knows, and I don't know if I think the Buffybot ups the ante
enough that
it would force this action when so many other things Spike has
done in the
past haven't. If after Crush Buffy still thought she could handle
things
with Spike, that she didn't want to stake him, I'm not sure that
this would
change her mind. But, man, oh man, is she gonna kick his arse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible spoilers)
-- Liam,
10:17:37 04/17/01 Tue
In my opinion, Spike should have been staked _ages_ ago. What
I found
amusing in 'Crush' was that, while Buffy found his 'shrine' to
her, she
didn't find any of her stolen underwear. If she had, Spike would
have been
dusted very quickly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible spoilers)
-- Rufus,
15:33:37 04/17/01 Tue
I have one concern over the stalking business, Buffy isn't acting
like there
is a threat. The fact that she even has talked to him at all troubles
me.
She said that if he didn't get out of town she would finish him.
She didn't.
I don't think the Buffybot business will be seen as anymore a
threat than
the stalking was. Stalking is a serious concern but I don't see
it being
treated as such in this storyline. When the writers take the stalking
seriously in the show I will consider the fact of staking Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible
spoilers) -- The
Godfather, 15:45:12 04/17/01 Tue
And that's why so many people forgive Spike for all of his actions.
They
could be disturbed and gross but because the writers play them
for humor,
the truth of what they are gets blunted. Sad.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible
spoilers) -- Lynn,
12:06:35 04/19/01 Thu
Shawn, why do you suppose the writers play it for humor? If we
are to take
David Fury at face value, such behavior to him is heinous, and
yet he wrote
Crush, where much of Spike's behavior is played for humor. I am
fairly
scratching my head as to how we are to take Spike now. It's the
writers who
determine his fate - are we to assume that we are to gloss over
his bizarre
behavior because he is not human? And then he goes and exhibits
genuine
regard for Joyce and concern for Dawn - my head is fairly spinning
-
metaphorically :)
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The reaction of the Buffy Bot -- Vulpes, 10:01:59 04/17/01
Tue
If Buffy found out about Spike's Buffy Bot, she could disarm it.
And take
its place. Then really kick Spike's arse. It would be hilarious
to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The morality of the Buffy Bot (possible spoilers) --
Jen C., 10:13:33
04/19/01 Thu
I have to say that I don't really *like* the idea of the Buffy-bot.
It's
kind of gross. But, that said, I kind of think that Spike is trying
to
address his fixation in a way that hurts the least number of people.
Buffy
has rejected him soundly several times, and he knows that if he
pushes the
issue, he's going to end up dead (really dead) or banished from
Sunnyhell
for good (which would be the same as dead to him). I think he's
trying to
scratch his rather large, nasty itch as best as he can. The fact
that it's a
rude, disgusting way to scratch it is very much in keeping with
his general
way of doing things. I think it *is* a way for him to "thumb
his nose" at
Buffy, but I also think that it's his rather twisted way of attempting
to
"get over" his obsession. I don't think that it will
work, though, since I
personally think his feelings for Buffy have gone past what the
Buffy-bot
can assuage.
the slayer -- imcj, 19:56:17 04/16/01 Mon
A thought came to me today.
Is there such a thing as a Slayer, I'm not talking about the kind
of Slayer
shown on BTVS.
I mean in mythology, folklore, etc. is there some person or something
that
sorta fits?
Anyone read mythology or folklore, ever found anything at least
remotely
similiar to a Slayer?
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the slayer -- purplegrrl, 09:08:09 04/17/01 Tue
Mythology and folklore characters similar to the Slayer might
include:
Jack the Giant Killer - a fairy tale character who made a name
for himself
killing giants who terrorized people.
Dr. Van Helsing - a literary character who was always running
around trying
to rid the world of vampires in general and Dracula in particular.
Questing knights - a literary archetypal character who fought
dragons and
injustice, saved the damsal, and aided the downtrodden.
Xena - a modern mythological character who instilled fear in the
hearts of
gods when she had the power to kill them.
I'm pretty sure there are some better examples than these, but
I can't think
of them at the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the slayer -- JoRus, 13:30:39 04/17/01 Tue
How about Athena? There's a warrior role model for you.: )However,
I think
there might be a bit of Kali like stuff mixed in.
Wesley & The Watcher's Council -- Halcyon, 03:12:07 04/17/01 Tue
I am just wondering how the Watchers will react to Wesley siding
with a
Vampire over them. I can not imagine them ever letting him back
into the
CoW. Also how do you think Wes will react when he finds out that
Giles has
been readmitted back into the CoW.
Does anyone have any speculation what happened to the Council's
Special
Operation team following the events of Sanctuary? If they were
someone of
the best that the CoW can field I doubt that the Watchers would
have let
them be arrested and imprisoned by the LAPD.
I can easily see Weatherby holding a grudge against Wes considering
how
Weatherby reacted to Faith in Who Are You, especially since Wes
choose to
side with one of the 'enemy' over loyalty to the CoW. Weatherby
did seem to
be fanatical in his loyalty to the CoW. It would be interesting
to see how
Wes would interact with Giles in the future now that Giles is
working for
one of Angel's enemies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wesley & The Watcher's Council -- VanMoodySenior, 13:50:09
04/17/01
Tue
I suppose Wes shouldn't be loyal to the counsel, since they fired
him. I
also wonder if Wesley was put back on the payroll would he then
have to
leave Los Angeles and go back to England? Angel is not a slayer
and they
wouldn't want him working in LA even though he is doing a lot
of good there.
I could see him getting reinstated if Faith got out of Jail and
rehabilitated while staying in LA and fighting with Angel. Then
Wes would
have a slayer to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wesley & The Watcher's Council -- Halcyon, 04:32:51
04/20/01 Fri
Given how the CoW reacted to Angel being poisoned in GD 2, I can
not see
them ever readmitting Wes back into the fold especially since
he prevented
Operatives of the CoW from fufilling their mission in Sanctuary.
They would
see his actions a betrayal of the highest order, remember in GD
2, Wes says
that the Council does not help Vampires under any circumstances.
The CoW
sees everything purely in black & white hence their refusal to
prevent
Angel's death in GD 2. In regards to Faith considering that the
CoW ordered
her death, I can not see her ever working for the CoW but I could
see Wes
eventually becoming her Watcher in an unofficial capacity if when
she is
released she resumes her role as Slayer and is mentally and physically
capable of continuing in that capacity.
I could also see Faith becoming a member of Angel Investigations,
where else
would she be able to turn after all she is a convicted murderer
and she has
no one apart from Angel to turn to.
Also considering the CoW I find it difficult to believe that following
the
events of Innocence & Sanctuary they did not station a permanent
Operations
squad in LA to observe Angel and terminate Angel should he revert
back to
Angelus. Given his history as one of the most notorious of all
vampires not
having such a team in preparation would be totally inefficient.
If so many prophecies concern Angel it only makes sense that they
would wish
to keep a close eye on such a major player and given the fact
that the
prophecies do not indicate which side he will be fighting on having
someone
in position to neutralize Angel should he side against humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Wesley & The Watcher's Council -- Liam,
10:11:48 04/20/01 Fri
Halcyon,
I agree with you about the Council not readmitting Wes due to
his actions in
'Sanctuary'. Certainly, he could be Faith's unofficial watcher
after she
gets out. In terms of her post-prison career options, working
for Angel
Investigations sounds good. When I was watching the second season
of
'Buffy', particularly the 'What's My Line' episodes, I concluded
that being
a PI was the best career option available to a slayer in her twenties.
She's
her own boss, and can go on patrol and ask questions without arousing
suspicion.
I agree with you completely about the Council not stationing an
Operations
squad in LA to keep an eye on Angel, he being 'the most notorious
of all
vampires'. The problem is that the conventions of the story will
not allow
this. If Angel, Dru, and Darla were dusted by such a squad, the
fifth season
would have ended quite quickly.
Even if such a squad existed, it would have to fail for that reason.
If we
look at 'Sanctuary', Faith and Buffy should have been shot. After
all, their
Slayer skills might be wonderful in hand to hand combat, but they
can't
deflect flying bullets. It reminds me of the Imperial Stormtroopers
in the
'Star Wars' movies. They're elite troops, yet they
can't seem to hit the good guys.
After watching the end of the second season, I always wondered
why the
Council didn't fire Giles there and then. He not only tolerated,
but
encouraged Buffy's relationship with Angel, a notorious vampire.
This, of
course, led to the loss of his soul, and his attempt to suck the
world into
Hell. Because of that, I wasn't surprised when they finally fired
him in
'Helpless'.
The Initiatives reasons -- Lestat, 10:59:43 04/17/01 Tue
What were the Initiatives reasons for making Adam? Was he a super-soldier?
A
new supirior race? What?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Initiatives reasons -- VanMoodySenior, 13:54:32
04/17/01 Tue
I was under the impression that the Initiative at large did not
know about
Adam. This was Maggie Walsh's project, her and the other doctor
whose name
escapes me. Both of them were walking around like Zombies on the
episode
where Adam was defeated. I think that Maggie was wanting to create
a super
soldier that she and the boys at the pentagon could control. They
were
wanting weapons. The regular soldier like Riley did not know about
this part
of their plan. They just thought they were helping out the public.
Confessions of a former Riley fan -- Dee, 19:43:47 04/17/01 Tue
Angel and Buffy had what...maybe 6 minutes of screen time tonight?
After the
first 3 minutes, I was saying, "Riley? Riley who"? I
always liked Riley, but
there is no contest. Angel and Buffy have too much chemistry.
I would call
it inspired casting, but I don't think I can ever believe anyone
else with
Buffy. I especially loved the part when Buffy pullls away after
the
smoochies-he had been so in control and mature up until that point.
Then the
realization of his feelings (still) for Buffy and hers for him.
What a great
scene. Any thoughts on a "happily-ever-after" for these
two?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Confessions of a former Riley fan -- Luna, 20:49:32
04/17/01 Tue
Yay you! It only took 6 minutes to convert you--cool! So it isn't
just fad
or an obsession, there is something there, a power, a force, something?
It
is a pure and beautiful love, and yet it has been so badly marred.
And yet
after all this time the spark still remains. I love it!! 6 whole
minutes and
B/A love is alive again! Well I sadly have to say that I didn't
get to see
tonight's Buffy, instead they had baseball. I have to wait till
saturday to
see it, until then I'll take your word for it! B/A FOREVER!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Confessions of a former Riley fan -- Wiccagrrl,
22:53:25 04/17/01
Tue
These two have *so* much chemistry. I didn't dislike Riley, but
there really
is no contest. It's amazing what they can portray in just a short
time on
screen together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> no happily ever after? -- celticross, 07:52:57 04/18/01
Wed
I just don't know...the romantic in me would like to see them
together, but
at the same time, that scene was giving me uncomfortable flashbacks
to the
last time I saw my ex. While we didn't end up kissing, the chemistry
was
still there, and the old feelings just came back. Buffy and Angel's
kiss was
old feelings, old needs. A lot of water has gone under the bridge
for them,
and they've both changed a great deal. I think it would be very
couragous of
the writers to NOT have them end up together, if only because
that would be
more realistic. As realistic as a romance between a vampire and
a vampire
slayer can be, anyways. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: no happily ever after? -- estefena, 15:12:46 04/18/01
Wed
I don't think there will ever be a "happily ever after"
for those two. They
are both, to quote the Oracles: "Warriors" who are helping
mankind. That
will always be the forefront. There is no white picket fence for
these two.
On top of that, I doubt Joss would ever allow it, the bastard.
To tie it up
with a nice little bow probably goes against all he believes in.
What's my own personal ending to the greatest love of all time
in
Buffyverse? Somehow or when, Buffy and Xander hook up. They have
a child,
who inturn has a daughter that is the spitting image of Buffy.
Angel, after
years of fighting for the helpless is finally given his reward
and made
human. He returns to Buffy before she dies. (She is the first
slayer to ever
make it to her golden years) They have time to say goodbye and
she
introduces him to her granddaughter, who is about the same age
as him and
with her blessing, tells them to live the life they should have
without the
darkness always looming over them. I like this because while Xander
finally
hooked up with Buffy, he's perturbed that his granddaughter hooked
up with
his enemy.
With that granddaughter Buffy and human Angel, reverting to Liam,
walk off
into the sunset, happily ever after.
Yes, I have thought about this a lot!
e.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Question is, have I posted this before? -- estefena,
15:34:26
04/18/01 Wed
Hope not. If I have, sorry!
Is there a latin word that means "stupid" that starts
with "ben"? --
Solitude1056, 22:08:27 04/17/01 Tue
Ok, Ben has foot-in-mouth disease. He may've temporarily gotten
a gold star
for doing away with the minion once he realized his mistake, but
he didn't
stick around to make sure he finished the job. Bad boy. But more
to the
point - what the hell does that say about a character, that he'd
start to
blurt out the information... and then not even have the savvy
or quick
thinking to be able to cover his tracks? Dreg just had to guess
& when Ben
denied it, well, there you go. Either Ben doesn't have much control
when
he's angry (and where was Glory this time?) or he's dumber than
I gave him
credit for being.
Anyone else got ideas on this one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is there a latin word that means "stupid"
that starts with "ben"? --
Max, 22:29:21 04/17/01 Tue
Two Bodies.
They just keep switching occupants.
Ben is a idiot. But he isn't evil.
I think this episode proves both .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Is there a latin word that means "stupid"
that starts with "ben"?
-- Kvon, 13:53:09 04/19/01 Thu
As a doctor, I'm disappointed that Ben could not make sure that
the demon
was dead. Being part god (or something) he should also know the
anatomy of
the demons. At the very least he could have destroyed the voicebox.
We know
that Ben and Glory didn't switch at that point since G didn't
know where the
lame toady was. Bad Ben!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is there a latin word that means "stupid"
that starts with
"ben"? -- Ramo, 16:27:44 04/22/01 Sun
You never know, maybe Ben didn't want to kill Dreg. I don't think
we know
quite enough about Ben, and shouldn't make these assumptions.
At least we
know Ben's good for at least trying. It was probably mentioned
before, but
it seems Ben and Glory balance out eachother. Ben is good and
sane, and
Glory is evil and insane. Also, Glory is self centered, and Ben
wants to
help people. It makes sense since they are sharing the same body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is there a latin word that means "stupid"
that starts with "ben"? --
Dean, 19:47:06 04/19/01 Thu
I am still looking for a Wiccan word for "idiot" that
starts with "Willow".
Though Giles didn't seem much brighter.
Dawn= "And where do you keep the very dangerous books."
Giles "Oh, over there beside the dynamite. Here's some matches,
please go
light some candles while I convenently step out of the room. And
make sure
no one goes near those books, especially the red one right there."
We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major Spoilers) -- Mary, 22:25:58
04/17/01
Tue
Spoiler Space
Please
Scroll
Down
We are still friends, aren't we Cordelia?
"Yes, Harmony we are" Cordy says as she pulls the trigger.
As Cordy turns
her head and Harmony vamp turns to dust Cordy whispers voice breaking
"Nothing Personal."
Wesley turns to Cordy and says "Harmony died back in Sunnydale,
grieve for
her not the abomination". Cordy replies "I know, it
just hurts."
Anyway that is how it should have gone down. Instead she let a
Vampire go
free who will kill more humans.
I know they couldn't kill Harmony. They still need her for comic
relief, but
I was holding out hope when the Host said that her "future"
was connected to
Cordy. I was hoping that "future" had something to do
with a wooden stake.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major Spoilers) --
Max, 22:58:21
04/17/01 Tue
Great example.
Both Cordelia and Dawn was trying to bring something back. For
Cordelia it
was her days in High School where she was rich, popular (and what
was the
other thing). She thought that by ignoring the fact that her friend
was
dead, she could recapture some of those days. She finally was
forced to
realize that you can't go home again, but still faintly clinged
on to that
hope as we see from her unwillingness to slay the vampire that
inhabits the
body of her dead friend.
For Dawn, of course it was her Mother. She was willing to break
all the
rules to get her back. Even if her mother didn't fully come back.
Even a
little bit was better to her than none. For Dawn felt she had
nothing left,
not even Buffy. Dawn realized though before it was too late that
Zombie
decaying mom would have just crushed Buffy. Having her mom there,
but at the
same time really not there would have been more than Buffy could
have
handled. I am sure Dawn half wanted to see how much of mom she
brought back,
but realized at the last moment how evil and yucky this really
was. And out
of concern for Buffy mostly, and out of realization how much of
abomination
this was she tore up the picture and saved Buffy from having to
face the
false hope that at that point she all too willingly would cling
to.
Dawn realized that they needed to move on- together. Zombie mom
(without a
soul, I am guessing) would have just added to the baggage.
Both Dawn and Cordelia were mistaken by trying to cling so tightly
to what
is gone. But Dawn showed more courage at the end to let go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major Spoilers)
-- Max, 22:59:28
04/17/01 Tue
Meant to post that under the "Choices" threat.
Sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major
Spoilers) -- Wiccagrrl,
23:07:15 04/17/01 Tue
How much did I love Gunn in this ep? "We do still kill them,
don't we?"
Apparently, no ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major
Spoilers) -- max,
23:20:08 04/17/01 Tue
'"We do still kill them, don't we?" Apparently, no ;)'
My Favorite Line.
Gunn is my favorite character on Angel. Most heroic of them all.
"Just to get things straight. When we go in there we are
going to kill these
Vampires, Correct!"
How true! It seems instead of Slaying vampires they either want
to get in
bed with them, or invite them over for a pajama party.
I was just so waiting for that scorpion story though. ;)
Seriously, the writers should have thought of some way that Harmony
escapes
on her own. I am so tired of them letting these beasts go knowing
that as a
result humans will die.
Cordy now bears responisibly for Harmony's victims. I wonder if
she will
hear them scream in some of her visions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't
We? (Major Spoilers) --
Wiccagrrl, 23:28:17 04/17/01 Tue
Well, I know they were trying to draw a parallel between Angel
letting Darla
go, and Cordy letting Harm go (It was a lot easier for her to
comment on how
Angel was letting his feelings keep him from doing the right thing
before
she was faced with someone she cared for having been vamped)But
really, this
is getting a bit ridiculous. Between Spike, Dru, Darla, and Harmony...how
many times have the gangs in Sunnydale and LA had a chance to
stop these
creatures and chosen not to? Too many.
At least they are acknowledging that this is getting to be a pattern.
Hopefully one that will stop soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We Are Still Friends,
Aren't We? (Major Spoilers) --
Max, 23:34:16 04/17/01 Tue
I hope so.
It is really getting old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We Are Still Friends,
Aren't We? (Major Spoilers) --
Sue, 23:53:15 04/17/01 Tue
And don't forget the Vampire that Gunn's Sister turned into and
who is now
the leader of the vampires in Gunn's neighborhood. How many has
she killed
and how many vampires has killed and tortured humans on her command
so far.
Gunn had an opportunity to slay her. And none of this would have
happened.
Oh, that's right. Gunn did slay her. She didn't have the opportunity
to
become leader of the neighborhood's vampire gang or make some
alliance with
Wolfram and Hart. Gunn realized that his sister was already dead,
and by
slaying the vampire he was preventing all of that and more from
happening.
Never mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey Wicca I think the answer
is...Nuh..and Uuh...:):):):)
-- Rufus, 00:37:47 04/18/01 Wed
Sorry, couldn't help but to actualize my inner evil person. Gunn
got some
really good lines tonight. To me true hell is a vampire personal
image
coach. They should have made him food, it would have shut him
up. As for
killing vampires, well by the end of the show alot of them were
dead, but
Cordy learned one thing that Angel already knew, it's hard to
kill someone
you have history with. Even Harmony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> killing the vampire
you know -- purplegrrl, 08:49:52
04/18/01 Wed
***Cordy learned one thing that Angel already knew, it's hard
to kill
someone you have history with***
Amen, Rufus. Buffy, Angel, and now Cordelia have been judged harshly
for not
staking the vampires they know. But I'm not sure any of us would
do any
better in the same situation.
And Cordy knew that Angel knew that she had come to this realization.
Which
is why she told him to not say anything about it.
I would have liked to have seen how this knowledge and realization
affected
Angel and Cordelia's friendship/working relationship. I shared
Wesley's
disappointment that Angel still thought it necessary to ingratiate
himself
to Cordelia by buying her a pile of new clothes. (Hmm, I guess
we now know
what Angel did with the money from "Are You Now Or Have You
Ever Been" -
Angel has mad money!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: killing the
vampire you know -- Solitude1056,
11:39:48 04/18/01 Wed
And Cordy knew that Angel knew that she had come to this realization.
Which
is why she told him to not say anything about it.
I think letting Harm go was less of "gee, hope we get to
see her again" and
more of a plot device. Cordy had to experience it first-hand before
we could
really believe her when she began relating to Angel as an equal
again. Darla
was Angel's past, as Harm was Cordy's. We can walk away from everything
we've owned, and known, but it's much harder to walk away from
everything
we've been. Angel may not have a mirror to see himself. Darla
is about as
close as he's gonna get. Destroying her would be a final act of
destroying,
and negating, a huge chunk of his self-identity. Same goes for
Cordy dusting
Harmony.
Whether or not Cordy should have dusted Harm is a mechanism of
the writer's,
not reality, IMO. If Cordy had dusted Harm, that would put Cordy's
development as a character about ten steps past Angel - and when/if
Angel
admits he let Darla walk, Cordy would be even more justified to
tell him
off... and we'd see even less chance of reparation between the
two
characters. On top of that, it's just not characteristic of Cordy
- given
that she still displays her cheerleading tropies! - that she'd
be so quick,
no matter the situation, to do in the last vestige of her once-wonderful
(to
her) life.
On the note of Wesley & Angel, though, I wasn't sure whether Wesley
was
resentful that Angel was focused on repairing the friendship with
Cordy (and
not with Wes and Gunn, too)... or if Wesley was irked that Cordy
wouldn't
hold a righteous grudge, or if Wesley was irritated that Angel
would buy the
friendship back. In the screenplay version (not what aired), it
notes that
Wesley mutters that he'd like a DVD player, then. Wonder why they
left that
out...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> repairing
relationships -- purplegrrl, 12:13:05
04/18/01 Wed
***On the note of Wesley & Angel, though, I wasn't sure whether
Wesley was
resentful that Angel was focused on repairing the friendship with
Cordy (and
not with Wes and Gunn, too)... or if Wesley was irked that Cordy
wouldn't
hold a righteous grudge, or if Wesley was irritated that Angel
would buy the
friendship back.***
Hmmm, what I saw as disappointment could very well be resentment,
ire, and
irritation as you suggested. Perhaps Wesley is disappointed with
*both*
Angel and Cordelia - Angel for making such a lavish gesture and
Cordelia for
being so easily swayed by such a gift.
It's possible that Angel focused on repairing his relationship
with Cordelia
because they have the longest history. And she was around when
Angel turned
into Angelus in Sunnydale. Wesley and Gunn weren't. Yes, Angel
probably
over-compensated, and that could lead to hurt feelings on Wesley
and Gunn's
part, but he did it to show that he is trying to reconnect with
the Angel
Investigations gang.
It's also possible that Angel's gift of clothing was partly to
help Cordy
get over Harmony's visit and all the weirdness that entailed.
From a newspaper article about bringing food after a funeral:
"There are
some schools of thought that say food is one substitute for love;
sometimes
money is, too. And when we can't say something, we buy our way
out of it."
I think the "buying our way out of it" seems to fit
here. Finding out
Harmony was a vampire sort of put the stake in (pardon the pun!)
the last
vestiges of Cordelia's former life. In buying her clothes, Angel
was not
only trying to say "I'm sorry," but also "I understand"
and "Everything's
going to work out."
I think I've rambled enough!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
repairing relationships -- Anthony8,
13:43:54 04/18/01 Wed
On a more basic level, Angel was also making Cordelia somewhat
whole again
by replacing the clothes he had given away to charity without
her consent.
She did make a big deal about the lost clothes in last night's
episode.
Of course all this would be consistent with her character at any
rate. While
she has grown as a person, she hasn't by any means left all of
her less
desirable personality traits in the past. She wouldn't be very
fun to watch
if she did not retain some of the characteristics that made her
such a hoot
on "Buffy."
It was also kind of funny, and very consistent with Cordelia of
old, that
she was less put off by the fact that Harmony turned out to be
a vampire
than if she had actually been a lesbian. The awkward backtrack
from her "big
Lesbo" faux pas in her conversation with Willow was a good
illustration of
how much Cordelia has come and how far she still has to go character-wise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: repairing relationships -- The
Godfather, 14:02:25 04/18/01 Wed
You can't replace lost trust with materials. Someone steals something
for me
and getting it back doesn't make me forget they betrayed me..it
was shallow.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: repairing relationships --
purplegrrl, 14:46:53 04/18/01 Wed
Yeah, buying Cordelia a bunch of clothes to try and make up for
the hurt he
caused probably was a shallow gesture on Angel's part. But it
shows that
Angel is at least making an effort to reconnect with the Angel
Investigations gang. He is trying to repair the damage he has
done to these
relationships and their trust in him. He still has a ways to go.
But at
least he has taken a small step in the right direction.
And the gesture was a very human one - expecting material goods
to
substitute for love, trust, and respect. It may not be very noble,
but it
happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: repairing relationships --
Hauptman, 14:55:26 04/18/01 Wed
I think that Angel is working hard to repair his relationship
with all of
the AI gang. Sure he gave Cordy a bunch of new clothes, but I
think he is
working just as hard on the relationship with Wesley by doing
what Wes
wants, i.e. being a good employee, taking orders, giving up the
office,
answering the phones, getting coffee. In effect, when he does
these things
he is acknowledging that it isn't all about Angel anymore and
that is a huge
deal and requires constant attention. Wes would not have responded
to a
bunch of new duds. He's more into the respect-thing and I think
Angel dumped
a truckload at his feet last night.
As for Gunn...I dunno. Did they even talk last night?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: repairing relationships --
Wiccagrrl, 17:25:49 04/18/01 Wed
I think you hit the nail on the head- Angel was connecting to
Cordy and Wes
(and trying to make up for hurting them) on the level he felt
would get
through to them best and show them he was sorry. For Wes, that
meant
respect, (and groveling a bit) for Cordy, well...it meant the
clothes. It
may have been a shallow gesture, but hey, it worked. It was a
gesture that
did matter to Cordy. Now, that's not to say all is forgiven or
that these
were the only things he's gonna have to do, or that the underlying
issues
aren't still real and being worked on. But that line of communication
had to
be re-opened, and this did the trick to some extent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clothing
the hurt -- Vulpes, 14:27:53 04/18/01
Wed
I remember part of the conversion Cordi and Angel had before they
entered
the threater. Cordi was hurt that Angel gave away her clothes
to the
shelter.
Considering that Cordi is broke and was use to having alot of
nice clothes
before the IRS caught up with her father, by giving her clothes
away, Angel
showed her his insensivity. 'I fired you, now I'm going to throw
the rest of
you out too'.
Alot of people relate material goods for love and comfort. Is
this wrong? I
think Cordi is one of those people. I think Angel was really listening
to
her when she told him what he did.
Remember Angel is not a noisy wheel. At the hospital, when Wes
was shot he
just stood outside of the room. When Cordi came out and told him
off, he
accepted it without a word and left. I think Angel is a man of
action
instead of words. And I think this was an act of love towards
Cordi. I think
Wes is hurt by Angel for not showing up at the hospital. Maybe
in the next
few epics Wes may learn of Angel showing at the hospital. Until
then, Wes is
going to be hard. And Gun is not in the loop, because I don't
think Cordi
told them that Angel was at the hospital.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Clothing the hurt -- Rufus, 15:47:33
04/18/01 Wed
I think that Angel did realise how wrong he was to give away Cordys
clothes.
He also wanted to find some way to show he cared about her and
valued her.
Cordy was estatic about the clothes but part of her may have been
showing
Angel that they have a connection again. Cordy was lonely and
missed Angel,
and when he gave away her things that was an indication that he
didn't want
her friendship. Giving away her personal things was very hurtful
to Cordy.
By going out and picking new things it showed he cared. It may
have looked
shallow to some but there was more going on under the surface.
Now Angel has
to work on Wesley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
repairing relationships -- Sue, 18:45:04
04/18/01 Wed
That's odd. I always thought it was a way to help the grieving
family. So
they wouldn't have to worry about things like cooking dinner.
Of course that was the days before fast food. I guess now one
could just
order a pizza.
I had never associated that with trying to substitute love, just
minimizing
distractions as the family has so many preparations to go through
in a
limited time. Freeing up the cooking was just a way to lighten
the load a
bit.
"From a newspaper article about bringing food after a funeral:
"There are
some schools of thought that say food is one substitute for love;
sometimes
money is, too. And when we can't say something, we buy our way
out of it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
grieving & making amends -- Solitude1056,
19:58:55 04/18/01 Wed
That's odd. I always thought it was a way to help the grieving
family. So
they wouldn't have to worry about things like cooking dinner.
Agreed. I was taught that when someone dies or is born, you bring
food. It's
practically mandatory. But when you think about it, this social
rule makes
sense - a person dealing with a newborn is just as distracted
as someone
still in shock after a funeral. They're not always up for the
basic
necessities like food, drink, or mowing the lawn. And while it
may not be
common anymore in socially isolating areas (like the American
suburbs), it's
still common in close-knit groups or neighborhoods. You take food,
you help
do the dishes, you offer to do laundry, run errands, walk the
dogs. The
person who's grieving (or the person who's nursing) is pretty
much wrapt up
in that activity, and friends support that by making sure there
are as
little distractions as possible for the process.
About the giving-clothes & buying friendship, though - that's
not buying
Cordy's love back. It's called making amends, by replacing what
was damaged.
In Wesley's case, it's respect. In Cordy's, it's a possession
she treasures
that she can't easily replace on her own. Making amends may seem
like a
selfish move: "I don't want you mad at me because it makes
me remember what
a jerk I was." But if that's all there is, then the person
has the option to
just avoid whomever s/he offended. Making amends means not just
saying
you're sorry, but doing something about it, even in a small way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: grieving & making amends -- Rufus,
21:20:43 04/18/01 Wed
Remember Angels line in the first bit when he is expected to make
coffee.
"Man, atonement's a bitch."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: repairing relationships -- purplegrrl,
09:18:02 04/19/01 Thu
Actually, I hadn't quoted that line about food and money being
a substitute
for love to bring up why we bring food after funerals. The line
just struck
me at the moment as explaining why Angel would lavish Cordelia
with all
those clothes when there are obviously still some unresolved issues
between
them. Angel is not very good about talking about his feelings,
so he thought
he needed to show Cordelia by buying her something. Just as here
ATLtS (All
Threads Lead to Spike), sometimes in reality ATaRttB (All Things
are
Relevant to the Buffyverse).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major Spoilers) --
Ben, 23:33:08
04/17/01 Tue
Slaying the vampire would have been the greatest act of respect,
friendship,
love and devotion Cordelia could have shown to her friend. By
letting it go
free she isn't doing anyone any favors.
And she is responsible for all those humans the vampire will now
kill that
the vampire wouldn't have been able do had Cordelia done what
she was
supposed to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: We Are Still Friends, Aren't We? (Major Spoilers)
-- Brian,
09:28:08 04/18/01 Wed
One thing we did learn from tonight's episode:
Doesn't matter if you're a dingbat, sweet, blonde thing with an
idenity
crisis and given to great comic relief,
once you're a vampire, you're dangerous!
Choices (Spoilers from tonight) -- Mary, 22:35:44 04/17/01 Tue
Spoilers
From this week's episode
Both Dawn and Cordelia had very similar choices to make at the
end of the
respective shows. Dawn (in the end) very courageously made the
right
decision, but Cordelia made the wrong one.
And Willow, well what she did made no sense. If I was her I would
have
missed class and stuck around Dawn like glue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Choices (Spoilers from tonight) -- max, 23:07:42 04/17/01
Tue
(sorry about originally posting this on the wrong thread.
Great example.
Both Cordelia and Dawn was trying to bring something back. For
Cordelia it
was her days in High School where she was rich, popular (and what
was the
other thing). She thought that by ignoring the fact that her friend
was
dead, she could recapture some of those days. She finally was
forced to
realize that you can't go home again, but still faintly clinged
on to that
hope as we see from her unwillingness to slay the vampire that
inhabits the
body of her dead friend.
For Dawn, of course it was her Mother. She was willing to break
all the
rules to get her back. Even if her mother didn't fully come back.
Even a
little bit was better to her than none. For Dawn felt she had
nothing left,
not even Buffy. Dawn realized though before it was too late that
Zombie
decaying mom would have just crushed Buffy. Having her mom there,
but at the
same time really not there would have been more than Buffy could
have
handled. I am sure Dawn half wanted to see how much of mom she
brought back,
but realized at the last moment how evil and yucky this really
was. And out
of concern for Buffy mostly, and out of realization how much of
abomination
this was she tore up the picture and saved Buffy from having to
face the
false hope that at that point she all too willingly would cling
to.
Dawn realized that they needed to move on- together. Zombie mom
(without a
soul, I am guessing) would have just added to the baggage.
Both Dawn and Cordelia were mistaken by trying to cling so tightly
to what
is gone. But Dawn showed more courage at the end to let go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Choices (Spoilers from tonight) -- Solitude1056,
05:54:29 04/18/01
Wed
Don't forget the even stickier issue of Buffy being the Slayer
of All Things
Icky... if Joyce weren't "the same" when she came back,
and something had
gone wrong, Buffy doesn't know how to end the spell. She'd be
put in the
position of having to fight - and try to slay - the creature in
a body that
her mother's. That's a situation I wouldn't wish on my own worst
enemy. I
don't know if that was part of Dawn's decision, but the idea did
occur to
me.
What a Cute Couple -- Max, 23:06:27 04/17/01 Tue
No, not Angel and Buffy. Spike and Dawn.
Sounds perverse.
Remember these facts.
Spike doesn't age.
Dawn is 14.
In two years Dawn will be 16. Two years. What is that to something
that has
been around for more than a hundred years.
16 is when Buffy met Angel I believe. And Angel was over two hundred
years
old. Twice Spike's age.
Somewhere during session 7 Spike will realize that Buffy isn't
his true
love. DAWN IS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What a Cute Couple -- Ben, 23:42:41 04/17/01 Tue
It might sound sick but here it goes:
Spike and Dawn they have a chemisty to them.
I just hope the writters wait a few years (I would perfer at least
4, but as
was mentioned 2 would equal 16 which is close to Buffy meeting
Angel age) to
exploit this chemistry.
That old guy though. He had a creepy feel to him. Like he was
some kind of
molester. Ewww! I hope Dawn stays as far away from him as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dawn =Jail Bait -- Sue, 00:02:51 04/18/01 Wed
I just hope they just don't go there.
Not even play with that idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What a Cute Couple -- Shaglio, 06:25:18 04/18/01 Wed
"In two years Dawn will be 16."
Dawn started this season at 14, but she could have had her 15th
birthday
during the season (other characters have had birthdays that the
writers
never mentioned). If she DID have her 15th B-day during this season,
then
she'll have her 16th during next season and her and Spike can
begin their
relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What a Cute Couple -- Max, 06:39:29 04/18/01 Wed
I wonder how Buffy would like Spike for her brother in law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> A Redwood for Dear Brother-in-Law -- Vulpes,
10:31:09 04/18/01 Wed
The perfect wedding present Buffy would give Spike is a Redwood
through the
old chest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Dawn: Becoming -- Brian, 13:23:18 04/18/01
Wed
Dawn is in a flesh wrapper. What she may become is still unknown.
Who knows?
She may end up as the perfect mate for Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> This is a joke thread, right? -- Rendyl, 09:25:55
04/18/01 Wed
Hello? Dawn-kid, Spike-really old nonhuman guy. No one else is
having an
EWWWWWWWW moment thinking about this? Gee, what is the word I
am looking
for? Oh yeah, Pedophile. Spike may look around 20 but he isn't.
and before
it is brought up Buffy at 16 with Angel at over 200 was not a
good thing
either. Does anyone posting on this topic actually have kids?
or daughters?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: This is a joke thread, right? -- Eania Snow,
12:10:04 04/18/01
Wed
No Kids (Thank god) but im still sitting here thinking im dirty
now from
reading theses posts. Spike with a little-sister protector thing
going is
good. Spike with an icky relationship thing makes me no longer
want to watch
Buffy. Yuck Yuck Yuck people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: This is a joke thread, right? -- Sanguinary,
13:12:35 04/18/01
Wed
But you also have to consider that Dawn is older than Spike, being
as she
has been around since the dawn of time. Dawn may be human now
but she wasn't
always.
And if we're going to get all eww with the idea of Dawn and Spike,
then what
about Anya and Xander? Anya is 1120 some years old. Wouldn't she
be more
likely to be a pedophile?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! -- Eania Snow,
15:16:14 04/18/01 Wed
All very good points however Dawn still looks like shes 14. So
to that I
still say EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! -- Rufus,
15:28:25 04/18/01 Wed
I'm with Eania....Dawn may be a flesh wrapper to some but to me
her mortal
state is that of a 15 yr old girl. The Key may be ageless but
Dawn is a
young girl not a Buffy replacement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: This is a joke thread, right? -- Gene, 18:29:12
04/18/01 Wed
Dawn is 14/15 going on 18.
No one is saying that it should happen now, but Spike is ageless.
I do hope they hold back just a little while but Buffy and Angel
had sex
before she was even 21.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: This is a joke thread, right? -- K'Z'K,
01:02:17 04/19/01 Thu
Spike does not look around 20 to me - more like his early 30's.
Ofcourse, my
perception of age has been badly damaged from years of TV shows
like 90210
and Saved by the Bell that use almost-30-year-olds to play teens.
SMG was,
what, 20 when she was a courtin' Angel supposedly looking like
a
16-year-old. this scary senario can't work b/c the actress is
Dawn's age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: This is a joke thread, right? -- Shaglio,
13:18:10 04/19/01
Thu
"SMG was, what, 20 when she was a courtin' Angel supposedly
looking like a
16-year-old. this scary senario can't work b/c the actress is
Dawn's age."
And I think this is the root of all the EEEEWWWWWWs. Many people
are
confusing the ages of the characters with the ages of the actors/actresses.
Remember that A) this is just a TV show, not a documentary, and
all plot
lines are fictitious, and B) as horrid as it seems, relationships
like that
do go on in real life. Unfortunately, that's just how the world
goes. I
didn't make the rules. Personnally, I'm still trying to get over
the Allyson
Hannigan/Alexis Denisof thing. How old is he, anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Age and ewwwwww -- JoRus, 13:52:18
04/19/01 Thu
I think the age/sex issue is a valid ewwwww...and yes, it happens
in real
life (and doesn't work out well, which is one of the reasons it's
against
the law in varying forms. In this state 16 may be age of consent...but
if
the other person is more than two years older, it's still against
the law,
and the penalty rises if the other person is more than 4 years
older). I too
had issues with the Buffy/Angel relationship...she was supposed
to be 16,
and sex with a much older guy who was undead was...cool? If vampirism
is a
metaphor for alcoholism, would we think a late twenties/early
thirties
alcholic should be having sex with a 16 year old? Ok, I wouldn't
think it's
a good thing. The argument that vampires are ageless...naw, they
just don't
look older. I like the relationship between Spike/Dawn as is,
and the show
would really have to make me work to have me accept it as a sexual
relationship.
Dawn's Actions (spoilers) -- Beth, 01:03:20 04/18/01 Wed
Spoiler's Space
Wow, what a profound episode. Obviously not to the degree of "the
Body" but
again what could be. But I think this episode was subtly profound,
and I
don't think I have totally processed it all yet. I wish I had
taped it.
One of the things I have been pondering is Dawn's movatives. Obviously
she
has loved her mom very much, and misses her beyond words but it
seemed to go
beyond that. What made her realize her mistake and tear up the
picture
before it was too late? After all this was what she had wanted.
What made
her realize that this was a very, very bad thing to do?
If I had taped it, I think I would contrast her meeting with creepy
old guy
with her confrontation with Buffy.
I have my own ideas that I am still developing, but I wonder if
others have
an idea what drove Dawn, and what caused her to tear up the picture
(realize
her mistake) at the critical moment.
I think it had something to do with believing that she had lost
Buffy's
love. I know there are some pretty profound thinkers out there
that can
expand on that thought, or others reganding this, because I am
having
trouble sleeping thinking about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn's Actions (spoilers) -- Rufus, 03:24:36 04/18/01
Wed
What I saw in Dawn was the fear of being alone. After eons of
being formless
the key has form and is aware. Dawn seems to fear being alone.
She felt
Buffy and her mom kept her out of the loop about the funeral.
Dawn felt that
by Buffy being all business and not crying that she was being
rejected.
Bringing back her mother was the solution to her grief and fear.
She
understood that spells go wrong but fear made her continue to
seek
togetherness. When she found out how truly Buffy was devastated
by Joyce
dying, Dawn was able so see how wrong she had been by attempting
to console
herself by unnatural means. She realised that the memory of Joyce
was far
better than the unknown creature that was at their door. By seeing
Buffy
breaking down for the first time, Dawn realised that she and her
sister were
there to take care of each other. The dead are gone, let them
rest. Tara had
it right, let their memory find a place in your heart, forever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn's Actions (spoilers) -- Vulpes, 10:21:23 04/18/01
Wed
After Buffy broke down infront of Dawn and told her why she was
not grieving
for mother Dawn understood Buffy's actions.
After Buffy told Dawn that she was not pushing Dawn out of her
life Dawn
realized that Buffy wanted her.
I believe Dawn didn't think Buffy care about her and that Joyce
was the only
person who cared about Dawn. When Dawn realized that she had security
with
Buffy, she realized her mistake and tore up the photo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn's Actions (spoilers) -- Vulpes, 10:23:45 04/18/01
Wed
After Buffy broke down infront of Dawn and told her why she was
not grieving
for mother Dawn understood Buffy's actions.
After Buffy told Dawn that she was not pushing Dawn out of her
life Dawn
realized that Buffy wanted her.
I believe Dawn didn't think Buffy care about her and that Joyce
was the only
person who cared about Dawn. When Dawn realized that she had security
with
Buffy, she realized her mistake and tore up the photo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn's Actions (spoilers) -- Anthony8, 19:19:09 04/19/01
Thu
I think Dawn's actions were motivated by the fact that she felt
mostly
overlooked in the whole process of dealing with Joyce's death.
The Scoobies
own inexperience in these matters and the fact that they were
so busy trying
to come to terms with their own grief was such that the best they
could do
was to attempt to insulate Dawn as much as possible from the pain.
Perhaps
Dawn's "newness" also contributed to the way the were
trying to protect her.
In any event, their failure to include Dawn as an equal in the
whole
process, or at least to sit her down and thoughtfully answer her
questions
was what prompted her to take action on her own.
I thought that the whole resurrection spell ordeal could have
been avoided
if Tara had more completely explained to Dawn how she managed
to get past
the grieving process when her own mother died. Of course, the
writers would
have had to fill the remaining thirty plus minutes of the episode
with some
other plot thread, I suppose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn's Actions - grieving -- Solitude1056, 20:04:35
04/19/01 Thu
Even if Tara had had a long conversation with Dawn (onscreen or
off), it
still would not have solved the basic situation for Dawn: Buffy
was shutting
her out. There still would have had to be a head-to-head between
the two of
them. The most effective, of course, is to put Dawn in the situation
of
raising the very kind of thing that Buffy has to fight regularly,
while at
the same time raising something that Buffy desperately wants back.
The
conflict between those two issues are part & parcel of what makes
Buffy
finally break down & let Dawn back in.
So Tara's conversation with Dawn may have achieved a minor resolution
in
some ways, but it still would not have achieved the major purpose
of the
episode. And that, IMO, was to get the two sisters back into a
singular
groove where they could relate to each other. After all, if they're
not
hanging together, to rephrase Mr. Franklin, when Glory comes along
they will
most definitely hang separately. (And we can't let that happen
to our
heroes!)
1056
Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH) -- Sebastian,
01:58:49
04/18/01 Wed
Spoiler
Space
Please
Beware
Was anyone rather shocked by the lack of truth Willow and Angel
showed in
their respective shows?
Willow *deliberately* let Dawn find that book - and although her
motivation
was to educate Dawn on the consequences of resurrection spells
- it could
have had DIRE repercussions for Buffy and Dawn. Does Bufy and
Tara know the
extent of how Willow led Dawn down tonight's path?
I doubt it. You saw Buffy's reaction when Dawn said something
alon the lines
of "he said it would work" and Buffy was like, "he
WHO? - it was clear Buffy
wanted to know who helped her with this -and heaven help that
man (ie,
Spike) who helped Dawn with such a dangerous thing once Buffy
got her hands
on him.....s would she react the same way knowing it was Willow
who allowed
that book be found?....
And did anyone notice that Angel has not told the gang he has
slept with
Darla? When Cordelia made a paassing comment on the *possibility*
of
sleeping with Darla -it became clear that Angel has not said anythin.
How do you think they might react to this? I think he fears they
would NEVER
accept him back if he told them this.
Thoughts?.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH) --
Scott L.,
05:05:40 04/18/01 Wed
I'm more surprised that Tara and Cordellia believed the obvious,
blatant
lies that Willow and Angel told.
As for Willow, I'm intrigued what the future holds. I think she's
interested
in magic for the same way she's interested in anything else, it
is
knowledge. She has sort of a mad scientist's vigor about it. Knowledge
for
the sake of knowledge and darn the consequences.
Tara is showing the, with great power comes great responsibility
side of
witchcraft.
I'm loving this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> powerful knowledge -- purplegrrl, 09:52:51 04/18/01
Wed
I saw a great bumper sticker on the way to work this morning that
fits in
nicely here:
"Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard. Be evil."
For a long time Willow has chosen to ignore the consequences of
her magical
actions. And even Tara has been unable to get through to her just
what she
is setting herself up for. I have a feeling that something is
going to
happen to Willow to prove to her that her magical actions have
consequences,
and that sometimes those consequences are frightening, dire, and
irreversable.
Nobody (Joss, writers, cast) is talking about how the rest of
the season
will go. So it is entirely possible that something dire or at
least
life-altering could happen to Willow in the next 6 episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: powerful knowledge -- Elizabeth, 10:02:29
04/18/01 Wed
Hmmm. And the sad part is, Willow will do it because she is a
good person.
More than once, she has argued for doing magic or doing questionable
things
(she's a softie--on Angelus, EvilWillow, Spike, etc) because she
doesn't
like people feeling hurt. In this situation, she felt sorry for
Dawn's pain
and was so moved by that empathy she didn't think clearly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: powerful knowledge -- verdantheart,
12:08:38 04/18/01 Wed
Very interesting thread here.
Willow's attitude toward magic (over-reaching her abilities, disregarding
consequences) has been a growing trend this season. If she continues
in this
manner, she could eventually hurt her relationship with Tara,
or even
inadvertently hurt Tara herself. I'm really looking forward to
what's going
to happen with the character!
It was interesting to note that her actions in the episode put
her on the
same side as Spike, helping Dawn deal with her grief in the wrong
way.
Interestingly, they both seemed to think that bringing Joyce back
was a bad
idea, but they still helped Dawn pursue that course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: powerful knowledge -- Scott L., 12:37:01
04/18/01 Wed
<>
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I wonder how many good intentions Rupert had just before his "Ripper"
days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: powerful knowledge -- Malandanza,
10:47:39 04/19/01 Thu
"Hmmm. And the sad part is, Willow will do it because she
is a good person.
More than once, she has argued for doing magic or doing questionable
things
(she's a softie--on Angelus, EvilWillow, Spike, etc) because she
doesn't
like people feeling hurt. In this situation, she felt sorry for
Dawn's pain
and was so moved by that empathy she didn't think clearly."
Willow isn't always a softie -- her feelings towards Cordelia
(when she and
Xander were dating), Faith, Veruca and Anya have demonstrated
that she is
quite capable of being vindictive and hateful. In particular,
her attitude
towards Faith, fully revealed while Faith was in Buffy's body,
shows Willow
in her least charitable light.
As for why the evil book of raising the dead fell into Dawn's
hands: I think
all the talk about not raising the dead got Willow wondering about
how
difficult it would be to perform the ritual. I can easily see
her looking up
material on resurrection without ever intending to use it -- just
to see if
it was possible (intellectual curiousity).
Dawn would have been better off staying with Anya and Xander than
Willow and
Tara. Both Anya and Xander have become responsible adults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH) --
Max, 06:44:15
04/18/01 Wed
"he WHO? - it was clear Buffy wanted to know who helped her
with this -and
heaven help that man (ie, Spike) who helped Dawn with such a dangerous
thing
once Buffy got her hands on him."
"he Who" was creppy old man. Buffy should kill him as
I don't believe he was
human."
Of course Spike helped as well. Buffy should absolutely slay Spike
over
this. (but again she should have slayed him long ago).
I really don't understand what Willow was thinking here. She should
have
never let her out of her sight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH)
-- Sebastian,
09:10:18 04/18/01 Wed
"he Who" was creppy old man. Buffy should kill him as
I don't believe he was
human."
I agree. It was "Doc" who helped Dawn - but I think
Buffy reacted the way
she did because she assumed (rightly so) that Spike was behind
it.
Because she would, as Spike put it, "drive a redwood through
his chest" if
she ever did find out about it.
"I really don't understand what Willow was thinking here.
She should have
never let her out of her sight."
Once again, I agree. I couldn't believe that Willow was that thoughtless.
They all know how resourceful Dawn is - you would have thought
that Willow
would have relaized that a girl (especially a girl from the Summers
family)
with that level of determination is not going to be discouraged.
Willow was very thoughtless. Although I was quite shocked - and
pleased - by
the fortitude Tara showed in this episode. This is the first time
I've seen
her take a very proactive stance in regards to her opinion.
"I'm more surprised that Tara and Cordellia believed the
obvious, blatant
lies that Willow and Angel told."
In regards to Cordeila - I don't think its that simple. I don't
think ANY of
them would have thought that Angel would have fallen as far as
to sleep with
Darla - especially considering what happedned during his last
sexual
escapade (return to evil, stalking of Buffy, the murder of Jenny
Calender).
In regards to Tara and Willow....I'm eager to see if Tara knows
thge truth.
It cuts off with Tara calling Buffy - but we don't know the aftermath
-
whether Tara got the truth out of Willow.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> murder, was Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow
(SPOILERISH) --
Michael J. Hennebry, 13:53:23 04/27/01 Fri
"he WHO? - it was clear Buffy wanted to know who helped her
with this -and
heaven help that man (ie, Spike) who helped Dawn with such a dangerous
thing
once Buffy got her hands on him."
Did anyone notice that Dawn apparently killed her "mother"?
One might argue that that was a good thing, but Dawn didn't wait
to find
out. Rather a lot of physical deformities (including a reptilian
tail) can
be lived with, but Dawn didn't find out.
Another thing Dawn and Spike didn't do is ask the guy with the
tail what he
meant by "more or less" when he said that the spell
would "more or less"
bring Dawn's mother back.
It seems to me that Dawn tore up the picture more to hide evidence
that
she'd been naughty than to do the right thing. I wonder what effect
crinkling the picture had.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: murder, was Re: Telling the truth: Angel
anmd Willow
(SPOILERISH) -- Wiccagrrl, 07:25:41 04/29/01 Sun
Dawn didn't "kill" her mother when she tore up the picture-
Joyce was
already dead. She allowed her to rest in peace. Now, yeah, she
should have
asked Doc what "more or less" meant, but Dawn knew,
deep down, that this
spell was dangerous and wrong, and almost certainly wasn't going
to bring
the Joyce she knew and loved back. She was desperate. When she
saw Buffy
break down, saw that she wasn't alone in this, realized what seeing
what was
most likely a zombie-Joyce would do to Buffy, she found the strength
to do
the right thing and let Joyce go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: murder, was Re: Telling the truth:
Angel anmd Willow
(SPOILERISH) -- Michael J. Hennebry, 10:59:19 05/01/01 Tue
Wiccagrrl:
"Dawn didn't "kill" her mother when she tore up
the picture- Joyce was
already dead."
You mean like Buffy was already dead after she drowned and Xander(?)
gave
her CPR?
Wiccagrrl:
"She allowed her to rest in peace. Now, yeah, she should
have asked Doc what
"more or less" meant, but Dawn knew, deep down, that
this spell was
dangerous and wrong, and almost certainly wasn't going to bring
the Joyce
she knew and loved back."
I don't know that it was wrong. Why should Dawn? For all she and
we could
tell the spell would have brought back the Joyce she knew and
loved.
Wiccagrrl:
"She was desperate. When she saw Buffy break down, saw that
she wasn't alone
in this, realized what seeing what was most likely a zombie-Joyce
would do
to Buffy, she found the strength to do the right thing and let
Joyce go."
Spike wasn't expecting a zombie and Spike had clearly considered
the
possibility. Also, we have seen the dead raised fairly successfully:
the
"dead" guys in The Zeppo. So far as we could tell, there
hadn't been any
personality changes and their bodies weren't rotting.
For the sake of argument, assume that Dawn and Spike knew exactly
what the
spell would do and that what it would do is to bring Joyce back
with her
personality intact, but with a reptilian tail and eyes that go
black when
she concentrates.
Did Dawn and Spike have a moral obligation to forgo the spell?
Given that
the spell had already been done, did they have a moral obligation
to reverse
the spell. Given that the spell had already been done, did they
have a moral
obligation to not reverse the spell?
My answers are maybe, no, and yes.
Assuming that Ghora demons are things that need killing, the maybe
should be
taken as a no. Assuming that Ghora demons are people on whom abortion
should
not be forced, the maybe should be taken as a yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH) --
Wiccagrrl,
08:59:13 04/18/01 Wed
Willow's lie/stammmering was so inept, I doubt Tara really didn't
see the
truth- I think her first priority was to warn Buffy, but I think
it was
pretty obvious to Tara that Willow had pointed the book out. And
I don't
think Willow meant to help Dawn do the spell, but wanted to help
answer some
of her questions, as she said. But leaving Dawn alone, with a
book with that
kind of information, was very, very dangerous.
As for Angel, I think he's told the guys (So you just, what, have
and
Epiphany and bang? Well, actually, kinda the other way around.
I got the
impression both Gunn and Wesley understood what he meant by that.)
But
Cordy? I think she would have been harder for him to tell that
too. She was
the only one of three around for the last time he lost his soul-
she was
already the one having the hardest time forgiving him. Angel's
got a huge
soft spot for her. I was pretty surprised that he flat-out lied
to her- "I
would never do that" But this news will come out sooner or
later (I'm
guessing sooner.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel & Cordy -- Solitude1056,
10:41:52
04/18/01 Wed
She was the only one of three around for the last time he lost
his soul- she
was already the one having the hardest time forgiving him. Angel's
got a
huge soft spot for her. I was pretty surprised that he flat-out
lied to her-
"I would never do that" But this news will come out
sooner or later (I'm
guessing sooner.)
Also have to remember that Angel's known Cordy as long as he's
known Buffy -
and he's watched Cordy grow up almost as much as Buffy has, if
not more.
That's got to affect a person, knowing someone that long, and
how far
they've come. And as has been described by the actors and Joss,
there's a
serious brother-sister dynamic there. Originally he may've been
amused (at
most) by her attempts to distract him from Buffy, but she did
show her
strength a few times in HS in some rough spots. And later, she
opened up to
him in Room W/a Vu, when they were speaking about her own feelings
of being
punished, and wanting a place of her own.
So some part of it is a moral responsibility for her development,
because
she's let him be part of that. And perhaps some part of it is
also a
leftover from Doyle's influence, of being so in love with Cordy.
Doyle's
gone, but Angel may feel (and I can't see it as being uncharacteristic
if he
did) that he's got to take care of Cordy in some way since Doyle's
not there
to do it. It seemed that previously Cordy was just steam-rolling
Angel into
hiring her, but Doyle kept at Angel til Angel could see Cordy's
better
sides.
A brother-sister dynamic is a different critter, after all. There's
quibbling, but there's also respect, protectiveness, and a little
bit of
insecurity that the other person might disapprove of one's actions.
That,
and I've always wondered if Cordy isn't - to Angel - the person
Angel's own
sister might've grown into, if she'd lived. Angel hasn't had a
"family"
other than Darla/Dru/Spike for several hundred years now, and
he was always
on the edges with the Scooby gang. How ironic, and appropriate,
that his
family is now two other almost-Scoobies, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel & Cordy -- The
Godfather, 13:41:36
04/18/01 Wed
Wow..kudos..this is one of the best A/C descriptions I've heard
yet. Thank
you.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Just now caught it - thanks! :) -- Solitude1056,
22:55:40
04/21/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH)
-- OnM, 17:03:10
04/18/01 Wed
*** "Willow's lie/stammmering was so inept, I doubt Tara
really didn't see
the truth- I think her first priority was to warn Buffy, but I
think it was
pretty obvious to Tara that Willow had pointed the book out."
***
I agree completely-- Tara is increasingly turning out to be the
voice of
reason and conscience. I very much doubt she didn't pick up on
Willow's
deceitfulness, it was just that there was a higher priority to
attend to
first. We don't know what happened afterwards between W & T. Even
keeping in
mind Tara's love for Willow, she's expressed concern before at
some of
Willow's over-eagerness to exploit her powers carelessly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH)
--
Solitude1056, 17:39:12 04/18/01 Wed
Tara is increasingly turning out to be the voice of reason and
conscience. I
very much doubt she didn't pick up on Willow's deceitfulness,
it was just
that there was a higher priority to attend to first.
That & something else: Willow's not exactly in the best shape
right now,
herself. Tara's able to be the voice of reason because she hasn't
spent the
past 7 years around Joyce, and didn't know her that well (yet),
and second,
she's been through this before.
[aside: I would've expected Tara to respond, "but I do know
what it's like,"
when Dawn insisted that W & T couldn't know what she was feeling.
Then I
realized I wasn't watching a second-rate show, and remembered
that these
writers don't go with the 'expected' - easy - lines. Tara's whole
issue is
that because she knows grieving is such an isolating experience,
that she
truly can't know, and that to mention that she can empathize would
be to
take the focus off where it belongs: on Dawn, and Dawn's pain.]
For this reason, I think, Tara's also aware that Willow is trying
to cope as
best she can - and trying to help Dawn as best she can, too. Pushing
Willow
to admit openly that she made a big mistake with the book may
be a major
issue, but it's one that had to be set aside until two others
are dealt
with. First, that Buffy be warned, and second, that Willow regain
her own
footing. Tara didn't seem to me like she believed or disbelieved
Willow -
but then again, given Willow's reaction to Joyce's death, it'd
be
uncharacteristic of Tara to be confrontational when Willow is
so emotional.
Tara may be hesitant and shy, but she's no dummy, and she clearly
has an
ability to step into "intellectual" mode when clear
thinking is needed.
I'd suspect this is the reason Tara called Buffy, and not Willow
- because
Willow, under the circumstances, might've ended up an emotional
mess on the
phone as a result of her guilt. Then Tara has to deal with Willow
regrouping
and retranslating the information to a confused Buffy when time
is of the
essence. Tara, at a step removed - by choice and by circumstance
- was able
to clearly and quickly relay the information to Buffy. I doubt
she then
thwacked Willow with the consequences, and I doubt she will until
it's clear
that the crisis has past. It's only then that Willow, like usual,
may take a
breather & recognize that she acted rashly without too much prompting
from
Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow (SPOILERISH)
-- Rufus,
18:34:17 04/18/01 Wed
I agree that Tara is the voice of reason. Tara is more knowledgable
in
magic, it seems that Willow may have more raw power. If they fight
in the
next while it will be over Wiccan ethics. Tara was raised with
magic and
understands consequences. Willow is the nerdy teenager that has
power for
the first time in her life. She has the attitude that if it feels
good how
can it be bad. She isn't into the consequences. Her intentions
regarding
Dawn were the best but they could have been very tragic, Tara
can see that,
Willow can't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Telling the truth: Angel anmd Willow
(SPOILERISH) --
Solitude1056, 19:45:05 04/18/01 Wed
Willow is the nerdy teenager that has power for the first time
in her life.
She has the attitude that if it feels good how can it be bad.
She isn't into
the consequences.
I can see your point, but I think it's a bit unfair. Tara's goes
with her
head in this relationship, but Willow is (and always has been)
led by her
heart. The two balance each other well in that respect, and that's
part IMO
of their chemistry as characters. That said, Willow's following
her heart
when it comes to helping Dawn, and feeling utterly inadequate
that there's
nothing she can do.
I think Willow needs a bit more benefit of the doubt right now
when it comes
to her moral compass. Remembering that one of her major self-identity
aspects is knowledge, which means that if she felt she were to
help someone,
she'd do it by providing them with knowledge, too. This is the
role she
frequently played with Giles, of providing Buffy with knowledge
to do the
Slayer job. It wasn't like Willow could get in there & dust with
Buffy, but
she could make sure Buffy knew as much as possible instead of
heading in
blind.
I suspect that was the instinctive motivation, here, too. Willow
underestimated Dawn's tendecy towards action, and perhaps thought
that
reading an Authority who says, "don't do this," would
suffice. It would for
Willow, and that's the way people think: I expect such-and-such
from
so-and-so, because that's what I would do in their place. It seems
that Dawn
is very quickly showing herself - in Spike's words - as a "bitty
Buffy." The
best example is Gile's relaying the first half of the paragraph
about the
Fear Demon (back in that halloween episode), and Buffy acting
without
listening for more info. Dawn has the same trait.
It's not that Willow didn't consider consequences; it's that she
underestimated the forcefulness - and sincerity - of Dawn's request.
Like
someone else said, Willow's a softie, in that she works to see
the best in
people. That makes her a perfect foil for Xander's tendency to
categorize a
person (like Spike or Angel) and refuse to budge from that position.
But it
works against her when she's dealing with people one-on-one, and
even more
so when she's trying to help them or is also feeling bad, herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oops. -- Solitude1056, 19:46:44 04/18/01
Wed
I think my post just now probably would've fit better in the "willow
is
irresponsible" thread... my bad.
Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions? -- Eania Snow, 02:11:23 04/18/01
Wed
Just Finished Watching the episode for the second time.
This is the first episode where I attually noticed Spike doing
something
with good intentions. Yes they can be seen as selfish to get ride
of guilt
or what not. However name me a good act and I can give you a possible
selfish reason for doing it. If the act was done for selfish reasons
or not,
it still makes it a postive thing.
Something changed in Spike awhile ago now I think we are seeing
the extent
of that change. This is not going to be a redemption rant though.
No remorse
no redemption in my book. Also I think the Angel episode reinforced
that its
in his nature to be evil and he will turn. This may or maynot
be the case
with him though, theres the chip varible to look at as well.
Here is my list of the 3 Best intentions and all acts he did.
1# Dropping of Flowers at the house.
2# Helping Dawn
3# Saving Dawn (2 times the monster would of killed her if not
for him)
Also with the saving Dawn thing I don't think we can use the if
Buffy found
out she would kill him route. The monster im sure would of eat
all the
evidence.
My 5am 24 hours with out sleep thoughts/rant
Burn away
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions? -- LoriAnn, 02:53:46
04/18/01 Wed
Right, Spike's intentions this ep seem to be the best we have
seen. Pre-chip
Spike could have killed Joyce anytime, but chose not to. She seemed
to fill
some need of his, no matter how small a need, so to bring her
flowers with
no worse motivations than most of us would have isn't unreasonable.
Has
Spike been developing a similar kind of grounding he told Buffy
she had,
family and friends. If so, his loss of Joyce would be a serious
blow to that
grounding. I'm not sure of his motivations with Dawn, yet they
seemed
positive, even if his actions were unwise. Dawn told Spike once
that he
treated her like a real person; perhaps he was allowing her to
follow a
course he believed she sould be wise enough to abort prior to
completion.
We've discussed Spike's insight into human nature in the past.
All this leads me to a big "HOWEVER." However, I think
we are being led down
the garden path here. Up to now I hoped we would see some serious
desire to
be better, less evil, in Spike. Now I think he's gotten so less
evil JW must
be setting us up. Does this ep and perhaps the next set us up
for a bigger
surprise when Spike's vampire nature reasserts itself?
To maintain the tension between Spike and Buffy, Spike can't become
Brother
Theresa. There has to be this tension, and he has to be capable
of anything
to be his most interesting. Is it possible for Spike to be a vampire,
with
most of what that implies, and still have a soft spot for the
"Summers
women"?
This has gone on long enough, so to end, Spike is still an interesting
character; whether he's slightly good or very bad, I don't think
the
interest the character--as played my JM--generates will change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions? -- Solitude1056,
06:01:37
04/18/01 Wed
I'm not sure it's good-bad intentions where Spike relates to Dawn.
It's
something else, that has nothing to do with Buffy. Remember when
Dawn told
Spike that she wasn't even human, and he replied: "I was
human once, but I
got over it." He's not a full vampire as long as he has the
chip, and he's
stuck in limboland - what is he, demon, person, pathetic poser?
Dawn's
limboland of what is she, person, key, pawn in someone else's
game may
strike a note in him. He's perceptive enough (and seen enough)
to perhaps
not consider her just another potential snack, but an equal on
some level,
as a fellow limbolander.
Dawn was trying to take action, to change the circumstances of
her
existence. Spike's done the same thing, by kidnapping the doctor
& trying to
get him to remove the chip. The actions of a fellow possibly-powerful
creature, trapped in powerlessness, may resonate with Spike. That,
and it
can't be lost on him that if Dawn doesn't like him, then he's
more than just
toast on the day she discovers (if ever) her full abilities. Buffy
could
kick his ass, but Dawn (might) be able to make him cease to exist
by just
thinking about it. Not saying I know something y'll don't about
the key,
just that this might be the way Spike is considering as possible
ramifications of Dawn being the Key.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions? -- Lynn, 07:45:44
04/18/01 Wed
[Is it possible for Spike to be a vampire, with most of what that
implies,
and
still have a soft spot for the "Summers women"?]
LoriAnn, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Spike is still
what he is,
a chipped vampire, but he has spent enough time with the Summers
women, and
has become smitten in three different ways. With Joyce, she just
seemed to
accept him at face value, and he responded to it. I don't think
he ever
would have hurt her, he certainly had opportunities before he
was chipped
and had access to the house. How he described her to Xander and
Willow was
totally sincere, you could see it in his eyes. With Buffy, well,
we know how
he feels about her - but even if he hadn't fallen in love with
her (and I do
believe he has) he always respected her as a worthy adversary.
With Dawn, I
think there is streak of protectiveness, wanting to keep her safe,
and I
think they are both in the world but not of it, so there is a
kinship there.
There is enough humanity in Spike to care deeply about them, but
perhaps not
enough to completely change, and therein lies the conflict, which
holds our
interest. Spike going one way or the other will become boring
after a time,
if he is to continue on the show as a regular, this a great way
of doing it.
JM has shown such wonderful range this year, and I think putting
the gray
areas in Spike was a stroke of genius on Joss' part.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Does it have to be one or the other? -- Scott
L., 16:07:08 04/18/01
Wed
See what you think.
Let's start with gross generalization:
Vampires are evil. They have no conscience.
Humans are good. They hava a conscience.
Evil beings harm others.
Good beings help others.
These generalizations lead to moral uncertainty when they are
contradicted.
However, since those of us on this board are all (presumably)
human, we have
a compass for human contradiction of the generalizations. It doesn't
bother
our paradigm.
Faith is human. She pretended that her actions did not affect
her
conscience. They certainly did. They drove her to the brink of
passive
suicide. She tried to get Angel to kill her, she felt so awful.
Spike is a vampire. His actions stem from his powerful emotions
and his lack
of guilt for having those emotions. He is unapologetic about his
actions
that cause obvious harm. He is unapologetic about his thing for
Buffy. (I'm
sorry, I just can't call it love. I think it's icky. A wonderful,
icky
story.) But it drives him a little crazy. He tried to kill Buffy,
then Darla
because his feelings so went against his nature. But these contratictions
of
gross generalizations disturb our paradigm, because we want vampires
to be
simple.
Beings with consciences can harm others. They'll feel bad about
it. They may
have to do rash things to make it feel okay. Conscience makes
apology and
penance the easiest "rash: thing to do.
Beings without consciences can help others. They'll feel bad about
it. They
may have to do rash things to make it feel okay. Lack of conscience
makes
striking out in anger the easiest "rash" thing to do.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Does it have to be one or the other?
-- Anthony8, 20:21:13
04/19/01 Thu
In other words:
Vampires are evilish.
Humans are goodish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions? -- jennet,
19:16:49 04/18/01
Wed
i agree... spike, as a cardboard cut-out villain, losing the humanity
he's
gained this season, would be an utter let-down. to make a character
grow so
much, and then set him back... but on the other hand, could we
accept him in
khakis and a tasteful sweater, our (tame) hero ?
as for "forever", there was nothing but honesty in the
way he described
joyce. and he could be recognizing dawn's awkward, outsider feelings.
they
both feel like parts of buffy's life that she's conciously or
unconciously
pushing away. you know, i think spike deserves more credit than
he's
getting, at least from the writers. he made a very obvious move
in 'crush',
by refusing to return to the old life that drusilla offered. it
shows how
different he is from the character he was in 'school hard'. with
the flowers
in 'forever', i think there's an important message to be made
- that spike
is finally recognizing things like friendship and trust. here's
a new
question : everyone believes a soulless vampire can feel lust,
but can a
soulless vampire feel friendship ? it's a relationship with nothing
more to
gain but helping and accepting each other, since it doesn't involve
sexuality. so i guess the jury's out on that one for now... his
acknowledgement of joyce as a good and accepting person was a
major
statement that was kind of, well, understated.
personally, i love the idea of a buffy/spike relationship blossoming,
particularly because of their yin/yang-iness. she's said before
that she can
hide how she feels from everyone but herself, and spike... they
seem to find
something in each other that brings out the best and worst...
i think it's
silly not to pursue it.
oh well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Me too... -- Jen C., 20:09:17 04/18/01
Wed
I'm a big lover of the "Yin-Yanginess"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Me too... -- Dee, 06:11:04 04/19/01
Thu
I agree-Spike can feel friendship, and that is why he brought
flowers for
Joyce. Remember when she gave him hot chocolate? She was mothering
him, and
that is what he responded to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions?
-- The Godfather,
08:42:32 04/19/01 Thu
There's no romance to be found here. And frankly that idea perplexes
me.
Spike will never be less than a villain with good qualties run
by his
selfish needs but able to have compassion..that doesn't make him
a suitable
love interest. And never will. And it will also bar Spike from
any chance of
redemption. As long as he is trying to get to Buffy, his actions
will never
be selfless..as long as his goal is the girl, it will never be
real. And as
long as he is without a degree of remorse, he has no chance.
Now I could VERY reluctantly accept Spike changing and seeking
redemption..(even Angel hasn't gotten there yet so seeking remains
operative) as long as he abondoned his Buffy lust. That makes
him less
believable in all actions..
JMO,
Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> GF, naughty girl, you made me choke
on my drink..:):):):) --
Rufus, 13:06:20 04/19/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions?
-- LoriAnn, 13:37:29
04/20/01 Fri
"Spike will never be less than a villain with good qualties
run by his
selfish needs but able to have compassion..that doesn't make him
a suitable
love interest. And never will. And it will also bar Spike from
any chance of
redemption."
Based on your analysis, there probably isn't much hope for Spike
OR for any
of us. No one is perfect, and if self-interest is a damning motivation,
we're certainly all damned.
Someone wrote that Spike is a character somewhat like Heathcliff
in
"Wuthering Heights." Heathcliff is looked upon as a
great romantic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best
Intensions? Continuation --
LoriAnn, 13:42:11 04/20/01 Fri
. . .figure. That he choses a rather evil path in life doesn't
seem to
affect that. Evil or lack thereof has never been a requirement
for a love
interest.
Still, as I think I wrote in another post, this episode makes
me uneasy
concerning Spike. He was so good that I can't help but think we're
being set
up for a really serious change for the worse in his behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike: Selfish or
Best Intensions? Continuation --
thegodfather, 16:07:52 04/20/01 Fri
I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the over-romanticizing of remorseless
mass
murdererers. Until he shows the genuine ability to care about
the world not
connected to him..he has no chance. And Spike being unable to
change has no
relation to humanity being unable to change..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike: Selfish or Best Intensions? -- Max, 06:27:57
04/18/01 Wed
3# Saving Dawn (2 times the monster would of killed her if not
for him)
I believe he sees a little of Buffy within Dawn. Or perhaps he
sees
something more.
Here's to season 7.
Did Anyone Notice.... -- Vulpes, 10:03:37 04/18/01 Wed
Did anyone notice the demon tail and eyes of the 'man' who gave
Dawn the
remaining items she needed and advice to complete the resurrection
spell?
Spike said that he knew this 'man' could help.
I thought Spike could distingish human from demon?
Or was Spike deceiving Dawn for another motive other than resurrecting
her
mother?
The 'man' said he knew Spike, but that he remembered Spike had
"different"
hair.
I know, from Fool For Love, that Spike had colored hair since
1977.
Anyone notice something other than this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did Anyone Notice.... -- Elizabeth, 10:08:41 04/18/01
Wed
I think Spike knew the guy was a demon. Otherwise, he would not
have simply
walked into the guy's house. He would have tried to be invited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Did Anyone Notice.... -- Scott L, 12:33:53 04/18/01
Wed
I think Spike said, "bloke," or some other term that
didn't necessarily
imply demon. But, since my VCR is busted, I have to rely on memory.
Elizabeth is right, though. Since Spike said that he'd never met
the bloke,
Doc would have had to be a demon or the place a public dwelling
for Spike to
enter.
Dawn and corruption - Forever spoilers -- Jen C., 12:37:14 04/18/01
Wed
Hi All-
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
.
.
.
I've been getting a vibe off of Dawn. A lot of what she has done
in the past
few episodes - breaking into the Magic Shop, trying to bring Mommy
back,
have been morally ambiguous (ok, I really don't know how to spell
that!) at
best. I'm also wondering why "Doc" was so eager to help
Dawn, when he was so
obviously NOT a nice man.
She entered into the world a clean slate. No original sin (if
you buy into
that), no past petty evils, she's pretty darn innocent. I'm wondering
if it
may be necessary (or predestined) for her to be corrupted in order
to become
the "key". Now, it may be youthful hi-jinks, and it
may just be the need for
evil to corrupt the innocent, but she really seems to take to
the dark stuff
pretty readily.
I await responses from those more wise than myself...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn and corruption - Forever spoilers -- Scott L.,
15:45:18 04/18/01
Wed
I don't think that Dawn is necessarily walking down a path of
corruption. It
seems to me that she has the typical teenage egocentrism. Most
teenagers
think that "it's all about them". In Dawn's case (in
typical Joss fashion)
it really is all about her.
Still she acts as if she is the center of the world. That's not
bad, it just
shows a lack of empathy that comes with being more mature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn and corruption - Forever spoilers -- OnM, 16:40:27
04/18/01 Wed
I'm not sure about the 'wise' part, so I hope you'll let me comment
anyway!
;)
I see Dawn as a normal teenager who is in a lot of pain, pain
that many
adults would have great trouble dealing with, just as we've seen
with Buffy
at the end of the ep this week. She isn't the type to sit and
brood, at
least not for very long. She wants to take action, do something,
very much
like her older sister. (Spike perceptively gloms onto this same
observation
with his 'Bitty Buffy' comment).
I also think that this will be another case where consequences
will ensue
from some action she takes, and so she will get closer to her
sister in a
way she neither expects nor cares for-- Buffy's impulsiveness
has been both
her benefactor and her curse, depending on the circumstances.
I can see Dawn
moving in the same direction, with the same potential results.
It's too soon to tell just what 'Doc' is up to, but of course
evil can
appear in many forms, some of them seemingly helpful or friendly
(see: The
Mayor) but evil nonetheless, with self-serving motives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn and corruption - Forever spoilers -- Rufus,
18:25:23 04/18/01
Wed
Remember the Key was neutral, incapable of making choice. So is
the
corruption of Dawn just a young girl choosing her path...or the
key figuring
out the difference between good and evil by experience? If she
makes
mistakes what does she learn from them, and how will that help
her later?
Current board
| More April 2001
2 < F 2 2 PMwp
@