August 2002 Archives - Page 3
Will Wes ever rejoin the Fang Gang? (No spoilers for season 4, but some for season 3) -- Wolfhowl3, 06:13:12 08/04/02 Sun
As I said, I have no Idea what will happen next season, everything that I am about to say is congecture. If it proves to be right later, well, I'll be as suprised as you.
I think that it is enevitable that Wes will rejoin AI, but will never be the leader again.
Wes will be needed to contact Cordy on the Higher levels, and in turn, Cordy will be needed to find Angel in the Sea.
I also think that Angel won't be the leader of AI anymore as well, I think that it will be Gunn and Fred! (They make such a cute couple!)
Wes will betray Wolfram & Hart, and they will want his blood BIG time, but I think that he will Live!
What's your thoughts?
Wolfie
[>Re: Wes (Small spoiler for S4) -- yabyumpan, 09:10:47 08/04/02 Sun
I don't know what will happen but TM said in a recent interview http://atalentscout.com/article_victor_d7.htm , that one of the themes of next season will be
'"Regression," wherein there will be stories that reflect a bit on who the characters were, as opposed to who they are now.'
I hope we're going to see the show looking at Wesley's abuse as a child and relationship with his father. What has happened could be quite cathartic for him and allow him to move forward.
I must admit that I'm really not liking Wes at the momment or all the Wes/Lilah stuff, I tend to fast forward through his/their scenes. I'm just not really interested in the 'bad guys', I've known to many and they're just pathetic and boring in the end. I also think that Lilah has become a caricature, she reminds me of Cruella D'Ville in 101 Dalmations. I would like ME to explore why Wesley did what he did, his reactions etc, trust issues and the need to be in control.
As to him re-joining AI, I would like to see it but I would need him to take responsability for his actions first and actually show that he feels some remourse for Connor spending 16 years in a hell dimension learning to hate his real father. This selfpityfest just makes me want to slap him!
[> [>Re: Wes (Small spoiler for S4) -- Arethusa, 13:24:36 08/04/02 Sun
I don't think of Wes as one of the bad guys yet, just one of the hightly ambivalent guys. Lilah is a stereotype, if not a caracature, of the femme fatale, from her hard-as-laquered nails attitude to her 40s hairstyle and clothing. I thought Lindsey was interesting to the end, and I hope Lilah will be.
I want to see more of Wes's background, too, because I think it will explain a lot about his recent bout of self-pity. Based on the little we know about his upbringing from the telephone call in "Belonging," a conversational slip to the others, and his ranting in "Billy", it seems he is filled with self-hatred and doubt. Probably both emotions were thoroughly justified in his eyes when he botched a prophesy (again), was defeated and betrayed by Justine, and lost the baby forever. But, like a lot of insecure people, say Willow, he can be more sensitive to his own feelings than others'. Sure, he didn't trust them, but they didn't trust him either-or forgive the friend who has fought by their side for years. Only Fred tried to get his side of the story.
Every time something good happens to Wes or he starts to express self-confidence, he suffers a set-back. His leadership of AI faded away with Angel's return to the agency. He was shot fighting with and defending Gunn. Virginia left him not long after. He was too afraid to approach Fred, and she fell for someone else. No longer restrained, like Willow on Tara's death and Buffy when she thought she might be a demon, Wes is giving in to his dark impulses. In Billy we saw the bigotry against women indoctrinated, I assume, by his father-it was too deeply ingrained and hidden to be anything but a childhood lesson, and it is doubtful that he was taught such nonsense by his mother. So I am not suprised at his treatment of Lilah. As someone so cogently noted a little while ago, Wes is quite familiar with one-night stands-Angel made a comment about smelling a bleach-blond he had slept with one night, and Wes said, "Hmm. You know that sinking feeling you sometimes get the morning after?"
to Lilah, indicating he'd had many. He appears to be afraid of getting close enough to someone to be rejected, and the only relationship we've seen him in started when he was pretending to be Angel.
As to his taking responsibility and showing remorse, he seems to have built a hard shell to cover the pain and regret we saw his face express in the hospital. He didn't say anthing at first because he couldn't, and by the time he could speak, he had been rejected by his closest friends, the people he considered his family, including and most especially the woman he loved. He is hurt and angry, and sullen and remorseful, all at the same time. But he is a good man, as he has proven countless times. I can't wait to see more of Wesleyus, as Masq dubbed him, but I know his good nature will prevail in the end because that is as much a part of the Wedonverse as disasterous relationships. Everyone gets at least a remote chance for redemption.
[> [>Why Wesley? Isn't Angel WAY ahead on the "take responsibility" line? -- Earl Allison, 15:05:49 08/04/02 Sun
Forgive my tone, but why should WESLEY be the one to show remorse and sorrow for doing what he thought was the right thing? He was wrong, yes, and tricked by Sahjahn (sp?), but his "crimes" against his friends pale in comparison to Angel's from Season Two AND Season Three -- among them the callousness of letting several lawyers die, setting Darla and Drusilla on fire and NOT finishing the job, actually sleeping with Darla and risking Angelus' return, and his torture of Linwood and turning to dark magics to bring back Connor (amazing that Willow pays with her lover's life, and all Angel deals with are some glow-slugs that Deux-Ex-Cordelia takes care of ...), etc.
I like Angel, don't get me wrong, but considering the group dynamics, and the fact that Gunn and Angel have both done things or been part of groups that caused the AI team serious problems ("That Old Gang of Mine," and most of what Angel did in late S2), to have them turn on Wesley so completely and viciously stretches credibility, IMHO.
Cordelia, at any time before her demonization (and her more appealing character traits were drained away in favor of Saint Cordelia) would never have turned her back on Wesley, whether she was in love (and don't get me started here) with Angel or not. Heck, had she been there, she would have noticed Wesley being more withdrawn, and maybe done something. Gunn and Fred were too into each other to notice, and Angel was too wrapped up in himself and his son.
I'm not sure where Wesley/Lilah came from (left field?), but even so, if he has failed AI, they have failed him as well. Angel of all people should understand prophecies and the struggle to do what's right.
I like (most) all of the characters on "Angel" right now, so this isn't a bash Angel and spare Wesley thing, but while Wesley has done wrong, and needs to seek forgiveness, the other members of AI need to be there and LISTEN to him, and that especially includes Angel -- since he has far more to atone for, even to the rest of the AI team.
Take it and run.
[> [> [>Re: Why Wesley? Isn't Angel WAY ahead on the "take responsibility" line? -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:59:06 08/04/02 Sun
It's hard to be critical of Angel because every bad thing he's done that you mention pales in comparison to his actions while truly evil. He gets less blame and is served up less guilt because it's really a drop of oil in an ocean.
[> [> [> [>IMHO, that makes it WORSE ... -- Earl Allison, 02:28:52 08/05/02 Mon
You're right that Angel's worst acts generally pale in comparison to Angelus', but that's hardly an excuse (IMHO) to let them slide.
In fact, they should be even worse, because here Angel is, trying to atone for Angelus' sins, and he goes off and commits evil acts of his own. Even more, he turns his back on Wesley, who at least had the benefit of doing what he thought was RIGHT -- certainly not an excuse for Angel to sleep with Darla, or to torture Linwood so, so willingly.
That's just me, but if anyone owes an apology to anyone, Angel's need to apologize is (to me) far greater than Wesley's.
Take it and run.
[> [> [>Got to agree. -- HonorH, 17:00:36 08/04/02 Sun
I, too, think it stretches credibility to have everyone turning on Wesley, *especially* Gunn and Cordy. Fred, at least, visited him in the hospital and has made several attempts to get the others to get back in contact with him. Angel's anger is understandable: Wesley cost him his son's growing-up years, and he can never have those years back. However, I don't see where Gunn's attitude and Cordy's neglect are coming from. I'd have been more satisfied if Cordy had gone to see Wesley even to just give him what-for about not *talking* to anyone else about what he'd discovered.
That being said, I rather like seeing the darker side of Wesley, and I'm also digging his thing with Lilah. They seem to have taken over from Buffy and Spike as the Jossverse's Most Dysfunctional Couple. Alexis Denisof is acting the heck out of it, and him getting to explore more of his character is definitely of the Good.
I have full confidence Wesley and the AI gang will be reunited. When that happens, there needs to be responsibility taken all around. Perversely, I think he and Angel will have the easiest time of it because at least with them, the issue is clear. It may actually take more time for Wes to trust Cordy and Gunn again. And I really, really can't blame him.
[> [> [> [>Re: Got to agree. -- Wizardman, 00:27:44 08/05/02 Mon
The fact that all of AI turned on Wes does stretch the imagination, yes. Oh, I'm not saying that he didn't screw up- he did, oh my how he did- but he was manipulated not only by Sahjian, but by Holtz and to a lesser degree the Loa as well (but to be fair, the Loa told him the truth, just in a deceptive way). His situation is interesting because, if I can recall correctly, none of Joss' main characters have ever been so completely isolated- mind you, I have only seen this season of Angel. And we have yet to see what's up with Willow. Anyway... I hope that we see some more of DarkWes. As for Lilah-and-Wes, I like how Stephanie and Alexis played off each other in that one brief scene, but I don't think that it qualifies for Most Dysfunctional Couple- on the relationship scale it falls closer to the Faith-Xander tryst than it does to Spuffy. And we have yet to see if it is just a one-night stand, although I'm betting it's not. Just my two cents.
[> [> [> [> [>Bad Brains: Wes & Wil -- SingedCat, 14:09:08 08/05/02 Mon
Just a random thought-- why do the geniuses (genii?) of the 2 operations happen to be the ones who go realy, really bad? Can we draw some paralells between the two? Really, really smart, yes, but also heavy on the control. (See antonym- Fred) They are both compensating for difficult times in their youth in which they were perceived as worthless and powerless, and trying to reinvent themselves as worthy and effective. In both cases they are actually successful, discovering new parts of themslves, but then they have trouble because they don't have faith in their new selves, seeing them as a kind of facade, rather than simply another facet of themselves, as legitimate as the first, just new. Neither of them are comfortable, it seems, in their own skin.
OK, now I have too defend the credibility of the shunning of Wesley. It was absolutely logical to me when it happened, and it pissed me off royally, because I could see why:
If Angel hadn't gone so ballistic about Wes's betrayal, Gunn, Fred & Cordy would have done exactly what they should have-- gone to Wes and not only waited for, but byGod *demanded* an explanation. But it was an obvious choice of siding with the Judgemental Guy or the Unknown Quantity. (And does anyone else notice that the more past wrongs a character has done, the more judgemental they tend to be?)
Secretly, all three AI associates(and yes, Angel) are feeling guilty and unfair for having shunned Wes like that, but that makes them all the more vehement in their denial. Yes, it really works like that, and yes, they are really that human.
As to Wes sleeping with Lilah-- oooooh, it was hard to watch. But self-loathing is what it is.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Angel and shunning Wesley -- HonorH, 14:58:14 08/05/02 Mon
Actually, Angel's going ballistic was what I mind least about the whole thing. Angel wasn't, IMHO, "judging" Wesley--Angel went ballistic because Wesley was responsible for Connor's kidnapping. That, I think, is the *one thing* Angel can't forgive Wesley for, no matter what the reason. So I have no problem with that. It's a straightforward issue.
As to the others, yes, I'll go along with your explanation. But to me, it's more a blight on their character than Angel's. Not that I'm defending Angel trying to kill Wesley; I just understand completely where he was coming from.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Angel and shunning Wesley -- acesgirl (delurking to make her first post ever!), 15:51:19 08/05/02 Mon
And by ever, I mean I've never posted to any message board, ever, in my life. I'm kind of nervous because y'all are like super smart and some junk, but I'm being a brave little toaster today and I'm just so happy that you're talking about Angel that I wanted to weigh in. First, I'd like to say how much I love this board and the posters here. You make my viewing experience ten times better than just watching and for that I am grateful.
On to my thoughts. I agree with Honor H about understanding completely why Angel reacted to Wesley the way he did. I don't think it was ok for him to try and suffocate Wesley but his anger and hurt in that moment were palpable and I understand where it came from. It is difficult for me to imagine how Angel will ever be able to forgive Wesley for taking his son. Even if Angel comes to understand and accept why Wesley did it and is able to forgive Wesley for the hurt that Wesley caused him directly, the fact remains that Connor's life was altered tragically and permanently by Wesley's choices (I know, there were lots of others that contributed, Sahjan, Holtz and Justine, but Wesley is the only one that Angel loves). How do you ever forgive the person that hurt your child like that? I just don't know, but I sure can't wait to see how it all plays out.
As for the others shunning Wesley, I think a lot of it came from not wanting to exacerbate the situation. Fred & Gunn truly believed that Angel would kill Wesley if he ever came back to the hotel. I think they felt forced to make a choice between bad and worse, and feeling hurt and betrayed by Wesley's decision not to confide in any of them pushed them in Angel's direction. As for Cordelia, well I think her loyalties have always been to Angel first and then to everyone else. Which she proved when she made a clear choice to side with Angel after she returned with Groo. Are they right to shun Wesley? Well, they're not being great friends but that's what makes them human and why I love them all so much. Plus, if they went and resolved it all before the end of the season, where would be the all the fun? And, if Wesley had had just one friend at the end of the season, would he have sunk into his liason with Lilah? I think not, and that would just be too bad. Ok, I'm done being brave now.
(Was this too long for a first post ever?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Welcome, acesgirl! Thanks for de-lurking! -- Masquerade, 16:04:13 08/05/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Hullo! -- HonorH, 16:44:33 08/05/02 Mon
Not too long at all! My second post ever here was a comprehensive overview of the Buffy/Spike relationship, and I was assured it was fairly average-sized for this board.
And I think you nailed everything right on the head, so I've nothing to add at this point. Welcome to the board from another newbie!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Angel and shunning Wesley -- Rufus, 00:37:24 08/06/02 Tue
One thing about the Buffyverse it reflects how just about the nicest people can act like jack-asses when they get hurt. Angel is on a road of redemption....one that he will never complete if he can't learn to do much more than spell correctly the word "forgive". Easy to spell, hard to do and it's part of his lesson on that road. If Angel can't forgive, then how the heck can he ever think redemption is a possibility when forgiveness is all part of the process.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Cool, someone else for the 'girl gang! Welcome. -- ponygirl, 08:37:43 08/06/02 Tue
[> [> [>Re: Why Wesley? Isn't Angel WAY ahead on the "take responsibility" line? -- yabyumpan, 10:14:57 08/05/02 Mon
Problems with Wesley from my perspective:
Started off with 'Couplet' and his treatment of Gunn and to a lesser extent Fred. He acted in a very underhand manner by sending Gunn out on a case AI wouldn't normally have taken, just to get Gunn away from Fred (who went with him any way). It was the scene towards the end, in his office, which really turned my view of Wesley around. He abused his position of authority and his supposed friendship with Gunn, by letting him know in a very cold way, that he thought he should have been with Fred and not Gunn. You can tell that Gunn is noticable shocked by this. I think this is especially relevant because of the conversation between Gunn and Fred at breakfast earlier.
Gunn: "It's funny."
Fred: "The way I chew?"
Gunn: "No. Until that kiss last night, I would have thought you and Wesley had a thing for each other."
Fred: "Wesley?"
Gunn: "Yeah."
Fred: "No, we're just good friends."
I got a definate impression from this that if Wesley and Fred had got together, Gunn would have been ok with it. I think Gunn looks/looked up to Wesley and would have thought that the better man had won. Also, if Wesley had made a move towards Fred, I think it's clear that he would have been rejected, she just doesn't see him that way, so Gunn inadvertently saved Wesley from what would have been a crushing humiliation. I also have big problems with Wesley pretty much dropping their friendship at this point, which shows how much all that bonding, special handshake stuff actually meant to him if he allowed a women to interfere with their friendship. I would imagine that Gunn was pretty hurt about that. He conscously withdrew himself from the pair of them.
Which brings us onto the prophecy/Connor arc: The biggest thing is that he talked to NO ONE in the AI team about his concerns; because of his jelousy he didn't feel he could speak to Fred and Gun; Cordy was away for sure, but they had her phone number, Lorne was around and it's pretty much his job to give advice but he didn't approach him and of course Angel, who had said at the begining of 'Couplet' that he wanted to be kept up dated about the prophecy and who several times asked him how it was going and how he was. Instead, he chose to talk to Holtz and Justine, chose to actually put his trust in the enemy and not his friends.
He then beat up Lorne, tricked Angel into handing over Connor, which he did because Angel himself was concerned about himself because of the spiked blood which if Wesley hadn't been off talking with Holtz, he would have known about. He then took Connor, who was born with a list of enemies, by himself, enlisting no other help to protect the child and then lost him. Yes, he was tricked by Justine but only because he'd allowed himself to trust her more than his friends.
If he'd had any concern for his friends he could have left a note explaining why he was doing it, if he really believed that Angel was going to turn evil he left leaving them with no warning that they may be in danger. He even threw away his notes, it's was only by Fred and Gunn's doggedness that they were able to have any understanding of what the prophecy said and what Wesley's motives might be. Even after he left he still didn't want to communicate with them.
That's what makes his self pityfest/no one wants to hear my side of the story so hard to take. He only wanted them to know AFTER it all went wrong.
Yes, he's been rejected by his friends, but I think with good reason. He has never shown that he is sorry for what happened to Connor, a child who was forced to grow up in a hell dimension partly due to his actions. I appreciate that he was played by Shajan and Holtz, but he is still responsable for the actions that he took and didn't take.
"while Wesley has done wrong, and needs to seek forgiveness,"
That to me is the key, he hasn't shown that he feels he did wrong and he hasn't sought forgiveness. IMO, it's got to come from him first.
" the other members of AI need to be there and LISTEN to him, and that especially includes Angel -- since he has far more to atone for, even to the rest of the AI team."
When he comes to them and asks for forgiveness, then yes, they should listen. He may well be afraid to go to the hotel but writing a letter would be a start.
Angel has loads to atone for and takes full responsability for what he's done. Every time he has hurt the gang he has said sorry and asked for forgiveness. Particually with the dark arc of S2 he craweled back battard after saving their lives, and boy did they make him crawl. During the time he was away from them in S2, no one checked up on him, no one went to him wanting to hear his side of the story, no one even checked whether he had actually gone 'evil' and after he subjigated himself to them, not one of them asked him what happened or how he came to have an epiphany. Even during the time before he fired them, no one really made any attempt to see what was really going on, just why he was going down hill. I don't think 'having tea' and remarks like 'you're crazy' count and Gunn infact coluded with him in his Darla obsession by going to W&H with him and then finding her in the motel.
I think what we saw from the fang gang at the last part of the season was understandable, from 'Forgiving onwards, they were still in a state of grieving, which included anger towards Wes and then Connor shows up again and tries to kill his Dad. Fred is the only one who wants to contact him but she is also the one that he hurt the least. I've already mentioned Gunn's hurt, Cordy was hurt that Angel didn't contact her after Connor was taken, I'm sure she was doubly hurt that Wesley didn't confide in her, she was closer to him than any of them; Lorne he beat up and he took Angel's son. What ever his good intentions, and I think they were, he still stole and intended to keep, the only child Angel is ever likely to have; to be betrayed like that by someone you considered a close friend must hurt like hell.
To get back to my original post, from what we know of Wesley's past, I can see reasons why he did what he did; wanting to protect a child from a 'bad' father. I can also see now his past abuse may lead him to need to be in control, hence, not trusting others with what he knew. We've seen this before with Wesley back in S3 BtVS. When he over heard Buffy and Giles talking about Angel having Faith, he felt left out of the loop, loosing control of the situation. His solution then was to not trust Buffy and Giles judgement (I can understanding him not trusting Angel at that point) and to bring in the council thugs to take Faith away. It was that which cemented Faiths slide into darkness. Another situation in which he chose not to trust which ended in near disaster.
I don't hate Wes, I'm angry with him because I do like him and believe him to be a good man; but before he can move forward, IMO he needs to take responsability for his actions and look at the real reasons behind them. As i've said, I hope ME explore that in S4. I would like to see him back at AI but I think it's going to be a rocky road for all, with hopefully some real insight for every body.
[> [> [>Re: Why Wesley? Isn't Angel WAY ahead on the "take responsibility" line? -- yabyumpan, 10:16:45 08/05/02 Mon
Problems with Wesley from my perspective:
Started off with 'Couplet' and his treatment of Gunn and to a lesser extent Fred. He acted in a very underhand manner by sending Gunn out on a case AI wouldn't normally have taken, just to get Gunn away from Fred (who went with him any way). It was the scene towards the end, in his office, which really turned my view of Wesley around. He abused his position of authority and his supposed friendship with Gunn, by letting him know in a very cold way, that he thought he should have been with Fred and not Gunn. You can tell that Gunn is noticable shocked by this. I think this is especially relevant because of the conversation between Gunn and Fred at breakfast earlier.
Gunn: "It's funny."
Fred: "The way I chew?"
Gunn: "No. Until that kiss last night, I would have thought you and Wesley had a thing for each other."
Fred: "Wesley?"
Gunn: "Yeah."
Fred: "No, we're just good friends."
I got a definate impression from this that if Wesley and Fred had got together, Gunn would have been ok with it. I think Gunn looks/looked up to Wesley and would have thought that the better man had won. Also, if Wesley had made a move towards Fred, I think it's clear that he would have been rejected, she just doesn't see him that way, so Gunn inadvertently saved Wesley from what would have been a crushing humiliation. I also have big problems with Wesley pretty much dropping their friendship at this point, which shows how much all that bonding, special handshake stuff actually meant to him if he allowed a women to interfere with their friendship. I would imagine that Gunn was pretty hurt about that. He conscously withdrew himself from the pair of them.
Which brings us onto the prophecy/Connor arc: The biggest thing is that he talked to NO ONE in the AI team about his concerns; because of his jelousy he didn't feel he could speak to Fred and Gun; Cordy was away for sure, but they had her phone number, Lorne was around and it's pretty much his job to give advice but he didn't approach him and of course Angel, who had said at the begining of 'Couplet' that he wanted to be kept up dated about the prophecy and who several times asked him how it was going and how he was. Instead, he chose to talk to Holtz and Justine, chose to actually put his trust in the enemy and not his friends.
He then beat up Lorne, tricked Angel into handing over Connor, which he did because Angel himself was concerned about himself because of the spiked blood which if Wesley hadn't been off talking with Holtz, he would have known about. He then took Connor, who was born with a list of enemies, by himself, enlisting no other help to protect the child and then lost him. Yes, he was tricked by Justine but only because he'd allowed himself to trust her more than his friends.
If he'd had any concern for his friends he could have left a note explaining why he was doing it, if he really believed that Angel was going to turn evil he left leaving them with no warning that they may be in danger. He even threw away his notes, it's was only by Fred and Gunn's doggedness that they were able to have any understanding of what the prophecy said and what Wesley's motives might be. Even after he left he still didn't want to communicate with them.
That's what makes his self pityfest/no one wants to hear my side of the story so hard to take. He only wanted them to know AFTER it all went wrong.
Yes, he's been rejected by his friends, but I think with good reason. He has never shown that he is sorry for what happened to Connor, a child who was forced to grow up in a hell dimension partly due to his actions. I appreciate that he was played by Shajan and Holtz, but he is still responsable for the actions that he took and didn't take.
"while Wesley has done wrong, and needs to seek forgiveness,"
That to me is the key, he hasn't shown that he feels he did wrong and he hasn't sought forgiveness. IMO, it's got to come from him first.
" the other members of AI need to be there and LISTEN to him, and that especially includes Angel -- since he has far more to atone for, even to the rest of the AI team."
When he comes to them and asks for forgiveness, then yes, they should listen. He may well be afraid to go to the hotel but writing a letter would be a start.
Angel has loads to atone for and takes full responsability for what he's done, hence all the brooding. Every time he has hurt the gang he has said sorry and asked for forgiveness. Particually with the dark arc of S2 he craweled back battard after saving their lives, and boy did they make him crawl. During the time he was away from them in S2, no one checked up on him, no one went to him wanting to hear his side of the story, no one even checked whether he had actually gone 'evil' and after he subjigated himself to them, not one of them asked him what happened or how he came to have an epiphany. Even during the time before he fired them, no one really made any attempt to see what was really going on, just why he was going down hill. I don't think 'having tea' and remarks like 'you're crazy' count and Gunn infact coluded with him in his Darla obsession by going to W&H with him and then finding her in the motel.
I think what we saw from the fang gang at the last part of the season was understandable, from 'Forgiving onwards, they were still in a state of grieving, which included anger towards Wes and then Connor shows up again and tries to kill his Dad. Fred is the only one who wants to contact him but she is also the one that he hurt the least. I've already mentioned Gunn's hurt, Cordy was hurt that Angel didn't contact her after Connor was taken, I'm sure she was doubly hurt that Wesley didn't confide in her, she was closer to him than any of them; Lorne he beat up and he took Angel's son. What ever his good intentions, and I think they were, he still stole and intended to keep, the only child Angel is ever likely to have; to be betrayed like that by someone you considered a close friend must hurt like hell.
To get back to my original post, from what we know of Wesley's past, I can see reasons why he did what he did; wanting to protect a child from a 'bad' father. I can also see now his past abuse may lead him to need to be in control, hence, not trusting others with what he knew. We've seen this before with Wesley back in S3 BtVS. When he over heard Buffy and Giles talking about Angel having Faith, he felt left out of the loop, loosing control of the situation. His solution then was to not trust Buffy and Giles judgement (I can understanding him not trusting Angel at that point) and to bring in the council thugs to take Faith away. It was that which cemented Faiths slide into darkness. Another situation in which he chose not to trust which ended in near disaster.
I don't hate Wes, I'm angry with him because I do like him and believe him to be a good man; but before he can move forward, IMO he needs to take responsability for his actions and look at the real reasons behind them. As i've said, I hope ME explore that in S4. I would like to see him back at AI but I think it's going to be a rocky road for all, with hopefully some real insight for every body.
[> [> [> [>Ooops! Apologies for double post -- yabyumpan, 10:19:01 08/05/02 Mon
[>The Mission (and the purpose of the Mission) -- cjl, 08:18:31 08/05/02 Mon
I forgot where I read this, but a poster either here or on AngelX's Angel board described the situation with Wes and Angel just about perfectly: for most of this season, Wesley has dedicated himself to the abstract, philosophical basis for the Mission--defending the world and defeating Evil; Angel, with the birth of his son, has embraced a more personal, emotional raison d'etre--protecting the ones you love. Under stress, each man has ignored/trashed the critical component embodied by the other: Angel, in torturing the W&H big shot and re-releasing Sahjhan upon the world, lost sight of the ethical side of the mission; and Wesley, in kidnapping Connor and keeping his doubts about the prophecies to himself, betrayed his colleagues and his friends.
Next season on Angel will, no doubt, have both men being dragged back to the other's viewpoint, perhaps literally kicking and screaming. With Wes, it may take a flirtation with the Dark Side, and a tentative, mutually suspicious liaison with both Lilah and W&H; with Angel, it might require a reminder of what happens when love unleashes true evil upon the world.
And we all know what that means, don't we, kids?
Some conon-centric questions, with S6 spoilers. -- Darby, 06:40:46 08/04/02 Sun
HonorH has a post below that got my mind working -
Are Buffy and Spike on mirrored arcs through season 6? At the beginning of season 6, Buffy really wants to return to Heaven - not die as in cease existence, really, since she knows that this is a mere change of state.
At the end of the season, Spike goes seeking a soul (if we can believe the writers). To the only soul at home, the vamp demon's soul that supposedly is Spike's motivator, isn't this suicide? Again, like Buffy, there is the idea that it is not oblivion being sought but a change of state.
But here's where it gets juicy: I don't believe that Spike the vamp-demon was doing away with himself. I don't believe that gaining a soul was a "switch flip" to Spike. Being a vampire, he knows that Spike and William are not totally independent entities. He is looking for a change of state, a change of motivator, a change of mind but not a change of consciousness.
So where does that put Angel/Angelus?
We are so used to letting Angel off for the actions of Angelus, but haven't we been repeatedly shown that the human is an integral part of the vampire? We know that the vampire takes on the human host's personality, plus whatever influence the vamp urges and power have over that personality. The William in Spike pokes a remorse stick at the sides of his consciousness, and the Liam (if it is Liam) in Angel produces the brooding, conscience-riddled vampire driven to help the helpless. Souled Spike will not absolve himself of Spike's sins, and Angel does not absolve himself of Angelus' sins.
Why, for the most part, do we?
[>Angel/Angelus and another? ...gift w/ purchase? -- angela, 07:48:55 08/04/02 Sun
Sorry if this is only further muddying the waters; but, wasn't there some discussion here recently about the possibility of souls co-existing? One soul in control (or mostly in control over the other.)
[> [>Re: Angel/Angelus and another? ...gift w/ purchase? -- Darby, 08:18:23 08/04/02 Sun
The original canon was that a vampire has a demon soul, which exists in Angel (see The Dark Age climax scene) but is subjugated by the human soul. That seems to be the way things continue to work in the Buffyverse.
I have no trouble seeing hybrids (such as Anyanka) as having two souls, usually with one being ascendant (and she's an interesting example now, when her human soul seems much more in control than we've assumed it was back before the demon was removed).
[> [> [>Re: Angel/Angelus and another? ... -- angela, 09:17:57 08/04/02 Sun
That's right. I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly; but I thought there was a thread on this re: Angel back in June. My memory might be faulty though. I don't think the writers meant us to forget about his (Spikes) actions though and I don't really have an answer to your last question about why we do.
I do know that they blurred the lines further this season on BtVS regarding the influence of the soul, since both the little bad and the big bad were human-souled. And I do know from 'Angel' that (vamps aside?) the demon-soul doesn't necessarily equate with bad. The soul as Joss defined it in an interview (as cited by Rufus a couple of times) is a moral compass a "predisposition" to choose good or bad. It doesn't actually make characters morally good or bad; that we are left to determine from their actions.
Sophist, I believe, made the point that we generally would make this determination after considering all a characters actions after the story is done. This story isn't fully writ. The fact that the writers/joss felt it necessary to soul Spike lends strength to the idea that the soul is important, if their true intent is to put Spike on the path to redemption, which although foreshadowed, is yet to be determined. We'll find out more next season.
I don't personally believe that any of the characters will be 'let off the hook' for their actions including Buffy and Willow and Xander. How they will handle this, the length of time they will devote to it, if they truly intend to lighten up the season is one of the questions we have left during this pre-season 7 lull. But given Joss's known proclivity for growth through pain and Angel's trials these last three seasons, I can't see the writers forgetting Spikes bloody history. ;-)
[>Re: Some conon-centric questions, with S6 spoilers. -- yabyumpan, 09:08:50 08/04/02 Sun
I don't see Angelus/Angel as two seperate beings and don't absolve him of his past sins. I do, however, see Angel as an evolution of Angelus.
I think it can be equated to a person taking religous orders. Quite often when a person does that they also take or are given a new name to signify a new start in their life. It doesn't mean that they forget their past but that they are now trying to go beyond who they were, to become a 'better' person.
From this perspective, while not forgetting what Angel has done in the past without a soul, we/I can appreciate who he is now and what he's trying to make of his life.
[>Angel/Angelus -- Rahael, 10:45:18 08/04/02 Sun
I've always regarded Angel/Angelus, as metaphorically, the same person. He's Angelus plus soul, not Liam minus Angelus. He has all the memories that Angelus had, so that must be one weird experience, remembering all these horrific things that you had done, and that you could not bear to do yourself.
The most interesting aspect of this kind of metaphorical splitness is in noir Angel. Is the sleeping Angelus rousing inside Angel? Are the memories infecting him? or is Noir Angel simply Angel growing disheartened and cynical and despairing? Is it the blood lust pulsing away inside of him? There's a kind of resolution in the Pylea arc where Angel realises that he can control the monster within. Perhaps Noir Angel was simply Angel's perception of himself, his fear of himself as simply being no more than a monster, despite his status as a champion. There's a case made for Pylea that its a realm where the characters fears and desires are played out.
There must surely be some significance that it's a place where music does not exist. Cordy gets to be a princess, but like most princesses finds out that her value to society is simply to be used as breeding stock. Angel gets to be a heroic champion, but finds that stereotype cannot accommodate his dark complexities, so he splits into heroic-human/evil monster.
Certainly, I think AtS is full of complex metaphorical goodness and allusions. And what pleasure I've had diverting this thread to All-things-lead-to-Angel!
[> [>Re: Angel/Angelus -- yabyumpan, 11:38:22 08/04/02 Sun
Rahael said:
"The most interesting aspect of this kind of metaphorical splitness is in noir Angel. Is the sleeping Angelus rousing inside Angel? Are the memories infecting him? or is Noir Angel simply Angel growing disheartened and cynical and despairing?"
I've always seen noir Angel as the start of him becoming more human, or at least in contact with more human emotions. Post Angelus S2 BtVS, we saw Angel trying to be very much in control, to control his demon. He had to be 'good', couldn't allow himself to feel darker emotions because that would be letting his demon take over.
I think Angel, as many people do, equate 'good' emotions/feeling/actions as being human and 'bad' emotions/feelings/actions as being his demon. I think what we saw in noir Angel was very human emotions and actions - despair/anger/isolation/revenge. I don't see any of those things present in Angelus.
I think people would like to see Angelus present in Noir Angel because it's easier than accepting that humans can have so much darkness in them; it's all the demons fault! It would be nice and easy if that was the case but you only need to turn on the news to see humanity behaving in a far darker way than he ever did during that period.
Part of being human is the darkness within ourselves, and that's not always easy to accept which is why we make up stories of monsters, demons and devils to try and make sense of it. It's also why serial killers, dictators etc are often refered to as monsters; it allows us to distance ourselves from their actions, to be safe in our illusion that no 'real' human would ever act like that.
Just carrying on the 'all things lead to Angel' diversion :-
[> [> [>Good points! You are quite correct! -- Rahael, 11:42:15 08/04/02 Sun
Of course you could read the entire Vampire metaphor as a kind of 'demons we contain within', especially because they morph back and forth. They can also 'hide' as other demons cannot, their 'monstrosity', which is why the vampire as a metaphor for 'blackness' doesn't convince me.
[>The soul canon -- Sophist, 08:36:56 08/05/02 Mon
I've always seen this from 2 different perspectives.
From Angel's internal, subjective view, there is no distinction between Liam/Angelus/Angel. The reason is that he shares all the memories -- images, senses, kinesthesia --of each. Implicit in this is the assumption that these shared memories create the internal continuity necessary for us to treat any person (not just Angel) as "the same" even though we know that, for example, all the cells in his body have been replaced many times.
Your question, though, asks why we let Angel off the hook when he himself does not. As I see it, we don't have the psychological problem of experiencing and integrating the shared memories that Angel has internally. We can observe the changed behavior corresponding to the occurrence of an outside, supernatural event. From a moral perspective, then, we can identify Angel and Angelus as distinct and absolve the former from the sins of the latter.
[> [>Re: Pylea and The Importance of Humanity in Vampires -- AngelVSAngelus, 08:59:08 08/05/02 Mon
Someone above mentioned the Pylea arc, something that I know most had a major problem with, but I enjoyed if only for its symbolism and exploration of the characters. There were, of course, issues that my think too much quotient made a case against (Pylean demons speak English and have a middle ages-replicant society?) But the metaphor interested me too much to throw it all away.
Most interesting to me was Angel's conflict there. Split into two distinct, cut and dry, black and white halves, Angel is either reflection having, sun immune, happy champion, or scaled, blood thirst, demon beast.
Many have pointed out that this is an illustration of how the human is where all the moral culpability lies for a vampire, and without it you have an amoral beast who isn't even predisposed to evil, but simply a blood thirsty animal.
I'd have to disagree.
Seeing Angel split like that made me wonder at the time what would happen if another vampire were to travel to Pylea, dimension of stark dichotomies. If Dru popped into Pylea would she be chaste school girl and scaled beast?
I'd say nay. There's nothing there to split. Dru is a demon influenced by the vestiges and GHOSTS of humanity left in her crazy mind. She'd walk around Pylea as she does in our dimension, same old Dru.
With Angel, he was split because the true humanity, the ability for actual growth and change, was contingent upon the soul in him. That's what the demon fights against everyday.
And yes, that's why certain other vampires (I will not utter his name for fear that an Angel-centric thread ((FINALLY)) will be hijacked as many are by him) can't change. Ghosts and vestiges of humanity can only take one so far.
[> [> [>Re: Pylea and The Importance of Humanity in Vampires -- Rahael, 09:29:58 08/05/02 Mon
Was Pylea a middle ages replicant society? How so? An extraordinarily innaccurate one if so. I prefer to read it as an allegorical land filled with allegories/narratives from a kind of nasty 'fairytale'.
[> [> [> [>Re: Pylea and The Importance of Humanity in Vampires -- Arethusa, 10:43:58 08/05/02 Mon
Like a trip to a world in one of the sword-and-sorcery novels-where logic is subordinate to Fun With Magic.
I saw Pylea as a funhouse mirror image of AtS's world; the title "Through the Looking Glass" reinforces that idea. Alice fell into a world that was a twisted version of her own world, as does AI, which discovers one of Wedon's most common caveats: be careful what you wish for. Conflicted vampire living in the dark becomes a local hero basking in the daylight and sunny approval of the locals, but no longer can control his monster. Downtrodden formerly rich girl becomes a princess with really shiny new clothes, but is now a pawn in a political fight. Chronic underachiever Wesley become the leader of a revolution, and immediately has to send men to their deaths. Demon-out-of-water Lorne goes back to the only place where he blends in-but heartily loathes. Gunn, of course, gets little to do-I guess some things don't change.
[> [> [> [> [>It seems to me... -- Masq, 12:40:47 08/05/02 Mon
They were setting up Gunn to have some lesson to learn as the others do with that whole sub-plot before the Pylea arc about his old demon-fighting friends and the death of one of the friends (George) from a vampire bite.
Gunn spent a lot of time brooding about how he should have been there to fight with his old friends and save George, and he is conflicted because of his new job at A.I.
When Gunn returns in Season 3, he is a full-fledged A.I. employee, and does not have any contact with his old friends until he runs into them in the third ep of Season 3 (That Old Gang of Mine).
So obviously, Gunn had some sort of epiphany during either the episode when he chose to go to Pylea with the others, or in Pylea.
But what was it?
[> [> [> [> [> [>Gunn and Expanded Horizons -- cjl, 13:09:03 08/05/02 Mon
In retrospect, I think Gunn's epiphany was that his old gang was precisely that--his OLD gang. Even though the boyz in the hood were closer to him in terms of Where They Came From as people, his main tie to the gang was his sister--and when he was forced to stake her, that was (for all intents and purposes) the End.
A.I., already a conglomeration of misfits, offers Gunn a home where the Black thing isn't any more important than the Green thing is for Lorne. It also offers a larger array of intellectual resources, sophisticated weaponry, and plain old demon-world savvy, resources his old gang could never hope to accumulate in their little corner of Los Angeles. After his sister died, Gunn defined himself by the Mission, and with A.I., Gunn has the opportunity to kick demon ass on a much larger scale, for much higher stakes.
[To show you how far he's come, go to the end of "Double or Nothing." The young Charles Gunn sold his soul for a truck. Granted, he probably NEEDED that truck, but it demonstrates how small his world used to be.]
Since Gunn and Fred were left alone in the hotel at the end of S3, lots of people are expecting them to collapse from the burden of keeping A.I. afloat. I'm not one of them. I think Gunn's previous experience is going to come in handy, and with all the other alpha males in the office out of the way, he might pull off a fusion of his old street-smart operation and A.I.'s 21st century demon hunting organization. It also might be interesting to see if Gunn actually gives up his new role when Angel gets sprung from his cage...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Oooo... (spoilery spec for Season 4 of AtS) -- Masq, 15:56:58 08/05/02 Mon
You know, I hadn't even thought of what would happen with Gunn and Fred being alone in that hotel--I realized they would be, but I hadn't thought of the need to keep up the business (probably because it hasn't been much of a business at late!)
Maybe the writers will make this an issue--Gunn and Fred are large and in charge when Angel and Cordy return and aren't ready to fade into the background like they've been in prior to this!
Oh, and can I use your above post on my site?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Oooo... (spoilery spec for Season 4 of AtS) -- cjl, 06:45:05 08/06/02 Tue
Use away, Masq.
I also think it would be amusing to see Fred and Gunn bicker a bit about who was the brains behind the operation while everybody else was ocean diving/dimension hopping/Lilah bedding/Vegas rolling:
GUNN (to Angel): You gotta admit it, Man. I kept things up pretty damn good while you were gone.
FRED: You mean WE kept things up.
GUNN: Oh. Right. Sure, Fred. WE kept things up.
FRED: Charles, you're smirking again.
GUNN: Huh? No! I am not smirking!
FRED: You're smirking again! It's the "oooh, isn't that cute? The little woman thinks she's an equal partner in the big man's demon hunting operation" smirk! Well, big man, who do you think kept up the books, did the research, and met all the clients while you were out getting covered in slime?
ANGEL: Uh, guys--do you need some privacy here?
[>The theme of Alienation in Angel (spoilers all the way up to Finale of S3) -- Rahael, 09:21:37 08/06/02 Tue
Tacking these thoughts on this thread because I a) might forget them b) hate starting new threads.
It occurs to me that everyone in the AtS gang are exiles in a veriety of ways, and in a more profund way than those in BtVS - after all, that series is dealing with the fact that your home is literally a hell.
Angel - an exile from Sunnydale. An exile from the Fang gang. An exile from God ("God doesn't want you. But I still do!")
Cordy - an exile from Sunnydale. Self imposed exile from the glamourous life she might have had (Birthday Girl). An exile from human-ness.
Wesley - an exile from Sunnydale. An exile from England. Alienated from his father (as is Angel). Now, doubly alienated, from his only home, AI.
Gunn - an exile in LA when Angel found him (he had no real home). Now he's exiled himself from his past (This Old Gang).
Fred - a former exile from Pylea. Now in voluntary, and happy exile from her family.
Lorne - self imposed exile from Pylea. Now exiled from LA - he's gone to Las Vegas, so like Wesley, alienated from AI. He also lost his home, Caritas.
Connor - exiled to a demon dimension. Exiled from both his fathers, Holtz and Angel.
Aliens - the real meaning of the word are non-natives. I am described, in official terms as an 'alien' in England. Or I was, until I converted myself with a bit of paper into a non alien.
This reminds us that some of our characters have alien-ness inside them as well - Angel, Cordy, Lorne, Connor.
Angel and Cordy are in many ways paralleled. Angel is a demon who prizes his half-humanity. Cordy is a human who prizes her half-demoness. Sex/Love in certain conditions is dangerous for both of them - they could lose the 'alien' half they need so much to accomplish their true path in life.
What is striking at the season end is that both Cordy and Angel, who seem to be able to 'meet' finally, are torn apart by circumstance. They are exiled from each other. They are torn away from 'LA', Angel to the bottom of the sea, Cordy into the sky. Wesley who has also suffered disappointment in love, is exiled. Connor, who has been loved, but in a destructive way, turns a deaf ear, hardens his heart against Angel's protestations of love, and exiles himself from his father.
These are people exiled by love/from love. The two people who get to stay at home? Gunn and Fred. Two lovers, who have found their home in each other.
[> [>Very astute observations, Rah! -- Masq, 09:46:32 08/06/02 Tue
May explain in part why I feel more at home with the AtS characters than the BtVS characters nowadays--I can relate to their alienation, and when you think about it, finding a family in each other instead of their actual families.
Which is why it's so angsty when one of them breaks off/is broken of from the "borrowed" family, as Angel and then Wesley did. It increases their aloneness in the world.
Painful, but profound.
[> [>Re: The theme of Alienation in Angel (spoilers all the way up to Finale of S3) -- Arethusa, 10:45:17 08/06/02 Tue
All self-imposed exiles, too. An important aspect of their exile is they all chose to leave their old communities and friends or family to fulfill something inside themselves that was lacking in their old lives.
Angel needed a mission when he and Buffy started to outgrow each other. Wesley, who was wanderig across America in a vain attempt to continue his Watcher duties, found a new home and family, and finally became an effective demon hunter with their backing. Cordelia left home to regain what she had lost, wealth and position, but realized it didn't fill the lonliness and lack of direction like being a member of AI did. Gunn chose to leave his old gang, whom he felt he had outgrown, or at least to whom he no longer had permanent ties. Fred chose to not return to her potentiallly comfortable family life because she no longer felt she belonged. And Lorne ran like the wind from his former home.
Alienated by both circumstances and choice, it is no wonder that they are so easily alienated from each other. Some assume they should be as tight as the Sunndale gang, but they really haven't been together as a unit very long.
Room temperature Spike -- Cheryl, 12:41:55 08/04/02 Sun
After watching the episode again where Spike escapes the Initiative and is trying to bite Willow but realizes he can't (The Initiative?) and Riley and Co. track Spike down with the body temperature gadget, I was wondering if vampires are always room temperature (i.e, the temperature of the space they're inhabiting). Therefore, if it's 99 degrees at night outside (hey, I live in Phoenix so that's normal in the summer), would they be indistinguishable from humans? Does their body temp fluctuate with the air temperature?
Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
Cheryl
[>Re: Room temperature Spike -- Malandanza, 13:44:42 08/04/02 Sun
"I was wondering if vampires are always room temperature (i.e, the temperature of the space they're inhabiting)."
I think, in general, vampires are supposed to be room temperature. The exception would be after they've just fed, when we see their fellow vampires commenting on how they're "still warm" from the feeding. Vampires being cold blooded would go a long way to explaining why they don't need to eat much (mammals and birds burn off huge amounts of energy just maintaining their body temperature, by contrast, a crocodile can go a year between feedings).
The "still warm after feeding" comments seem odd to me if we are just going to consider the small amounts of blood drunk versus the mass of a vampire's body. But perhaps vampires have a very low specific heat and a few pints of warm blood can noticeably raise the body temperature. However, I prefer to think of the vampire's metabolism going into overdrive after a feeding, hence the excited state and the elevated temperature. Once the blood has been processed, the vampire begins to cool again (according to Newton's Law of Cooling).
What I wonder about is the poor Alaskan vampires -- frozen solid in their crypts during the winters and racing about during the fleeting Arctic nights to feed themselves during the summer.
[> [>Speaking as an Alaskan-- -- HonorH, 17:03:41 08/04/02 Sun
I think the vampires' biggest problem during the summer would be competing with the mosquitos for people's blood.
[>In short, the answer is yes... -- ZachsMind, 13:46:22 08/04/02 Sun
They are perhaps the equivalent of cold blooded mammals, meaning they have no internal system keeping their body temperature at a given state. Since they're demonically enhanced humanoids they don't require one. Temperature doesn't remarkably affect them like it does humans. They do feel the pain of being set on fire however, and they go up real fast.
You can freeze a vampire and all that's gonna happen is he'll be a mite testy with you when he thaws.
[>another curious thing about vamp physiology...(veering) -- Doriander, 18:45:48 08/04/02 Sun
Watching AtS at the moment. Wesley, plagued by prophecies, neglects hygiene, as manifested by stubble. Days old stubble. Similar to Giles in the Wishverse. Meanwhile, Puppy Angel is kempt, down to the chest area (courtesy of Vamp Willow perhaps?). But then again, Angel in China, plagued by a soul for two years was dirty but clean shaven (no chest exposure, so wouldn't know). As stink guy in New York, dirty but clean shaven. He came back from a hundred years torment in hell, same cut, clean shaven, chest included. Curious to see if he's stubble free when he emerges from the ocean. Forget the dark roots, are we to expect a stubbly Spike?
"You have too many thoughts." Xander (Lie to me)
[> [>Obscure Season 7 Spoiler above -- Dochawk, 19:44:22 08/04/02 Sun
I believe the dark roots thing is a spoiler in the strictest sense.
[> [>Re: another curious thing about vamp physiology...(veering) -- monsieurxander, 22:33:34 08/05/02 Mon
I had always figured that the character of Angel was naturally smooth chested, whether or not David Boreanaz is. It seems to be popular opinion (in show business, at least)that no chest hair=sexy, and part of the reason David was cast was *because* he was thought of as sexy...
Also, about Angel coming back from Hell clean-shaven... it seems to me that Hell is more of a metaphysical place than a physical one. Therefore, when Angel came back, everything on his body was exactly the way he remembered it. IMHO.
A Once More, With Feeling analysis (of sorts) *S6 Spoilers* -- Jacki, 19:40:14 08/04/02 Sun
---pre post notes---
1. This is my first post, I'm nervous, so please don't be too harsh if I'm completely off my rocker.
2. Many thanks to Sophist for emailing me a bunch of help, because I never would have been able to put the post together otherwise.
---THE POST--
As is rather easy to see, the whole theme or point of OMWF is to have the characters reveal things they normally wouldn't have said without the help of Sweet and his musical curse. What I have come to realize (with the help of lots of people in chat) is that for the most part, no earth shattering-deep dark-hidden within the character secrets are revealed. Observe.
BUFFY: Her big secret of the night was obviously, letting the Scooby Gang know she had been yanked out of Heaven by Willow's spell. However, was OMFW really necessary, or would that secret have eventually come out on it's own? I would like to think that it would have. Buffy was really starting to fold under pressure, and probably would have eventually collapsed. And even if not, her friends really would have started to try to figure out what was wrong with her, which very well could have ended in Spike spilling the secret himself. And I also think that Buffy wanted to tell her friends that she had been in Heaven, but she probably knew that it would crush them, especially Willow, to know they had done something to make her unhappy.
SPIKE: He lets us know that he loves Buffy, but is having conflicts with him being a demon and pretty much wants Buffy to to make the decision. Not too earth-shattering. The audience already knew this, and Buffy might have even known as well.
XANDER: He is worried about 'marrying a demon'. This is indeed a perfectly acceptable worry, because, frankly, he is. However, in "Hell's Bells" we learn that he had been having thoughts and fears about turning into his father and the possibility of hurting Anya. So why didn't this come out in OMWF? The only possibility I can think of is that this secret was buried too far inside Xander. He had absolutely no desire to tell Anya this secret at all - he thought it would hurt Anya too much.
ANYA: She is worried that Xander might not love her, and that she might not look good when she "gets so old and wrinkly that she looks like David Brinkley" (who is that, anyway?) Nothing major there - a very typical Anya thing to say.
TARA: Tara doesn't admit anything about herself. She finds out through Dawn (not even through singing) that Willow has been altering her memory. This leads Tara to decide it's time to leave Willow. This is something the audience already knew.
GILES: He tells Buffy (though she really doesn't seem to be listening) that he is ready to leave Sunnydale because he is holding Buffy back. This, again, isn't too deep, because I had thought he felt that way for a while anyway.
DAWN: In her very, VERY short song, she asks if anyone even notices or cares about her stealing. Dawn's stealing is no secret to anyone, including her family.
WILLOW: Willow doesn't sing or reveal anything at all, but the secret that she was altering Tara's memory was revealed to Tara.
So, my point is, that while OMWF was a wonderful and clever way to get the Scoobies to reveal their secrets, nothing too deep down and secret was revealed. The biggest revelation of the evening (Buffy's) was already known by one member of the gang. And we come to learn later that Buffy really doesn't want much to do with the world anymore - deeper stuff, if you ask me. Xander's real fear about he and Anya's upcoming wedding wasn't addressed at all. No one else's revelation were too much of a surprise.
And most curious of all, Willow, who judging from the end of S6 obviously had a lot of dark magic and rage inside her waiting to come out (while it was unleashed by Tara's death, there must have been something inside her already about her abuse of magic) didn't sing - or say - anything at all.
[>Re: Welcome! -- mundusmundi, 20:21:40 08/04/02 Sun
Good post. I agree. OMWF is a wonderful episode, even though it ultimately loses track of its theme (and tries to disguise this, an unfortunate foreshadowing of much of S6). Whedon was already pinched for time as it was. Had he given the episode a full two hours, it may have been even more amazing.
[>Re: A Once More, With Feeling analysis (of sorts) *S6 Spoilers* -- Cactus Watcher, 21:42:06 08/04/02 Sun
Yes, OMWF was sort of like the first shoe dropping. All of these secrets were pretty close to coming out, as you say Jacki. How well the effects of the secrets were played out for the rest of the season is still up for debate. Some folks thought it was great, some thought it wasn't so great.
I think at least Willow showed the beginings of real alienation form the others in OMWF. She had taken on the task of being leader in Buffy's absense and she had made some very serious decisions without consulting the others. In OMWF, when Buffy's secret comes out, Willow knows her responsibility and she is the one seen backing away. Her lack of singing (ignoring AH's unwillingness to sing) fits with her isolation. Everyone else is at least aware of their personal problems. Willow doesn't recognize hers yet, so she can't express them in song.
David Brinkley is almost an icon of a young person growing old and wrinkly for someone of my generation. He's has been a part of American news reporting for decades. As a young man he was one of the major figures in our TV news broadcasting. As he grew older his politics changed, and younger people took over the leading role he once had. He now mostly does 'sage' commentary.
[>Welcome! -- HonorH, 22:26:21 08/04/02 Sun
Welcome from another newbie! I only delurked a few days ago, but people are so friendly here that it's not scary at all.
I agree that OMWF didn't *truly* address the Scoobies' Issues. The thing is, though, that I don't think it was meant to. It provided a turning point for Buffy especially, one that shook the Scoobies right to the core. As for Xander and Anya, they had the opportunity to address their Issues, but chose not to. Willow? At this point, I don't believe she thought she had Issues. Everything was going just fine, from her perspective, but Buffy's revelation begins the shattering process for her. Tara's leaving and her own descent into black magicks followed immediately after.
All OMWF did was expose the problems. Before that, on the surface at least, things seemed to be fine. OMWF began the process of revealing what was going on on the inside, but it couldn't solve anything.
[> [>Re: Welcome! (season 6 spoilers) -- Rob, 00:51:14 08/05/02 Mon
Another reason OMWF is a most unconventional musical. Instead of solving its characters problems with a big singsongy sweep, it actually is the start of all the characters' problems!
Jackie, I can understand your reasoning behind the seeming "lack of depth" in the revelations, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Buffy is the queen of not revealing her secrets to people. When dealing with deep issues, 9/10 she will keep the pain bottled up inside (an example: her time as "Anne" in L.A.; another--her keeping Angel's return a secret). I don't believe she ever would have told her friends about her stint in Heaven if she hadn't been "forced" in this way. She wanted to spare their feelings.
Spike's feelings may have been known to Buffy before, but had it not been for OMWF and the incredibly strong emotions stirred up by the music, the Spike/Buffy affair would not have begun. It took Spike's "Rest in Peace" song--the first time, I believe, we've actually seen him refuse help to Buffy since his feelings of love have been out in the open; also the lyrics made implicit every feeling Buffy tried to ignore--and Spike saving Buffy from dancing herself to death to lead her to kiss him.
Xander and Anya--the fact that their fears about marriage are normal ones do not make them any less important. This song was the first hint that everything may not go off swimmingly re: the wedding. No, these exact fears are not the ones that end up stopping the wedding, but this song did bring problems into the forefront, problems that weighed heavily on Xander's mind before the wedding. He did not sing about a fear of becoming his father, because that isn't really on his mind at the moment. That fear is buried in his subconscious, and is not a constant thought he has. It is the vision, in "Hell's Bells" of him abusing Anya that has him thinking like that.
Tara's song isn't a revelatory song, but it isn't meant to be. It is meant to not only be a sweet love song to Willow, but also to be ironic. Her feelings of unabashed and unblemished love at the moment most certainly are a result of a spell--namely, the mind spell Willow pulled on her to erase her memory of the argument. The song highlights the fact that Willow's spell has worked.
And the fact that Willow did not sing has been discussed a great deal. Besides the fact that AH can't sing very well (which is a real-life issue), Willow's lack of singage fits perfectly into the story. Willow does not think she has a problem with the magic at this point. She doesn't even see the spell on Tara as something wrong. Since she doesn't think she has a problem or that she did anything wrong, she has nothing to sing about.
Giles' song is a revelation more to the audience, and to himself, than to anyone else. Perhaps it would be best to think about the songs this way--not as revelations to others about deep secrets, but as a way for the characters to psychologically deal with their own problems. Most of Buffy's songs for example are about her trying to vocalize her problems (Going Through the Motions, Walk Through the Fire, Life's a Show). The music underlines her issues of feeling disconnected from the world, not really alive, etc. Xander and Anya's song helps them list their fears and problems. Spike's song helps him try to stand up to Buffy for not loving him and only using him for information, but again underlines the fact that he could never truly cut her out of his life. Thus, Giles' song helps him clarify his feelings that Buffy's been relying on him too much instead of taking responsibility for her own life. Giles had not made the decision to leave, or gained the conviction to do so until singing this song. Likewise, Tara's reprise of "Under Your Spell" has the same purpose.
Another point re: Giles' song--Buffy's ignoring of him was meant, I believe, to again underline the problem. Buffy is disconnected; off in her own world, and expecting Giles to always take care of her--that is why she does not hear his song.
Dawn's song--Actually, at this point, Dawn's stealing WAS a secret to everybody. It wasn't revealed until "Older and Far Away," which was a great deal later in the year. And the fact that she sang it to herself and no one else heard is yet another example of my contention that the songs didn't reveal truths to others so much as force the characters to deal head-on with their own issues that they'd been repressing or ignoring.
The fact is OMWF, besides the Buffy-in-heaven revelation (which we already knew, but the SG didn't) was not meant to be all earth-shattering news the whole hour. Like many of Buffy's best eps, it was about internal reflection and quiet truths, on a more human scale.
The important thing wasn't that each character hears the others' secrets, but that each character hear his or her own.
Rob
[> [> [>Agree, Rob -- Vickie, 11:12:08 08/05/02 Mon
Especially about Buffy. Remember how she hid what she had to do to Angel in Becoming2? Giles sensed that she needed to share that burden, and tricked her into confiding in him and Willow by telling her he needed to bind Acathla. I spent a lot of time trying frame Giles for Sweet's summoning based on that memory, but it just doesn't work for other reasons.
Xander and Anya, can't quite go there. If the worries revealed in "I'll Never Tell" were the only problems they had, the two would be happy newlyweds spatting and making up and building a great marriage. It starts with the trivial ("her toes are hairy," "his eyes are beady") and moves into more significant issues (money, growing old) that any two people building a relationship really need to discuss and work out. I find it hard to believe that they never ever (apparently) talked about that song afterwards.
Also, Giles might have revealed his secret (needing to leave) to Buffy if she had been able to hear him. She didn't listen, maybe because she was training, maybe because she was so wrapped in her own denial.
Bottom line, though, the episode was about revealing the truth around Buffy's resurrection. Buffy didn't need to hear her own secrets; she needed to reveal them and stop bottling up her reaction to her true situation. And I agree, she'd never have told them herself. She might have told Giles, in secret, because he was innocent of the act and wouldn't have to blame himself--so long as Giles stayed in SunnyD until Buffy was truly desperate. And certainly either Giles or Spike might have told the others.
But Buffy? Never happen. Sweet did her good.
[>How little secrets turn into "Entropy" -- Rufus, 01:47:43 08/05/02 Mon
So, my point is, that while OMWF was a wonderful and clever way to get the Scoobies to reveal their secrets, nothing too deep down and secret was revealed.
OMWF wasn't supposed to do much more than give us an idea of the "secrets" that people keep from each other for the best intentions. These little secrets eventually caused the group to fracture and spin out of control with the chance that they would never find each other again. What seemed to be trivial turned into chaos by the end of the season, the destruction of the Gang and the world only averted when one incident caused the gang to start the trip back to each other.
Buffy, her secret was that she didn't feel like she was whole, feeling the best part of herself may have been left in the grave. Her not telling the gang just made matters worse, her escape from reality through Spike only making matters worse for everyone. She also appeared to feel some resentment towards Willow for taking her from heaven and bringing her back to the fight where she isn't quite sure of her part...reminding me of what The Master said to Buffy in Prophecy Girl....
Master: You still don't understand your part in all this, do you? You are not the hunter. You are the lamb.
For Buffy there is no happy in this world, just one long sacrifice, this reflected in her calling herself "Joan" in Tabula Rasa. Buffy sees her life as one of pain and death, ending as a martyr so the world can go on. Her little secret about "heaven" was just part of how screwed up Buffy felt inside, the joy of life no longer there. Then tack on the fact that she was under the impression that she came back "wrong" in Smashed. This feeling of no longer being part of the human race as well as being a Slayer was enough for her to reject her reality and "play" for awhile. Her secret almost caused Buffy to reject life, family, and friends. By the time we got to Entropy, no one was happy, the Scoobies looked like they would never find each other again.
You can take the little secrets of each member of the Scooby Gang and clearly see how not being honest with each other and themselves caused so much suffering. There is no mistake that Sweets last song is "See you in Hell"
Song: "See You In Hell"
SWEET: (same tune as his first number)
What a lot of fun
You guys have been real swell
[chuckles, begins dancing]
And there's not a one
Who can say this ended well
[Buffy and Spike watching]
All those secrets you've been concealing
[Willow, Tara, Giles, and Xander watching]
Say you're happy now,
Once more with feeling.
Now I gotta run
See you all...
He turns into a ball of light that swirls around their heads, leaving a sparkly trail. They watch it go.
SWEET: ...in heeeeeeell!
In the case of the Scooby Gang, hell was of their own making, one little secret compounding the problems, causing nothing but fear, suspicion, and further secrets. How they were saved was by simple love, accepting who they are and choosing to love each other anyway. Buffy realized that the world was more than what happens after sunset, Spike sought a soul, Xander rejected the monster within and stopped the self pity and reached out to his oldest friend. What will happen to Willow will become clear only when the season starts. All these things started with little secrets that got out of control, for awhile there it looked like the "badguy" had won.
Oh yeah.....welcome and remember....we share rockers here..;)
[> [>nicely put, Rufus -- ponygirl, 08:30:21 08/06/02 Tue
[>Nice post Jacki -- Caesar Augustus, 03:05:12 08/05/02 Mon
I think it's a good point, and fits in very well thematically with the general tone of s6. The whole season has played down the supernatural more than previous seasons, and focused more on group dynamics, internal problems, etc. It's almost a more "natural" approach to the story-telling. For OMWF to be a block-buster in earth-shattering revelations would change the course of the story, and Sweet would become repsonsible for the Gang's problems instead of themselves. It's quite keen to note that OMWF was symbolic of the natural way secrets are revealed, and they would have come out anyway - it was just a bloody entertaining way to capitulate all the little revelations into one episode.
[>Welcome... -- aliera, 09:38:11 08/05/02 Mon
"And most curious of all, Willow, who judging from the end of S6 obviously had a lot of dark magic and rage inside her waiting to come out (while it was unleashed by Tara's death, there must have been something inside her already about her abuse of magic) didn't sing - or say - anything at all."
Agree with you on that. Tara's death was the trigger; but, Willow had other issues too. It's nice to catch up on season 3 Gingerbread aired here Saturday and it was illuminating. Some issues going way back, look at her feelings early and mid-season 3, then we have D'Hoffryn's remarks in season 4, and others stemming from her activities in season 5 and over the summer pre-season 6) and the shock of her the results of her believes/actions (errors) must have been pretty severe. I don't think AH can sing; someone's already mentioned this above probably; but it's a good thing she didn't...who knows what all would have come out.
[>Nice job J - and good to see you outside of chat! -- Dedalus, 12:34:37 08/05/02 Mon
Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2002 - ***Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures*** -- OnM, 20:27:33 08/04/02 Sun
*******
Los Angeles inspires this kind of movie. Perhaps it's that city's sprawling disconnectedness, its smiley-faced
cruelty, its obsession with surface and status that make filmmakers want to impose connections, to bring
together people from different worlds and make that contact meaningful.
............ Mick LaSalle ( from his review of February 28, 1997 )
*******
When you enjoy something, you must never let logic get too much in the way. Like the villains in all the
James Bond movies. Whenever Bond breaks into the complex: 'Ah, Mr. Bond, welcome, come in. Let me
show you my entire evil plan and then put you in a death machine that doesn't work'.
............ Jerry Seinfeld, "Sein Language" ( from www.moviecliches.com )
*******
Evil Clone: You're late again. Tsk. 'Time waits for no man'. Hey! There's another cliche for ya!
OnM: Time doesn't wait for anybody or anything. Time isn't sentient, therefore it cannot wait.
EC: Still a cliche.
OnM: Alright, yes, I don't dispute that. But I have many obligations to meet, and this is just one of them. I
do what I can, when I can. Reality has to be factored in.
EC: I like that Seinfeld quote. He's right, you know. I like the Bond films-- well, most of them anyway, I
mean, Moonraker sucked-- but in general they are entertaining. People say they don't like cliches,
but they flock to see the latest blockbuster nevertheless. Almost everything is potentially a cliche, or maybe
a stereotype.
OnM: Don't go there. That's still making my head hurt. It is possible to think too much about some things.
EC: (mock gasping): Heresy! Heresy! Hummm... I wonder, is there a himesy?
OnM: I'm sure there is somewhere, and if there is, you'll discover it. But I need to get to work here and
finish the column and you're interrupting me-- as usual.
EC: Hey, a clone's gotta do what a clone's gotta do.
OnM: See, now a lot of the time a remark is funny once, maybe a few times, but it becomes a cliche with
endless repitition. That's really what people object to. They want to experience something new, not the old
same thing over and over. Simultaneously, though, they have a fear of the new. Familiarity also breeds
comfort, and a lot of the time people want comfort more than they want new experiences.
EC: Seeing aliens from space blow up the White House or the Capitol building is comfortable?
OnM: Well, isn't it? It's safe, space aliens are the ultimate disposable minority. You can kill 'em all and not
feel even slightly guilty.
EC: OK, bad example. Boredom and rage, a dangerous combination. I know-- how about the stories where
you have a whole buncha disparate characters, who somehow cross their multiple paths, and all influence
one another in strange and dramatically satisfying ways? You see that one all the time. And people flock to
those movies.
OnM: Sometimes they do. Other times, they don't because a film is accused of being a 'knock-off' of
someone else's work, and so it gets tainted. Then, the stereotype works against someone who has actually
made a decent, even excellent film. The one I'm reviewing this week is a good example of exactly that.
EC: A good film? I thought this was the month for your 'guilty pleasures'. Don't you pick on something
that most peeps would find hard to justify as a 'good' film and then wrest some greater meaning from it
all?
OnM: Sometimes, yes, but the official title of this series of riffs is 'Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures'. It
can be either/or, or both at once. Thus, the slash mark and its ambiguity.
EC: This is a gay movie?
OnM: Not that kind of slash. Although, (chuckling) I am reminded of that funny dialog where Harmony
comes into Spike's crypt and finds him with Dru. She immediately jumps to the incorrect conclusion that
Spike wants a threesome, and tells him absolutely not, 'unless it's boy-girl-boy... or Charlize Theron'.
EC: Ya lost me, dude. This is a movie about threesomes?
OnM: No, this is 2 Days in the Valley, by director John Herzfeld.
EC: It is? Oh, cool! That's a great movie! But why a buried treasure? It did OK at the box office, didn't it?
OnM: OK, yes, but just OK. It pretty much breezed in and out of local moviehouses, and I think it did so
because somehow the word got around that the film was Herzfeld's version of Tarantino's Pulp
Fiction, except that no one knew who Herzfeld was. They assumed, 'knockoff', and didn't check it
out. Big mistake. This film certainly is a treasure, saith I.
EC: Down with that, dude! And, whoa, Theron was very hot. Wasn't this her first film?
OnM: Close to it, I think. Haven't researched it yet. And Herzfeld was very new to movies, although he
had done quite a lot of TV work before 2 Days, many years in fact.
EC: There are similarities to Tarantino, but they're all good ones-- clever screenwriting, great
performances, good cinematography. Certainly not a cliche-- err, stereotype-- errr, whatever.
OnM: The screenwriting is excellent. Roger Ebert was so impressed with the way the various character's
stories came together at the end of the film, that he wondered whether Herzfeld had started at the ending,
and worked his way back.
EC: Teri Hatcher was good too. Kind of playing against type for her, after the 'Lois and Clark' stuff.
OnM: The characters are all nicely complex and mulitdimensional, considering that the film really moves
along at a brisk pace, and we have quite a large number of people to 'get to know'. It would be easy to
make them into the usual 'he's the sleaze, she's the evil bitch, good cop, bad cop, etc. etc.' movie
shorthands, but that doesn't happen.
EC: Well, then go get the word out. Hey, is there a commentary track?
OnM: Probably, but we have the laser version, which doesn't. The DVD might.
EC: So go buy one then! I'd love to hear what they were thinking of when they choreographed the fight
between Hatcher and Theron.
OnM: You go buy one. Take it out of your allowance.
EC: Ahhhhh....... cheapskate.
OnM: Just use your imagination. You probably are anyway.
EC: Theron was hot, you gotta admit.
OnM: The whole movie is 'hot', in the best possible sense. Now let me get to writing about it, or it'll be
Monday already.
EC: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Always my fault. (heads back down the cellar stairs).
OnM: Now that's a cliche.
EC: (calling up from the basement) No, it's a stereotype!
OnM (cradling head in hands): Another obligation-- begin a campaign to promote ethical behavior in
genetic research. (sighs deeply) Now where was I? Oh yeah, unfair pre-assumptions part deux. Or is it
tres? Doggone mind is just not minding the store these days...
*******
What contitutes a cliche? This might seem like something that would be easy to define, but it really isn't.
You can usually point them out when you see or hear them (kinda like porn), and many people will agree
with your observation, but even then what is a cliche (or porn for that matter) for you and yours may not
be for them and theirs.
There has been a lot of talk about the use of artistic decisions in BtVS or AtS that could be interpreted as
cliches, but as I have already pointed out in a previous column, it may never be possible to resolve these
issues. So much of whether or not a film or literary work embodies a tendency toward cliche is really
entirely dependent on intent, and the amount of forethought that the artist put into the work. If the artist is
well established as someone who normally is clever and innovative, we tend to give the benefit of the
doubt, and let them 'get away with it'. Am artist who is 'new and untested' generally doesn't; we consider
any slight shading of 'done this before' to be a lack of vision, or worse, an attempt to clone some other
artist's work and claim it as 'an original vision'.
But there are no original visions.
No, there aren't, don't tell me there are. This reminds me, as things often do (given my strange bent of
mind), of an audio-related situation. I had occasion during the last two weeks to play around with one of
the new multi-channel 'high-quality' audio optical disc formats, and the results were very interesting.
(Note: I'm not going to say which one it is, because I am poor and paranoid and fear lawsuits from
companies with evil web-scanning software. But, I will say it isn't the DVD-based one). My conclusions
pretty much came down to 'this is a crock', for several reasons. I won't go into them all, because it would
be long and boring and not of much interest to non-audiophiles, but a tipoff came very early on when I
noticed this little switch on the back panel of the unit, marked 'Filter'. Consulting the owner's manual, I
discovered that this switch, when in the 'normal' position, acts to filter out ultrasonic information from the
output of the player, so it doesn't freak out amplifiers or speakers (which it very well might).
So why does the player output ultrasonic energy in the first place? Damn good question. On first glance
(and for many glances therafter) the technically astute individual would conclude that this is a defect either
in the player or in the disc playback standard itself. But the owner's manual states otherwise-- it turns out
this isn't a 'bug', it's a 'feature'. (Hummm, where have we heard that before?) Future amplifers,
the manual states, will be able to handle the extra energy, and so provide 'superior sound because of the
higher bandwidth' or words to that effect.
Talk about a cliche-- Let's set up a technical straw man and then knock it down. You can't hear
ultrasonic energy. There is no benefit to be gained from amplifying it and reproducing it through speakers.
No responsible engineer in the audio field will dispute this statement. This 'high bandwidth' thing has
been tried many times before in differnt incarnations in various products over the last 30 years. It isn't a
new idea, worse, it's a bad idea. It comes, it goes, it shows up again, it dies out again. It's all marketing
b.s., people. It's like a trailer that really hypes up a film, but the film itself is a loser, or at least pointless.
So why should anybody care? Because after a while folks get so cynical, they make a judgment in advance,
and end up not only avoiding the bad stuff, but avoiding the good stuff. And yes, I've brought this up
before, but it's worth bringing up over and over again because the battle to supress mediocrity and support
the truly innovative or at least decent is neverending. This whole month's worth of 'guilty pleasures /
buried treasures' celebrates this goal. My contribution, tiny though it may be, still helps to leave the glass
at least 17/32nds full. (And as Buffy and Willow said in Gone: Yea, us!)
This week's Classic Movie did respectably at the time of its original theatrical release, but it could have
done better had the word not been passed around that it was a Pulp Fiction copy. I'm not sure
where this impression came from, because most professional critical reviews were very positive, but for
some reason I kept hearing this topic surface whenever 2 Days in the Valley was
mentioned. Maybe it was because the director had worked almost entirely in the TV field, and this was his
first actual feature film. TV people are often stereotyped as being unable to 'handle' the 'more significant
art form' that the movies supposedly embody.
So, I'm going to do what I can by starting out the month of August with a big recommedation for this
particular 'buried treasure.' The plot summary followeth:
The first two people we meet as the film opens are Dosmo Pizzo (played by Danny Aiello), a professional
hit man who we soon find out has fallen on some hard times and is working to regain his self-respect, and
Lee Woods (James Spader), a very cool and very obviously dangerous younger man in the same
'profession'. It is nighttime, and Lee and Dosmo are spying on a woman, Becky Foxx (Teri Hatcher) and
her ex-husband Roy (Peter Horton) from the top of a hill overlooking 'The Valley'. Becky and Roy are
having a heated argument, and after they fall asleep, the two men break into the home and murder Roy
after injecting Becky with a sedative to keep her unconscious. Becky wakes up the next morning, and
promptly freaks as she discovers Roy's dead body next to her. But all is not as it seems, as we discover
much later in the film.
Meanwhile, we meet Allan Hopper (Greg Cruttwell), an extremely self-involved and obnoxious art dealer,
who has a kidney stone attack while driving down the city streets, and ends up being rescued by a man in a
stolen car. Next day, we meet Hopper's secretary (Glenne Headly) a sweet and kindly soul who nurses him,
although he constantly insults and belittles her, claiming his only real intention is to 'help her'. Right.
There are two cops, Wes (Eric Stoltz) and Alvin (Jeff Daniels). Wes has always dreamed of being a
homicide detective, but finds himself on the vice squad, where he lacks the heart to entrap a sweet,
harmless girl (Kathleen Luong) who works in a massage parlor. Alvin is angry at Wes for his lack of drive,
but we find that he is a burnout case who is clinging desperately to his police work to keep what little sense
of self-worth he still possesses.
Then (yes, there's still more!) there's Teddy Peppers, played by the well-known film director Paul
Mazursky. Teddy is a screenwriter-director whose career has gone way beyond downhill. He once made an
Academy Award-winning film, but absolutely everything he's done for the last several years has been a
miserable, money-losing flop. He plans to commit suicide but holds back because doesn't want to leave his
little dog homeless. (The dog is adorable, BTW, and I'm not a big dog fan myself). Just as he is finally
about to go through with killing himself, he meets a woman (Marsha Mason) who's willing to take
responsibility for locating a new home for his beloved pet. As he walks away from her car, heading back to
meet his end, she calls out to him that he should come along with her and meet the man she intends to give
the dog to. He relents and go with her.
Dosmo returns to the foreground, and meets up with the art dealer and his secretary. As the plot grows in
complexity, we also meet Helga Svelgen (Charlize Theron), who is the lover of Lee, the younger hit man. I
won't give away the relationship between Becky Foxx and Helga, but suffice it to say that these two
women very much don't get along, leading eventually to a wonderfully choreographed fight scene led into
with a subtlely rising, nicely-timed musical score that explodes into full force as the action begins.
There are various walk-ons by a number of well known actors, and it seems very clear that everyone
involved had a good time making this movie. All portrayals, across the board, are so well handled by the
acting crew that they make us become emotionally involved with the characters, even the evil ones.
In one way or another, destiny/fate/chance/whatever brings all of these characters together, although not
always at the same time or in the same place. Are there cliches involved in this film? Of course, if you
choose to look at them that way, but it is clear that the film would not work as intended without them, and
like Joss often does with his own visions in the Buffyverse, the cliches are often twisted or perverted in
ways that are amusing or clever.
This is an immensely satisfying flick, and if you liked Pulp Fiction, you will almost certainly enjoy
2 Days in the Valley. (Caution-- if you didn't like PF, then do steer clear, since
Valley employs much of the same dark humor and tendencies towards flashes of violence that can
be disconcerting). If you appreciate stories of redemption where losers can still have a sense of honor, the
bad guys ultimately get theirs (mostly), and the hero finally triumphs (or at least gets away with it), you'll
find this a very worthwhile evening in front of the TV set.
'Smiley-faced cruelty', indeed.
Oh yeah, and by the way, Charlize Theron is hot. It's no wonder Harmony was willing to make an
exception!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical spandex catfight:
2 Days in the Valley is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc. The film was released
in 1996 and the running time is 1 hour and 47 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 2.35:1, which
was preserved on the laserdisc edition and is likely so on the DVD.
Screenwriting credit goes to the director, John Herzfeld. The film was produced by Jeff Wald and Herb
Nanas. Cinematography was by Oliver Wood, with film editing by Jim Miller and Wayne Wahrman.
Production Design was by Catherine Hardwicke, with art direction by Kevin Constant, set decoration by
Gene Serdena and costume design by Betsy Heimann Original music was by Anthony Marinelli. The
original theatrical soundtrack format was Dolby Digital.
Cast overview:
Danny Aiello .... Dosmo Pizzo
Greg Cruttwell .... Allan Hopper
Jeff Daniels .... Alvin Strayer
Teri Hatcher .... Becky Foxx
Glenne Headly .... Susan Parish
Peter Horton .... Roy Foxx
Marsha Mason .... Audrey Hopper
Paul Mazursky .... Teddy Peppers
James Spader .... Lee Woods
Eric Stoltz .... Wes Taylor
Charlize Theron .... Helga Svelgen
Keith Carradine .... Detective Creighton
Louise Fletcher .... Evelyn
Austin Pendleton .... Ralph Crupi
Kathleen Luong .... Midori
*******
Miscellaneous:
Item numero uno: Here's a nice little summery movie bit to check out:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/3797593.htm
Exerpt:
Blue Crush, director John Stockwell's film about female surfers has already won over some
tough critics-- the professional wave shredders who appear in the movie. (...) All praise the film's
authenticity.
"No one's ever really put women's surfing, or surfing, on the big screen like this," said (Kate) Skarratt, the
blond Australian who is president of the International Women's Surfing body within the Association of
Surfing Professionals. "It's powerfully representative of what surfing really is."
***
Item numero dos: Director Oliver Stone disses George Lucas' obsession with promoting digital video
projection for theaters! Read all about it here (scroll down until you see this exerpt):
Q. I was amused by the e-mailer who said he was "convinced of the greatness" of Maxivision, though
he had never seen it in use. Cost issues aside, why should Maxivision be considered superior to digital?
And why don't we hear more about it in the general press?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert28.html
And while we're on the Ebertian trail, Roger just gave M. Night Shyamalan's Signs four stars in his
review. Heck, I'd've gone to see it anyway-- M. is (deservedly) becoming somewhat of a local movie hero
in southeastern PA.
***
Big thanks to Sheri, Rob and anom for input and links on the movie cliche stuff this last week. You guys
help put the 'Optimal' in 'OT'!
*******
The Question of the Week:
Many artists who work in the TV field long to get into movies, because movies are 'respectable' in a way
that TV is not, or so it is claimed. I don't buy this. To me, art is good or not within the range of personal
interpretation, and the medium isn't intrinsically important. I've seen equally good results achieved by both
television and the movie industry, and find it annoying that TV is constantly 'ghettoized' this way.
What do you think? Is TV always destined to be thought of as a 'lesser'media, or is this
characterization unfair?
So post'em and all that there stuff, you know the deal. Finally, a big old Wow!! and mucho many
thanks to the multitude of respondents who made last week's post the best-followed-up-upon in CMotW
history!
Take care, and see you next week, when I'll probably be late again, but hopefully not too annoying
otherwise.
;-)
*******
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2002 - ***Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures*** -- Rob, 20:54:14 08/04/02 Sun
"Big thanks to Sheri, Rob and anom for input and links on the movie cliche stuff this last week. You guys
help put the 'Optimal' in 'OT'!"
And thank you, OnM, for the shoutout and for bringing movie magic to the board every week.
"And while we're on the Ebertian trail, Roger just gave M. Night Shyamalan's Signs four stars in his
review. Heck, I'd've gone to see it anyway-- M. is (deservedly) becoming somewhat of a local movie hero
in southeastern PA."
I will second Roge's 4 star rating. I saw this film last night, and after taking about 24 hours to mull it over, I have decided that it is without a doubt the best aliens-coming-to-earth film ever made. It's kind of a thinking person's "Independence Day," but on a much smaller scale and more rooted in realism and humanity. Not only was it a kick-ass thriller with some true, genuine scares, but a great, in-depth character study of four people (two adults, two children) caught in the middle of the biggest event in history. Most people don't expect real depth from a thriller, or real thrills in a deep, cerebral film...and yet this film is both. I recommend it very highly. But be forewarned, if you don't like horror movies, or suspense, you might want to pass this one up--it is genuinely scary. See this movie, OnM!!!
Oh, and speaking of cliches...for the most part, this film managed to avoid them, which was quite remarkable, since it's in such a cliche-ridden genre. In fact, every time a cliche was used, the payoff wasn't what was expected. There was always a twist that made each play completely differently than the other bajillion times we've seen things remotely similar to them.
Oh, and before I go, OnM, did you get the e-mail I sent you with my Guilty Pleasures column? Because I haven't been able to get into my e-mail program this week, because of some network problems, so I can't tell if you responded to me or not. I can resend it if it didn't go through.
Anyway, this is Rob signing off!
Rob
[> [> Yes, got your mail. Minor formatting stuff, but all readable, so no prob. -- OnM, noting 'it's in the works!', 23:09:08 08/04/02 Sun
[> [> [> I'm glad. Sorry 'bout the formatting probs due to my evil Mac!! -- Rob, 00:00:59 08/05/02 Mon
[> [> Ohhhhh,I'll agree with this review! -- AurraSing, 06:17:05 08/05/02 Mon
I'm on a trip to visit family and friends up in Calgary and got to see "Signs" on Sat night and what a thrill that was!! I've only been able to see three other movies this year at the cinema and "Signs" is clearly the best of the bunch. So far M.Night is 3/3 in my books and I truly look forward to whatever topic he decides to tackle next....it is so wonderful to go to a movie that truly engages you in what is going on up there on the screen!!
[> [> [> Signs (SPOILERS) -- ponygirl, 07:41:54 08/06/02 Tue
I was totally impressed with Signs as I have been with all of M. Night's films. His movies have such a simple and amazing idea at their core: what if you take a familiar tired genre like ghosts, or superheroes, or aliens, and treat it with the utmost seriousness? He can certainly create a mood, incredible suspense and weird humour. And he's not a bad actor either! However I think he has a problem with endings. After the perfect twist of Sixth Sense, I thought he was trying too hard in Unbreakable, and now with Signs I thought his attempt to wrap everything up was handled very clumsily. What do you guys think?
[> [> [> [> Re: Signs (SPOILERS for ending) -- Rob, 10:14:22 08/06/02 Tue
I loved the end, because it was a twist ending, and it wasn't...at the same time. It was a twist in that, yes, we learn every plot element had significance, but it wasn't the same type of "A-ha!" twist as "Sixth Sense" or "The Others." This movie really is about the characters first and foremost, and it was important to Mel Gibson's character to find faith in his life once again. If his way to do that was to find significance in all the seemingly unconnected events of his life; to rationalize a meaning behind his wife's seemingly senseless death and her almost incomprehensible last words; his son's asthma; his daughter's water "tic", etc, then so be it. I think the coolness of the ending is that it doesn't necessarily mean that the preacher is right. These all really could be complete, unrelated coincidences. But since the idea that they were fated to be helps him regain his faith, then that is all that is important. Like a Dumbo's feather, it helped give him the confidence to return to his faith and his former life...so whether his conclusions are accurate or not is inconsequential. And that is why the ending works so well for me.
In the end, it wasn't about the aliens. We don't even learn specifically how they are defeated (although one can make theories--perhaps other people discovered that water could harm them?). What was important was this one family and its struggle to find meaning in its life, against the backdrop of the "biggest event in world history."
And before you think that the ending was wrapped up so neatly, there is one thing many people forgot (I saw it in a group of 20 people, and I was the only one who remembered), M. Night leaves a hint that perhaps the end is not as uplifting as it appears on the surface. Earlier in the movie, the boy read in that book that if the aliens were chased away or were defeated by the Earthlings, that only means they would come back later with greater force, even if it's 100 years later. This is not mentioned again. And yet we see the aliens leave very quickly with no stated reason. That means they could still come back (and most likely will), which is a fitting symbol for why it is so hard to have true faith. There is always a wolf at the door to refute one's claims of faith. But the fact that even with this knowledge, Mel Gibson's character puts back on his preacher's collar speaks volumes about the importance and power of faith.
Also, I appreciated that this film did not stress a certain religion as an important thing to have--just simple, unadulterated, nondenominational faith itself--in whatever anybody wants.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Signs (SPOILERS for ending) -- ponygirl, 10:49:48 08/06/02 Tue
Oh I agree. The movie wasn't about aliens in any way, it was about one man regaining his faith. What do we do in the face of something so huge and incomprehensible as death, or alien invasion? We try to make sense of it in some way, faith is the final resort when reason can no longer offer any answers. I was prepared for the ending to hinge entirely around Mel Gibson's character getting his faith back, I just thought M. Night was trying to have it both ways -- to offer a logic behind the faith, as though it was a puzzle Mel just needed to solve. To me one of the key elements of faith (writing as a total agnostic of course so don't mind me) is the belief without proof. And I thought the flashback to his wife's final words and the slow reach for the bat were too heavy-handed-- rather than being the "a-ha" moment it turned into very long minute, not trusting the audience to get the point M. Night seemed to underline and highlight everything.
That being said I did really like the rest of the movie. I'd love to know what associations the director has with water. Unbreakable had that whole fear of drowning thing, Signs had water as a more positive symbol, and yet according to my asthmatic mother (who will definitely not be seeing Signs!) asthma attacks feel very similiar to the sensation of drowning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Signs (SPOILERS for ending) -- Rob, 14:58:58 08/06/02 Tue
I know what you mean about the very clear underlining of all the points, and why that didn't work for you (the heavy-handedness and all), but I thought that set of flashbacks was a necessary evil. IMO, It wasn't the audience's moment of realization, and wasn't meant to talk down to the audience, but to show Mel's epiphany in the most dramatically plausible way...and I can't think of many other ways they could have had him reach this epiphany without these flashbacks (unless they went for a voice-over of him, which I think would have been just as much, if not more, cheesy).
Rereading my response, I think I might have come off a little harsh, like where I said, "Before you think that the end was all neatly tied up..." so I hope I didn't sound rude. I didn't mean to sound so snotty! Please forgive me. :o)
Rob
P.S. And congrats on your record-breaking post. ;o)
[> Television aka "The Sob Sister" -- AurraSing, 06:11:57 08/05/02 Mon
Oddly enough,I've always felt that it's the format of television itself that lends it this dubious title. After all,what may come across as bold,daring and colorful on the humoungous screen at your local cineplex may end up as blah and boring when you pop that same movie into your video player at home.
Thus,many directors feel that the vision and sweep of their works will always look better as a "real" movie rather than as a TV movie of the week....for example a friend and Isat sat down to watch "Sense and Sensibility" last night.It was on VHS and not only did it seem small and rather mean compared to the original movie house viewing, but in some scenes,characters were completely off-screen during dialogues! (Hello,whatever happened to 'pan and scan'??) Now if Ang Lee had directed this adaptation directly for a tv audience,there is no doubt he and his cinematographer would have had to take into account the normal format of your average tv viewer and thus shot some scenes rather differently.Thus it would not have been the same movie!
I now live in a small town with no movie theater and while we have a fantastic home theater system,I still crave and long to see movies all the time.I grew up watching an average of a movie a week at a theater and it sadddens me somewhat that my kids only get to movies perhaps every other month.Instead we settle for DVD's and the movie channels for our viewing pleasure.
I suppose what I am saying in the long run is that no matter how great your surround sound Dolby digital,DVD,plasma screen home entertainment system is,you will always be dealing with the handicap of the sheer intensity lost by a smaller screen.I will gladly admit loosing myself in certain moments of tv (a episode or two of ER back in season 1 or 2,etc,etc) but in those moments I never lost grasp of the fact I was sitting in front of a 32 inch screen in the comfort of my living room.On the other hand,I have been utterly transported while in the presence of truly fine movies...such as when I was 16 and saw "Star Wars" for the first time in 1977 or sitting enthralled watching "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and so losing myself in the moment that I actually found myself swaying under the starry sky when I exited the theater.
I can never see television overcoming it's limitations in this matter but then I will freely admit to being prejudiced,being someone who grew up with spilt pop on my soles and popcorn in my hand-perhaps my children's children will never bother leaving their homes for entertainment.They will rely on television and other technologies to bring them the world,but I don't think they will ever feel the rapture as I have.
[> [> But...the good side of TV! -- Rob, 09:46:00 08/05/02 Mon
For me, television, when used correctly, can be much better than the big screen. There are many shows on today that have "movie quality." To name a few--Buffy, Angel, Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Farscape, Alias, 24. If any of these episodes of any of these shows were aired on the big screen, they would seem right at home. But they have a distinct advantage, namely the ability to tell a long, continuous story and truly develop the characters over a long period of time. A movie only has so long to do so, while a TV show is like having another movie, with these characters that we love, every week. I especially appreciate the shows that film in widescreen. It really adds that extra touch of sweep that I love in a film.
It also helps that I am very serious about my TV viewing. When I turn that TV on, I block out the entire world. I shut the door of my bedroom and become fully immersed. I don't watch with a whole group of people, talking in the background, etc. I try to simulate the movie experience to the best of my ability. When "Buffy" is on, NOBODY talks in my house!
Rob
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2002 - ***Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures*** -- Arethusa, 06:22:44 08/05/02 Mon
When moving pictures were developed, theater actors looked down on those cheapening themselves to act in them. Much later, live tv was the ghetto unsuccessful or untried movie actors were stuck in. And each catagory is further broken down-theater into Broadway, off-Broadway, repertory, dinner theater, etc. (Next thing you know you're watching a junior high production of "Annie" with a troop of girl scouts, but that's a different story.) The quality of the media has little to do with the amount of snobbery.
[> Theron had a minor part in "That Thing You Do" -- was it before your film? nt -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 12:36:20 08/05/02 Mon
[> [> Yeah, she was the g/f of Tom Everett Scott, who disliked Liv Tyler's character. -- Rob, 12:43:19 08/05/02 Mon
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2002 - ***Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures*** -- mundusmundi, 14:27:53 08/05/02 Mon
TV's going in a strange, multi-pronged direction -- dumbing itself down with all the "reality" dreck while simultaneously luring some of the best and brightest writers, directors and producers around. Criticism of television certainly isn't unfair, but I don't it's considered much "lesser" than any other medium anymore.
I seem to have a knack for making more enemies with every M. Night Shyamalan movie that comes out, but I thought Signs was silly treacle to the nth degree. As a director, Night has a very good eye, and I appreciate that he's after something beyond the more "boo!" factor; but he is a terrible screenwriter, with zero flair for dialogue or pacing, and consequently his pretentions have a way of irritating...well, only me, apparently. (Think the credit for himself at the end was gargantuan enough? Cripes.) Reign of Fire isn't nearly as well-crafted, but I enjoyed its pure B-movieness more.
Okay...rant over.;)
[> [> Gotta disagree with ya there... -- Rob, 19:16:31 08/05/02 Mon
I think that not only is M. Night a brilliant director, but an exquisite screenplay writer as well. His scripts are multi-layered, perfectly plotted, and the dialogue is natural and realistic, IMO. He knows when to lay on the suspense and when to allow the characters time to breathe and develop.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Gotta disagree with ya there... -- mundusmundi, 19:59:06 08/05/02 Mon
I think that not only is M. Night a brilliant director, but an exquisite screenplay writer as well. His scripts are multi-layered, perfectly plotted, and the dialogue is natural and realistic, IMO. He knows when to lay on the suspense and when to allow the characters time to breathe and develop.
While undoubtedly the "douche-bag" conversation was truly a golden nugget for the ages, I thought his script was woefully lacking. Night has a predilection for what another critic called the "hearsay" method of conveying information (i.e., Character A hears about something important that conveniently happened offscreen, which he then relays to Character B, etc.). I do like the breathing room he gives, and his sense of humor has become marginally better...though I suspect that's thanks to Mel, who made me laugh out loud a few times early on. I like the breathing room, but there's nothing organic about his stories to me. Too many nonsensical scenes to mention (a few wags at the IMdB message boards go over them better than I can), and I always come away with the sneaking suspicion that the director is trying to put one over on me. Of course I get that suspicion from Hitchcock too. But Hitch never tried to milk my tears.
First Slayer and Dracula -- meritaten, 22:03:27 08/04/02 Sun
I just watched Restless and Buffy vs. Dracula again. I noticed that the First Slayer and Dracula both tell her that she doesn't know what a slayer is, doesn't realize the source and extent of her power, etc., etc.. Was Joss just REALLY pointing out that Buffy is beginning an exploration of her destiny, or is there a reason why both of these characters, representing both good and evil, were telling Buffy the same thing, using almost identical phrases? I was wondering if we are supposed to see a connection? Why this similarity between 'good' and 'evil'?
I'm curious to hear if anyone else thinks there is anything to this. BTW, I'll be wilderness girl (thus sans computer) this week, so I won't be able to respond immediately. The thread will probably be archived before my return, but I'll definitely check the archives.
Thanks!
[>...and... -- meritaten, 22:05:17 08/04/02 Sun
...after buffy drank Drac's blood, she saw images of the First Slayer. Again, new quest or connection between powers?
[> [>Slayers and Primal Instinct -- AngelVSAngelus, 08:36:11 08/05/02 Mon
I thought the connection not between good and evil, but between Slayers and the monsters they fight.
Fray tells us that Slayers were created by the prehistoric antecedents of the Council, using magic to create an essence that endows that first girl with the power to combat the vampires. That power continues to infuse other girls around the world with such power when the previous one dies.
What we're not told is the nature of that spellcasting, where the magic power itself comes from. Could it be that the Council were using dark mystic forces against itself? We don't know for certain.
But we do know that Slayers have certain things in common with the vampires and demons they kill: primal instinct, to hunt, to destroy, an inherent sense for combat. Buffy's aware of this on both a conscious and unconscious level, for in her dream in Restless Riley called her a killer. After her denial to the very human looking Adam of being a demon, he replied sarcastically, "Is that a fact?"
Joss has yet to set the record concretely straight, but I think he's laid the foundation for telling us that the Slayer's source may lie within the forces of darkness, and that this whole time good has just been using one theirs against them. Its not such a foreign concept to us really. The Powers took the most dangerous vampire alive (in a manner of speaking) and turned him into a champion that helps the helpless.
Angel Question -- Purple Tulip, 10:21:14 08/05/02 Mon
Ok, I don't follow AtS regularly, but I was thinking of maybe watching it this season, and I have a questions that's really been bugging me. Ok, Angel still does have the gypsy curse on him, right (one true moment of happiness will turn him into Angelus)? And I know that he and Cordelia have fallen in love with each other---soooo---how can they ever truly be together? They won't ever be able to have sex because Angel will lose his soul. Or was it only with Buffy that he found this perfect happiness? Because wouldn't it be the exact same situation all over again?
Maybe there is a really simply explanation to this but I'm just unaware of it. If anyone could clear this up for me I'd be happy and possibly a new Angel viewer come season four.
[>Re: Angel Answer w/ S3 Spoilers -- Darby, 10:35:56 08/05/02 Mon
In order for Cordelia to have her "happiness" with Groo but prevent the activation of a magical transfer (in this case, her visions), Angel obtained what was called a "magical prophylactic." It hasn't been expressly stated, but one would think from the name they chose alone that it would work against the loss of Angel's soul as well.
That might produce a logical and compelling reason for Angel to need Wes back, though - only he of the group could do the research needed to confirm whether that assumption is reasonable or not. Would he be willing to take the risk, given what happened with Connor?
And with Sahjan in the picture, can any books that relate to Angel or Angelus be trusted anymore?
[> [>They couldn't have come up with a "magic prophylactic" for Buffy and Angel in Season 3?? -- Masq, 12:31:27 08/05/02 Mon
I suspect you're right about that Groo prophylactic--it's foreshadowing, setting it up as plausible that Angel and Cordelia could solve their little problem with a potion.
It just really *erks* me that they only haul that out of the "plot devices" cabinet now!
Hmm... maybe it will backfire. Smiling now.
[> [> [>And then there's the issue that... -- Rob, 12:54:52 08/05/02 Mon
...if they now have a "magic prophylactic," why doesn't Angel just say, "Sorry, Cordy," go back to Buffy right now and say, "Guess what, hon? We can have sex now! Yay!"? Buffy's currently available, and, I'm sure, very willing!
Rob
[> [> [> [>Too bad there's no cross-overs : ( -- Masq, 13:25:57 08/05/02 Mon
I'd love to see the angry steam rise off Spike's forehead when he found out Angel and his prophylactic were in town!! >: )
[> [> [> [> [>Rejected Vamp Turned Big Bad :) -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:51:45 08/06/02 Tue
The return of Spike the villain? Man don't tempt me with such delightful but impossible ideas.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Entirely possible. -- Arethusa, 13:20:59 08/06/02 Tue
I fully expect Spike to still be obsessed with Buffy. And Buffy's never been in love with Spike. Do we really think ME will have a near-rape victim fall in love with her attacker, especially when one writer specifically mentioned the Luke and Laura scenario (IIRC)? Therefore, Spike will be rejected by Buffy all over again, and now he won't have any excuses to ignore her rejection. Unless ME just doesn't want Spike to ever be bad again, he'll go nuts. It occurs to me that that might be why he still has his chip-he might try to go bad, but be unable to hurt anyone but the one person he doesn't want to hurt. What's more fun than a frustrated Spike?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Entirely possible. -- leslie, 15:33:00 08/06/02 Tue
"What's more fun than a frustrated Spike?"
A semi-frustrated Spike--just enough hope to keep him going....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>It's watching the rug getting yanked out from under him -- Arethusa, 17:21:31 08/06/02 Tue
every time that makes Spike fun. My favorite Spike moments are when he is raving about destroying someone, say Buffy, and he falls in a crypt, passes out drunk and is set on fire, gets zapped by the Initiative, or something else catastrophic. It's the contrast between Big Bad and Spike's chronic bad luck that I enjoy-not nekkid Spike (not that there's anything wrong with that, either).
[> [> [> [> [> [>From your keyboard to JW's ears! -- Caroline, 08:52:47 08/08/02 Thu
[> [> [>No, because the situation is different. -- Solitude1056, 13:30:09 08/05/02 Mon
Cordy wasn't worried that she or Groo would lose something - she was worried that her powers would transfer to Groo. Remembering, after all, that the whole point of their original meeting was for sex to make the power transfer from her to him. That risk had apparently not gone away, hence the need for a protective device. I assumed, at the time (and still do), that this protects a transfer between them. Since when Angel loses his soul, it doesn't go to his sex partner, the same potion would probably not work in his case.
[> [> [> [>Well, obviously it wouldn't be the same potion! -- Masq, 14:00:13 08/05/02 Mon
I speak of the idea of using magic/potions in general to prevent unwanted consequences of sex.
Angel would obviously use a different kind of potion for his own unique sexual... difficulties.
[> [> [> [> [>but they aren't! -- anom, 20:50:11 08/05/02 Mon
"Angel would obviously use a different kind of potion for his own unique sexual... difficulties."
Aren't sexual, that is. It's not about the sex, it's about the happiness. The curse is connected directly to how Angel feels, not to anything he does--that's just a means to the end, whether it's sex or a drug (but not rock'n'roll, I'm guessin'). The only way around that is to lift the curse, or at least that particular clause. A spell might be able to do it; I don't think a potion could.
Hey...too bad Willow didn't get around to tackling that one before her magic use got out of hand, huh?
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: but they aren't! -- Purple Tulip, 07:35:43 08/06/02 Tue
BUT....could something have happened when Willow re-cursed Angel? Is it possible that she got the whole cursed with a soul thing right, but somehow didn't get the translation out with the moment of true happiness clause? ~OR~ is it possible that to really "curse" Angel, Willow would have had to have been feeling that total contempt and hatred for Angel that the gypsies had felt when they first had cursed him. If Willow didn't feel that hatred and pain and was simply reciting the original curse, then could it have possibly been altered enough to get Angel out of the happiness thing? ~OR~ What about when Angel briefly became human in IWRY? He was human and could sleep with Buffy, and then the PtB turned him back into a vampire. So couldn't the soul thing have been altered there too? They could have changed the whole deal and not have even told Angel. But then he still would never know b/c he and Cordelia would never take that risk and have sex, knowing what COULD happen. I don't know...they just better have a darn good explanation for the whole sex thing, or else there's no chance of me ever watching that show!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: but they aren't! -- anom, 15:33:26 08/06/02 Tue
"BUT....could something have happened when Willow re-cursed Angel?"
Something did happen. We saw Willow's head snap back so she was looking straight up, & then we saw the Gypsy woman who had done the original curse chanting. If anything, this argues for no alteration of the curse. It looked as if the Gypsy's spirit (or whatever it was) took over & completed the curse through Willow, & her interest would be in having the happiness clause included, whether that was Willow's intention or not.
"What about when Angel briefly became human in IWRY? He was human and could sleep with Buffy, and then the PtB turned him back into a vampire. So couldn't the soul thing have been altered there too?"
That might be more of a possibility. According to Psyche's transcript for the ep, the female Oracle says, "You're asking to be what you were, a demon with a soul, because of the Slayer?" Not "a soul you'll lose if you ever have a moment of happiness." But the thing is, they don't actually change him back. They "swallow this day." That means Angel never became human in the 1st place. He remembers the day & its events even though they never happened, & he remains as he was before his dose of Mohra demon blood--complete w/the curse, & its happiness clause.
Besides, in Eternity, drug-induced happiness brings Angelus back, & that took place after both the other episodes. So I'd say the happiness clause is intact. A thornier question is why he reverted to Angel once the drug wore off. After all, all that's required is a moment of happiness--& this one may even have lasted longer than the 1st one. Why would the fact that the happiness was artificially induced make any difference (other than that the writers needed an out)?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Afterschool Special metaphysics -- d'Herblay, 18:56:05 08/06/02 Tue
Because the drug-induced happiness wasn't actual happiness, just an illusion thereof. Therefore we get an illusion of Angelus. Drugs make you feel happy, but they don't make you truly happy, so they make Angel evil, but they don't make him truly evil. So since Angel wasn't truly evil, we learn the lesson that drugs don't make you truly happy. Though drugs are still truly evil. Or something. Makes "Wrecked" look like "The Doors of Perception."
[> [> [> [> [> [>It's those wacky euphemistic Gypsies! -- Darby, 11:53:42 08/06/02 Tue
The show has always dealt with "moment of perfect happiness" as equivalent to "sex with beloved" even if it doesn't make sense, probably because of the metaphoric context under which Joss invented the curse. I and others here with kids have come to this realization when Angel didn't revert from being around Connor. It also is way too vague if treated fundamentally.
Did Angel ever seem as happy around Buffy as he was around his infant son? Looked like many "moments" to me, no matter what sorts of danger the kid was in.
Anyway, the magic prophylactic could have a fundamental meaning, in that it shuts down any magical goings-on. After all, Cordy had no visions while under its influence.
Maybe Angel takes it and finds out just how much being undead depends upon active magic.
Gulp! Ahhhh...clunk! Pesky side effects!
[> [> [>Sunk ship? -- Arethusa, 13:43:20 08/05/02 Mon
Wouldn't it be incredibly evil if we were told the curse is now defunct (which I suspect we will), and Angel and Buffy cross over (although not in the John Edwards sense) and decide that they don't love each other anymore? That would be natural, since Buffy is now an adult and has undergone tremendous changes, Angel now has some feelings for someone else, and both are single parents, of a sort. B/A 'shippers would be in agony, but that might be what Wedon feels they "need."
[> [> [> [>Re: Sunk ship? -- auroramama, 11:10:29 08/06/02 Tue
I rather like this, but I feel that they do still love one another. Their bond has always been a kind of nonverbal, non-rational belonging together. (Being extremely verbal, if not rational, about emotions, I figure that if I see a nonverbal basis for a relationship, it's probably pretty strong. There are plenty of supposedly deeply-in-love pairings on TV that I don't see at all.) After Joyce's death they were intending to be mature and reasonable, and they seemed ready to accept having moved on, but it was all too easy for them to slide towards merging. Anyway, I think they went through too many changes before and during S3 to make it a foregone conclusion that they've grown out of it now.
However, just because they still love one another doesn't mean they ought to be together. It's quite true that they've both experienced feelings for others (though I'm not sure what being single parents has to do with it) and some other might be the right person for each of them. I just think they'll always have that bond, that instinctive drawing together, no matter where they end up.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [>Parental feelings -- Arethusa, 12:51:02 08/06/02 Tue
The biggest shift I experienced in my post-baby life was learning to place my kids' needs before my own. For instance, any decision Buffy or Angel would now make would include how that decision would affect their "children." Both are at a very delicate stage with the teenagers; Buffy needs to do what she promised Dawn: spend more time with her and act like a mother figure, not a babysitter. Connor and Angel will have tremendous issues of trust, guilt and anger to work through if they are to overcome what Connor has done.
I agree they probably still love each other, and in a way always will.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Parental feelings -- auroramama, 15:32:26 08/07/02 Wed
I agree that both Buffy and Angel have different priorities now. But since both of them have often had to put others' needs -- the needs of a world that has to be saved -- ahead of their own... perhaps the most interesting priority issue has been whether the child's or the world's needs come first. In general a parent wants the best for their own child, even if the greatest good of the greatest number isn't served. But most of us don't have to face the stark choices Buffy did at the end of Season 5, thank heavens.
auroramama
who is about to start a new job and leave Daddy home with the babies, and who feels decidedly odd about it considering that she's been saying for months that she needs to get out of the house...
[>Re: Angel Questions -Speculation -No Spoilers for S4 -- Arethusa, 11:10:40 08/05/02 Mon
Please, watch "Angel" even if there is no C/A. I can think of all sorts of interesting possibilities for next year. Will Wesley try to break up Fred and Gunn? A bad guy trying to break up a good girl's relationship is a staple for soap opera, and I don't think it's been done in the Wedonverse yet. (Xander doesn't count-he didn't actively do anything, just committed a sin of omission that might have been in Buffy's best interest.)
If C/A doesn't happen, how will ME back off the relationship they've spent a lot of time trying to develop? And don't forget-happiness leads to misery, so maybe we'll be able to see some happiness if the characters are *not* in a relationship.
Will Lilah and Wesley develop feelings for each other? That would horrify them both, and make a confrontation between AI and W&H even more agonizing.
Will Wesley ever be accepted into AI again, or will they accept his help wothout reinstating him back into the group?
So much angst. So little time.
[>Re: Angel Question -- arielweymouth, 15:50:33 08/05/02 Mon
The loophole in Angel's curse is that he's allowed to have sex with demons, just as Spike is allowed to whip up on demons.
Note how Angel and Darla got along? Note how he partied with the three...what were they, Graces?...who put the nonviolence spell on Lorne's club.
Cordelia is now part Demon, as you remember, it's the only way she could survive the strain of the visions.
[>Re: Angel Question -- Sarand, 18:36:27 08/05/02 Mon
I've always been amused by the thought that Angel and Cordelia do have sex (no magic potions, no magic prophylactics), wake up in the morning and Angel still has his soul. Can you see Cordy's reaction? Pre-Saint Cordy, that is. "What do you mean it wasn't a moment of perfect happiness for you?" Stake.
Okay, maybe it's just me.
[> [>Re: Angel Question -- Halcyon, 03:46:11 08/06/02 Tue
So she would be mad that the socopathic vampire had not been freed? Er that just makes no sense whatsoever particularly as she lived through Angelus's reign of terror in Sunnydale. The Saint Cordy thing is bullshit as well how many saints punched a pregeant woman in the nose or advocated killing someone?
[> [> [>Re: Angel Question (spoilers for S3) -- yabyumpan, 07:34:14 08/06/02 Tue
I would say that the happiness clause wouldn't be a problem now anyway because Angel, along with every one else, knows about it. When it happened with Buffy, it was after 90 odd years of self hatred, for one moment he felt at peace because of her acceptance of him. I don't think there is ever any way that he could loose himself so fully now because he is just to aware of the consequences, no matter how much he loved someone.
I think it could possibly happen anyway, but not through sex. I have a theory that Cordy was taken by Skip because that was just such a possibility. He thought he'd got his son back, him and Cordy were going to meet to declare their feelings; Fred and Gunn both said that he seemed happy, what with the whistling and humming etc.....
As for finding a cure and heading back to Sunnydale, ye gods I so hope not. I can barely watch seasons 1-3 now without cringing at all the B/Aness. Loved it at the time but looking back it feels so wrong on so many levels. I would hope that both of them have now matured enough to be able to have relatively healthy relationships with other people and to leave that car crash were it is. As some one from ME said recently (maybe DG), it would be like getting together again with your ex wife.
really not wanting to start any sort of shipper war but I have faith in this board that it's not going to happen :-)
[> [> [> [>Re: Angel Question (spoilers for S3, speculation for S4) -- Kerstin, 13:29:45 08/06/02 Tue
"I think it could possibly happen anyway, but not through sex."
Ahh! As a new mother myself, I was waiting for Angelus to pop up every time Angel looked at baby Connor. I still feel the most likely candidate for bringing him perfect happiness at this point will be his son. Of course, it appears he has a long way to go from the current status of their relationship... I could be wrong.
[> [> [>Re: Angel Question -- Sarand, 07:47:06 08/06/02 Tue
Hey, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Just seemed in the last few episodes of the season - what with the blonde hair, the glowy thing and the ascension in the white dress in a beam of light - that Cordy was a lot less snarky than previously and was being made out to be some sort of savior for the Gang. True, she did advocate killing Holtz. Point taken.
Sorry I ventured into the pool. I'll go back to lurking now.
[> [> [> [>Don't be sorry.... -- LittleBit, 08:33:41 08/06/02 Tue
...I've been amused by that same thought. Especially the Cordy of Sunnydale. Because she wouldn't be upset that he didn't turn back into Angelus, she was too self-involved back then for that. She'd have been furious that being with her was so obviously demonstrated to be not a perfect moment. LOL! ;-)
[> [> [> [>Re: Angel Question -- acesgirl, 14:06:37 08/06/02 Tue
Not to highjack this thread (that's what you guys call it, right?), but I have a question about this St. Cordy business. What kind of Saint is Cordy really? If she was meant to act as a savior for the rest of the gang, then I would say she failed miserably. Last time I checked, Angel was at the bottom of the ocean because his deceived and confused son thought he murdered the only father he'd ever known. Wesley was sleeping with the devil and being an ass about it and Fred & Gunn were left alone to figure it all out. Way to go St. Cordy! Please shine your light of salvation over here. Oh, on the other hand, maybe not.
[> [> [> [> [>I'm entirely in agreement with you. -- Masq, 14:18:53 08/06/02 Tue
Here's my thoughts on it.
[> [> [> [>Re: Angel Question -- Halcyon, 03:58:26 08/10/02 Sat
Sarand I was not offended it just's the whole St Cordy bugs me as it's a lazy and inaccurate way of seeing the evolution of Cordelia's characterisation over the three seasons of Angel that and the annoying Corduffy that a lot B/A ers seem to dubb her as well. One thing about Cordelia is that she has always been pragmatic given the nature of the work she is involved in it makes perfect sense to me that she would at least learn rudiments of combat techniques. I suspect that if Willow or Xander started to learn how to fight we would not see any crap about them turning into a Buffy clone. Dyeing her hair and learning how to fight does not make Cordelia a Buffy substitute. As far as I'm concerned Cordelia is miles ahead of Buffy in maturity for examples of Buffy's immature streak see S1 of Angel and Seasons 3-6 of Buffy.
[>You know what I think would be funny? -- Forsaken, who is very twisted for thinking this..., 05:30:07 08/07/02 Wed
I think it'd be hilarious if Angel goes a little crazy during his months trapped in a tiny coffin at the bottom of the ocean. So crazy that, to alleviate the never ending boredom (come on, the Doublemeat has nothing on this kind of same-ol-same-ol-ness) he begins to hallucinate. One of them is perfectly happy, and the curse snaps. So when Connor, finally overwhelmed by guilt, retrieves and opens the coffin... Angelus comes right out to greet him! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
[> [>Let's do the twist. -- Arethusa, 07:33:27 08/07/02 Wed
I'm suprised we haven't discussed this much yet-glad you brought it up. Has Angel been in the "coffin" all summer? What did he do to pass the time? How did he try to break out ('cause of course he would try)? Would he go mad with isolation? Would it be like "The Singing Detective," where he would end up creating a whole world in his mind? Would he hallucinate? Did Boreanaz lose a bunch of weight to make Angel look starved? How will he react when he gets out-will he be able to wait until he gets animal blood, or will he be out of control?
[> [> [>Or perhaps he got swallowed by a (metaphorical, of course) whale... -- redcat, 08:48:46 08/07/02 Wed
in whose belly his faith in all things good and the PTB is tested, after which we'll get to see him be spit up onto the land by said
Leviathan, as the camera follows the graceful, almost epiphanous arc of that Great Spit, and then we'll see him thunk to a landing,
covered in appropriately slimy whale insides, hopefully right into a group of environmentalists and whale watchers, who'll then sue
him (does he own the Hyperion yet, and guess who their lawyers are?) for endangering an endangered species.
Or at least I hope Connor's still gonna have some competition from the rest of Angel's nemeses....
[> [> [> [>And Connor is swallowed too when he tries to rescue him. -- Arethusa, 09:43:05 08/07/02 Wed
Along with Cordy, who has miraculously appeared, and spends the entire time chirping in Connor's ear, "Remember the mission! Remember the mission!" before Connor squashes her like a bug. Then Connor tries to explain why he had Dad boxed and mainated in brine, but his nose starts to grow. Hmmm. Wrong story.
I think I'm the one hallucinating here.
[> [> [> [>Re: Or maybe like a whale -- Brian, 11:01:57 08/07/02 Wed
he's been straining brine shrimp through his fangs all summer long, and he's hale and hearty, just full of salty goodness.
[> [> [> [>aha! then i know how he survives! -- anom, 21:32:59 08/07/02 Wed
The whale's digestive acids eat away at the box & cables. Angel finally gets loose, still inside the whale...& by that time, it takes the whale's entire blood supply to slake his thirst!
[> [> [> [> [>How long does it take for steel to rust? -- Arethusa, 21:39:46 08/07/02 Wed
Could vampire stregnth break rusted cables and bolts within a few months?
[> [> [> [> [> [>not as long... -- anom of the sick mind...you have been warned, 21:52:20 08/08/02 Thu
...when it's got whale stomach acid (or any other kind) eating at it as when it's just exposed to (even salt) water. Then Angel will have to (sorry 'bout that visual, redcat!) drink his fill from inside the whale (now there's a unique cause of an ulcer...); tear his way out through all that blubber, get out the way he came in, or...eeeewwwwww; and get up to the surface, without any air in his body to give him buoyancy. Maybe he can catch a ride on something that needs to breathe. And then eat it.
[> [> [> [> [>Wow, amon!! 2 "eewwws" on the board at the same time - Way to go! -- redcat, SO wishing she didn't get the visual, 07:01:56 08/08/02 Thu
And PS to Arethusa:
Given that it's metaphorical steel, I'd say, oh, 'bout 3 months...
[>Getting Back to the Original Question (and a trip to the Happy Room) -- cjl, 09:51:33 08/07/02 Wed
First of all, given the spoilers to S4 we've seen thus far and the events of "Eternity," I think the curse is still on.
But is this necessarily a problem? Angel and Cordelia don't necessarily have to consummate their relationship to demonstrate their mutual love. A purely Platonic romance would be a hell of a thing to pull off for the series' sex-obsessed demographic, but I'd like to see Joss and whoever's running the show in S4 to try it.
And if that doesn't work, Angel and Cordy could always visit the Happy Room in the demon whorehouse from "Couplet"--you know, the one where nothing from the outside world (i.e., curses) get in the way of someone's physical pleasure. When the madame was talking about it, I could practically hear Angel making a mental note.
[> [>To 'ship, or not to 'ship. -- Arethusa, landlubber, 10:54:20 08/07/02 Wed
Here's the scene from "Couplet." Quote by psyche.
Angel is looking through an open door into a reddish room, watching a couple having a pillow fight.
Anita: "The room is enchanted. Everything that happens in there, every touch, every emotion, every desire is extended for maximum pleasure. I can check the schedule if there is someone special you would like to bring."
Anita takes a hold of Groo and leads him down the corridor, after a moment Angel turns away from the room to follow.
I don't think the room would protect against the curse; there's no evidence in the above quote that it would.
Angel didn't want Buffy to have to have a non-sexual relationship, and I doubt he would want that for Cordy either. That's why he encouraged her to go off with Groo, who could give her what she said she wanted. Their platonic friendship worked very well; I'm sorry they complicated matters with a romance. It seems that many problems arise when the main characters of a tv show have a romance. The courtship is fun, but tends to take over the other action in the series, and when the relationship is consummated, the affair becomes boring. Then the creaters have to throw in a lot of complications to liven up the romance, thereby frustrating both the characters and the viewers.
Secondary characters' relationships are more successful, since they are not the focal point of the series, and a change in their personal lives doesn't change the focus of the show. No romance, or a mostly off-stage romance like Wesley and Virginia's, seems to work best for the longevity of a series. ME's clever enough to pull it off, but the focus of "Angel" should be his mission-as Cordelia keeps reminding him.
[> [> [>Huh. That's weird. Where did I get that idea? -- cjl, 11:41:45 08/07/02 Wed
I could've sworn Anita said that whatever happens in that room happens ONLY in that room, and you can leave whatever worries you have in the world outside. Was I, as Popeye likes to say, halluskinatin'?
[> [> [> [>Uhm Bliss doesn't ... -- shadowkat, 12:01:54 08/07/02 Wed
require sex guys. Or didn't anyone else watch Eternity?
In that episode all she had to do was give him a drug and he had perfect Bliss. And became Angelus.
By a similar token - great sex doesn't always equal bliss.
Check out Reprise and Epiphany. He apparently has great
sex with Darla but all that happens is well Darla gets preganant. No soul loss.
Wes probably had a good reason to take that kid. When he took it Angel was still unhappy. Worried about kid.
And Cordy was loving Groo. But when Connor betrays Angel?
Whoa awfully close to Bliss there. Was about to get Cordy and thought he had Connor. And his arch-nemesis Holtz was gone. Wonder what would have happened if he hadn't gotten sent to the bottom of the sea?
All they have to do is give him his son and his love...and well hello Angelus. Don't need sex for that.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Uhm Bliss doesn't ... -- Masq, 12:42:14 08/07/02 Wed
But Angel didn't lose his soul in Eternity. That was not a case of "perfect happiness". As Wesley pointed out, it was drug-induced happiness, and therefore artificial. It had the side-effect of submerging the influence of Angel's soul, so that they demon had greater influence for a short time, but there was no soul loss. Otherwise they would have had to do the gypsy curse instead of just shackling him to his bed.
And what is it with Angel(us) and bondage??
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Uhm Bliss doesn't ... -- acesgirl, 13:16:09 08/07/02 Wed
"And what is it with Angel(us) and bondage??"
acesgirl's mind is wandering to all kinds of naughty places. Ok, apparently I am 12.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Bondage a-go-go -- fresne, 09:55:46 08/08/02 Thu
Well, personally it makes me think of this...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>See what I mean!? Angel=bondange boy! -- Masq, 19:21:45 08/08/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Dude, what's wrong with that? >=) -- AngelVSAngelus, 23:50:18 08/08/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Could it be that... -- Purple Tulip, 06:17:07 08/08/02 Thu
...Angel can only lose his soul when he reaches that one perfect moment of true happiness with his ONE true love? He lost his soul after being with Buffy, after reaching that perfect moment---so even if he does really love Cordelia, Buffy is his one true love, his soulmate, and no matter how happy he is with Cordelia, he will never reach that moment that he did with Buffy, therefore he is not at risk of losing his soul if they consumate their relationship.
[> [>AtS Season 4 spoilers above! -- Masq, 11:32:35 08/07/02 Wed
A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Purple Tulip, 12:07:06 08/05/02 Mon
Ok, there have been lots of posts on what everyone's favorite episodes are. So I want to start a new poll:
WHAT IS YOUR LEAST FAVORITE EPISODE?
-can be from any season
-can be more than one
-please list reasons why it is your least favorite
-don't be ashamed if you hated one that everyone else loved!
ok, I'll start:
1. The Pack- I thought that it was really good on a metaphorical level, but entertainment wise, it just lost me.
2. Ted- not a big fan of John Ritter, and this one was just too weird---didn't like it.
3. Go Fish- can we say filler episode? Again, not really a bad episode, but it just didn't hold my attention and I really didn't see the point of it---the only good part for me, was seeing a young Shane West in a towel (yum).
4. Bad Eggs- only because I've seen it so many times, and it just really weirds me out---best part was all the Angel/Buffy interaction.
5. As You Were- did anyone like this episode? I was all set for something really good, and was completely let down, though I liked the Buffy/Spike interaction, but was disapointed that she ended things with him---and Riley married??!! Come on!
6. There are a few episodes in season four that I thought were less than stellar, but I don't know the names of them---kinda blocked out most of season four!
Ok, now it's YOUR turn!
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Dead Soul, 12:19:17 08/05/02 Mon
Here's my top (bottom?) five in order of worstness judged by my overall gut impression:
1. Doublemeat Palace - the whole thing just grossed me out - made me feel all unclean & icky.
2. As You Were - made no sense at all and I really, really hated Sam.
3. Bad Eggs - again with the grossing out.
4. Ted - just bored me.
5. Teacher's Pet - whatever happened with the she-mantis eggs they showed at the end? And when Buffy picked up Dr. Gregory's broken glasses at the end, they were very different from the ones he was shown wearing before he lost his head. Also icky.
Would still rather watch the worst BtVS that best of just about anything else.
Dead (and wondering why monsters always have to be so slimy) Soul
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Cactus Watcher, 14:36:11 08/05/02 Mon
My least favorite episodes of each season.
S1. tie- Teacher's Pet and I Robot, You Jane, both were 'monster-of-the-week' stories rather than stories about Xander and Willow. They contributed little to the season.
S2. Go Fish beats out stiff competition from Bad Eggs and Some Assembly Required. - The latter two were hackneyed and pretty brainless, but Go Fish added the extra dimensions of being both sleazy (the creatures were supposed to rape Buffy) and boring.
S3. Amends - The only Christmas episode of Buffy and the only episode I can never watch without my mind drifting. There are certainly good things in it. But, I feel Amends is so surrreal that it just doesn't fit with the rest of the series. Also my candidate for weakest episode written and directed by Joss. Not too bad, though, for a season worst ep!
S4. Fear, Itself beats out the hit-and-miss Doomed, and the seriously dumb A New Man. A ho-hum rehash of everybody's fears capped off with a shaggy-dog-story, lame-joke climax.
S5 I Was Made to Love You - Not one of Jane Espenson's best. Still can't think of anybody who'd really believe April was an ideal girlfriend, even a sicko like we later learned Warren was.
S6. Doublemeat Palace - The lamest episode in years. Both the humor and the monster were as, Cecily would say, 'beneath us.
Still any of these would be at least average episodes for most other TV shows.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Caesar Augustus, 15:46:22 08/05/02 Mon
My season least-favourites:
S1. The Pack - closely followed by Teacher's Pet ... I actually quite like IRYJ, which most people don't seem to
S2. Go Fish - approaching the big finale with Angel and co, this is just sadness personified
S3. DMP - 'nuff said
S4. Beer Bad wins hands downs - other candidates: WTWTA, Living Conditions
S5. Listening to Fear - as brainless as it got in s5
S6. DMP takes the cake again - must be something about those initials. Wrecked was strongly disliked by me too.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- HonorH, 16:50:23 08/05/02 Mon
"Where the Wild Things Are." It stank except for the Anya/Spike scene and Giles singing. BtVS does softcore porn. Tacky, tacky, tacky!
"Beer Bad" which was just, what's the word, bad. How'd they get SMG on board for that cup o' crappuccino?
Those are the only two eps I can think of that I truly and violently disliked, but then, I never watched "Bad Eggs."
Oh, and *cough* IlikedAsYouWere. I know, I know, it failed on a number of levels, but I still liked it, probably for all the wrong reasons. The Buffy/Spike breakup at the end is one of my all-time favorite scenes. They just did it so *right*, y'know? Besides, I managed to get a fanfic out of it, and that's always good:
Miss Perfect
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Alvin, 17:39:31 08/05/02 Mon
1) Amends. It was just dull, and its only purpose was to have B/A angst and to have Jenny back for one episode.
2) AYW, mainly because it seemed half done. I'm convinced that Sam was the evil "doctor" and Riley her "Igor" but the whole episode just seemed incomplete.
And I liked Go Fish, if only because of the Cordy moments.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- JBone, 18:16:20 08/05/02 Mon
I like Caesar's idea of ranking by seasons.
S1 - IRYJ barely beats out The Puppet Show; The Puppet Show had some stuff that did work for me, although I never bought that the dummy was alive. The Pack rises above a lot of the first season episodes for the slo-mo strut by the Hyena people alone.
S2 - Ted, hands down. Go Fish gets a bad rap. The girls oogling Xander in his swim team 'uniform' was hilarious.
S3 - Dead Man's Party in a very strong year. I think the episode was necessary to get the gang back on the same page, but it's a tough one to watch.
S4 - The Harsh Light of Day despite some decent laughs from VampHarmony, this one missed a little. But I'm like one of three people who liked this season.
S5 - I think that Family is hugely overrated, but the one that was least good is probably Shadow, no, make that Listening to Fear. No, Shadow.
S6 - A two way tie between Wrecked and Smashed. DMP was rollicking good fun compared to these two, and AYW was a lot of fun for me to watch. It shocked the hell out of me when I saw what other people thought of it.
[> [> Re: A New Poll for Y'all :) -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:46:25 08/05/02 Mon
I liked Smashed, but Wrecked was kinda blah. I also thought Doublemeat Palace is underrated, and As You Were is the type I can enjoy on first viewing, but doesn't hold my interest upon repeating it.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- monsieurxander, 22:01:52 08/05/02 Mon
Um... there aren't any episodes that I just *hate*... some are less stellar than others.
1) I Was Made To Love You. If you ask me, not that much of a conflict.
2) I Robot You Jane. I cringe every time I look at the computer screen and see it say that Buffy is a senior, when in fact she's only a sophomore.
3) The Pack. I didn't see the bullies as all that threatening. The blonde/redhead girl only had one line. That bugged me. Also, I'm not a big fan of Principal Flutie... but that's probably because I was introduced to the show when the Fuhrer Snyder was in full swing.
4) Some Assembly Required. Left open a huge plothole (how did the guy come back from the dead using only science? He seemed to have all of his human traits... does that mean he had a soul? He sure died "naturally"... so why did he come back and not Tara? What about the dire consequences mentioned in Joyce's passing and attempted resurrection?).
5) Gone. I didn't buy the whole "Buffy's vacation from herself" deal. Gratuitous Spike nudity (don't get me wrong... Spike nudity can be good... but when they do it *over* and *over* and *over* again I want to smack Marti upside the head). The "pushups", along with very faint SMG noises, made me cringe. Too many corny InvisiBuffy antics (Bye Bye Copper? Ghost of fashion victims' past?? Puh-lease.).
6) Dead Things. I liked the Buffy-Tara interaction, but the episode seemed... murky. I don't know. This one didn't do it for me. The demons that alter time... I didn't like that part either. If demons can alter time, bring Buffy from past to future and back again... does that mean that time is on a set course? I don't buy that notion... since "Buffy has thwarted prophecy time and time again".
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- JCC, 02:44:39 08/06/02 Tue
As you Were. I thought it was awful. I usually like Doug Petrie's episodes but this was just bad.
Beer Bad was boring.
Some Assembly required.
[> No question at all for me -- Direwolf, 03:03:18 08/06/02 Tue
"Wrecked": Marti Noxon is her noxious worst. Followed shortly by "Buffy vs. Dracula" which was like watching a fanfic come to life, and a bad one at that. Say, wasn't Noxon the one responisble for this as well?
Most of Season One was awful, Bad Eggs, lots and lots of Season Four and Six eps, but they were just stupid and/or badly written. The first two are both and also assume that you're a complete idiot just because you're watching.
[> Five nominees (and some disagreement with other people) -- KdS, 04:53:22 08/06/02 Tue
First, I'd just like to say that I've only seen up to "Gone"/"Birthday"
Worst first:
"Ted" - just for the Trek-like magnitude of the plot reset. Wow, Ted's a robot! Let's all forget that Buffy lost it and hit a human being hard enough to kill him because she didn't like him. I could have forgiven the episode if Ted had turned out to be a human murderer, but it would still have needed some more moral consequence.
"Wrecked" - Buffy does "Reefer Madness". I will stand up and say that Willow's addiction could have been a good idea, but the sheer crudity of the metaphors and the "DRUGS ARE BAD, M'KAY" moralising are unforgivable.
"Beer Bad", "Triangle" and "Bad Eggs" in that order. All comedy episodes that failed to raise a laugh. "Beer Bad" is slightly redeemed by the Willow/Parker scenes, but it isn't funny and the portrayal of prehistoric man is a dated, ignorant embarassment. Moreover, it's full of the dumbed-down "Girl Power" pseudo-feminism that sees male violence against women as unforgivable but extreme violence by women against men as a joke. "Triangle" is an example of an episode that placed a massive burden on one actor who couldn't shoulder it, although admittedly only Brian Blessed in his prime could have made that script work. "Bad Eggs" - there is funny-dumb, and there is just dumb.
In general I find that even when a dramatic episode has problems I can respect the ambition, but a failed comic relief episode is painful to watch.
In response to some of the other posts:
I'm always bemused by people who bash "Go Fish", as I find it one of the best comedy episodes. The only explanation I can suggest is that some people simply couldn't accept such a pure comedy between the heavy-duty angst of "IOHEFY" and "Becoming". It's also something of a throwback to Season 1 in its metaphorical approach, but it's better than most S1 episodes.
Finally, I think "The Pack" is much underrated, and one of the key episodes in Season 1. Xander's attempted rape of Buffy (shockingly unambiguous for the timeslot and assumed audience), the death of poor, gentle Mr. Flutie just as the audience had started to like him, Xander's final confession to Giles... this was the episode which should have warned everyone how dark the series was willing to get.
[> [> Re: some additions -- Purple Tulip, 07:21:50 08/06/02 Tue
I was reminded this morning of another one of my least favorite episodes: Gingerbread. I mean, Hanzel and Gretel? MOO? I just thought that this was one of the worst episodes ever, and yet I've seen it more times than I like to admit. Also, I really liked Beer Bad and Gone---I thought that they were both funny and still laugh when I see SMG spinning around on her desk chair, enamored by the TV. Don't know---guess it just has to depend on your sense of humor and ways of looking at the show.
[> [> Great post, right on the money -- Direwolf, 13:45:40 08/06/02 Tue
Although as I said, I would include the eponymous BvsD, for reason already mentioned, and "As You Were" for being unbelievably stupid and badly written. The only good thing about it was that it gave Riley his perfect match: a woman just as annoying and corny as he was. It was actually cute to see both sucky actors mangle their lines together.
[> [> [> Oh, and "I, Robot, You Jane" -- Direwolf, 13:49:17 08/06/02 Tue
just for the demon robot (although even without it I'd consider it the worst of season one and maybe the worst ever).
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Rattletrap, 09:59:42 08/06/02 Tue
Okay, time for my $.02. Standard boilerplate: Even bad Buffy is better than most other TV, and bad Buffy is most definitely better than no Buffy.
1. Some Assembly Required -- The science was pretty suspect even for Buffy, and I hate the whole idea of having to ret-con a long-lost ex-boyfriend for Cordy to make the thin threads of plot work.
2. Reptile Boy -- If Wrecked was like being hit with an anvil, this episode was like being hit with a 3-ton truck. Brings a whole new meaning to "moralistic and heavy handed."
3. Beer Bad -- A few funny moments, but the whole thing just didn't quite work. Not much explanation needed here.
4. Teacher's Pet -- see Beer Bad
5. When She Was Bad -- This episode always seems to be reaching for something that isn't quite there. The whole thing just seemed really over the top and contrived, not to mention introducing a bunch of plot points never resolved.
Other common contenders:
Bad Eggs -- This episode is bashed a little too hard by most fans, IMO. Yes, the plot and the special effects were on the corny side, but it had some of the funniest dialogue ever (Cordy's "Miata" speech comes to mind)
I Robot, You Jane -- I understand why some people don't like this one, but I've always enjoyed it for reasons I can never quite explain.
Amends -- one of the weakest of S3, and one I didn't particularly care for, but not Worst Episode Ever material.
The Pack -- Had some good parts. I really loved the Buffy/Flutie interaction, that's really what sticks out most in my mind. NB did a pretty good job with his part too, IMO.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- acesgirl, 10:06:23 08/06/02 Tue
Cool, I'll answer a poll for my second post ever. That's probably pretty safe.
For the record, I don't really hate any of these episodes, it's just relatively speaking they are my least favorite in a sea of good stuff.
S1 - IRYJ - That demon, yowza. It's just too much for me.
S2 - Inca Mummy Girl. I noticed that no one else listed this so maybe I'm alone in my dislike of this episode. It just didn't grab me. I thought it was kind of boring. Except it does have eskimo Willow so that redeems it for me.
S3 - DMP - The big scoobie fight at the end is just too painful to watch. And as a viewer already struggling with the character of Xander, this did not help me jump on board the love train. However, this ep does include Giles' "Americans speech" so, again with the redeeming.
S4 - I shocked myself when I looked at the episode list and realized that I do not dislike any of the episodes from this season. Who knew I was a S4 lover? Not me. I even like Beer Bad. I thought it was kind of funny.
S5 - Shadow - This is the only episode ever, where I was looking at the clock thinking "when is this going to end". Just writing about it is making me zzzzzzzzzzzz. (Oops, sorry dozed off there for a sec.)
S6 - Doublemeat Palace. It's just icky.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- dream of the consortium, 10:30:17 08/06/02 Tue
Because I've mostly had to order older episodes from people who will copy tapes, I've skipped the ones that are legendarily bad. A lot of season one seemed pretty weak, but I just assume that's the show finding its legs.
Of those generally disliked episodes I've seen, I would agree that Doublemeat Palace, and Teacher's Pet were quite awful. I didn't mind The Puppet Show or The Pack.
As far as controversial episodes go, I'm with the general consensus on Wrecked. Blah. I didn't mind the overall Willow addiction arc, but that episode was way too after-school special for my taste.
As You Were I saw as a failed attempt to create a completely ironic episode. There was something interesting about that as an idea, but it was unpleasant to watch.
I loved A New Man. Funny. Giles. Ethan. 'Nough said.
I hated the second part of the season opener (was it Bargaining part II?) Oh, there were a few good things, but the bikers drove me nuts.
I wasn't crazy about The Replacement.
And now, the fatal confession.
I HATED Tabula Rasa.
I hate any sort of amnesia plot in general. I hate the whole "strip away people's memories to reveal their true charcter" thing - it seems cheap. The whole episode seemed to consist of a lot of wandering around. I was really, really bored. I was completely stunned when I logged on to find everyone had loved it. (As I was stunned to find that people had hated Older and Far Away, which I thought was flawed in its ending, but very enjoyable - particularly Anya's performance and the Spike/Tara interactions.)
I can't think of a single episode that didn't have at least one good moment. Of course, I haven't seen Beer Bad.
[> [> Amazing -- Arethusa, 16:23:01 08/06/02 Tue
I thought I was the only one who disliked Tabula Rasa. I just started rolling my eyes when I saw the land shark. Shark face. Sharkskin suit. On land. Who makes loans of kittens. Sigh.
Also disliked the return of goofy Zander, W/T interaction (yes, yes, "gay now," I get it), poor Tara's hair style, Giles and Anya shippiness (either do it for real or not at all), Anya's illogical insistance on creating more bunnies, and most of all Spike's Angel speech (again with the eye-rolling). I thought everybody here would rip the lame land shark idea to shreds!
And I *liked* Nick and Nora Fury. They were well-suited and it was good to see Riley happy and confident. Sam was properly respectful to Buffy and kind to all the Scoobies, instead of taking a "you hurt my honey so I'll hate you" attitude. It's not her fault that Buffy was at her lowest point when they met.
I found OaFA slow but interesting, especially since we got to see a lot of interaction between the gang, which is my favorite part of the show.
[> [> [> Re: Amazing -- JCC, 07:28:46 08/07/02 Wed
I loved Tabula Rasa. Especcialy Spike's Angel speech. And the Anya/Giles thing.
But the shark demon was ridiculous.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- matching mole, 10:31:29 08/06/02 Tue
This poll has inspired me to watch Bad Eggs when it comes 'round on F/X again - I haven't seen it since its original airing and my main memory of it is Cordelia's discussion of the hazards of sex in cars. That memory alone serves to vault it over quite a lot of other episodes.
I find it pretty hard to judge what I think are the worst (or the best episodes). There are ones that are didn't appeal to me initially but have grown on me with time. Others that I may not like personally but I would consider well done. Others that are 'guilty pleasures'.
Season by season a few comments both on the shows and on others' picks.
6) Wrecked seems an obvious choice for worst because of its really shocking lack of subtlety and for changing the rules in mid-stream. DMP is one of my three favourite episodes of season 6 - after Triangle it seems like ME gave up trying to pull off the lighter comedy episodes. DMP gave us the comedy and the metaphor of old-time BtVS with a more darkly satirical perspective.
5) S5 is my least favourite and most of the stories, after the first few, are tightly linked to the season plot. This makes it difficult for me to judge objectively them as individual stories. Triangle seems like the one attempt to produce a more comedic episode and, for me, it was a dismal failure.
4) Although not a big fan of the Initiative I thought that most of the individual episodes of S4 were very good. The Oz/werewolf/Veruca episode (whatever it was called) is probably my least favourite of the season. The Oz as werewolf thing always seemed contrived to me - it never blended in well with everything else and seemed heavy-handed and soap operatic. The oft-cited Beer Bad is certainly not a great episode but I found it vastly more enjoyable. And Living Conditions is one of my all time faves - as brilliant a mixture of realism and metaphor as we've ever seen.
3) The initial Oz as werewolf episode is my least favourite - see season 4 above. Partly it's just that the werewolf costume is so appallingly bad (which wouldn't matter so much if it was just a one shot monster). But also the metaphors in this episode seem very heavy handed and completely lacking in humour compared to other S1-S3 episodes of this type.
2) Very difficult. I don't remember Bad Eggs well enough. Ted is another all time favourite of mine. Go Fish is not the best episode ever but it is a really good S1 episode that is stuck in the middle of the arc at the end of S2. Out of place perhaps but not bad. Inca Mummy Girl might be my choice. Not bad really, just not very interesting.
1) Also difficult. Of the monster of the week episodes I guess I'd rate Teacher's Pet the lowest mostly because it seemed the least original. At the time I probably would have rated Angel as the least enjoyable because I found the character pretty boring and I really liked Darla who I thought made an excellent lieutenant to the Master. But with hindsight of course it is much more compelling.
[> [> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Brian, 12:52:46 08/06/02 Tue
Hmmm, from what I have read above it looks like one man's meat is another man's poison, or in more nongender terms
one's trash is another's treasure:
I disliked Ted and loved Amends
Double Meat Palace made me gag, but Bad Eggs was delightful.
Wrecked was a train wreck, but Tabula Rasa was wonderfully funny.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- ponygirl, 13:07:44 08/06/02 Tue
This has been an interesting poll! Since, like everyone else, even the worst BtVS is better than almost everything else on tv I base my choices on episodes I have no desire to see ever again. Well, maybe one more time. But that's it!
s1 - IRYJ, even though we had an amazing discussion about it the other week.
s2 - Ted. While this had some interesting foreshadowing about Slayers killing people and such, and Joyce in her best conflicted yet protective mother mode, this episode never appealed. I just do not like John Ritter.
s3- Dead Man's Party was brilliant but it's so hard to watch Buffy getting rejected by friends and family that I often avoid it. But I realllly didn't like B&B. Buffy and Scott had no chemistry at all, and does anyone else have a problem with an episode that dealt with abusive relationships and misogyny that had Buffy being rescued from the baddie by Angel? Anyone?
s4 - The weird thing about season 4 is that a lot of episodes that I didn't enjoy on first viewing I grew to really like. But that's season 4 all over. Still I'd go with Beer Bad as my choice.
s5 - Listening to Fear. That alien bug thing was gross.
s6 - AYW of course. Buffy at her most diminished and Riley without the self-doubt and uncertainty that for a while in s4 & 5 made him an interesting and likable character. And bad plotting on top of that! Doug Petrie how could ya? Also I do fast forward/ignore the Willow parts of Wrecked, it's like a separate episode anyway and one that I don't enjoy.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Marginal Drifter, 15:14:07 08/06/02 Tue
Hmmmmm.......Let's seee..
"Bad Eggs" would definitely be my out-and-out least favourite, it's the only one I don't want to watch again. It's just, well, boring - and I feel that the opening sequence would have been better in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" - yeah, Buffy'd given up slaying, but she was willing to dust random vamps that crossed her path, so it would have fitted in. Although I do find it a good lead-in to the Judge/Angelus episodes, with the teacher pushing unwanted pregnancy as the biggest problem with young people having sex and kinda not touching on the emotional after-effects we see when in "Innocence". And also the situation between B/A - two people very much in love, being all romantic and so swept away with that that they're not paying attention to potential problems. Still don't get any enjoyment out of watching it though.
I haaaaaaaaaaaated "Entropy". The Anya-trying to find a wish-person conversations weren't funny, I'm not big on the whole Anya's a vengeance demon again plotline, the whole Spike/Anya "seduction" (I can't think of a better word) was really dragged out, I hate Xander spelling out how he feels about people sleeping with Spike, I hate Spike's shirt.
[> Re: A New Poll for Y'All :) -- Wizardman, 15:27:12 08/06/02 Tue
Well, I seem to differ in my picks for Least Favourite Episode(s). All of mine are awesome episodes on their own merits, but I still can't watch them (and yet I always do).
S1: Nothing jumps out at me.
S2: Passion
S3: Lover's Walk.
S4: Restless.
S5: The Body.
S6: Seeing Red.
See what I mean? All of them are awesome eps, but I don't like them, because they are either too painful, or otherwise don't fit. I loved Jenny, Joyce, and Tara, I loved X/C, and I though that Restless, while mindblowingly wonderful in every way possible, just didn't fit in the Timeline- not Season Finale territory, but not quite Season Premiere territory either. But that's just me- I guess that other people will disagree.
[> [> Interesting -- Cactus Watcher, 05:27:07 08/07/02 Wed
Since the question was 'What is your least favorite?' rather than 'What's the worst?' it's pretty difficult to argue with anyone's choices. Everyone is going to have their own tastes. Some people picked things they felt were low in quality. Others picked things that were painful to watch. A fair number of episodes were picked because the humor failed for that particular person. I was surprised to find that there are others, like me, that don't care for Amends very much. Wizardman, I think you were brave to make the choices you did. I'm glad we have a board where we can have a discussion like this without creating a firestorm.
S6-hints of alternative universe and other dimension -- luvthistle1, 17:02:44 08/05/02 Mon
Could scoobies have been suck into another dimension?
Could the scoobies have been in a "alternative universe" all along? I think , there is a possibility. Here's why:
Did you ever think that maybe Buffy didn't close the portal, or maybe Willow spell backfire? maybe instead of Bringing Buffy back, It pull them all into another dimensions? We know, before willow completed the spell, they were interrupted by, "Razors gang", and The very important "urn" that she needed to do the spell, "broke." That could have cause a Reversal , sucking all of them into another dimension.
Think about the picture in "Afterlife" What did you think it means?
Also, throughout season 6, there have been many references to alternative universe .
1- when Buffy meet Andrew, for the first time- He tells her he was the one who release the "*Flying monkeys on the school"
2.-Anya talk about breaking down dimensional wall to Giles and Xander in "Once more with feeling".
3.-Episode title "Life Serial".
4.-Spike makes statement to Xander, that they might be in another dimension, in "normal again"
5. Listen closely, you might find another one in "dead things" (The Rwasundi , (demons buffy was fighting) their
presence in the scoobie dimension cause a disturbance.
From "Villains:
When Jonathan and Andrew were in jail, JONATHAN
Really? I
(stops himself)
Shut up. This is real life and
nobody's coming to get us. Not your
*Aunt, who won't even return your one
phone call.
Question: Anya is back to her old job as a vengeance demon. Do you remember when the last time we saw Anya as a vengeance demon ?
*
*
*
Answer: In the "wish" ( which was another alternative universe)
* The flying monkeys" and Andrew's Aunt are both references to the "Wizard of oz". Note: Dorothy stayed with her "auntie Em".
[>Re: S6-hints of alternative universe and other dimension -- ZachsMind, 19:08:52 08/05/02 Mon
Jonathan's reference to Andrew's "Aunt" could have been an obscure reference to the indications that Andrew is actually gay. They were hinting towards the end that Andrew liked Warren as more than just a friend. However, he also did a sorta Freudian slip earlier in the season where he thought Scully was hot and wanted him bad, so it could just be that Andrew is not sexually confident due to a lack of experience (read: none). The thing about the flying monkeys could also be an inside joke with the writers hinting the same thing. "Dorothy" is a symbol of unity in the homosexual community.
The writers could opt to say Buffy's gang has been in a state of temporal and pandimensional flux since the episode The Wish. Certainly since Dawn's appearance in "Real Me." However, this would be a cheap ploy not unlike how the writers of the prime time soap opera "Dallas" wrote Patrick Duffy's character back in by explaining the entire previous year had been a dream. It's called "Jumping the Shark" and would adversely affect the future of the series among fan popularity if the writers opted to play that ruse.
The way to resolve this would be to use it as a plot factor, rather than an explanation to reset everything back to normal.
However, if everything since "The Wish" has been the result of Anya's wish causing pandimensional flux, it would easily explain the return of the school. They could say it was never destroyed. However, they could also say Dawn never arrived and Glory was never killed. I think playing with dimensional physics now would only make things worse further down the road for the writers. It's best they just trudge forward and focus on one reality.
[> [>only since they brought buffy back. -- luvthistle1, 22:36:21 08/05/02 Mon
I not saying they had been in another dimension , since the "wish" . I just saying , Anya being a Vd , is another hint that they might have been suck into another "alternative universe", when they attempted to bring Buffy back. They showed that the "Urn" broke, right before she finish the spell. That scene must be important, or it would not have been there. I'm saying that there was a possibility that the spell went wrong, and might have reverse and instead of bring Buffy back, it sent the scoobie
to where Buffy was. In the picture in "afterlife" it showed all the scoobies as dead. I know, it might have been, because of the thing Buffy brought back, but if that was a case, why would the demon Warn them, or make itself known? I think it something to it.
[>Re: S6-hints of alternative universe and other dimension -- Yoda, 20:01:47 08/05/02 Mon
I definitely think the creation of Dawn by the monks altered their reality. They used a spell much like Johnathon did in the episode Superstar.
Johnathon made himself into a paragon, the best of everything, everyone's ideal. The drawback was that in order to balance the new force of good the spell had to create the opposing force of evil, the worst of everything, everyone's nightmare."
So it would make sense that the creation of a human being would have consequences. A price to pay. And hasn't everything gone steadily downhill since the creation of Dawn?
As Adam said in "Superstar" when he sees Jonathon on the TV monitors. "These are lies. None of this is real. The world has been changed. It's intriguing but it's wrong.....I don't need to do anything. These magicks are unstable, corrosive. They will inevitably lead to chaos."
I think one of the first to suffer due to the creation of Dawn was Joyce. Shadowkat theorized in a past post that Joyce's brain tumor may have been caused by her exposure to Dawn. Makes sense, remember the doctor asked Buffy if they lived near any power lines, if Joyce used a cell phone, etc? Well she was exposed to a big ball of energy in the form of Dawn. That exposure could have triggered the tumor.
In "Normal Again" the Doctor says "Buffy inserted Dawn into her delusion, actually rewriting the entire history of it to accommodate a need for a familial bond. (to Buffy) Buffy, but that created inconsistencies, didn't it? Your sister, your friends, all of those people you created in Sunnydale, they aren't as comforting as they once were. Are they? They're coming apart". Sounds like season 6 doesn't it?
I'm still not convinced that Dawn is really real. Could she just be an illusion that the monks created? All those insane people didn't seem to think she was real.
In the episode where Buffy does the spell to see spells Dawn fades in & out of pictures and when Buffy enters Dawns room she doesn't see or hear Dawn initally. Instead she sees a room filled with boxes. The spare bedroom is being used as extra storage space. This is really interesting. So which reality is real? Is the room with boxes the reality and Dawn just an illusion or is this just an alternate reality with Dawn & all her things also being real.? Here is the scene. (Curtesy of Psyche)
"Buffy approaches Dawn's room and cautiously opens the door. Dawn is not there and Buffy walks slowly in. Buffy stands in wonder as the entire room around her shifts back and forth between Dawn's normal teen girl setting and a room full of boxes and odds & ends: an unoccupied storage room. Dawn's voice echoes from far away, calling to Buffy. Buffy? Buffy. Buffy turns to find Dawn, angry at her intrusion. But Dawn herself is fading in and out of reality along with all her things."
Dawn is a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma. Hopefully we find out more about her next season.
[> [>Dawn's here to stay... -- ZachsMind, 21:31:30 08/05/02 Mon
So long as Whedon likes Michele Trachtenberg, the reality with Dawn in it will remain the accepted reality, but just as we learned in Superstar with Jonathan, messing with reality like this does have a price. Did we ever find out what happened to those priests? My guess is they're all dead by now. Reality doesn't like being effed with.
Yes I seriously accept that Joyce died of brain cancer because of Dawn, but not due to radiation. If that were the case, all the Scoobies would be dying of radiation. The cancer was more of a mystical intrusion, because being Dawn's mother, Joyce was the closest to the nexus of the changes in reality. The priests had to screw more with Joyce's memories than anyone else since they had to force Joyce's brain to remember giving birth to a baby she did not give birth to.
One can argue that the darkness of season six is further evidence that Dawn's very existence causes chaos which will of course eventually lead to evil carnival death, but I think season six's darkness was due to the choices made by the leads and we can't really blame Dawn for all of it, so much as some would like. Dawn is fast becoming the Jar Jar Binks of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
[> [> [>Re: Dawn's here to stay... -- Yoda, 06:09:53 08/06/02 Tue
ZachsMind, I think Dawn is here to stay as well. But I also feel very uncomfortable about what the Monks did in creating Dawn. Messing with everyones memories. I don't think they could create new memories without creating a lot of inconsistencies. So I think what they tried to do was take existing memories and insert Dawn into them. For instance Buffy's memory of Dawn crying for two weeks when their father left. It was probably Buffy who cried for two weeks. Dawn writing in her Diaries. Buffy used to do that. Joyce calling Dawn her little Punkin Belly. Buffy asked her mom if she ever had any nicknames for her and Joyce said no. Maybe that was Buffy's nickname. I think that if they co-opted Buffy's memories and make them Dawn's they stole something precious from Buffy. They took away memories that might have given her comfort if she could remember them.
[> [> [> [>maybe they the monks took that part -- luvthistle1, 14:48:01 08/06/02 Tue
...maybe the part of Buffy, that the monks took to create Dawn, is the part of herself that she is missing. The would explain why she seems so lost last season. I wonder what affect did Dawn have on Joyce. The knights said the Dawn being in Buffy dimension will create some form of problems.
The key ... is almost as old as the beast itself. Where it came from, how it was created ... the deepest of mysteries. All that is certain is that its power is absolute. Countless generations of my people have sacrificed their lives in search of it, to destroy it before its wrath could be unleashed.
Before it's "WRATH" can be UNLEASHED"! not before someone could release it wrath.
[> [>A different perspective on Dawn -- HonorH, 07:32:39 08/06/02 Tue
Just to throw in something different--I think Dawn is the universe's *gift* to Buffy.
To wit: suppose it was all set to happen anyway. Suppose Joyce was always slated to die. Can you imagine Buffy in the wake of her mother's death with no one to look after? No other family?
And, too, Buffy's the Slayer; she'll probably never have children of her own body. Dawn is that. As Buffy noted in "The Gift," Dawn was created from her. In the shooting script, Buffy even describes her as both her sister *and* her daughter.
Being the Slayer has taken a lot from Buffy, and the universe has given her precious little in compensation. Dawn, as someone for Buffy to love, protect, and now train and raise as her own child, may be the universe's (or TPTB's) way of giving something back to her.
Just a thought.
[> [>Re: S6-hints of alternative universe and other dimension -- leslie, 10:25:08 08/06/02 Tue
"All those insane people didn't seem to think she [Dawn] was real."
I think, actually, what they saw was that there was "no-one in there." I.e., and interestingly for Dawn's relationship with/attraction to Spike, she doesn't have a soul--the energy that is the Key appears to fill that place instead, just as the demon usurps the place of the human soul when someone is vamped. (Dawn is the one who interprets the insane people's comments as meaning that she isn't real, but that isn't literally what they have said--gotta watch out for that in the Buffyverse, with those sneaky prophecies and all.)
I don't think that the Scoobies have been sucked into an alternate universe, but the Buffyverse is clearly predicated on the notion of multiple realities divided from each other by semipermeable boundaries; in a way, the Slayer's mission is to maintain those boundaries by keeping demonic reality at bay. Vampires, as humans who have been "infected" by demons (see Giles's explanation of the origin of vampires all the way back in S1) are a threat to human reality because they bridge the two realities, demon and human (which is why they are despised by both demons and humans, as monstrous hybrids). I would argue that it is not so much since the formation of Dawn, but more since Glory used her to open the portal between dimensions, that the boundaries between realities have become more permeable than usual--although Buffy's self-sacrifice worked to *close* the portal because her blood and Dawn's blood are identical, it does not seem to have *locked* the portal behind her.
[>Re: S6-hints of alternative universe and other dimension -- monsieurxander, 21:34:32 08/05/02 Mon
As for what Anya said in "Once More, With Feeling", she wasn't referring to a dimensional wall at all. She said something about how there was kind of an absense of a "Fourth Wall". This was a reference (inside joke, even) to musical theatre. The Fourth Wall is a term used in theatre (especially musical theatre)... if there is a Fourth Wall, the scene is played normally. If there is no Fourth Wall, it means that the characters are free to acknowledge the audience at any time. In Anya's and Xander's musical number, they performed facing the camera... performing *for the audience*. That's what was meant by Anya's "missing fourth wall".
[> [>Re: S6-hints of alternative universe and other dimension -- luvthistle1, 22:50:25 08/05/02 Mon
- What about the picture in "Afterlife", what does it mean?
-In bargining" willow said that the Urn was essential for the spell to be completed. They said the Spell would not work without "the Urn of Osiris." Yet, it broke before willow could complete the spell. I think the scoobie might be another dimension, because of Willow's spell.
[> [> [>Obviously... -- Forsaken, 08:39:22 08/06/02 Tue
The pictures in Afterlife are a reflection of Buffy's mind at the time. She was depressed, and angry, and wanted to be dead again. Of course visions of her friends as skeletons (a popular depiction of Death is a skeleton, and the Buffy who had been in Heaven thought she was dead by comparison).
The Urn was necessary to do a supplication to Osiris. Willow finished the spell just fine, because she was done with the tests. She expected to have to direct the energy crackling around her herself I think, but the spell finished itself once the Urn was broken. If the spell had backfired and drawn the casters into an alternate dimension, why would Giles, Dawn and Spike be there? If they were alternate versions of Dawn, Giles, and Spike how did they not seem different, why is the world the same? If they were drawn into the world where Buffy had been, that would mean they were in Heaven. I kinda think the season would have been more lighthearted were that the case.
A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:33:59 08/05/02 Mon
There are many different, sometimes overlapping, fandoms within the viewing audience of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I've been wondering if there's a pattern to determine who's likely to belong to what fandom. So, I've come up with a little survey:
PART I:
THE SHIPS
(note I am referring to romantic/sexual relationships here, not friendships)
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/A relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/R relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/X relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/P(arker) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/G relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/W relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the W/X relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the X/F(aith) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the X/A relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the X/S relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the A/G relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the W/T relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the W/S relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/D(awn) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/H(armony) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/A(gel) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/A(nya) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the G/J(enny) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the G/E(than) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
What do you think? Also, be sure to check back later for PART II: THE CHARACTERS
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- HonorH, 18:07:24 08/05/02 Mon
Talking about *strictly* the romantic/sexual relationships (past, present, and future), my answers are:
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(to explain: I think it's a terrible idea, but I liked where it led both of them)
On the B/A relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/R relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/X relationship:
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(NO! They're friends! Brother and sister! Nothing else!)
On the B/P(arker) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/G relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(He's her *father*, people! Her freakin' DAD!)
On the B/W relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(No, really, this one could seriously work!)
On the W/X relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(In romantic terms, hate it. In true-family terms, love it.)
On the X/F(aith) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the X/A relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the X/S relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(There aren't words enough to describe the squick factor on this one.)
On the A/G relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(Hey, it was good while it lasted.)
On the W/T relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the W/S relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(*Sigh* Beautiful monsters, beautifully in monstrous love . . .)
On the S/D(awn) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
('Cause it's just *wrong,* that's why.)
On the S/H(armony) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(Just 'cause Spike sooo deserved it.)
On the S/A(gel) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the S/A(nya) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
(Sweetest Drunken Comfort Sex I've ever seen.)
On the G/J(enny) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
On the G/E(than) relationship
a) like it b) hate it c) indifferent
That make any sort of sense?
[> Zach's take on Shipping -- ZachsMind, 18:56:57 08/05/02 Mon
I'm generally for any Ship that furthers the plot.
I am for any Ship that has a premise in canon.
I'm not for Ships made up by the fans which have no premise in canon.
My favorite Ship combination has been Tara & Willow because they looked so darn sweet together. In the beginning I hoped Tara would live up to what I expected Willow deserved after losing Oz. In the end I decided Tara was just too good for Willow. So it was interesting how that whole dynamic arc'd over two years. Next to that, I liked Willow and Oz, and that Ship was just too short lived.
My third favorite Ship would have to be Buffy & Riley, cuz I thought it was a good move on the part of the writers to give Buffy a 'real man' as opposed to a vampire. In other words a guy who was alive and breathing and was almost as normal as Xander. Particularly a real man who could keep up with Buffy. It was a great dynamic, especially when Riley was no longer getting his 'vitamins' from The Initiative and started getting self conscious about whether or not he was enough of a man for her. I know a lot of fans didn't really like Riley, but I think he was the best choice if Buffy wanted a future with a man.
Fourth favorite Ship would have to be Giles & Jenny Calendar, and how that ended was just painful to watch, as he walked up the stairs to face Angeles' gift for him. The idea of a technopagan was a good concept for a character, and Jenny gave Willow the push she needed to become more than just a bookworm.
Fifth favorite would have to be Anya & Xander because the comical possibilities there were a lot of fun. I really liked the chemistry and awkwardness between the two of them.
Personally I don't believe there should be any shipping for Buffy throughout season seven. I know they'll probably explore more Spuffy but I think that's run its course. They'll only continue the Spuffy for the sake of the fans that like it. I would prefer to see Buffy realize she's strong enough on her own as a woman and doesn't need a man to complete her. That said, it would be nice if at the very end of season seven, as Sarah Michele Gellar leaves the series, if Buffy finally acknowledges to Xander that of all the men who she's loved and lost, Xander's always been there. I'm not suggesting a relationship, because whatever incarnation Buffy takes in season eight, I wanna see Xander in there, but Buffy should at least give him something in return for the endless dedication he has shown her.
Willow shouldn't get a new relationship until about halfway through season seven. Again, they're not gonna do that but it'd make the most sense. She's got a lot of karma to work through.
Xander should get a new babe (not Buffy) to create a triangle with the 'scorned' Anya. Anya should learn that he didn't leave because of her. He left her at the altar because he feared what he'd become. However, NOW he'd scorn her because she's become a demon again. So Anya can definitely become a Big Bad contender for season seven.
[> [> Just one question -- HonorH, 23:13:45 08/05/02 Mon
ZachsMind: "I'm not suggesting a relationship, because whatever incarnation Buffy takes in season eight, I wanna see Xander in there, but Buffy should at least give him something in return for the endless dedication he has shown her."
Okay, and here's where HonorH has to open her big mouth and ask exactly what Buffy needs to give Xander. Does she need to tell him she loves him? She has, repeatedly. Hug him? Again with the repetition. Acknowledge what a great friend he is? She has. Affirm his place as a valuable and valued member of her "team"? Check "Checkpoint." Save his life? More times than either can count.
Yes, it'd be nice if Buffy laid out to Xander exactly what he means to her, just like it'd be nice to have Giles tell Buffy to her face just how much he loves her, but my question is, how many words--or actions--are necessary at this point?
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- monsieurxander, 21:25:09 08/05/02 Mon
PART I:
THE SHIPS
(note I am referring to romantic/sexual relationships here, not friendships)
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it
On the B/A relationship:
a) like it
On the B/R relationship:
b) hate it
On the B/X relationship:
a) like it [I think it would be great to see them get together after all these years...]
On the B/P(arker) relationship
b) hate it
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it [I think it was established early on that was not even a direction they could *ever* take]
On the B/W relationship
c) indifferent
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it [there's a dynamic there...]
On the W/X relationship
b) hate it [hate to say it, but seeing Willow with a man post-Oz and definitely post-Tara would greatly offend me]
On the X/F(aith) relationship
b) hate it
On the X/A relationship
a) like it
On the X/S relationship
a) like it [nummy treat...mmm....]
On the A/G relationship
[not sure if you mean Angel or Anya. For Anya, like it... they were so cute together in Tabula Rasa. For Angel, I'm indifferent.]
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it [it was fun while it lasted]
On the W/T relationship
a) like it [too bad she's gone... *sniff*]
On the W/S relationship
b) hate it
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it
On the S/D(awn) relationship
a) like it [ahem... Dawn is now, or soon will be 16. That was how old Buffy was when she first kissed Angel. And Angel is older than Spike. ]
On the S/H(armony) relationship
a) like it [some of the best laughs I've ever had]
On the S/A(gel) relationship
a) like it
On the S/A(nya) relationship
a) like it
On the G/J(enny) relationship
a) like it [Poor Jenny... we hardly knew ye...]
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it
On the G/E(than) relationship
b) hate it
[> My top three favorite ships -- cjl, 07:52:18 08/06/02 Tue
Giles/Jenny - They were wonderful together. Jenny, the smart-mouthed, 100% American techno-pagan and Giles, the pure Brit, book-loving Watcher. There wasn't a single bad scene between ASH and Robia. Not one. Their first encounter in IRYJ is classic, but I loved their first date at the football game in "Some Assembly Required" (when Xander and Willow plopped down in the seats right in front of them), and their reconciliation in "Ted" (shooting somebody is the Buffy way of telling somebody you love them).
Willow/Xander - I wanted this one...bad. But it never happened, and it never will. Willow's ice cream nose, the clothes fluke, Xander's hospital bed speech in "Becoming," the breaky-crayon scene in "Grave"--I could go on and on. But why torture myself?
Giles/Joyce - Granted, Joss was determined never to go there, and it made sense that Giles wouldn't want to go there either: a relationship with Joyce would make Giles Buffy's stepdad, and he actively resisted the parental role. But damn, that was fun! The shagging spree in Band Candy, the hideous awkwardness afterwards, Buffy's wiggins in Earshot--I almost wanted it to happen purely because of the embarrassment factor. It was also nice, though, to see Kristine Sutherland's Joyce play an adult relationship, when she spent most of her time lecturing Buffy and looking clueless...
Funny. Two out my top three ships involve Giles, and Buffy doesn't make my top three. At all. There's something meaningful about that, but I've got to get back to work...
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- Majin Gojira, 08:04:20 08/06/02 Tue
On the S/B relationship:
b) hate it
(I don't like people being self destructive and stupid)
On the B/A relationship:
c) indifferent
(It was bad for Buffy, and hopefully she learned a lesson from it, but it did make for some nice stories)
On the B/R relationship:
c) indifferent
(Ah, the Sex. Lots of it. often. And the emotional naivety of Goku. Buffy needed someone like that, at least for a little while)
On the B/X relationship:
a) like it
(Sure, It'll probably never happen, but it'd be nice to see Buffy with a dependable guy...again)
On the B/P(arker) relationship
c) indifferent
(She needed the experience that people can be jerks. She hit him in Beer bad, that made me smile)
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it
(Say it with me, Electra Complex. Very Good.)
On the B/W relationship
c) indifferent
(Makes no sense what-so-ever. but...eh.)
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a)like it
(Likelyhood of happening now, eh... about 30%, in the past...well, that's what subtext is for.)
On the W/X relationship
c) indifferent
(Eh, it's WAY to Brother/sister-y for me to see it THAT way)
On the X/F(aith) relationship
a) like it
(Hell, I thought it was funny)
On the X/A relationship
c) indifferent
(I'm not a big fan of Embaresment humor, but they were cute together)
On the X/S relationship
b) hate it
(Wait...People SHIP THIS? oooo-kay...)
On the A/G relationship
a) like it
(I thought it was funny)
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it
On the W/T relationship
a) like it
(Ya know, Willow's had the best relationships out of any of the characters)
On the W/S relationship
c) indifferent
(Um...Ok...Moving on...)
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it
(It was just plain weird)
On the S/D(awn) relationship
c) indifferent
(I think Spike still see's her as a little kid)
On the S/H(armony) relationship
a) like it
(It was fun in it's sheer stupidity)
On the S/A(gel) relationship
c) indifferent
(Kooky)
On the S/A(nya) relationship
c) indifferent
(I don't know why, but for me they didn't really seem to click in Entropy. but I can see where it comes from)
On the G/J(enny) relationship
c) indifferent
(Nice while it lasted)
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it
("If your not to busy having sex with my MOTHER!")
On the G/E(than) relationship
c) indifferent
(0_o)
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- deborah, 08:43:46 08/06/02 Tue
First time poster dipping a toe into ATPoBtVS&AtS waters...
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it
Liked it since Becoming Part II and still like it after Seeing Red
On the B/A relationship:
c) indifferent
Initially liked it, but now can't remember why
On the B/R relationship:
b) hate it
Initially liked it, but eventually it felt forced. Glad to see him leave town, hated Buffy running after him.
On the B/X relationship:
b) hate it
I don't see Xander as anything other than a brother for Buffy.
On the B/P(arker) relationship
c) indifferent
We've all made mistakes, this was one of Buffy's. Liked the way he was treated by both Willow and Buffy in Beer Bad.
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it
Maybe in some alternative universe, but not in this one.
On the B/W relationship
c) indifferent
Don't see it, but don't see why not.
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it
Great chemistry
On the W/X relationship
c) indifferent
Liked the potential more than the execution in Season 3.
On the X/F(aith) relationship
a) like it
On the X/A relationship
c) indifferent
Liked it up until Hell's Bells -- now I think Anya deserves better.
On the X/S relationship
c) indifferent
Haven't seen it on-screen, would rather see either of them with Angel.
On the A/G relationship
a) like it
Definite potential. Hope it's explored.
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it
Loved how he fell for her in Season 2 when Xander was clueless about Willow
On the W/T relationship
a) like it
Developed well.
On the W/S relationship
a) like it
Would really like to see VampWillow and Spike in some alternate universe
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it
On the S/D(awn) relationship
a) like it
She appreciates him more than Buffy ever has
On the S/H(armony) relationship
c) indifferent
On the S/A(ngel) relationship
a) like it
On the S/A(nya) relationship
a) like it
On the G/J(enny) relationship
a) like it
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it
On the G/E(than) relationship
a) like it
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- acesgirl, 10:41:57 08/06/02 Tue
Oooh, another poll. Hmmmm, go back to work or answer this poll? What to do, what to do?
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it - from the truce to the resouling and whatever is coming next.
On the B/A relationship:
a) like it - I'm such a sucker for a tragic love story.
On the B/R relationship:
a) like it
On the B/X relationship:
b) hate it - Nuh uh, no way, no how.
On the B/P(arker) relationship:
c) indifferent
On the B/G relationship:
b) hate it - yuck, he's like her father and some junk.
On the B/W relationship:
c) indifferent - I don't see it but to each his own.
On the B/F(aith) relationship:
a) like it
On the W/X relationship:
c) indifferent
On the X/F(aith) relationship:
a) like it - as a one time lose his virginity thing.
On the X/A(nya) relationship:
a) like it - I wish he would figure out how devoted she was to him.
On the X/S relationship:
b) hate it - I just don't get that m/m subtexty vibe from Xander.
On the G/A(nya) relationship:
a) like it
On the W/Oz relationship:
a) like it
On the W/T relationship:
a) like it - 'sniff'
On the W/S relationship:
c) indifferent
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship:
a) like it - such yummy badness.
On the S/D(awn) relationship:
b) hate it - ick, ick, ickity ick.
On the S/H(armony) relationship:
a) like it - those two cracked me up.
On the S/A(ngel) relationship:
a) like it - Ah, the subtext that launched a thousand smutty fanfics - sign me up!
On the S/A(nya) relationship:
a) like it
On the G/J(enny) relationship:
a) like it - 'sniff' again.
On the G/J(oyce) relationship:
a) like it - if only because the post Band Candy awkwardness lent itself to some super funny moments.
On the G/E(than) relationship:
c) indifferent
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- Dariel, 10:51:32 08/06/02 Tue
This is silly, but I'm at home sick (well, injured) and bored:
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it
Hated the way it went, but I'm foolish enough to still harbor hopes for the future
On the B/A relationship:
a) liked it, past tense. Over and done with, please! I loved my highschool boyfriend a bunch, but I moved on, just like Buffy has!
On the B/R relationship:
c) indifferent
On the B/X relationship:
b) hate it
Just too creepy for words. Admittedly, this is based mainly on 1) preference for Spike; and 2) finding Xander's character about as sexually appealing as a toadstool. Still too much of the sweaty teenage boy.
On the B/P(arker) relationship
c) indifferent
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it
Incestous. Ick.
On the B/W relationship
c) indifferent
On the B/F(aith) relationship
c) indifferent
On the W/X relationship
c) indifferent
On the X/F(aith) relationship
c) indifferent
On the X/A relationship
a) like it
If Xander grows up
On the X/S relationship
b) hate it
You mean Spike, yes? No way!
On the A/G relationship
a) like it
You do mean Anya/Giles, I hope, not Angel/Giles!
On the W/Oz relationship
c) indifferent
On the W/T relationship
a) like it
Sigh!
On the W/S relationship
c) indifferent
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
c) indifferent
On the S/D(awn) relationship
b) hate it
Again, incestous.
On the S/H(armony) relationship
c) indifferent
On the S/A(gel) relationship
d) love it!! Not that I read slash (much), but the concept of these two together amuses me to no end.
On the S/A(nya) relationship
c) indifferent
On the G/J(enny) relationship
a) like it
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it
On the G/E(than) relationship
c) indifferent
[> I'm confused -- matching mole, 11:26:07 08/06/02 Tue
We're supposed to rate these relationships only as romantic/sexual relationships? But many of these (within the context of the show rather than someone else's fiction) relationships are non-sexual friendships (B/W?, B/G?). Are you asking us to imagine what they would be like and then compare them to ones that exist? I don't know about anyone else but I don't think I could make an adequate comparison between a relationship that exists only in my head and one that was played out over several years of television.
[> [> And I'm unclear -- redcat, 11:52:47 08/06/02 Tue
as to the point of the exercise. Finn initially said something about trying to determine if a certain kind of poster preferred a particular type of 'ship, but what, if anything, the listing process can tell us about that isn't obvious, at least to me. However, if the object is really simply the sharing of our opinions with each other, well, that's fine (although I personally prefer the more well-developed posts, where [if we're all lucky] there's some analysis and discussion of the "why" rather than just the "what" of those opinions). And I know that all kinds of contributions help build the community. I'm just not sure what this particular building block is supposed to be doing.
[> [> [> Re: And I'm unclear -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:23:31 08/06/02 Tue
For this survey it says "Part 1: The Ships". I plan to later do other surveys seeing what characters people like, what episodes they like, what seasons they like, some basic information about them (race, sex, culture, age), and their view on certain topics (Spike's redemption, plot holes in The Gift, etc.) With all these, I'm hoping that maybe a pattern can be made out (a shipper of this couple is likely to be a fan of this episode, and the like). This isn't a particularly deep topic, I admit. I might try writing one giving my viewpoints and asking deeper questions, but the problem is that all such threads are likely to become a battle ground over whether B/S works or not.
As for sexual/romantic relationships that haven't been on the show, there are enough fanfic about these relationships that a lot of people obviously like the idea, so I'm seeing what people do and do not.
Sorry for any confusion.
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- lele, 13:50:20 08/06/02 Tue
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it (for the chemistry between the actors and the way they play off eachother, not the way ME decided to portray it)
On the B/A relationship:
a) like it (SMG and DB did a very good job of portraying first love)
On the B/R relationship:
c) indifferent (liked it at first-before they actually got together- then it just looked awkward and labored)
On the B/X relationship:
b) hate it (I'm emphatically anti-any core scooby romantic entanglements esp after S4 Primeval. I look at them as family now, and that's something stronger than romantic love). If you mean the B/X friendship- it's lovely, esp liked the reconciliation scene in Seeing Red
On the B/P(arker) relationship
a) like it for the fact that buffy and willow got him back in Beer Bad
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it (see answer for B/X, but I would love to see Buffy hook up with someone like Giles) The B/G bond - amazing acting from those two together esp in Helpless, and Grave
On the B/W relationship
b) hate it(see answer for B/X) Loved the B/W scenes in Consequences, the Prom, Choices, Wrecked, and Normal Again
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it (the subtext was fun)
On the W/X relationship
b) hate it (see answer for B/X) I did like the idea of it up until around S4
On the X/F(aith) relationship
a) like it (it wasn't much of one, but liked how he tried to help her in Consequences)
On the X/A relationship
a) like it (loved it actually, they were funny and sexy together)
On the X/S relationship
a) like it (I'll be looking for it in fanfic soon)
On the A/G relationship
b) hate it (cause I liked X/A together) They also play very well off eachother in TR, Hush, and the 'fight' in Bargaining
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it (they were beautiful together)
On the W/T relationship
a) like it (loved it too- esp around mid season 5, they were also beautiful together)
On the W/S relationship
c) indifferent
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it
On the S/D(awn) relationship
hate it and cannot even stand the mental images it puts into my head
On the S/H(armony) relationship
c) indifferent
On the S/A(gel) relationship
a) like it (in the sense of them being antagonistic)
On the S/A(nya) relationship
c) indifferent
On the G/J(enny) relationship
a) like it
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it
On the G/E(than) relationship
a) like it (for the same reason I liked Spike/Angel)
[> [> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- HonorH, 13:59:02 08/06/02 Tue
"I'm emphatically anti-any core scooby romantic entanglements esp after S4 Primeval. I look at them as family now, and that's something stronger than romantic love."
Exactly so. Relationships don't have to be romantic/sexual in order to be deep and intimate. Look at the way they all hug each other--Buffy and Willow in "Primeval," Xander and Buffy in "Seeing Red," Xander and Willow in "The Body" (you can just *see* the bonds between them), Giles and Buffy in "Grave" (*Sigh!*)--it goes so much deeper than any of their romantic entanglements.
[> [> [> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- lele, 15:15:27 08/06/02 Tue
' Relationships don't have to be romantic/sexual in order to be deep and intimate'
I think the relationship those 4 have is about the only thing you can count on in the buffyverse. :)
[> [> [> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- Just George, 18:05:37 08/06/02 Tue
My guess (hope) for S7 is a downplaying of the romantic/sexual relationships and a focus on the friend/family relationships.
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- Marginal Drifter, 16:05:30 08/06/02 Tue
On the S/B relationship:
a) like it
I think they could've been good in a parallel universe... Don't like the idea of them getting together in S7 after "Seeing Red" so that's the end of that.
On the B/A relationship:
c) indifferent
It was *too* romantic, I find myself laughing. But it was interesting from the development of Buffy's character point of view, so I can't say I hate it either.
On the B/R relationship:
b) hate it
You know when you watch movies, and someone's trying to stop their beloved leave town and you're like "Faster! Faster! Run!" In Checkpoint I was like " Slow down!For the love of God, slow down!"
On the B/X relationship:
b) hate it
They have such a great friendship, I like seeing two people of opposite sexes being so close. I'm very anti this.
On the B/P(arker) relationship
c) indifferent
It was okay to watch, interesting to see a brief one-night stand thing on Buffy, but I'm not that big into it.
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it
He's - her - DAD!!!!
On the B/W relationship
c) indifferent
They'd last I guess. They wouldn't fight I guess. Don't see any passion though.
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it
Woah. I really like this. The idea's only been in my head for like five minutes and I'm thinking it would be interesting. This is my favourite ship involving Buffy in the survey. Feel free to throw things.
On the W/X relationship
b) hate it
Nooooooooooooooo. Just no.
On the X/F(aith) relationship
c) indifferent
Well, it was nice to see Xander know the lust of a woman.
On the X/A relationship
b) hate it
Boring - oh no wait, this is Anya, right? Sorry, A) A!!! They were mega.
On the X/S relationship
c) indifferent
Could be interesting.
On the A/G relationship
a) like it
Awwwwww
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it
They were just brilliant, every single I-feel-all-warm-and-snuggly moment.
On the W/T relationship
a) like it
God bless them. Stoopid Warren.
On the W/S relationship
c) indifferent
Meh.
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
a) like it
I loved Spike and Dru. Even when they were making each other miserable. Half of me wanted to see them get back together in Crush. People would have died, but that's the beauty of TV, you don't have to really mind.
On the S/D(awn) relationship
b) hate it
He's - her - good for nothin' UNCLE!!
On the S/H(armony) relationship
a) like it
Funny! Again! Again!
On the S/A(gel) relationship
b) hate it
They'd just bring out the worst in each other and be bad.
On the S/A(nya) relationship
c) indifferent
They'd be a good couple, but they wouldn't be AMAZING.
On the G/J(enny) relationship
c) indifferent
I'm not quite sure I'm human.
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
a) like it
Well, not in long term terms, but "Band CAndy" was entertainging.
On the G/E(than) relationship
c) indifferent
Meh.
[> Re: A Buffy Survey - Part I: The Ships -- Just George, 18:48:48 08/06/02 Tue
PART I:
THE SHIPS
(note I am referring to romantic/sexual relationships here, not friendships)
On the S/B relationship:
c) indifferent: It was interesting, but ultimately hurt both characters.
On the B/A relationship:
a) like it: I liked it before and would like it again. When the Buffy/Angel movie happens 2 years after both series end, I expect to see this ship sail again.
On the B/R relationship:
a) like it: B/R courtship in S4 was a lot of fun. Buffy has never looked prettier. Their problem was mostly a lack of communication, not a lack of passion. Actually Angel vs. Riley in the B/A movie would be cool.
On the B/X relationship:
a) like it: They would be good for each other. It wouldn't be major sparkage, but friendship taken to the next level.
On the B/P(arker) relationship
c) indifferent: Parker was a poop-head, but Buffy needed to go through the experience to learn the value of a relationship.
On the B/G relationship
b) hate it: He's daddy, not big daddy!
On the B/W relationship
c) indifferent: I would have to be sold on it. I don't think Buffy swings that way, but if she did, she could do much worse. Like B/X, it wouldn't be major sparkage, but friendship taken to the next level.
On the B/F(aith) relationship
a) like it: I could be sold on B/F much easier than B/W. The two would fight all the time, but the sparkage could power a city! And they might just balance each other out. Big Bads beware!
On the W/X relationship
a) like it: Like B/X, they would be good for each other. It wouldn't be major sparkage either, but friendship taken to the next level.
On the X/F(aith) relationship
a) like it: Actually Xander would be good for Faith. She needs civilizing (to be brought into the community of civilization, not to be tamed!) and he could do it.
On the X/Anya relationship
c) indifferent: I liked them together, but they have a lot of baggage to work through. I'm not sure they both wouldn't be better moving on.
On the X/S relationship
b) hate it: Ewwwww.
On the Anya/G relationship
b) hate it: They are funny together, but Giles has better taste (and deserves better) than Anya.
On the W/Oz relationship
a) like it: It was lovely and it could still happen. Maybe in the movie. Willow (New Moon Rising): " I feel like some part of me will always be waiting for you. Like if I'm old and blue-haired, and I turn the corner in Istanbul and there you are, I won't be surprised. Because... you're with me, you know?"
On the W/T relationship
c) indifferent: It was lovely. But, to have it happen again would require Tara to come back and that would devalue everything that happened at the end of S6. I would love the 'ship in the abstract because the characters could be happy again, but I would not like what it would do for my sense of verisimilitude.
On the W/S relationship
b) hate it: Unless it was VampWillow with EvilSpike, then it would be OK.
On the S/D(rusilla) relationship
c) indifferent: Only with EvilSpike. They were great together.
On the S/D(awn) relationship
b) hate it: Ewwwww.
On the S/H(armony) relationship
a) like it: They were funny and deserve each other. Maybe SouledSpike could redeem VampHarmony.
On the S/A(ngel) relationship
b) hate it: They would only bring each other pain.
On the S/A(nya) relationship
a) like it: SouledSpike and DemonAnya deserve each other. They could be funny (the demonic Lucy and Ricky)
On the G/J(enny) relationship
c) indifferent: Like Willow & Tara it was lovely. But it would require bringing Jenny back and that would devalue the tragic events of S2.
On the G/J(oyce) relationship
c) indifferent: It could have been interesting in S3-5 (for the Buffy embarrassment value if nothing else.) But now it would require bringing Joyce back and that would devalue the tragic events of S5.
On the G/E(than) relationship
c) indifferent: I would have to be sold on it.
Looking over my 'ships, I seem to want Buffy, Willow, and Xander to find happiness with each other, with a regular, or with someone new; so long as they are happy. It would be great for Giles and/or Dawn to find happiness with someone, but not with anyone currently on the show. Everyone else can find happiness or not as the plot requires. They are not a part of the family.
Oh, and Spike could be find happiness... so long as he's not with one of the SG.
Current board
| More August 2002