August 2002 Archives - Page 13
Spikes! Buy 'em, trade 'em, collect the whole set! -- HonorH, 00:45:06 08/25/02 Sun
Found an exceedingly funny list of various Spikes written in fanfic. The page belongs to Indri, and here's the list:
***
Thoroughly Evil Spike for those moments when your least favorite Buffyverse characters need to be kidnapped or killed.
The Big Bad who only thinks he's Thoroughly Evil Spike but in fact couldn't hatch a plan to escape from a paper bag. Usually comic relief.
Drunken Spike aka LovelornSpike for pathos, comic relief and occasional bath scenes.
Plot Thickener Spike who may be any of the other versions of Spike as well, but who will set some plot aspect into motion just because he is bored.
Medical Experiment Spike aka Caged Panther Spike for all your metaphorical needs about man, nature and different kinds of evil.
Unlikely Romantic Hero Spike for your favourite Spuffyfics.
The Spike You Could Take Home to Mother because no-one else is asking Joyce for her opinion.
Big Brother Spike because no-one else is asking Dawn for her opinion.
Stalker Spike who can be either quite evil, comic relief or an excuse for a sex scene.
Rebellious Abused Child Spike (aka Will), who appears in many Fanged Four fics, costarring Angelus as the evil dad, Darla as an uncaring mum and Drusilla as the adored and incestuous sister.
Abused Spouse Spike
Abusing Spouse Spike including all Spike/Harmony fic.
Unstoppable Sex Machine Spike
Spike Through History who wanders through Great Moments of the Twentieth Century like some evil incarnation of Dr Who, hanging out in Prohibition bars and chatting up John Lennon. Sometimes accompanied by his beautiful assistant, Drusilla, but more often than not she's been chained to a bedpost so that Unstoppable Sex Machine Spike can have his way with the locals.
Spike the Speaker of Home Truths aka Dr Ruth Spike
Spike the Author of Godawful Poetry
Spike the Complete Jerk for those moments when Angel really needs to lose his temper.
Existential Angst Spike who _does not brood_ but it looks awfully like it.
Redemptionista Spike because if he can be saved, there's hope for us all.
The Wrong Boyfriend Spike who rides on his motorcycle wearing too much leather. Shouldn't you be dating that nice grad student instead?
The Englishman Abroad Spike who will mock the US, munch on his Weetabix and use words like "bint".
Odd Couple Spike one half of any comedy duo.
Try Hard Spike who through his (sometimes) selfless and unrewarded actions becomes a metaphor for someone from the wrong side of the tracks trying to make good. Also useful if you want to demonstrate that Person X/Y/Z is an uncaring bitch/bastard who doesn't deserve Try Hard Spike's assistance and/or affection.
Sir Spike who owns a castle in England and is very rich because all British people are like that, don't you know?
Abandoned Childe Spike
Shotgun Wedding Spike who has had to fix his hair and get a real job because there's a Little Bad on the way and now he has to help pay for its upkeep and the wedding.
John Constantine Spike named after the long-coated, blond Londoner of the Hellblazer comics who wanders the mean streets, investigating dark magic, reeking of cigarette smoke and moral ambiguity.
***
Back to HonorH. I myself have used a number of these Spikes, including Complete Jerk (my personal favorite), Big Brother (being a Dawn fan), Odd Couple, Drunken (more times than I care to admit), Speaker of Home Truths, Bloody Awful Poet, and Plot Thickener Spikes. A few Badfic parodies and historical fics and I'll have the whole set!
[> I think I've met them all over the course of my journeys through cyberspace. -- Late Night Poster Apophis, 02:27:23 08/25/02 Sun
[> Re: Spikes! Buy 'em, trade 'em, collect the whole set! -- leslie, 10:25:36 08/25/02 Sun
"Spike Through History who wanders through Great Moments of the Twentieth Century like some evil incarnation of Dr Who, hanging out in Prohibition bars and chatting up John Lennon. Sometimes accompanied by his beautiful assistant, Drusilla, but more often than not she's been chained to a bedpost so that Unstoppable Sex Machine Spike can have his way with the locals."
Oooooh, I like this one! But why stop at being simply "like" an evil incarnation of Dr. Who? Make him a bloody Time Lord! TWO non-beating hearts! (What *would* happen if a Time Lord were vamped? Hmmm.)
[> [> Upping the geekiness meter. -- Rendyl, 10:57:13 08/25/02 Sun
***(What *would* happen if a Time Lord were vamped? Hmmm.)***
You would get something resembling the Master. (not to be confused with the BtVS Master) Running around using all sorts of magic and technology to keep himself alive. Body snatching and wierd cure seeking all in an attempt to get back at the Doctor for slights real and imagined and in his spare time attempt to control the universe. He even had his Tardis configured into an Iron Maiden (the torture device-not the band) for an episode arc. You gotta love it.
Ren
[> [> [> "Look into my eyes. I am the Big Bad. You will obey me!" -- matching mole, 11:36:23 08/25/02 Sun
You WILL obey ME! (With apologies to the late, great Roger Delgado, a supervillain's supervillain).
The Time Lords would certainly figure out some sort of cure for vampirism, being time lords and all. Spike actually seems more like the Doctor than the Master in that he likes to make trouble, to stir things up. The Master is about revenge (like Spike) but also about control. He wants to run things which would bore Spike utterly. That might not be so true for the Peter Davison era and beyond Master (the original Master from the early 70s is what I remember best).
However I can't see Spike being caught dead (or even undead) in anything resembling the costumes of any of the incarnations of the Doctor.
[> [> [> [> Re: "Look into my eyes. I am the Big Bad. You will obey me!" -- Rendyl, 11:40:11 08/25/02 Sun
I don't know. The 'Randy' Suit did look a bit like Jon Pertwee's Doctor costume. If it only had a few more ruffles. ;)
Ren -who soooo misses her favorite Doc
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Look into my eyes. I am the Big Bad. You will obey me!" -- leslie, 13:19:27 08/25/02 Sun
Personally, I think it's more than about time for a punk Doctor. Oooh! Oooh! See--there we go--*that's* the explanation for those damned evil eggs! Spike was planning to send them somewhere in the Tardis where they could be useful. ME was dropping a clue the size of Rhode Island and we all missed it.
Anyway, the Doctor always dresses a couple of decades out of fashion at least, so punk is just about ready for its own Doctor. If we can't have Spike, I'd settle for Billy Idol.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The image delights me. -- HonorH, 21:13:32 08/25/02 Sun
Spike as the Punk Doctor--hey, I loved the 1977 threads! And you're right about that hint they dropped in AYW. How, indeed, could we have missed it? And didn't one of the Geeks mention Doctor Who? Ye gads! It's the subtext of the entire season!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What about ASH? -- Vickie, 18:04:33 08/26/02 Mon
I thought I read a rumor somewhere that he was actively being considered.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As long as he plays him like Ripper, fine by me -- leslie, 19:45:24 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: "Look into my eyes. I am the Big Bad. You will obey me!" -- anom, 19:08:44 08/25/02 Sun
"However I can't see Spike being caught dead (or even undead) in anything resembling the costumes of any of the incarnations of the Doctor."
No, but William might!
On the WC & presumptions of Slayer mortality -- John Burwood, 06:32:53 08/25/02 Sun
Trouble with this board is its too good. Get a fascinating thread & by the time a response has generated in my slug-slow brain the thread is archived for a week.
However, the recent thread on the Watchers Council & the not telling Giles about Kendra has set me off on a marginally different angleon the issue, & to getting reactions to the theory.
Theory goes: WC has been operating for centuries & all over the world in some form. In the days of yore communications must have been very slow to non-existent between - say England & China. If one Slayer died in China &the new Slayer is in England? No time to wait for a letter to report the old Slayer's death. The new Watcher would need a quicker way, & if the new Watcher is in daily control of his Kendra all he needs is a daily strength test.
The moment Kendra acquires super-strength her Watcher KNEW she had been called, & logically also KNEW Buffy must have died. No need to enquire about Buffy. And if Kendra's Watcher promptly reported this to England the WC must equally have assumed Buffy was dead. After all, if the old Watcher in China had died with his Slayer there would be no letter to wait for.
Not sure if Giles was sending reports to England, but even if he was, maybe no-one bothered to readthem. After all, clearly the WC did not rate Giles highly or why send him to this untrained empty-headed Californian cheerleader who was not going to live very long anyway. And who maybe they were rather hoping would die soon anyway to give their properly-trained Kendra the job anyway.
Must not kill, but need not strive officiously to keep alive sort of thing.
Seem plausbile, anyone? Comments? brickbats?
[> Re: On the WC & presumptions of Slayer mortality (addendum) -- John Burwood, 07:30:02 08/25/02 Sun
A further thought - in the published script book for WML part 1, Kendra is described as being 17 on first appearance. Therefore actually slightly older than Buffy. She must have been all ready to be called when Buffy was called instead. Only natural for the WC to be less than thrilled at the turn of events. And if Merrick had reported back his first impressions about the unpreparedness and unsuitability of his new Slayer for the job - maybe the reason Giles got selected was because no more senior or clued-in Watcher wanted to touch her with a barge-pole.
Come to think of it, maybe Wesley got thrown in at the deep end for similar reasons. More knowing Watchers might have preferred to wait to get control of more biddable Slayers & taking for granted that 'rapid turnover' would give them another opportunity soon enough.
[> [> Re: On the WC & presumptions of Slayer mortality (addendum) -- CW, 08:28:15 08/25/02 Sun
I've always thought that was a possiblity as well, that the WC had identified Kendra early and thought she would be the Slayer when Buffy was called. My guess about the watchers Buffy got was that the inner circle of the WC knew about the prophecy that the Slayer would die and the Master would rise. So rather than expend a lot of usless effort on a Slayer who wouldn't live to reach 18, they sent Buffy watchers who seemed more likely to keep her alive until the Master was to rise; watchers who perhaps weren't the most patient in teaching the finer points. They weren't necessarily the poorest watchers available, but they probably were not the best well-rounded.
I almost think that Wesley was, in fact, sent because he was nearly incompetant. I suspect that the WC knew that the two slayer combination of Buffy and Faith was flawed in a way that Buffy and Kendra wasn't. The test that Travers gave Buffy after her 18th birthday seemed extraordinarily difficult as if the WC was already trying to tempt fate. They may have guessed something terrible would happened if both slayers lived, although I doubt they knew Buffy would try to kill Faith. Wesley was sent with the idea that one or both of the Slayers would die soon under his incompetent leadership, and whatever problem they foresaw would be averted. Giles being pushed aside in that case would be only a cruel smokescreen to a more cruel plan, which in the WC's eyes would lead to a better future for the world.
OT: want suggestions... -- xaliasslayer, 14:25:25 08/25/02 Sun
Hey guys... I am looking for other good tv... I love buffy and angel, but need a little variety. Anyone have suggestions? What are they and why?
[>I'm almost ashamed to admit it but... -- Alvin, 14:39:53 08/25/02 Sun
I like watching Andromeda. Kind of reminds me of the original Star Trek. I think it's alot closer to the first Star Trek than Enterprise.
[> [>Re: Other TV Stuff - Here's two I never miss -- Brian, 17:38:53 08/25/02 Sun
Smallville - There's magic in the relationship between Clark and Lex
CSI - Makes science interesting, and the plots are super
[> [> [>Re: Other TV Stuff - Here's two I never miss -- Alvin, 20:27:46 08/25/02 Sun
I really hate Smallville. I've forced myself to sit through about six episodes and I just can't get into it. To me the most interesting characters are his parents. There's just so many things about it that irritate me. Maybe it's that I live in a small farming community. I think in my High School class there were two blacks and that was it for racial diversity. Seeing the Smallville High School with its perfectly balanced racial and ethnic groups really bothers me. Or maybe its because I see Tom Welling and I think "Why is that college grad hanging around with these High School girls?" I swear, he looks more like a class teacher than a freshman. Or maybe it's because I've never much cared for Superman. He's got so much power that the issue isn't in doubt. It's not a question of "Will he save the day?" but "How will he save the day?". And yet another thing about him, how come he never comes to resent people? All these people needing him to solve their problems, and he never resents them. In fact, normal people are almost always a liability to him. Never complains about it either. Give me Buffy with her angsty love affairs and her squabbles with her friends anyday. Buffy comes off as human (but with a twist) and her I can relate to. Superman? I just can't see a connection with him.
Sorry to go off like this. It's just that all my friends know I like Sci-fi so they assume I like Smallville. Actually, it wasn't until I wrote this down that I realized how much I really hate that show.
[> [> [> [>On the other hand... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 08:14:00 08/26/02 Mon
I am firmly opposed to the idea of trying to change someone's opinion of a movie or tv series (books are a different matter), but, having said that, I feel compelled to offer a counter opinion to your hatred of Smallville. I too wanted to hate it but after watching a few episodes I got sucked in. The thing that intrigues me the most is that essentially you have these two ubermenschen, Clark and Lex, who are superior to the rest of humanity in so many ways but who both want so desperately to be a part of the race. I find this ironic contrast humourous, poignant, and sometimes almost tragic. Also, there is a nicely underplayed homoeroticism between the two that is fascinating.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: On the other hand... -- Alvin, 14:07:35 08/26/02 Mon
From the few episodes I saw, I never thought Lex and Clark were friends. I think its because whenever I saw them, Clark's Dad was there too, and the scene usually played out with Lex trying to win Jonathon Kent's respect, with Jonathon Kent eventually rejecting Lex. Lex kept trying to use money which would have worked with his dad, but not Clark's. To me it was as if Lex was trying to make Jonathon into a substitute father and Clark was his route to accomplish it. I realize that the show is popular, but it's not for me. Sorry to come out so angry about it, but all the people at work who watch Buffy also watch Smallville, and they keep trying to convert me ( Oh, come on, give it another shot...) and it's beginning to annoy me.
[> [> [> [> [>Many many hands -- fresne, 21:29:14 08/26/02 Mon
Okay, first this isn't an exhortation to watch Smallville. Tastes vary. There you go.
Personally, I'm really enjoying the show.
It helps that I really like Superman. Heck, my housemate and I named our website after a line from the New Adventures of Superman, although textually it has nothing to do with him.
He should be really messed up, but isn't. I mean come on, his planet blew up. The only remaining member of his species is his first cousin. He doesn't want to be Superman all the time, but he can never just be Clark. However, for whatever reason (upbringing, personality) he chooses to continue to reach out to people. To try and help. Although, as in the graphic novel Kingdom Come, it's a choice that pays its toll.
As to Smallville, the very first episode makes such a striking statement/visual image of where Clark's tendency for martyrdom will lead. Clark tied to a cross in a corn field, a piece of kryptonite draining his life away because he doesn't fit in. An image that is particularly disturbing given the homoerotic vibes between Clark and Lex.
I get the sense that every time Clark tries to save someone, he's trying to save the people killed by the meteorites when he landed. However, (the Movie not with standing) he'll never be able to go back in time and save everyone. Yet, he feels compelled to try.
All of which adds poignancy to the fact that he's not going to be able save Lex. That for all of the magic, the homoerotic glances and that first meeting where Clark breaths life (a Genesis God this time) back into Lex, their secrets are already beginning to crack them apart. All the more painful, because Lex clearly wants to be rescued. To be redeemed. However, he's already on his path and the weaknesses that will lead to his final fall are his strengths. His loyalty, not to ideal, but people. His desire for order, another word for control. His desire to prove himself.
Tragedy right around the corner because we know where wishing to be great not good will lead him.
And okay, that dawning feeling that both Clark and Lex are reaching towards their secret identities, while circling one another, like twin suns. Which identity is the secret one? Which face is the mask?
Lets see what else, I'm also oddly fascinated by Lana Lang. She is such an iconic blank slate for Clark to cast his longings upon. Like Dante's Beatrice, there is a sense that because she is unknowable and unobtainable, her charms are infinite. She could be anything. Anyone. I'd cast her as the Madonna, but Clark's already Christ and I'm just not going there.
Then there's the pull between the city, Metropolis and the small town, Smallville. Various characters being tugged between worlds. I'd go on, but this is the Buffy Philosophy Board.
So, yeah, umm, Xander is Jimmy Olsen. Buffy must Clark Kent her way through life.
[> [>Suggestion -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:39:11 08/25/02 Sun
I personally liek Friends, though it doesn't seem to be very popular among fans of BtVS.
[>Re: Monk! -- mundusmundi, 17:59:39 08/25/02 Sun
Ok, last week's episode wasn't the greatest, but still this is my favorite new show in many a moon. It stars Tony Shalhoub, one of those actors who seems incapable of giving a bad performance, as the brilliant, obsessive-compulsive, titular detective. Monk has a rich blend of humor that doesn't get overly whimsical, and pathos that's never too grim. With an interesting supporting cast, twisty plots, a cool 'Frisco atmosphere, and prickly chemistry between its leads (Shalhoub and the wonderful Bitty Schram), what more could anyone want? It's been running on USA Network, though lately ABC has been reairing the episodes.
[> [>Seconding Monk and some others. -- Deeva, 19:10:53 08/25/02 Sun
Monk is a great show. Almost anything with Tony Shaloub in it is worth watching.
My other favorites that I try not to miss are:
CSI: science was always cool in my book but Marg Helgenberger and gang make it sexy. Corny, I know but true.
Alias: a show with an ass-kickin' chick! (Do you think I'm in a rut?) Sometimes I wish they tell a little more back-story on a few characters but all in all it's good tubing.
Futurama: I personally think that Matt Groening and his writers write some of their better stuff for this show. With the gamut of characters that they have to play with who are also aliens and robots, I think they have a wider field. Too bad that they've stopped production for now. Everyone thinks that the show is canceled but truth is FOX pre-empts so much of the show (for football, of all things!) that they're sitting on 30 un-aired eps. So the production company had to stop and let go of all of the people. Sad.
[> [> [>Re: Seconding *Futurama* and some others. -- OnM, 20:23:45 08/25/02 Sun
All right, another Futurama fan! I must admit I find this often overlooked show (and not much help from the network there, boo, hiss!) even more clever and witty than The Simpsons, although they're still great, of course.
Slightly cheating now, but so what--
If you have a DVD player, rent or better yet purchase copies of The Avengers. This is the original Brit TV show from the early 60's, not the awful movie made a few years ago. Get only the three seasons that star Patrick McNee and Diana Rigg. The show was never as good after she left, IMO.
It's absolutely astounding how well these shows hold up after the passage of nearly 40 years. Watch Rigg in action, and see the future that eventually gave us SMG and Buffy.
[> [> [> [>Avengers -- Rahael, 06:49:13 08/26/02 Mon
Love Emma Peel. But the early eps with Honour Blackman are worth getting too.
But I can't bear to watch the ones after Peel left either.
[> [>Re: Monk! -- Lilac, 05:40:39 08/26/02 Mon
I have to second mm's opinion of Monk. It is a delight to watch. I do have to say that, as a long time mystery reader/watcher, the mysteries in the shows are not all that mysterious. But the characterizations and performances by Shaloub and Schram are terrific.
[> [>Re: Viva Monk! -- Arethusa, 06:47:10 08/26/02 Mon
It's especially great how the show's creators don't hesitate to show how mentally ill Monk really is. He isn't just a lovable eccentric; he sometimes truly loses touch with reality. It's a brave thing for them to do, and it adds another layer to the show beyond the detective trappings.
[> [>abc's re-airing monk? when? -- anom, 21:23:45 08/27/02 Tue
I'd watch almost anything w/Tony Shalhoub (first saw him in Wings, in what was supposed to be a 1-time appearance--he was so good they made him a regular character starting the next season!). I was disappointed that Monk is on a cable station I don't get--but if it's on broadcast too, I'll check it out! But I don't want to search through the entire TV section--could you just tell me what night/time? Thanks--also for letting me know in the 1st place!
[> [> [>Re: abc's re-airing monk? when? -- Lilac, 05:32:48 08/28/02 Wed
I believe it was 8 (central time) on Tuesdays -- but only 4 episodes were being run, so it may be almost over already.
[> [> [>Re: Tuesday 9 EST -- mm, 06:14:50 08/28/02 Wed
And, Lilac is right, they're reportedly airing only four episodes. (Ask not the reason why....) I think there's two more. Maybe they'll change their minds once 99% of their fall shows tank.
[> [> [> [>ooh--right after buffy! -- anom, 11:03:40 08/28/02 Wed
Thanks, Lilac & mm. Of course, everything I want to do this summer is on Tuesday nights, but I can set my VCR to tape both (yes, I'm taping reruns!).
[>Re: OT: want suggestions... -- KKC, 19:01:05 08/25/02 Sun
Well, if we work from Buffy and Angel being representative of your TV tastes, we can go with:
Witchblade: Yes, it's based on a comic book, but watching the show you'd never know it. A strong female protagonist (like Buffy) is imbued with mystical and mythical powers in a modern day setting that borrows liberally from many classic and historical sources. Recent plots have involved a gruesome children's fairy tale come to life and the assasination of a U.S. president. Tries not to be kitschy, and mostly succeeds.
Hm. I thought I'd be able to recommend more TV than that, but I guess not. Lately I'm stuck watching mostly kid's stuff and sports shows (WRC racing and the new Transformers cartoon. :) Actually, I'm finding myself not watching as much TV at all... Maybe four or five hours a week, tops. And that's counting CNN.
-KKC, who's about to give AT&T a piece of his mind over his new calling plan that he mysteriously signed up for without his knowledge...
[>Umm, the Simpsons was TIME Magazine's: Television Show of the last century -- Caesar Augustus, 19:48:05 08/25/02 Sun
[>Re: My shows -- meritaten, 22:37:25 08/25/02 Sun
Andromeda:
Once you get past the 'Hercules in Space' assumptions, it is a rather good show. Very different Gene Roddenbury. The universe is in chaos and one man from an earlier time assembles an unlikely crew and tries to restore the fallen Commonwealth system.
Star Trek: Ok, I can't get into Enterprise, but I recommend reruns or recordings of all of the other series. TOS is a bit sexist (okay, a lot), but was progrssive for its time. TNG is one of the most thought-provoking shows I've seen. DS9 is Star Trek for anthropologists (which I am) - they actually stay in one place and you see depth to a society. Voyager doesn't deal with moral issues so much as the inner turmoil of the crew. Still good Star Trek. I'm continuing to watch Enterprise. It seemed to improve towards the end of the season.
Stagate SG-1:
A surprisingly interesting show. As an archaeologist (in the US, archaeology is a subdivsion of anthropology), I cringe at the 'aliens in prehistory' premise, but if you can get past that, it has action and Sci-Fi. Not as deep as Buffy, but how many shows are?
Gilmore Girls:
Ok, chic show. Still, the dialogue is great. Three generations of Gilmore women. Two are best friends, two can't understand each other at all. Conflicts with Buffy, but VCRS are miracles.
Smallville:
New approach to superman. I agree with another post that it is somewhat unrealistic that Clark is so altruistic, but ... I am always trying to understand Lex. He is at a place in this show where you are sure he could be redeemed. You know he won't be, but I'm always trying to figure out what cements his fate. I actually hate the parents (brings back cring-worthy thoughts of Dukes of Hazard - how ever did I watch that !?!?!?!?!), but the rest of the cast is interesting. I'm new to this show, but enjoy catching the reruns.
[>CSI is mandatory! -- neaux, 04:45:18 08/26/02 Mon
CSI is bloody brilliant. Monk is great too!!
since my wife has a fascination with Angela Landsbury.. (which is scary) I'm soooo glad that CSI and Monk can take Murder She Wrote's place.
Oh yeah.. another favorite is what else??
Trading Spaces!! XD
[> [>Trading Spaces -- Lilac, 05:44:18 08/26/02 Mon
My husband and I often watch TS together in a highly participatory mannner -- "what the heck are they doing now?" My husband is a contractor and is often driven insane by the dubious practices on the show -- "that floor is going to peel up as soon as they turn the cameras off!" I wouldn't let any of those people except Vern into my house, but I enjoy seeing what they do to other people's.
[> [> [>do Ty from Trading Spaces and Angel use the same hairgel?? -- neaux, 05:46:54 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [>Re: Trading Spaces -- Dead Soul, 14:21:03 08/26/02 Mon
I prefer Changing Rooms on BBCAmerica - the show that Trading Spaces ripped off. Although I'd never let Anna Ryder-Richardson within an ocean of my house. I'd want Graham Wynne or Lawrence Lleweleyn-Bowen designing my boudoir ;-)
Dead (but dead stylish) Soul
[>Alias -- verdantheart, 07:23:49 08/26/02 Mon
Has the following:
A strong and talented cast (esp. Jennifer Garner, Victor Garber, and Ron Rifkin)
A great genre blend (action, spy, with fantasy elements blended in--and, yes, some soap too)
Story arcs with interesting twists (I saw some coming, but a couple actually surprised me)
If you're a guy, Sydney wears some great tight costumes that I understand are fun to look at. I understand that there are some ladies out there interested in a couple of Sydney ships. However, I find the character of Jack Bristow (Garber) most interesting because of his tangled past and the what he has had to do to himself to deal with it. Rifkin's character, Sloan, is a fascinating villain because he is shown to be much more than a simple black figure.
[> [>Another vote for Alias! And one for 24. -- Dichotomy, 11:39:04 08/26/02 Mon
Another Buffy fan got me hooked on Alias. Sydney can convincingly kick ass one minute and be emotionally vulnerable the next. The plot can be a bit convoluted, but they do a pretty good job of summarizing what's been happening from time-to-time. And there's eye candy for almost everyone.
I liked 24 too: Almost always a good cliff-hanger at the end of each ep and pretty much non-stop suspense and action.
[> [> [>Re: Another vote for Alias! And one for 24. -- verdantheart, 14:23:04 08/26/02 Mon
I also enjoyed 24 and was surprised at how it was able to keep the boiler going 24 hours straight. I thought Kiefer Sutherland's performances--particularly in the final hours--were excellent, as well. But it's Alias that has me hooked.
[>Re: OT: want suggestions... -- matching mole, 07:25:50 08/26/02 Mon
I would have to join in the hordes championing Monk which I think is a wonderful throwback to 1970s detective shows and the best show of its kind after the Rockford Files.
I like Futurama a lot as well but I don't know if I would say it was better than the Simpsons. Another recently cancelled (I think?) show that I thought was brilliant, at least intially, was Titus. It did get a bit reptitious with time.
I don't really watch any fantasy/sf shows regularly except for Buffy and Angel. Stargate SG-1 does seem to be the best of the lot. I find the mythology kind of tedious and distracting (I always have to ask wife, who's a regular watcher, what all the terminology is every time) but it seems to have made more of an effort to create lead characters that are actually characters than most shows of its type.
Among my guilty pleasures is the British sitcom Father Ted which should not be watched by devout catholics or anyone Irish. The episodes in which the plot is predominant are fairly predictable but about half the episodes have only vestiges of a plot and are among the surrealistic pieces of TV since Monty Python's Flying Circus.
[> [>Re: OT: want suggestions... -- CW, 08:36:11 08/26/02 Mon
Keeping Up Appearances on PBS. It has been rerun over and over, but Hyacinth is a scream.
[>For something on the light and hilarious side, try Scrubs. -- Dichotomy, 11:44:55 08/26/02 Mon
It's goofy but has a heart, too. Lots of "it's not really happening" visual humor. Really funny!
[>Re: OT: want suggestions... -- xaliasslayer, 21:36:05 08/26/02 Mon
I too am a huge fan of ALIAS and CSI. Fantastic shows. What new shows this fall do you think are worth tuning into. I'm more interested in the drama's than the comedies.
[>West Wing -- Dawn H, 13:48:27 08/27/02 Tue
With so many people on this board who appreciate good writing, I'm surprised no one has mentioned it.
The dialogue is quick and witty, the show doesn't talk down to its audience, and the characters and situations are always interesting.
[>Re: OT: want suggestions... -- xaliasslayer, 14:59:08 08/27/02 Tue
Has anyone seen the trailers for Push, Nevada? It has really got my interest. It's interactive (finally tv does it) and you can win a million bucks. I could sure use some of that. I'd like to hear more if you know anything.
[>Try "Surivor: Thailand". As good as Buffy is, Survivor is better. -- Wacko Mole, 10:20:25 08/28/02 Wed
[> [>Holy Moley! -- vh, 14:22:27 08/28/02 Wed
[> [>Just in case anyone's wondering -- matching mole, 10:55:43 08/31/02 Sat
I don't think that Wacko Mole is my evil alter-ego, although I wouldn't completely discount the possibility that I have some sort of severe personality disorder that leads to my posting under a different personality without this personality being aware of it. Or maybe I've read too many Philip K. Dick novels for my own good.
In any event, to my knowledge I've never watched Survivor Thailand (or until a few minutes ago been aware of its existence). It may well be better than BtVS but I have no data to support this assertion.
But all this commentary has given me an idea for a show that is bound to succeed. It takes place in some remote, exotic wilderness setting. There are two teams of attractive young interior decorators, each given a cabin (meaning in Hollywood terms a house that is less than 5,000 sq feet) in which to live. The two teams compete in decorating their cabins (2 days per room, probably about three weeks total time). At least one decorator per team is mentally disturbed and will have a charming and personable nurse who slays vampires in her spare time (see below). During the day the teams compete at various stunts to obtain supplies (fabric, paint, odds and ends from antique stores). At night they decorate with the assistance of a group of carpenters who are also young and attractive. But two carpenters are secretly in league with the two teams (one each) and will attempt to stealthily sabotage the designs of the opposing team by using substandard methods and techniques to construct furniture and will also construct hidden death traps in the furniture and within the walls and floors of the houses themselves. Some of the other carpenters will be vampires who will eat decorators of either team if they catch them alone. However they will also be the most competent and attractive of the carpenters leading to interesting ethical dilemmas when they are discovered. One of the vampire carpenters will have a soul and a lot of hair gel but that probably won't happen until the second season.
[> [> [>ROTFLOL!!! -- LittleBit, 10:52:42 09/01/02 Sun
Survivor meets Trading Spaces meets BtVS meets AtS!!!!
Maybe for next summer?
Oh, wait ... that's also CBS meets TLC meets UPN meets WB.
Maybe next millenium?
[>Re: OT: want suggestions... -- xaliasslayer, 00:52:20 09/01/02 Sun
I found a link for Push, Nevada (http://abc.abcnews.go.com/primetime/push/index.html
) but if anyone has any other info., I'd love to hear it.
Classic Movie of the Week - August 24th 2002 - Guilty Pleasures/Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- OnM, 20:06:05 08/25/02 Sun
*******
It is not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose.
............ David Merrick
*******
Would you say we are living in more of an Intellectual or Emotional Age?
............ mundusmundi (from his 'Question of the Week' section of last week's CMotW)
*******
I thought that this week I'd do something just a little different. Since last week's column(s) were
guesthosted (and very ably so), I find that I'm now in the unusual position of being able to answer/ramble
on about a Question of the Week instead of proposing one as I more typically do.
And good questions they were, too, all of them dealing with the 'big issues' kinda topics; intellect vs.
emotions, turning points and life decisions, basic fears and horrors. I'm going to talk a bit about the one
quoted above, because it suggested to me a particular film that became this week's choice for 'Classic'
status, and also enables me to get down with one of my favorite soapbox topics.
As to the question at hand, I find it kind of tricky to gain a proper perspective to answer. To me, as I am
living within and observing the actions of humanity in general, my initial shoot-from-the-cerebral-cortex
reaction is that intellect and emotion are diverging just at a time when we need them to become more
tightly integrated, although I'd have to say that right now 'Emotion' appears to be in the ascendency
compared to 'Intellect'. Of course, I can only speak of the particular section of the world I inhabit, but I
think that I can generalize to some extent for the U.S. portion of North America.
One of my pet peeves in regard to the current waxing of Emotion is the increasingly dismissive way that
many people behave towards the application of logic and reason, intellect if you will, towards the solution
of problems. The usual disclaimer given is that 'you can prove anything with 'logic', and therefore by
(logical?) extension, doing so tends to give meaningless results. The presumption in making this statement
usually comes by noting (sometimes accurately) that logical conclusions are inherently limited by the
breadth and accuracy of the raw data they are based upon. If the data are incomplete or flawed, then
conclusions reached will necessarily be equally incomplete or flawed.
OK, so that much is pretty obvious, I hear you saying to your collective selves. Not all data is
flawed, and sometimes you don't need an 'infinite' breadth of it to reach an accurate conclusion with many
issues. What's your gripe?
The peeve stems not from recognizing the limits of logic/intellect/reason, but of presupposing the
only alternative is to drop the 'reasonable' approach entirely and depend on emotive
intuition-- 'feelings', or the 'use the Force, Luke' approach to resolving dilemmas. Whatever happened to
having a balanced perspective, whereby the benefits of intuitive reasoning blend smoothly with the benefits
of deductive logic?
Well, my own opinion is that politics, and its equally evil twin sibling, organized religion, are the big
demons of the last few milleniums in that regard, and that they are coming strongly to the fore once again
here in current U.S. society. Both of these mechanisms of potential oppression derive from a common
evolutionary ancestor, namely the characteristic of a vertical hierarchy that seems universally present in the
elemental DNA of most social animals. Put another way, we are pretty much dogs with bigger brains
but not much better sense.
(Note in passing, to become more relevant at a later point in the column: Yes, it seems to be a sign of
outward friendliness when your dog energetically jumps up and licks you on the face, but do you really
know just where that tongue has been recently? Do you want to know? Ahh... didn't think so.)
A few million years ago, for most animals, this vertically-challenged arrangement rang true from a purely
survival-related standpoint, which is really all that 'nature' cares about. To survive, there will be strength in
numbers. But if there are numbers of individual brains, there will be conflicts if every animal in the 'pack'
insists on doing their own thing. Some kind of order needs to be established, and if the brain involved is not
evolved to a level that permits conscious recognition of the concept of 'mutual interdependence',
then nature will have to kill off the groups where there is constant infighting, and reward with the
forwarding of DNA to the subsequent generations those groups who set up a 'pecking order'. One
'leader', or alpha being at the top, with a series of 'followers' ranked below according to strength or
cleverness or both.
From this 'natural' ordering process, it isn't much of an intellectual or intuitive leap to see how as human
culture developed over millenia, we just did what 'feels right' (to our DNA) and organized our culture
around the difficult-to-ignore imperative of our genetic heritage. We create gods and kings, (usually in
each other's image), and align ourselves in submission to their wishes. We institutionalize societies run
with vertical hierarchies. All is right with the natural universe.
Oops, sorry. Erroneous data there. We pretty much still try to kill each other a lot of the time, so that can't
be entirely good. Yes, the 'weak' need to be thinned from the herd, but exactly who is truly fit to
determine what constitutes 'the weak'? Now this last statement is rather important, because this is how I
think 'reason' ended getting such a bad rap, and 'emotion' got to become its antithesis rather than its
complement.
People who inhabit what they think of as a 'modern' society tend to consider that one of the definitions of
'modern' is that we don't automatically try to 'thin the herd' everytime someone does something that we
don't like. But is this true, or is the action still the same, just with a different methodology? Thousands of
years ago, if another person got you sufficiently angry, you just killed or seriously injured him or her.
Today, one might recall the old line that 'some men rob you with a six-gun, others with a fountain pen'.
Either way, you still end up on the losing end, and politics and organized religion are often good exemplars
of robbery by proxy. How so? By progressively cloaking base emotions with a thicker and thicker veneer
of 'intellect' it becomes possible to imagine almost any destructive action as not only being emotionally
satisfying, but even logically 'reasonable'. Unless, naturally, you happen to be on the side that's getting the
destruction aimed in your direction.
It doesn't need to be literal, in-the-moment, immediate death-inducing destruction either, which is only one
option. In fact, a large part of politics/religion is to remove the 'personal' nature of hated and
intitutionalize it instead. This allows you a far greater venue of choices to not only ultimately seek your
enemy's undoing, but if you are really lucky, you can get your enemy to undo themselves. Best of all, if
you are very clever, you will get your enemy to blame himself for his undoing. All this while making
friends and opening greater opportunities for advancing your career!
So, think about it-- we've come a long way since resolving a difference meant grabbing a big stick lying
nearby and smashing the other guy's skull with it. Now, you:
1. Offer your foe the opportunity to purchase a big, heavy stick at a 'really low' price.
2. Tell your foe that hanging the stick above his bed will bring about a closer relationship with some god.
3. Point out that if your foe really believes in his faith, that he will make the string holding the stick as thin
as possible to illustrate that the god is looking out for him and won't allow it to fall.
4. When the string eventually breaks, remind your foe in his last fading moments of consciousness that he
failed his god by not making the string correctly. Your foe dies lamenting his carelessness, especially since
it also caused the death of his mate, who was lying beside him in the bed.
5. Accept a promotion from your superiors for selling so many sticks.
All this because of 'logic' and 'intellect'. Obviously, one could think, that even if the old way was bloody
and violent, at least it was honest and upfront. If the blood was on someone's hands, it was on yours, not
on a set of words printed in a book, words codified by realms of deep thought that conveniently ignore
inconvenient contrary facts. So why shouldn't the dispossessed and the downtrodden distrust the
'Intellect'? What has it ever done for them, except provide further excuses for their suffering?
A sharp object isn't automatically dangerous, it is how it is used. A simple scalpel can save a life or just as
easily end one. Intellect and Emotion each need to approach the difficulties that life presents with an
awareness of the inherent limitations of each, and an even greater awareness of how they can be misused.
Until we humans work actively to break free of the ancient practice of blindly excusing/rationalizing our
genetic heritage as being 'just the way it is', we are no better than than any other animal on the planet, and
a case could even easily be made that the cows and chickens should be eating us instead. We alone, of all
the creatures of the earth, can actively choose to change our destiny, and look how we've wasted that gift.
Of course, that's easy to say. Heck, I typed a few keys, and there it was! Doing it is quite another matter,
because modern life has become seriously complicated, especially in the latter half of the last century.
Realizing that it's easy to get all preachy about the evils that humanity visits upon itself, I would like to
remark that it's hard to change for the better when so much resistance to change is present all around you.
The sheer mass of human population and the complex societies we have assembled present so much inertia
by their very existence that even making small steps to behave in a more enlightened 'humanist' fashion
will likely exact some significant penalty from you, no matter how careful you might be.
Like most people in the United States, I bitch and moan and gripe constantly about how hard it is to 'get
by', make a living, whathaveyou. In reality, compared to millions of other people in other parts of the
world, I have it easy, as do most of my fellow U-Staters. Frankly, we're pretty damn spoiled. Even our
political system, corrupt and stupid as it is, is still less corrupt and stupid in general than many other
governments elsewhere. Much of the frustration comes not from failure to appreciate how good we have it,
but in realizing how hard it is to make it better still, because despite our advances we still keep blindly
accepting the concept of vertical hierarchies as being the only possible way of organizing
ourselves. We rely on 'elected representation' than cannot possibly meet all of our individual needs,
because those needs are many and varied, and often in opposition to one another. These representatives
know this. The better ones try to act as mediators, and generate the most overall beneficial results for the
greatest numbers of those who they represent. The average ones rationalize that they are helping others
while they mostly aim to help themselves. The worst, as we well know, smile beneficently for the cameras
as they quietly rob us with a fountain pen, and think what a great service they have performed in making
their enemies lose.
What the world needs now is a good lesbian anarchist or a mild-mannered football player to 'fight the
power'. Either that or at least give us a good laugh to forget our troubles for a while. And on that
somewhat strangely-pitched note...
If there were ever even the slightest question in anyone's mind just to what degree the experience of high
school is directly related to the way that the real world is run, and therefore why high school is such an
effectively frightening horror-film metaphor, you have only to rent or purchase this week's Classic Movie,
Election, by director Alexander Payne. This film is a bitingly accurate satire not merely of
the high-school 'student government' and the campaign for student 'leaders' that it engenders, but of the
real adult world of political machinations that drag down attempts at achieving real democratic ideals and
subvert them into endless and heedless individual power-grabs.
The main protagonists of Election are one Tracy Enid Flick (Reese Witherspoon) and one of the
school's history/civics teachers, Jim McAllister, played wonderfully and in perfect counterpoint to
Witherspoon by Matthew Broderick Tracy Flick is a paradigm of one of those students that everyone can
recall from their own hellmouth years-- intelligent, energetic, dynamic and underneath it all, vicious and
vindictive in a cheerfully disassociative way. Tracy is the darling of the school administration, since she
embodies the relentless 'go for it' style of behavior that exemplifies the 'winner mentality' that the school
likes to pat itself on the back upon for creating.
In reality, the school's head honchos have absolutely nothing to do with Tracy Flick from a creative
standpoint-- she is the user, they are the used, they're just too wrapped up in their own snarky politics to
notice that she is manipulating them shamelessly with hers. One person who does see through the facade
into what really makes Tracy run is Jim McAllister. Originally a somewhat bemused Tracy supporter, Jim
gained a glimpse behind the curtain when a fellow teacher and close friend lost both his job and his good
reputation in the previous year because Tracy was the 'victim' of a sex scandal involving the friend. Flick,
naturally, had arranged the seduction all along, and a chill goes up the spine of McAllister when Tracy
announces to him that she hopes they can work together 'harmoniously' in the coming school year.
McAllister is a good teacher, and he's passionate and sincere about his work. In one of several voiceover
narratives from all the major characters that continue periodically throughout the film, McAllister remarks,
Teaching wasn't just a job to me. I got involved. I cared. It is that level of concern, and a sense that
a decent, righteous candidate should prevail in the election, not a disingenuous one, that eventually gets
him into serious trouble as he becomes progressively involved in Tracy's bid for school president.
The main problem he faces is that Tracy is such a big, friendly ol' steamroller that no one wants to oppose
her, she's either universally loved or feared, thus making the election outcome pretty much a given. In an
attempt to change the balance, Jim encourages another student to run against her, his choice being one
Paul Metzler (Chris Klein), who is one of the best-loved and most sincere students at the school. He's a
football star who isn't terribly bright, but he is honest, forthright and somewhat self-effacing, good
candidate qualities which Jim sees as being easily promoted with a little properly designer PR work. Paul
normally wouldn't have time to run for student council president, except that a leg injury has sidelined him
from the football team. Initially somewhat reluctant, but with McAllister's cajoling, Paul eventually takes
on the challenge of running a counter-campaign to Tracy's.
Tracy, not surprisingly, is outraged, although to the 'general public' inhabiting the school she always
appears cheerful at having a 'worthy competitor'. She also sees McAllister's involvement in promoting
Paul to be a candidate as a warning sign that he can no longer be trusted as one of her 'allies', even though
Jim is scrupulously even-handed and stays within his boundaries as a teacher, at least initially. Paul is a
popular individual, but he runs a somewhat lackluster and often unintentionally humorous campaign. For
example, when he gets the opportunity to address the students with a prepared speech, he reads it as if it
were a single, long sentence, free of inflection, much like a third-grader struggling with a difficult reading
assignment. (When time comes to vote, he casts a vote for Tracy, because 'it just doesn't seem right to
vote for yourself'. Despite all the events which transpire throughout the film, Paul never once manages
to get the idea that morality and ethics are adversaries to success, which naturally make him both admirable
and doomed.)
Matters get even more complicated when Paul's sister, Tammy (Jessica Campbell), a lesbian whose view of
student elections is that they're 'pathetic', decides to run also, on a platform that openly declares just that.
I'll excerpt here her keynote address to the students at a campaign 'pep rally', because if nothing sums up
the entire traditional farce of the current American two-party system better, I don't know what else could:
Tammy Metzler:
Who cares about this stupid election? We all know it doesn't matter who gets elected president of Millard.
You think it's going to change anything around here, make one single person happier or smarter or nicer?
The only person it matters to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year,
and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into
college. So vote for me, because I don't even want to go to college, and I don't care, and as president I
won't do anything. The only promise I make is that if elected I will immediately dismantle the student
government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid assemblies again!
After she concludes, nearly the entire student body jumps to their feet and erupts in raucous cheers. The
school administrators look appalled, and the teachers are either amused or equally dismayed, depending on
their acceptance of the fact that someone has just done the unthinkable-- namely speak the truth. The
administrators immediately try to disqualify Tammy from the contest, but find much to their dismay that
Tammy's words are effectively protected speech, and that they can't do anything without tainting the
'fairness' aspect of the campaign. (Naturally, 'fairness' wasn't much of an issue to them when 'their girl',
Tracy, was running unopposed).
The race, once a 'given' for the unstoppable Tracy Flick, now turns into a close contest with Paul
remaining completely honest, Tammy pretending not to care, and Tracy resorting to unethical stunts.
Meanwhile, in one of the film's many deliciously perverse (and realistic) apsects, Jim McAllister begins to
harbor sexual fantasies about Tracy even as he works surreptitiously to orchestrate her downfall.
Election's ending is simply too perfect and too full of irony to even suggest, let alone openly reveal
here. Director Payne employs the same even-handed satirical skills in this film that he brought to his
previous work Citizen Ruth, a story about a wastoid aerosol-huffing loser (played by Laura Dern)
who becomes a foil for pro- and anti-abortion groups when she becomes accidentally pregnant. Payne is
careful not to concentrate on the foibles or stupidities of any one person or group at the expense of the
other side-- he even manages to make his least sympathetic characters-- such as Tracy Flick-- human and
somewhat sad, earning then a modicum of sympathy even as we detest the things that they do.
Perhaps this is why the integration of the intellectual and the emotional perspectives remains such a baffling
challenge for us all-- the intellect encourages us to continually integrate and understand cool, analytical
reality, until we are absolutely certain of something that then turns out to be irreconcilably wrong, and
meanwhile the emotions encourage us to feel implicitly trusting of instinct despite the counterclaims of
evidentiary reason, until we are surprised to find that we were... absolutely wrong, again
Oh, well. One thing for sure (?) that I'm not wrong about, is that Election is one of the best films of
this century. (No, I'm not exaggerating. Would I do that? Me? Your beloved Movie Man?) It is on my
personal Top-10-Best-of-All-Time list, and is certainly a buried treasure to end most all buried treasures.
So do go dig it up, and meanwhile, I'm voting for Tammy. Vive le anarchy!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically it's all fixed anyway:
Election is available on DVD. The film was released in 1999 and the run time is 1 hour and 43
minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 2.35:1, which is preserved on the DVD. The screenplay was
written by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, and was based on the novel by Tom Perrotta. The film was
produced by Albert Berger, David Gale, Keith Samples, and Ron Yerxa. Cinematography was by James
Glennon with film editing by Kevin Tent. Production Design was by Jane Ann Stewart, with art direction
by Tim Kirkpatrick, set decoration by Renee Davenport and costume design by Wendy Chuck. Original
music was by Rolfe Kent and Ennio Morricone. The original theatrical sound mix was Dolby Surround.
Cast overview:
Matthew Broderick .... Jim McAllister
Reese Witherspoon .... Tracey Enid Flick
Loren Nelson .... Custodian
Chris Klein .... Paul Metzler
Phil Reeves .... Dr. Walt F. Hendricks (the Principal)
Emily Martin .... Girl in Crisis
Jonathan Marion .... Classroom Student
Amy Falcone .... Classroom Student
Mark Harelik .... Dave Novotny
Delaney Driscoll .... Linda Novotny
Molly Hagan .... Diane McAllister
Colleen Camp .... Judith R. Flick
Matt Justesen .... 'Eat Me' Boy
Nick Kenny .... 'Eat Me' Boy's Buddy
Brian Tobin .... Adult Video Actor
*******
Miscellaneous:
Item(s) the First -- Just thought I'd share two favorite Tracy Flick-isms, courtesy of the IMDb quote
collection:
None of this would have happened if Mr. McAllister hadn't meddled the way he did. He should have
just accepted things as they are instead of trying to interfere with destiny. You see, you can't interfere with
destiny. That's why it's destiny. And if you try to interfere, the same thing's going to happen anyway, and
you'll just suffer.
It's like my mom always says, 'The weak are always trying to sabatoge the strong².
***
Item the Second-- For real: The synthetic actors are here.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/3935188.htm
Here's an exerpt from this short but interesting article:
Cyber-actors. Synthespians. Whatever you call them, they are among us. From George Lucas' cloying
Nabooian creature Jar Jar Binks to the buff intergalactic crew of last summer's Final Fantasy to
the titular Great Dane in this summer's Scooby-Doo, computer-rendered screen images that
realistically simulate human beings (and giant ghost-hunting dogs) have arrived.
³The technology has advanced to the point where we don't really know what's real and what's fake
anymore,² explains Niccol, the writer and director of Simone, which stars Al Pacino and opened
in theaters Friday. ³Pacino has this line in the film - 'Our ability to manufacture fraud now exceeds our
ability to detect it,' and that's really become the case.²
(c) 2002 Steven Rea & The Philadelphia Inquirer
***
Item the Third-- A mini-review of Blue Crush, which I managed to get out to see this last week:
What would summertime be without a good surfer movie? OK, so there haven't been all that many good
surfer movies to see since... well, since a real long time ago. If you haven't already seen Blue
Crush, which opened just over a week or two ago, I would like to heartily recommend that you do,
since this film not only features some absolutely stunning photographic work, it takes you into the lives of
the young women who are the subjects of the film. Blue Crush isn't deep (yikes! water metaphor
alert!) or overly analyzable, but it is well crafted, involving and a lot of fun.
Some critics have complained that the film slows down in the middle section when it temporarily abandons
the incredible shots of massive waves crashing down upon or curling out from beneath the surfboards of
the talented 'surfer girls', who are gearing up for a big time competition that could bring serious money
and fame to the winners. I whole-heartedly disagree with this-- even the most spectacular photographic
work will get repetitive and boring if it just goes on and on without letup. The 'real world' that makes up
the lives and loves of the women is a perfect counterpoint to the sheer immensity of the ocean and the
waves, the grandeur of nature balanced by the ordinary existance of an average human. While on the
surface (yes, water metaphor again, sorry!) the film is about the inevitable admiration we have for the
skills of talented athletes, the deeper currents running underneath are really about just how hard it is to
succeed when failure is so much more comfortable and safe, and that this isn't necessarily anyone's 'fault'.
It's easy to urge someone to accept challenges and 'succeed', but success can walk a razor edge of disaster
(and quite literally does here, or at least swims by it), and by what right do you insist someone should risk
everything? One has to willingly choose, and then accept the potential consequences, good or bad.
I give Blue Crush 3 out of 4 stars on the usual star-rating scale, or 7 out of 10 on my preferred 0/10
system. Either way-- strongly recommended. Please see this film in a good theater with a good digital
sound system. Unless you have a really state-of-the-art home theater system with great speakers and a big
front projection screen, it will be very hard to generate the intended visceral impact of the surfing scenes on
video.
*******
The Question of the Week:
Earlier, I said that 'everybody' knew someone like Tracy Flick when they were in High School. Now this
could be hyperbole, but if it is, so what. I'm a critic, and so emotionally I have to feed my ego by acting
like I'm important to the total scheme of things. If you don't like it, write your own damn column.
(Ooooo.... behold the synthesis of Intellect and Emotion! ;-)
Anyway, did you? Know a Flick-type personality, or were you one? (Interestingly, Roger Ebert
says he was). If so, do you know what happened to them (or you) later on in life-- did they succeed, fail,
become a Pulitzer-prize-winning movie critic, whatever? Tell us your stories. You know you want to!
OK, Most Honorable Members of the ATPo Flickoverse, that's all for this week. Hope the summer has
been generally good to you as it's been winding slowly down. Labor Day weekend is fast approaching here
in the States, and already some of the kids are back in school, so there's just one more remaining 'Guilty
Pleasure' for me to bring you this month. In keeping with the pattern established with last year's crop of
somewhat offbeat August 'treasures', I'll be ending the month with a favorite of mine from the horror
genre, which if I were to actually ever get any summer vacation is certainly the mood that I'd be in upon
returning from it.
Take care, and as always post 'em if you've got 'em. Bye!
*******
[> No, you are not exaggerating..."Election" IS one of the best films of the century... -- Rob, 20:48:47 08/25/02 Sun
Definitely one of my all-time favorites. The first time I saw it I was in "Caesar's Palace" at Atlantic City and felt like curling up early to bed and renting a movie. So I went to the menu screen, didn't see anything particularly interesting except for this film that I had heard little about but wanted to see. I typed in the number, and sat back, expecting a fun little movie. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect such a brilliant, biting satire that actually made me sit forward, and...GASP!...think! Damn, and I just wanted a dumb comedy to watch before I went to sleep. Not that I complained. I bought it the first day it came out on DVD and have watched it numerous times since. In fact, I notice something new almost every time I see it. It's an extremely multi-layered film, which is shocking for an MTV release.
Was I a Flick? Nope. Definitely not, although I could relate to the alienation she felt in high school, although, in her case, it was kinda sorta (completely) her fault. I can relate more to the peer-imposed alienation that Buffy and the SG felt by the other high school kids. But woo boy do I know a girl exactly like Tracy. She is my cousin, and like Tracy, she's small, blonde, and a nauseating overachiever. And like Tracy, she would stab you in the back and slash your throat, with a smile on her face, in order to succeed in life. And also like Tracy she's a very unhappy person, to this day. She now works for a world-famous bank. Very high-paying job. But she still is the same unhappy, mean person she always was, which is truly sad. And kinda reminds me of Tracy Flick.
Rob
[> [> Thanks for the feedback Rob, but you gave the film title away! Yahhh!! -- OnM, 21:18:32 08/25/02 Sun
Remember, I try to sucker folks into reading the essay part before I clue them into the film I'm reviewing. Not that I don't think the consensus of most other boarders will be other than that this is a truly great movie, but it is a deliberate move on my part not to give away the film title in the subject line.
[> [> [> Oof! Did I mess up? -- Rob, 09:13:01 08/26/02 Mon
I'm soooooo sorry!
I'm kneeling down now, with clasped hands, a single tear streaming down my cheek, whispering the words, "Please forgive me!"
Rob
P.S. If it makes you feel any better, I always read the essay part even if I've already read lower in the thread what movie it is.
[> [> [> [> Logically, can a single tear "stream?" ;o) -- dubdub, 11:28:15 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> Only if it's very, very sorry. ;o) -- Rob, 13:45:12 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logically, can a single tear "stream?" - yes indeed. -- OnM, 20:13:43 08/26/02 Mon
Yes, a single tear could 'stream', if one were to suppose several things:
'Stream' is defined as a thin, highly elongated, flowing segment of water. The actual diameter of the stream is not important, it could be very small, as long as the general proportion of length to radius is maintained.
The surface tension of the tear is sufficiently low so that the single teardrop is unable to retain its droplet (generally spherical) configuaration, and thus breaks apart, creating the above mentioned stream.
*******
Actually, it's perfectly OK to mention the movie title in responses. After all, if you are responding it is presumed that you-- and others-- have read the post that initiates the thread. It's just that, like with spoilers, the title should be kept out of the subject line.
The titles of other movies than the one currently under review are perfectly fine in subject lines.
Also, I'm really not being very sneaky anyway. The trick of 'hiding' the movie title farther down in the text of the post isn't much of a trick when you consider that:
1. I do it very nearly every time, so anyone who reads the column regularly can just scan down until they find it.
and,
2. I put the title in Bold Italic so that there is no confusion for the reader as to what film is actually being recommended, since other film titles are often mentioned within the same column.
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> I have to post just one more apology...and thanks for being understanding about my goof. -- Rob (who promises to never spoil again), 21:19:59 08/26/02 Mon
And for the science lesson. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> everyone: even though you know the film title, *read the essay*! it's KABOOM-ative! -- anom, 22:09:01 08/26/02 Mon
If I have time to reply, that's the part I'll respond to. Especially since I haven't seen the film. Yet. Though I'm thinking more & more I ought to.
[> [> I agree! What a surprise! Great film. -- Rochefort, 00:44:28 08/26/02 Mon
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 24th 2002 - Guilty Pleasures/Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- CW, 22:23:23 08/25/02 Sun
Unfortunately, the Flick story from my school is a nightmare I don't feel I have the right to tell here. Suffice it to say, our lovable, charming, but back-stabbing class politician's life went so badly after high school that he is spending the rest of his life in prison for murder and other crimes.
[> Lilies that fester -- Rahael, 08:14:53 08/26/02 Mon
There was virtually none of this kind of thing in 'High School' but it was a huge feature of life at University. Probably because it was Oxford, everyone there knew that getting the right contacts, winning the right elections would mean that the right people noticed. After all, a large number of British politicians made their name by doing exactly that.
Which is why I, politically active as I am stayed well away. In fact I date my detachment from any real involvement in party politics right from then - I got a taste of the kind of people involved, and I knew that I didn't want anything to do with them. They were obsessed with networking, full of completely bizarre ideas and very arrogant. Maybe I shouldn't repeat some of the more libellous things that went on. But there were a lot of alcoholics involved, sleeping around helped you climb the ladder, and there was an incident where some people sang anti-semitic songs in German ("but why are you so angry? There weren't any Jewish people there!" AGRHH). There's a lot worse I could say, but I won't.
THere was a complicated and arcane system whereby elections were run on "slates". It was extraordinarily convoluted and was a breeding ground for cynical alliances and treachery. Deception of your 'allies' was routinely referred to as 'Knifing'.
They were also the kind of people who ranted on at how bleeding hearts just didn't use their heads enough to judge issues rationally. I.E, if you used your head, why on earth would you care about other people or their feelings? After all, in the cold light of day, all that mattered was your success, your CV points, your self advancement. THere and then, I decided that whatever path I took after I left university, I would want to stay well clear of such people.
But as to the intellect vs emotion dichotomy, it still doesn't make sense to me.
I know the Blair Government is popularly caricatured as "touchy-feely" and "emotive". But given the ruthlessness it takes to get to the top, given the nature of the people who are in the inner circle it seems laughable to me. I can't even imagine a less emotive person that Alistair Campbell, spin doctor and former editor of a tabloid newspaper. It is only a cynical pose if it were true.
But I think this issue, at least in terms of emotional/unemotional received its finest treatment many hundreds of years ago. Suggesting that this percieved dichotomy is not all that new.
"They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow‹
They rightly do inherit heaven's graces,
And husband nature's riches from expense;
They are the Lords and owners of their faces,
Others, but stewards of their excellence.
The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds."
Shakespeare
[> [> Enlighten me! -- Dichotomy, 11:28:42 08/26/02 Mon
I know next to nothing about Shakespeare, but I quite like this. Where is it from?
[> [> [> Sonnet 94 -- Vickie, 12:50:09 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> Re: Enlighten me! -- Rahael, 14:18:44 08/26/02 Mon
Thanks Vickie. That was one of Shakespeare's sonnets. I love them, and probably know them better really, than I know his plays. This is entirely due to circumstance. A couple of years ago, I bought a small book with all the sonnets in them, which is about the size of my palm. It means that I frequently carry it about with me whenever being kept waiting is likely. And sonnets are handy to dip in and out of.
Here's another one which I love.
Sonnet 73
That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.
In me thou see'st the twilight of such day
As after sunset fadeth in the west;
Which by and by black night doth take away,
Death's second self, that seals all up in rest.
In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire,
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the deathbed whereon it must expire,
Consumed with that which it was nourished by.
This thou perceiv'st, which makes thy love more strong,
To love that well which thou must leave ere long.
Shakespeare
[> [> [> [> That's my second favorite. My first: -- Arethusa, 14:45:12 08/26/02 Mon
SONNET XXIX
When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state
And trouble deal heaven with my bootless cries
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possess'd,
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;
For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
If even Shakespeare can feel this way, there is hope for me.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That's my second favorite. My first: -- Rahael, 14:59:53 08/26/02 Mon
You know that's funny. That's the one sonnet that I never liked. I just could not understand - there seemed to be a disconnect between the two different parts.
Past tense. Not comprehending it fully yet. But getting there. And the reason I say funny is because I realised that my attitude to to this particular sonnet was changing last week and remarked on it to someone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's my second favorite. My first: -- Arethusa, 15:14:48 08/26/02 Mon
I just love the idea of Shakespeare envying someone else's talent, or friends, or looks. The second part-I'm not big on looking for someone else to make me feel good about myself, though the words are beautiful. It's like Willow and Tara-Willow only felt worthy because of Tara's love, not her own self-worth. And that never ends well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plus, Vincent quoted it in "Beauty and the Beast."-my own very guilty pleasure. -- Arethusa, 15:16:58 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, yes, and mine, too! I still miss Vincent... -- dubdub, 17:17:59 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The difficulty with sonnets -- Rahael, 16:19:22 08/26/02 Mon
Or with any sonnet written during the Renaissance is whether the poet actually meant any of the sentiments expressed.
There's a whole school of criticism which argued that these poets were only playing around with ideas. Writing love poetry that spoke of a love that they didn't feel. For example - all of Philip Sidney's love poetry addressed to his Stella may simply have been to show his skill, and he didn't really have any of those feelings. (Now that's raising intellect above emotion!).
I think it's arguable on a poet by poet (and poem by poem) basis. There is a lot in Thomas Wyatt's poetry (he introduced the Sonnet form into English literature, from the Italian). Wyatt subtly injects the personal very cleverly, even when he's doing nothing more than translating a Petrarchan sonnet. I think Shakespeare, in his sonnets, holds up a mirror to his world and his feelings. They are there, but fleetingly. He may have been expressing what it might be like to feel an outcast, but realise that someone's love makes you belong somewhere, but who knows whether he had a particular person in mind at all, at the time of writing? Or whether he felt insecure about himself?
What I now get from the poem (which is the pleasure of poetry - your reactions change as you change)is that love can bring you comfort in a heartless world. And it can raise you up to heaven, when your cries were formerly unheard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great discussion, Rah and Arethusa! -- redcat, 20:09:20 08/26/02 Mon
I've always very much liked the first part of the sonnet, which feels dark and real and fierce, while excusing what I've read as the rather empty sentimentalism of the second part, on the grounds that the cultural expectation of the form at the time the poet wrote would have almost forced him to create an idealized, thus happy, ending. I am one of those who's never quite convinced there's really a specific person on the other side of Shakespeare's sonnets. But the poem's description of cascading despair feels, to me, as if 'twas written by someone who's been there.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: My favorite Shakespeare -- Brian, 20:32:27 08/26/02 Mon
Although I like his sonnets, it is the songs in his plays that I relate to. Here is one of my favorites from Cybeline.
(It even has a shade of the Buffyverse in it.)
Fear no more the heat o' th' sun
Nor the furious winter's rages;
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and ta'en thy wages.
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.
Fear no more the frown o' th' great;
Thou art past the tyrant's stroke.
Care no more to clothe and eat;
To thee the reed is as the oak.
The sceptre, learning, physic, must
All follow this and come to dust.
Fear no more the lightning flash,
Nor th' all-dreaded thunder-stone;
Fear not slander, censure rash;
Thou hast finish'd joy and moan.
All lovers young, all lovers must
Consign to thee and come to dust.
No exorciser harm thee!
Nor no witchcraft charm thee!
Ghost unlaid forbear thee!
Nothing ill come near thee!
Quiet consummation have,
And renowned be thy grave!
[> [> [> [> [> [> My favorite Shakespeare quotation... -- Rob, 20:56:09 08/26/02 Mon
"Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt!"--Hamlet
Since I'm currently trying to lose some extra weight, this line is near and dear to my heart (although I don't think that was the Bard's original intention). ;o)
Rob
[> Or in the opposite direction -- fresne, 10:22:36 08/26/02 Mon
You know, I often feel like responding to the movie column. Mostly to say, yeah I totally agree, that was a great movie. UmmmŠyeah. Yup. Awkward silence. Sound of crickets in the background. Yup, great movie that was. Okay, yeah.
However, in this instance, I thought I'd briefly post. Mostly to say, ummŠwell, I didn't like Election. Awkward silence. Sound of crickets in the background.
Perhaps, it's because I saw it on a plane. However, I've enjoyed other plane movies. So, maybe not.
Perhaps, it's because I didn't know a Flick in High School. Or if it I did, there were just so many they cancelled each other out. We were pretty darn schismatic. Most of the students were bused in. Let's just say we were a diverse population and coming up with only three candidates, well that would have been nice.
Perhaps, it's because I didn't know a Flick in College. I went to a university whose mascot was a Banana Slug because the student body didn't' want one, so they voted for the oddest thing they could find. It was a strange place. I'm not sure if we had a student government. S&M club, Anime Club, lots of Ren Faire people, Elfland (reading John Donne in the ferns and mist, while an unseen music student practiced on the flute), yes. Student gov, hard to say.
Perhaps, it's because I've met quite a few Flicks in the "real world" but generally they seem to stab each other or themselves in the back.
Perhaps, it's that I didn't identify with any of the characters.
Flick, well I certainly hope that I'm not a Flick. Although, admittedly, I do use a honey rather than vinegar approach to life.
Paul Metzler, not so much.
Tammy Metzler, in a Daria sort of way, sorta, but not enough.
Jim McAllister, uh, emphatic no. Partially because I would contend that he opposes Flick's candidacy not out of a desire for a, "a decent, righteous candidate" but because he passionately hates Flick. Yes, to a degree it's because he dislikes her disingenuous nature. However, he passes beyond a dispassionate dislike (thus we return to the emotion vs. logic discussion) of her tactics into a passionate desire to see her lose at any cost. A passionate desire which causes him to lose sight of the truths that he held dear in the first place, which I would call a tragedy if I had liked him in the first place. If I thought they were truths that he held dear, as opposed to merely paying lip service to them. If I thought that part of his hatred didn't in some way grow out of his marital situation.
It's interesting. I've had quite a few people rave about Election to me. Love, love, loved it. And intellectually, I could agree. Good acting, direction, etc. However, I watch fiction emotionally. And emotionally, well, I neither laughed nor cried, I didn't want to buy the t-shirt and I liked Cats better.
Although in an odd aside, I absolutely loved the series Profit. Ah, Profit, manipulative, back stabbing, raised in a box Profit. So, who knows what the problem is.
Please return to your regularly scheduled enjoyment of the movie.
[> [> agree, and... -- tim, 11:42:00 08/26/02 Mon
Thanks for that, fresne. I thought maybe I was the only one. I, too, didn't know a Flick in high school or college. (Or maybe I did, and was just too damned naive to know it. After all, I didn't know what marijuana smelled like until I was 21.) Nor could I connect with any of the characters.
More to the point, I've grown tired of this "curse the system" genre. As a political scientist, I'm well aware of the back-stabbing, dealing, and general malevolence involved in a political system. I've also become convinced that while politicians are interested in winning uber alles, as a rule, they also genuinely believe in their causes. In some cases, this actually makes things scarier. (Bush looked into Putin's eyes and knew he could be trusted? This is how superpower politics is run? Did I miss something?) Nevertheless, the idea that the people in politics are only out to pad their resumes or have power is largely unsupportable. Power isn't worth much unless you want to do something with it.
Consider the story a faculty member here at OSU tells about a conversation he had with a former Congressman from Oklahoma. The Congressman asked if he'd read a certain classic book on Congress. (The basic argument of this particular tome is that Congress is designed in such a way to facilitate its members retention of power.) Yes, the faculty member said, allwoing that it was quite a groundbreaking work. "It's crap," the Congressman responded. "People don't run for Congress because they want power. They run for Congress because they're pissed off about something."
So it's my view that movies like Election miss the mark, and at least as importantly, I find them lazy. Granted, Election is better-crafted than most movies or TV episodes with the cliche of a corrupt (or inept) official, but it falls prey to the same problem in the end: it curses the darkness without lighting a candle. It tells us that the two-party system is bad (debatable, but not now), that all successful people in politics are corrupt (I've already debated this), and then it tells us that there's really nothing we can do about it. The best solution proposed is in Tammy's speech (quoted above), and she's not calling for reform, she's calling for anarchy. And it's not even an anarchy that most anarchists would enjoy. In practice, it would be closer to a Hobbesian state of nature, which is not what anarchism is about.
That's why I'm an avid watcher of The West Wing (another unpopular position on this board). Yes, it's preachy. Yes, it's often overly melodramatic. Yet, Aaron Sorkin has a real appreciation that the people in the political trenches believe in what their fighting for, which is what brings them to unscrupulous machinations. They belive in their own rectitude so strongly that the ends (in their own minds) come to justify the means. People still get hurt, but it's not the Machiavellian nightmare envisioned by Election. Moreover, Sorkin firmly belives that civic participation can transform the system, if enough of us get involved. He's not pollyanna-ish--he sees what's wrong with the system--but he's convinced that half the problem is good people doing nothing.
Yes, it's a cliche. But it lights a candle in the darkness, which is (to me, anyway), worth a lot.
--th
[> [> [> It's fun to agree also! (to twist ponygirls motto) -- Rahael, 14:41:10 08/26/02 Mon
I hear what you are saying Tim. Lighting a candle is important.
And this kind of ties into a big discussion in chat a couple of nights ago. What is politics? It's very much my view that politics is not confined to party politics, and it is not confined solely to running for office. After all, most of the characters in the West Wing, barring Jed Bartlett aren't elected, nor have they run for office.
So, though I'm not involved in party politics, my work is very political. And I hope, in an ethical but pragmatic way.
The system doesn't exclude us, and include just politicians. A democracy means that we are part of the system also and we are responsible, by our mandate, for the public and accountable decisions taken.
As for backstabby and cynical politicians? There are many of them. There are also many who work very hard, and have integrity. (I've worked for two!)
Finally, I think having a stable political system allows people to become cynical and jaded. Because voting doesn't mean all that much. Everyone's the same, no one's going to change anything. But living in a volatile political system can make you appreciate the mundanity of stability.
A sidenote on "Election". I rented it with friends expecting a teen comedy. I loved Reese Witherspoons performance. But Fresne pointed out an aspect I hadn't thought of before, and that was it's message about democracy as a whole. As an addendum, I don't think any character in that movie was likable, not even the football playing 'good' candidate. Is that all that's left? Good but stupid? Matthew Broderick's character was cleverly set up to seem like the hero, but he becomes more and more unlikable as the film goes on.
Oh, and one good thing about encountering Flicks early on in their career? If you know the right people, and you have the right dirt on them, you can use it. I actually care enough about the party I (half heartedly) support to stop certain people with real criminal tendencies getting too far ahead.
Rah, who has one special person in mind.
[> [> [> [> I personally love stories with no likable characters...but I'm weird like that. ;o) -- Rob, 21:22:04 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> Definitions... -- OnM, 20:59:40 08/26/02 Mon
...of 'Optimist' and 'Pessimist':
An optimist sees a candle burning in the darkness that isn't really there, and
a pessimist comes along and blows it out.
;-)
[> [> Re: Or in the opposite direction -- verdantheart, 14:14:16 08/26/02 Mon
banana slug, eh? I should have guessed (not a criticism, BTW). Also loved Profit.
[> [> [> Re: Or in the opposite direction -- fresne, 21:59:32 08/26/02 Mon
Yes, indeed, I am the result of a university that had an intramural Lacrosse team, but no football team and more trees than buildings.
As I might add are Marti Noxon and Steve DeNight, which as I think about it also explains a few things. Although, I would argue that Kresge was the party college, not Porter. Okay, maybe Porter a little. I mean come on, the bathrooms were co-ed.
And as to the other bend in the thread, tim, keep lighting that candle or as my housemate says, "If you don't vote, you can't complain."
And, yeah, people can and do run for political office "because they're pissed off about something." My grandfather ran for (and won) office in his State's Legislature for exactly that reason and in a nod to the higher education thread earlier, he left school in the 4th grade to join the workforce.
fresne - trying imagine my grandfather calling himself an optimist or a pessimist and failing. A colorful expression would have been more likely. Good dancer though. Both a good lead and capable of dancing with a little girl on his feet.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 24th 2002 - Guilty Pleasures/Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- Dichotomy, 11:56:14 08/26/02 Mon
I really, really liked Election! I didn't really know any Flicks or know who they were because I was so busy being insecure and shy--just hoping to be noticed but at the same time hoping not to. High school---eeeewwww!
board compared to other boards re: noxon. -- Rochefort, 00:46:56 08/26/02 Mon
I checked some other boards, and by and large this is a really really pro-marti noxon board. I always wondered why there was such a back-lash here against noxon critisism as if there were an army of noxon haters somewhere that needed to be fought off. Apparantly there ARE armies of noxon haters. Go figure.
[> I just can't take scapegoating -- darrenK w/an assist from darKenX, 05:39:09 08/26/02 Mon
People want an easy explanation for things they don't like.
For Buffy fans, that's Marti Noxon. For all the many reasons that I've stated before, it doesn't make much sense, but it keeps the fans from having to do the unthinkable and blame Joss.
The people who post to this board do so because they're thoughtful and don't want the easy answers. They're also very informed, so they know what the writers, Joss and Marti included, say about the way that the show is written: by a team with major points plotted by Joss. This, or course, means that no one writer can be blamed for the things that fans don't like. And that's a huge issue anyway b/c what one fan likes others don't, who can be so sure of what they'll think until they see it?
There have been clunker episodes ever since season 1. And huge melodrama. Do the fans remember some of the cloying things Angel and Buffy said to each other? Hello?
Marti and Joss have said that the big change in her taking on the role of executive producer has been that she oversees post-production and gets much greater latitude in choosing the music that goes on the show.
I don't remember a single soul complaining about the music used during season 6.
[> [> Re: I just can't take scapegoating -- DEN, 08:16:10 08/26/02 Mon
You're right--but the music was by far the least of s6's problems! It would be like complaining about cabin service after the TITANIC hit the iceberg.
[> [> [> Re: I just can't take scapegoating -- Slain, 08:25:36 08/26/02 Mon
I agree wholeheartedly - Marti Noxon comes into the firing line because of her impressive title and her uncompromising stance at interviews. Personally I do think she has a tendency towards melodrama, and she has been off her writing game of late. But Joss himself has said that she was the one who brought the warped sexuality to the show that's fuelled the characters of Spike, Dru, Angel, Faith and now Buffy - she brought a whole new dimension to the show.
[> [> [> [> Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- Arethusa, 10:23:52 08/26/02 Mon
In The Monster Book Marti Noxon says,"'Beauty and the Beasts' is the closest thing we've done to a 'very special episode,'" notes supervising producer Marti Noxon, who wrote the episode. That particular installment, she confirms, purposely addressed the fundamental theme of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde: the two natures of man-human and animal. But the episode explored further.
"It also deals with the two natures of man in relation to young women," Noxon explains. "Young women have a tendency to be drawn to the darker side of man. To romanticize the bad boy. What is that about? And when does it become dangerous? When do you lose control?'" (p. 213).
She continues, "There is a side to men and to women that is more animal. People think it was our domestic-abuse episode. But it was more about women's attraction to the alpha dog and when relationships are just bad [as opposed to] when they're sick and dangerous.
The episode where Oz leaves is a sister episode," Noxon adds. "What is our basic animal nature? How much of that should be fulfilled and how much do we have to resist and say no, that's a dangerous impulse? Many of the problems we have between men and women are based on the fact theat we deny a lot of these impulses and blame other things.
The question of how much of me is animal and how much is man and how to control that is a big reason why Willow and Oz end up breaking up. At that age, kids are really wrestling with that. To stay faithful to one preson from the time you're eighteen is a tall order. A lot of men will say, I can't help it, it's the dog in me. There's a lot of truth in that." (p.214)
So it seems that "Beauty and the Beasts," "Wild at Heart," and a great deal of Season 6 are Marti's attempt to understand male/female relationships, especially destructive ones. But a problem I have with her approch is her all-or-nothing view of men as bad or good. She says all the men in B&B are on a continuum, and "which of them is seeking out something destructive, and which of these relationships just have an element that is in all relationships?" but then she she says it's about women's attraction to the alpha dog. Is Marti justifying an abusive relationship in the past, or is she exploring the dark side of sexuality, (which other interviews claim)? (Caveat: I don't care about or want to comment on Noxon's personal life, but since she has put it before the world, I feel free to make criticism-related comments.)
One can't just divide the men of the world into "good" and "bad" catagories, saying that that type of man is bad for women, and the other type is good, and women are always attracted to the bad, and should choose the good instead. Few people are unredeemably bad, or totally good. Riley was so good he was less animate than Sid the Dummy, and I got the feeling as I watched that year unfold that Buffy was dragging poor good Riley down. This impression was reinforced with AYW, where Riley was once again Captain America, happy, fulfilled, and safely married. Meanwhile, Buffy was rolling in the debris with bad boy Spike, who would become a rapist (nearly) to help us understand that Bad Boys Are Bad For You.
Worse of all, Buffy's exploration of her sexuality was dropped, since Bad Boys Are Kinky and Therefore Kinky is Bad. A chance to see a "normal" woman explore atypical aspects of her sexuality without being punished for it was abandonded so we could be told, again, Spike was bad for Buffy.
Agree? Disagree? Am I being unfair to Noxon, because she didn't go the direction I might prefer?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- Dead Soul, 10:48:34 08/26/02 Mon
Arethusa wrote:
>> "Worse of all, Buffy's exploration of her sexuality was dropped, since Bad Boys Are Kinky and Therefore Kinky is Bad. A chance to see a "normal" woman explore atypical aspects of her sexuality without being punished for it was abandonded so we could be told, again, Spike was bad for Buffy."
Arethusa, I agree with you 100% - ME missed a great opportunity to explore something new and different and instead went for the hackneyed and cliched story line. I'm very disappointed in their choice.
Or maybe I need to be sent to a BBABFY (Bad Boys Are Bay For You) 12-step group to get the help Marti so clearly thinks I need.
Dead (but not from a "bad" boy, It's the good ones that'll get you every time - you never see it coming.) Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ack! "Bay"="Bad" -- Dead Soul, 10:51:25 08/26/02 Mon
And why is it you never see typos until that instant when it's too late to fix them?
Dedd Sole
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you and Arethusa -- Sophist, 11:52:50 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm curious -- Dochawk, 15:19:00 08/26/02 Mon
I am curious, assuming you wanted Spuffy, what would you like to have seen explored? Remembering the two basic tenets, Spike is still a vampire and according to canon is therefore an evil, soulless thing and that Buffy is the hero. I would love to hear where else you think they could have taken it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- ponygirl, 12:11:25 08/26/02 Mon
Now while Beauty & the Beasts is one of my least favourite episodes, and I feel that Marti's interviews often do more harm than good in clarifying issues, I do think she gives us more than good boy vs bad boy in that episode. While the Pete/Debbie relationship is portrayed as destructive, and the parallels to Buffy/Angel are shoveled on mercilessly the final results are more ambiguous. Buffy lets the semi-feral Angel hold her amongst all the bodies, but she does not embrace him back, she doesn't kill him or turn him in, but she does look profoundly troubled as she ponders various Jack London passages. Buffy has seen herself in Debbie, but she chooses not to take her own advice, to hope for something other than the beast in the man she loves. It's confusing, it's murky in terms of the message, but it's interesting and it's one of the few things I like about the episode.
For S/B I would argue, and from the interviews possibly with Marti herself, that it was the relationship not Spike that was portrayed as destructive. He was never shown as anything less than three dimensional, we may not always have agreed with Spike, but we were always made to understand him. This isn't just about acting, it's in choices made by the writers. I agree with you and Dead Soul that it will be very disappointing if Buffy abandons the aspects of her sexuality that she discovered in s6, but we'll have to wait to s7 to see if that happens.
I think Marti's problem, if indeed she has one, is that she likes to ask blunt and heavy questions but prefers ambiguous answers.
Well written post though, Arethusa. It's fun to disagree!
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm nominating you for the ATPo quotebook -- tim, 13:22:07 08/26/02 Mon
"It's fun to disagree!"
That could be on the masthead here, right next to JM's quote. Best four-word summary I've ever seen of why I spend so much time here. :)
--th
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks tim! ;) -- ponygirl, 06:37:50 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- Slain, 12:46:38 08/26/02 Mon
I think what Marti is talking about in these quotes is not just the dark side of men, but of women, too. It's not simply a case of 'men have an animal nature, women are attracted to it but they shouldn't be'; she's asking the question of how much of our animal nature should be fulfilled, both for women and men. Marti isn't dividing men into good and bad categories, here, but is rather asking how much bad is good, and how much good is bad?
Furthermore, it's not possible to say that Marti alone is responsible for Riley being the good man and Spike being the wrong man: because it's Joss Whedon and the Mutant Enemy team who decide these things.
I think really it comes down to your own opinion of who you think is 'good' for Buffy. M.E.'s opinion is that Riley is good for Buffy, not that some types of men are good for Buffy and some are not, and it's unfair to say that Marti Noxon is responsible for Spike being the 'bad' man. You can find plenty of quotes from other writers (David Fury in particular) saying unequivocally that they feel Spike is the wrong man for Buffy.
Look at the season ending. Riley is married to another woman, which would presumably mean that M.E. have decided Riley is not the man for Buffy. Spike, on the other hand, has a soul and I think the possibility for redemption. So it seems to me that, in fact, all that was being said was that a vampire without a soul was not good for Buffy. Which is nothing new.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- leslie, 13:37:30 08/26/02 Mon
Well, I agree with you that it's unfair to blame Marti for the whole situation, and I also agree that the dark sides of both men *and* women should be addressed, but I don't think that's what's come through in S6, whoever's fault that may be. It seems to me that Buffy started wanting to understand her dark side beginning with "Buffy vs. Dracula" but when she actually found it, she freaked and repudiated it. "Oh goodness, I didn't mean *that* dark!" The question of Buffy's complicity in her relationship with Spike was just papered over with "I'm using you and it's killing me." And I'm not talking about beating him up in the alleyway, I'm talking about the fact that she initiated the sexual phase of their relationship and she enjoyed the actual sex. This seems to be at the bottom of her shame about it; it's not so much that everyone will know that she's sleeping with evil, soulless Spike, it's that it's abundantly clear to everyone what sort of acts sleeping with Spike would entail. Failing to address that aspect really does drop the ball, though I'm not sure how far ME would be able to take that on commercial American television.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- MaeveRigan, 14:04:37 08/26/02 Mon
"I'm talking about the fact that she initiated the sexual phase of their relationship and she enjoyed the actual sex. This seems to be at the bottom of her shame about it; it's not so much that everyone will know that she's sleeping with evil, soulless Spike, it's that it's abundantly clear to everyone what sort of acts sleeping with Spike would entail. Failing to address that aspect really does drop the ball, though I'm not sure how far ME would be able to take that on commercial American television."
Given that it's a TV show with a limited amount of time to deal with any one character's issues, there's certainly a limit to how deeply they can delve into Buffy's. I guess that's what fanfic is for (among other things), if you must.
But that said, I think Buffy's confession to Giles in "Grave" went a long way towards taking the shame out of sleeping with Spike. For Giles to react with laughter rather than horror or a reprimand undoubtedly helped Buffy laugh at herself - finally! - and begin to put the experience in some perspective.
I suspect she's still dealing with the AR, however. She didn't tell Giles about that, and he wouldn't have found it funny.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- Slain, 14:05:45 08/26/02 Mon
I think the fact that it was Spike really was key; but it's true that she hasn't come to terms with it. I don't think Buffy feels guilty about the sex, but rather that she should enjoy sex with someone who is evil. I'd argue that Buffy's shame came from being unable to come to terms with her fascination for darkness.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Marti on "Beauty and the Beasts" -- Arethusa, 14:20:17 08/26/02 Mon
I haven't stepped into this debate a much because until I read BtVS The Monster Book (by Christopher Golden, Stephen R. Bissette, and Thomas E. Sniegoski) I wasn't ready to criticise Noxon extensively, without sufficent background information. But I feel the quotes I read and posted above back up my statements. She said, "But [B&B] was more about women's attraction to the alpha dog and when relationships are just bad." That quote contradicts the concept of examining relationships for good and bad both, although BtVS has done that, too. According to Noxon, some relationships are "just bad."
There's no telling how much of Spuffy was ME and how much Noxon. I've read several articles that emphasize Noxon's influence on the negative aspects of the relationship. She herself came up with the AR, IIRC.
I have no opinion on who is good for Buffy, although I have gone on record saying she should not have a boyfriend for a while. I'm not a 'shipper and am much too old to place myself in her shoes romantically. ;0)
(Ah, redemption. NewSpike doesn't need redemption because his soul is clean, although his conscience probably won't be untroubled. Spike the demon committed the murders and mayhem, and the demon is now submerged deep under the souled NewSpike. But, of course, I look foreward to much angst and agony with NewSpike. If I'm very lucky, maybe he'll even decide to be evil.)
Arethusa, living up to our motto: "It's fun to disagree!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, but where does she say that men are either good or bad? -- Slain, 16:17:12 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but where does she say that men are either good or bad? -- Arethusa, 17:46:21 08/26/02 Mon
I think her mention of "alpha dogs," whom she commonly also refers to in interviews as bad boys, or bad boyfriends, shows she splits men up into bad men and good men, at least when it comes to relationships. I'll try to find more quotes later. I've read every slayage.com article this year, except for the purely celebrity-oriented ones ("David Boreanaz Plays Hockey!" "David Boreanaz Plays Hockey Again!"), so it may take a little time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL re the Hockey playing. -- Rahael, 18:16:21 08/26/02 Mon
I've skipped past a couple titled "David Boreanaz plays Golf!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Re: Yes, but where does she say that men are either good or bad?" -- Slain, 10:54:26 08/27/02 Tue
David Boreanz plays hockey!!! Fantastic!
Er...
[> [> [> [> [> Agree 100% with you both. Well said! -- shadowkat, 12:57:25 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oops meant to say agreed with Aerustha and DS -- shadowkat, 06:26:13 08/27/02 Tue
While I really liked ponygirl and Slain's points, I'm afraid that Aerustha and Dead Soul are more on target regarding Noxon at least as far as what she has said in interviews.
I've read most of Marti's Interviews including a rather lengthy one in SFX Vampire Edition Magazine. In these interviews she states that she was exploring the bad-boyfriend relationships that we often have in our twenties. The person who feels good to be with at the time but isn't in the long run. And was worried that since the fans weren't getting this, they may have to reiterate their thesis.
This for some reason I don't completely understand, annoyed the heck out of me. It felt so after-school special/Beverly Hills 90210ish. While I loved the Angel/Angelus metaphors. I hated Beauty and the Beasts. Wild at Heart was far better, more ambiguous metaphorically. As was Harsh Light of Day and The Initiative. Beauty and Beasts hit me over the head.
And I really really hate being hit over the head. It's why I don't watch any number of television dramas. (Of course my mistake may have been reading MN's interviews - I may have reacted differently if I hadn't. Also being online may have influenced my view. I know I tended to see the show differently before I went online and entered the often absurd world of Buffy fandom.)
I do agree with Slain and ponygirl's comments and believe that is the arc Joss Whedon was going for when he wanted to explore unhealthy relationships - which he truly does in Season 6. All the relationships in this season were unhealthy and dark at times.
How would I have preferred the B/S relationship to go?
Don't know. But I would have like something a little less predictable and cliche. I liked some of it : Smashed, Dead Things,even Gone and OAFA added something interesting to the mix. Maybe in some way have Spike be the one who broke it off. Or have had him accidentally bite her and remphasize the fact that he is a vampire. I didn't want them to ride off into the sunset. But I didn't want what
happened in SR either. I just expected a little more out of the writers after the excellent Suprise/Innocence, Into the Woods, Bargaining, Fool For Love and the twists in Intervention and Crush. Perhaps Season 7 will reward me with those twists? I hope so.
JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> NOT UNFAIR! THIS IS IT EXACTLY. bleck. I agree. -- Rochefort, 21:00:42 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> Re: I just can't take scapegoating -- TRM, 08:40:36 08/26/02 Mon
Well actually, there was one song that irritated me somewhat. I don't remember the episode exactly, but it was playing during the scene where Buffy was moping in the cemetary thinking about visiting Spike, and we had the scene with Buffy standing outside his crypt and Spike waiting just inside the door. After which, Spike opens the door, but Buffy had already left.
Of course, I recognize that musical taste is highly subjective, but I think I do like Joss's taste better than Marti's. On the other hand, I am one of those who have no more gripes about season 6 than any other season.
[> [> [> Re: Season Six -- Brian, 07:15:08 08/27/02 Tue
reminds me of an old joke about a man walking in the jungle. He comes upon another man wrestling with a tiger.
So he yells out, "Do you need help holding that tiger down?"
And the other man replies, " No. I need some help letting go!"
Spike question for the creatively-minded (S6 spoilers, as usual) -- tim, 08:31:41 08/26/02 Mon
Darla (so I'm told-- I missed the first two seasons of Angel) proved she was human by running into the sunlight. Easy enough. But how do you prove you have a soul? Spike went far away last season, endured trials, blah, blah, blah. When he comes back, he'll be no different physically (still hurt by crosses, holy water, etc.), so there's no easy test there. Plus (as has been great fodder for debate), he's had moments of great heroism that had all the trappings of selflessness.* That makes his actions also unclear as "proof" of his besouledness, especially since the Scoobies give him remarkably little credit for the good he does do.
So how does he do it? Barring his coming back as William with no hint of Spike still inside (which I find terribly unlikely), I can only see two possibilities:
1) A diagnostic spell or demon conveniently appears to attest to the fact that he is souled. (Think of the Judge, but in reverse.)
2) It'll take most of the season of his doggedly pursuing the good path without backsliding before anyone believes him.
I'm interested in what other people see as possibilities (no spoilers, please). If you were writing it, how would you demonstrate to the Scoobies that this isn't the same Spike that left Sunnydale? And will there have to be different levels of proof for different Scoobies? Will Buffy and Dawn believe him more quickly than Xander? How will this affect the dynamics of the rest of the group?
All thoughts are welcome and appreciated.
--tim, studiously avoiding his dissertation
*Note: I'm not interested in rehashing his inner motives here. Others have made great arguments that he was always driven internally by self-interest, or that he was truly selfless. My interest is solely on appearances.
[>my creative answer -- neaux, 08:40:11 08/26/02 Mon
Spike comes back wearing shades and toots a saxaphone A la Bill Clinton.
He then tries to reincarnate the Arsenio Hall Show with the Help of Willow so he can receive his props from the Dogg Pound.
Yeeeeessssaaaa! Give it up!! Ruff Ruff!!
[> [>Ye gads. -- HonorH, 10:45:54 08/26/02 Mon
If he does that, they may stake him sooner rather than later, and to the cheers of the audience!
[>The Simpsons answer ... D'OH! -- Earl Allison, 09:25:33 08/26/02 Mon
Simply contact Dr. Hibbert and have him perform a "routine soul smear." Presumably said test cannot be performed on someone without a soul -- and even better, it will detect the presence of evil even before the testee does anything -- much as it did for Bart and Hugo.
The whole line went something like this;
"... a routine soul smear to detect the presence of pure evil ..."
Of course, if you're going to the Simpsons for help, you're probably too far gone to get any :)
Take it and run.
[>Have you been ensouled? Take this handy quiz and find out! -- cjl, 10:27:29 08/26/02 Mon
Question 1: You're driving your motorcycle down Sunnydale's main highway, and you see a squirrel darting out right in front your front wheel. Do you:
a) endanger yourself by swerving to avoid the squirrel
b) avoid it as best you can, then stop and check back to see if it's all right
c) turn fluffy-tail into instant roadkill
Question 2: You're visiting the Slayer's house, and Xander Harris is telling another depressing story about his horrible childhood. Do you:
a) sob uncontrollably with sympathy
b) keep composed, but give the guy genuine support
c) tell the git to sod off and grab the Slayer for some long-delayed shagging
Question 3: A super-villain has come to Sunnydale and offers you a role as chief lieutenant in his campaign to rule the world. Do you:
a) Try to defeat him single-handedly
b) Notify the Slayer and the rest of the gang
c) Ask him about his pension plan
Question 4: Your blond bimbo of a vampire ex-girlfriend is hanging around your crypt, mooching your blood, and whining about how hard it is to keep up her nails while hanging around in mausoleums. Do you
a) Stake her immediately
b) Give her a separate room, feed her and try to reform her
c) Team up with her to terrorize the community
d) On second thought, just stake her immediately
Your score:
If you answered (c) to all questions, the re-ensouling obviously didn't work as well as you thought.
If you answered (a) to all questions, you got your soul back, but you haven't quite got an emotional handle on it yet.
If you answered (b) to all questions, you have properly balanced your vampire nature and your new soul.
And if you answered (d) to the last question, you have solid common sense, no matter what the status of your soul...
[> [>LOL, I love it! -- ponygirl, 10:31:33 08/26/02 Mon
[> [>I love it! -- HonorH, 10:48:49 08/26/02 Mon
Gonna have to pass this around to all my buds. Do you mind? Thought not!
[> [>Hee hee! That goes right into the amusinarium! -- Dichotomy, 11:46:53 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [>Dichotomy, please see archive one -- Vickie, 12:19:35 08/26/02 Mon
for an OT addressed to you.
[> [> [> [>Re: Dichotomy, please see archive one -- Dichotomy, 14:06:01 08/27/02 Tue
Sorry I didn't catch that OT earlier--it's been a wild few weeks! Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I thought the glass shattering screaming was kind of odd, too, and I'm not sure if it's a German thing or what. My husband is German, so maybe he would know. I'll ask!
[> [>LOL! I can just see... -- tim, 11:47:42 08/26/02 Mon
...Spike with pencil in hand, tongue out the side of his mouth a la Charlie Brown, worrying about getting full marks!
--th
[> [>Guess this was the written? -- shadowkat, 12:43:00 08/26/02 Mon
You reminded me of his line to the Lurker Demon - "Don't see any number two pencils so I guess we're skipping the
written?"
LOL! I wonder how he'd pass.
[>One word: -- HonorH, 10:44:26 08/26/02 Mon
Anya. She's a demon, and therefore might have the ability to sense Spike's soul. I'm putting money on it now.
[>Psychotic Spike -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:00:34 08/26/02 Mon
When Spike comes back, he's gone off the deep end. He talks to people who aren't there, has bizarre emotional outbursts, is convinced there are "evil drops of blood crawling all over me!" The Scoobies try to find out what caused this psychotic behavior, and some spiritual guide or psychic or something says that Spike's been driven insane by his soul.
Or he dies before he can meet any of the other characters.
[> [>I like it! -- Masq, 16:02:19 08/26/02 Mon
[>Re: Spike question for the creatively-minded (S6 spoilers, as usual) -- pr10n, 12:33:03 08/26/02 Mon
> Will Buffy and Dawn believe him more quickly than Xander?
Here's a thought -- What if Xander, wearing his Heart-hat, senses Spike's soul _first_? Unthinkable personal conflict results.
I don't think NewSpike (Now with SOUL!) can have a different appearance, really. Wardrobe and hair changes seem a cheesy symbolism for such a big change.
OTOH (having just watched Becoming with the Gypsy and Whistler scenes) Angel went from 0 to guilty pretty fast. HIS ensoulment (and popular discussion says that Spike can't possibly be like Angel, else all things ME are false) was illustrated by a remarkable lack of tidiness, after he and the F4 parted ways.
pr10n
p.s. Pre-emptive Mockery #1 - "Turn on your Heart-Hat..." would be a good theme song.
Pre-emptive Mockery #2 - F4 is NOT a Marvel Comics superteam, with PlasticMan, InvisibleGirl, HumanTorch, and RockDude -- although maybe the UberSlayer contains all those features.
[> [>The Scooby Gang as the Fantastic Four? -- cjl, 13:22:07 08/26/02 Mon
Giles = Mr. Fantastic: The oldest member of the gang, the brains of the outfit, and you might say Giles has been extraordinarily flexible in dealing with an unorthodox slayer like Buffy.
Willow = Invisible Woman: Wallflower, shy retiring type, but may be the most powerful member of the group. Evil alter ego is disturbingly stereotypical...
Xander = Human Torch: The group hothead, but the kid with the biggest heart.
Buffy = The Thing: Transformed into a superhero against his/her will, subconsciously retains mental image as a normal human despite all the good done as a superbeing. In lowest moments of self-pity, thinks of him/herself as a freak who cannot be loved.
[> [> [>Re: The Scooby Gang as the Fantastic Four? -- pr10n, 13:53:43 08/26/02 Mon
Thass what I'm talkin' 'bout!
Thanks for it, cjl.
[> [>Re: Spike question for the creatively-minded (S6 spoilers, as usual) -- KKC, 14:42:24 08/26/02 Mon
"Here's a thought -- What if Xander, wearing his Heart-hat, senses Spike's soul _first_? Unthinkable personal conflict results."
Hm. Xander wouldn't necessarily treat Spike any differently... Remember the way he treated Angel way back in Season One? There was at best a grudging respect, but Xander always made it plain that he was never a fan. This may have manifested first as plain old jealousy, but even after Xander's desire for Buffy cooled he never cultivated any kind of relationship with Angel. Contrast this with Angel and Willow sleuthing together behind Buffy's back, or Angel and Giles helping each other out with research sources. The presence of or lack of soul doesn't appear to sway Xander as much as one's actions or words.
Two more things before I go: If Spike really has a soul at this point, then he'll recognize that he should let his actions speak for themselves and not make any kind of show or declaration. Humans don't wear theirs on the sleeve, so why should he? (Angel's is a special case, since his was a punishment and not a sought goal.) Also, when you said F4 I immediately thought of the old-money rich kids from Hana Yori Dango and not the Fantastic Four. And exactly three posters here recognize THAT reference. :)
-KKC, stepping out, on an ordinary Sunday...
[> [> [>Re: Spike question for the creatively-minded (S6 spoilers, as usual) -- Lyonors, 16:58:34 08/26/02 Mon
>>> If Spike really has a soul at this point, then he'll recognize that he should let his actions speak for themselves and not make any kind of show or declaration. Humans don't wear theirs on the sleeve, so why should he? <<<
I have been chewing on this very thought all day. I would like to see Souled!Spike _not_ be outed for his soulfullness right away. I don't think he did it for the big recognition. He wouldn't have left so secretly. Someone like Anya could find out initaly, but keep it on the DL. I would _like_ to see the soul have little effect on Spike's true self, yeah reign in the evil impulses a bit, make it less of an internal struggle to do good, but overall, keep him Spike. But this is what I _want_ not what I _need_. So the chances of Joss & Co. going this route? Snowball's chance in hell.
One day I will learn to underline,
Ly
[>My theory... would you like to hear my theory? (S7 speculation) -- JBone, 14:50:08 08/26/02 Mon
I haven't seen any spoilers yet, so this is only what I've come up with. Maybe not initially, but after Spike returns, he becomes some kind of religious type. In effect, putting himself on a higher moral level than the scoobies. I'm not sure if his followers would be human or demon or both. But it definitely develops cultist overtones. That's my wacky theory.
[> [>Re: My theory... would you like to hear my theory? (S7 speculation) -- leslie, 15:35:00 08/26/02 Mon
"after Spike returns, he becomes some kind of religious type. . . . I'm not sure if his followers would be human or demon or both."
Well, I think it's obvious who his followers would be: us. (But that leaves open the question of whether *we* are human or demon or both.)
In any case, I hope he won't take the metaphor of self-flagellation literally, although given the nature of Spuffy sex, it's all too likely. Has anyone else here ever read Matthew Lewis's _The Monk_? (Decidedly *not* the USA show with Tony Shalhoub.) It would be _The Monk_ in reverse, I guess. Perhaps Buffy will reconsider joining a convent, as she thought post-Riley, and there could be a whole Abelard and Heloise scenario. I think I'd pencil in Xander as the avenging guardian there.
[> [> [>The Monk (the book) and other (S7) wacky speculations -- fresne, 08:56:06 08/27/02 Tue
Yes, I can see where Spike would want a religion that involved a Bleeding Nun. In his case, much less of a damper on illicit passion.
I'm not sure the T.V. could take actual Succubi though. Sudden bizzare image of Halle moonlighting on her job. Feather boa, 50s'-ish lingerie, demon face. Awkward segues from half hearted sexual banter to "Hey, do you want vengenance?"
[> [> [> [>ROtFLMAO!!!! Thanks for the image! -- redcat, 09:47:51 08/27/02 Tue
[>Acme-One Soul Detection Kit!! -- Off-kilter, flipping through Wiley Coyote's catalog, 15:07:44 08/26/02 Mon
Only 3 easy payments of $999.99! Next 5 orders receive lifetime supply (72 year limit) of NancyBoy Hair Gel! Act now!
[>If he no longer has the chip, not too hard for him to prove it. If not, ... *shrugs* magic spell? -- Caesar Augustus, 17:13:11 08/26/02 Mon
[>My summer fantasies- for your amusement (But NOT for the Buffy sensitive.) -- Spike Lover, 11:54:46 08/27/02 Tue
I suppose traditionally, if a vamp were resouled, he should have a reflection, but since Angel never had one,I doubt Spike will either.
Over the summer I have been contemplating Spike's return as resouled William: No memory of ever being a vampire. Thinking that he has awakened out of (very long) coma, without getting too caught up in the impossibility of surviving in a coma for over 100 years.
He moves back to SunnyD on a whim, on a psychic's advice, on a doctor's advice, I don't know. And opens a bookstore next to the magic shop. (HIs accent is NOT Spike's.)
He meets Anya, but does not know her as anymore than a magic shop owner. He likes her, but is not so sure you should be selling 'magics' to the public. He meets Giles and likes him as someone else from Britian. He has the misfortune of running into Xander is is accosted by this insulting, arrogant youth who for some reason keeps calling him 'Spike'. He gets away from him (as a Victorian gentleman would with outrage) and has the misfortune of running into Buffy who promptly belts him and insults him and calls him 'Spike'. Luckily a cop is nearby and he screams for assistance as his nose is now bleeding.
The SG meet and talk about the re-emergence of Spike and what kind of game is he playing? What is the old evil up to? The gang find he is at his shop during the day and are shocked to find that he leaves during the daylight without covering up. Does he have that invincible ring, they wonder? They tail him. On a Sunday, Xander finds him walking and to his horror finds (of course) on his way to Church. Horror! He is going to kill the priest and the parishoners! But worse, he actually tails William to the service and to his amazement, watches him participate in the service and take Communion.
New meeting with the SG. Buffy & X feel Spike is definately into some new evil. She confronts him verbally, recalling theis trysts and his evil ways, and then prepares to stake him. He screams for help. SunnyD is filled with looney women. Someone get this crazy woman away from him. (He may shout that Buffy needs a hysterectomy for her hesteria.) But he never lifts a hand to her. (Victorian gentlemen do not strike women. It is beneathe their dignity.)
Another SG meeting. Giles volunteers to try to find out what is going on by having supper or drinks with him -at the bookstore?? During the dinner, the two sort of bond. William's story seems to have merit. Although there is no explanation, William is William again.
Buffy impatient, bursts in on the meeting, in which case, William immediately jumps up to flee. He is horrified to find that his new friend actually knows this crazy woman. He demands that she leave at once.
Buffy is turned away. As days past, Buffy realizes she misses Spike. His mirror image walks around, but will have nothing to do with her. She actually attempts to talk civilly to William on one occassion, but it is too late. First impressions die hard, and he will have nothing to do with her.
In some conversation, when she tries to tell them of their past sexual liasions, William is horrified, saying that for him to be involved with her on any level would be 'beneath him'.
Life goes on as usual in SunnyD. Buffy dates this guy or that, but continues to be fascinated with William and actively misses the kinkiness of Spike. Xander is also jealous as Anya is successfully developing a friendship with William also.
Finally Giles must know what happened to Spike. He goes over to the bookstore with the crystal he uses for hypnotism, and easily puts William under. Once he is under, Buffy joins him.
They call Spike. And Spike emerges, accent and all. He gets up, gets a cigarette and starts talking the talk and walking the walk. He looks at Buffy and says, 'What's the matter love? You miss the Big Bad?"
Buffy immediately recoils and looks hatefully at him, although she is secretly overjoyed that he is back. He tells them that yes, William has been resouled and it is pretty much close quarters in there. The demon was never cast out, but he has no control over WIlliam, but can only watch from afar.
He tells Buffy to her chagrin that William really hates her. 'You don't appreciate what you had till its gone' speech insues.
Buffy remains miserable. Days later she is still thinking about how she misses Spike. She contemplates a truly evil act. There must be a re-soul spell reversal. She will take away William's second chance on life to have the love and adoration of Spike back...
To the SG's horror, she succeeds.
This is where fantasy 1 ends and fantasy 2 begins.
Spike has been resouled and Buffy still hates her slayer duties. The SG are worried about her. They still despise Spike. The longing for freedom is too much for Buffy. Spike has a solution. He tells Buffy. At first, she is horrified, but then why not, after all? So she asks him to bite her and turn her. He does. (Somewhere in the world, a new slayer is called.) However, since Buffy was once the slayer, she doesn't turn out to be a really evil vamp or maybe her vamp impulses are easier to control. Spike and she both simply drink pig's blood from the fridge and go off into the world, sans responsibilities, and indulge their 'endless' love. They also might do a sort of 'Angel' thing but simply refer to it as "equalling the odds". (That really did sound like a fantasy.)
[>Re: Spike question for the creatively-minded (S6 spoilers, as usual) -- SugarTherapy, 10:42:27 08/28/02 Wed
Angel (he'd credible enough to the scoobies) comes along, takes a big whiff and asks him when he got a soul. There's been a number of times when vampires can "smell" the soul on Angel. Easy solution :) not that ME will think of it, most likely ... They don't seem to like to do things the easy way.
Sugar
[>Two questions, one theory -- TRM, 08:56:05 08/29/02 Thu
Let's try to kill two birds with one stone (though this requires a very loose interpretation of the text). Throughout the Spike/demon scenes, Spike keeps telling the demon that he wants to give Buffy what she deserves, and following the last season it seemed that what Buffy really needed was someone to support her and get her through the trying times (versus Xander, Willow, and Dawn who all had some personal problems and apparently extra-supernatural activities; or Spike whose support was somewhat conditional).
So in the end, Mr. Demon says: "Your soul is returned to you." Here's where the loose reading is really required. Perhaps, Spike inherits Tara's soul! The use of the possessive "your" by the demon implies ownership in the present/future sense, such as a shop keeper selling you groceries would say: "Here's your groceries." The word returned is not used in the sense antonymical to borrowed, but to left. So Tara's soul, which left not too long ago, has returned and become Spike's soul.
In which case, Willow would likely be the first to realise that Spike is re-souled, since she recognizes Tara in the Spara/Tike vampire/human. We can chalk this up to her familiarity with Tara or some magical link that she might have shared with Tara's soul.
With the Spara tike, we have an alternaTara to be Willow's would-be honey. Perhaps Spara tike can become female/male at will or through Anya's demon powers -- she did want to turn Spike female in Entropy. And Spara tike could be ME's witty metaphor for bisexuality because instead of having a mono-gendered character who is sexually attracted to both genders, they have a character who is both genders, but is sexually attracted to one.
Of course, we run into love-triangle land if we have Buffy/Willow/Spara tike, though if Spara tike is what Buffy needs, it would be likely that s/he would probably step away from the sexual relationship and provide much more of a friend-companion relationship that Tara provided in s6, thus leaving her/him completely to Willow (we've had a sense that Spike does like Willow in the past too, e.g., the sexual undertones of when he tried to bite her after he first got his chip).
As an afterthought, we can further add to ME's sexual palette and palate since Willow and Spara tike can be construed as a sort of ménage à deux et demi.
Current board
| More August 2002