August 2003 Archives

[> Dark Angel: The Ascent -- Cleanthes, 06:20:31 08/05/03 Tue

Buffy fans will know Angela Featherstone as the woman whose naked breasts are fondled by Eliza Dushku in 2001's Soul Survivors. Can't say as I much liked that movie, although Dushku always has loads of screen presence.

Earlier in her career, though. Featherstone did a straight-to-video film for the iffy Full Moon productions. In it she plays Veronica Iscariot, a vengeance demon escaped from a Miltonesque hell. The movie was made for peanuts in Rumania. Everything about it is odd. The Cheese Guy from `Restless` would fit right in. Featherstone owns the screen. It's impossible not to watch her every move as she smites sinners and falls in love with ... well, I won't spoil it.

I doubt it will make it to DVD, but big video stores will still have the tape to rent. A true guilty pleasure.

[> Echoing CW's "Starship Troopers" nod, and... -- Rob, 11:32:35 08/05/03 Tue

"The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle," which was completely torn apart by critics, and didn't fare well in the theatres, nor as a rental on video or DVD (I know this, because I was working at Blockbuster at the time it was released, and it was one of our least popular well-stocked titles of that month.). And yet, I thought the movie was completely delightful. Jason Alexander and Rene Russo were a wonderful Boris and Natasha, and the narrator, interacting with the characters was absolutely perfect. Perhaps not as funny or inventive as the "George of the Jungle" film, which, I believe, was better reviewed and received (incidentally, it is supremely better than the "Dudley Do-Right" film), but I can't help but love a film where Whoopi Goldberg appears playing the aptly-titled Judge Cameo, and Robert De Niro appears as Fearless Leader. I loved the central conceit of the film, that Rocky and Bullwinkle are literally sucked out of their cartoon world and planted in our modern "real" one. And hey, it makes me laugh. No, not Shakespeare, or even as great as the original cartoon series, the first season of which came out on DVD in the US today, but a fun film nonetheless.

Then again, I do have weird taste in movies. While this is probably the most recent example I can come up with of a movie I loved that everyone else hated, my all-time favorite-movie-that-only-I-seem-to-have-liked is "Howard the Duck," which I continue to maintain to this day, is kitschy fun. Yeah, the shift midway from ~~fish~~ duck-out-of-water comedy to dark-toned thriller is a bit uneven, and slightly ridiculous, since again, the main character is a frickin' duck, and the film itself is horribly dated and cheesy, yet it has a sweet-natured charm to it that it's hard for me to put my finger on. And it's fun to see so many familiar faces like Lea Thompson, Tim Robbins, and Jeffrey Jones, in such a lambasted film. I admit it...I loved "Howard the Duck."

Rob

[> [> Rocky and Bullwinkle on DVD!?!!! Thanks for the news! -- mamcu, 09:44:36 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> You're welcome!! -- Rob, 10:55:17 08/06/03 Wed

And it's well worth it. The set's great. Well, the video quality isn't amazing, even with restoration, but I doubt it could have looked much better. I assume that it at least it probably looks better than it did on its first run on TV. Comes with the first 26 episodes of the show, the first season, including the first 2 R&B serials (first one is 40 parts, the second is 16), and of course Fractured Fairy Tales, Mr. Peabody, Bullwinkle's Corner, Dudley Do-Right, etc. And the second season set's already in preparation! I'm not old enough to have seen the show in its original run, but I used to watch it every day religiously on Nickelodeon when I was growing up, so this is a nostalgic set for me, too!

Rob

[> [> [> [> In the original run... -- mamcu, 17:41:57 08/06/03 Wed

I had an old B&W set, rabbit ears, lots of horizontal scrolling...and it was wonderful! Puns, satire, quick wit---everything that's missing from a lot of jazzy special effects things that are around today.

Sigh, the good old days--but they didn't have Buffy!

[> [> Sorry, Rob--The Rocky and Bullwinkle Movie was awful -- cjl, 13:24:11 08/06/03 Wed

Liked the opening three minutes (the animated sequence), liked Bullwinkle's speech at Wottsamotta U., liked Randy Quaid debating with Bullwinkle at the White House--and that's it. (Oh yes, and Rene Russo was unbelievably hot as Natasha.) Everything else was like nails on a blackboard, especially Robert DeNiro as Fearless Leader.

In the R&B cartoons, you had eight jokes per minute, and even if 75% of them were awful, you laughed twice per minute. In the movie, you had SFX chases for 90% of the movie, with a few scattered jokes in between. I laughed twice. In 90 minutes. This is Hollywood--couldn't they have hired a gaggle of gag writers to barrage us with jokes, just like vintage R&B?

And where the frell was the famed "Alley Oop" maneuver?

I'm going to buy the first season Rocky and Bullwinkle DVD set, and try to completely erase the movie from my mind. And when I'm done with that, I'm going to buy the GOLDEN AGE OF WARNER BROTHERS CARTOONS (4-DVD set) in October and try to obliterate Space Jam.

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2003 - * Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures * Pt. I -- Kenny, 14:00:07 08/05/03 Tue

The first time I saw McG in an interview, I thought (based on his appearance and speech), "Oh my god, it's Joss Whedon's evil twin brother!"

That said, I don't really remember the first CA movie, but I dug the second one. I think my favorite part was how the Angels would figure things out. You start with them figuring out, based on the crime scene evidence, that the murderer was a local surfer. They keep doing that, until the point they have pieces of evidence that aren't even tenuously connected and explain to a befuddled Bosley how they were able to put the whole caper together based on these ludicrous facts. I was rolling. The movie is damn fun.

Plus it has that really cool guy from "Mulholland Drive".

[> Dare I say it? "The Postman" -- mamcu, 08:30:54 08/06/03 Wed

Yes, many problems--not a flawless film. As a former Postal Worker myself, I loved the irony. And some wonderful moments--all the mad-max warriors watching "Sound of Music."

Darla vs Trick -- JBone, 20:15:08 08/03/03 Sun

Competition. Competition is a beautiful thing. It makes us strive. It... makes us accomplish. Occasionally, it makes us kill. We all have the desire to win. Whether we're human...vampire...and whatever the hell you are, my brother. You got them spiny-looking head things. I ain't never seen that before.

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html

Two things that are taking me too long: Learning new software that would move the comments and voting to the same site. Learning the tango. Post ye comments here ye, here ye.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I'm still trying to recruit new members for the Tiebreaker Council. I'm not talking to those who have already volunteered and served, I'm speaking to those who vote everyday and haven't bothered to volunteer. I'd appreciate if some more of you stepped up to have your vote count more. Email me.

[> Darla! Darla, Darla, Darla! -- HonorH, 20:57:05 08/03/03 Sun

Trick was a poseur. Darla had more style in her little finger than he had in his entire wardrobe. (We'll just forget about her perverse little Catholic schoolgirl outfits first season--I think the Master liked them.) She lasted 400 years, some of which were spent playing Mama to the Fangsome Foursome. And she went out in the most heartbreaking way imaginable (before her mate went and screwed things up, but that wasn't her fault). Darla all the way!

[> I can't vote for Mr. Trick. -- pr10n, 21:44:36 08/03/03 Sun

I dreamt he was chasing me around a spaceship. I was a little goldfish, and the constant "I'm gonna eat you little fishy!" drove me to distrac... what's that you say? Trick is _NOT_ the Cat? My vote still goes for Darla.

[> [> Never noticed that before, but you're right! -- cjl (humming "Tongue-Tied"), 06:34:59 08/04/03 Mon

OK, you've just given me one of the opening salvos for the 2nd annual Lorne/Sweet Singing Smackdown:

K. Tood Freeman, Danny John-Jules and Hinton Battle, all in costume, singing "What Is Hip?"

[> [> [> did you say "annual"? -- anom, 08:25:47 08/04/03 Mon

Lorne vs. Sweet is gonna be annual? Awright! When's Smackdown II?

[> [> [> [> Hellzapoppin': Lorne/Sweet Smackdown II (December 2003) -- cjl, 08:41:56 08/04/03 Mon

Lorne vs. Sweet in front of a captive audience of 250,000 sentient beings at Fallen Angels Stadium in Hell.

Lorne wins, everybody goes home.

Lorne loses, everybody stays.

Forever.

[> [> [> [> [> so no stalemate this time around, eh? -- anom, 10:44:06 08/04/03 Mon

Although...depending on who's in that captive audience, maybe it's not such a great idea for some of them to get out. But that in itself could make an interesting plot element.

I'm looking forward to being part of the figurative kind of captive audience for the event.

[> [> [> O/T Backing Sweet I guess, but isn't there an obvious comeback? -- Celebaelin, 04:47:49 08/05/03 Tue

The theme tune to Red Dwarf is, as far as I can tell, based on a song called White Angel by Roy Wood's Wizzard although I'm having trouble tracking this down on the web. In later series this gets metalled up, so much the better. I personally wouldn't go the whole hog but once the point is made you could segue into Evil Eyes by Dio (sax. resembles, and then fades to, distorted electric guitar, would possibly need RJD to sing it unless Lorne has as yet untapped reserves of metalness).

[> Talk about a landslide... -- Tchaikovsky, 01:07:33 08/04/03 Mon

It's 16-0 to Darla- a good sign that people are watching Angel, when she really budded.

Oh, and Jay, if you don't have enough tiebreaker people, my e-mail's above.

[> Darla, she of the myriad faces and impressive cleavage -- cjl, 06:49:43 08/04/03 Mon

Becoming, Part I.

(Yes, I know the outfit gave Julie Benz a little "help," but it was still impressive.)

Strange--I was never impressed with Darla while she was on BtVS. I thought Julie Benz' range was limited, and while I acknowledged her importance to Angel's backstory, I was never particularly eager to see Darla pop up in flashbacks. I think the Fool for Love/Darla crossover finally tipped the scales, and I was happy as a clam to see the whole pregnancy plotline take flight in Angel Season 3. I'd say I was sad to see her go, but I get the feeling she'll be back as long as Julie is willing to make room in her schedule. Darla is eternal.

[> [> "Darla is eternal" -- Masq, 12:23:25 08/04/03 Mon

Yipee!

[> Re: Darla vs Trick -- ApOpHiS, 06:57:27 08/04/03 Mon

Darla was a powerful, charismatic leader who beat death twice, while Mr. Trick was a follower; he took his wages and is dead (yes, it's Name That Poem!). Trick's mercenary nature, while lucrative and relatively safe (things look bad, leave), meant he was unfocused and weak willed. Darla was nothing if not strong willed; she disobeyed the Master, after all, something most vampires didn't survive. So, in summary, let us look back to my ruling on Giles vs. Gavin: Darla is a pimp, while Trick is a ho (fun with irony).

[> 38-1? Jay, this is a slaughter. Put a stake in the vamp--he is DONE. -- cjl (asking the ref to stop the fight), 16:16:19 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> This IS kinda brutal, but there are only a few hours left - Jay -- (not expecting a comeback but leaving a crack open for one), 16:42:16 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> Trick got a bum rap -- Masq, 17:36:21 08/04/03 Mon

He was a very cool character. One of the first to come along. He was such a promising villain. Different in so many ways. Then they made him the Mayor's lackey, which went totally against Trick's character the way they had set him up.

Then they dusted him before his time, which I suspect was done for story reasons they had not previous planned on.

Taking off my hat for Mr. Trick.

They brough Darla back from the dust and into our hearts. Why not Trick?

[> [> [> [> I agree with Masq -- cjl (board suck-up), 19:35:51 08/04/03 Mon

"He was a very cool character."

Absolutely. He had style, intelligence, and a wicked cool sick sense of humor. He redefined "take out" food long before Buffy went to work at the Doublemeat, and he set up Slayerfest '98, which may have been an inspiration for JBone's apocalyptic elimination rounds.

"[T]hey made him the Mayor's lackey, which went totally against Trick's character the way they had set him up."

Well, not exactly. I thought Trick WAS in character going along with Wilkins' ambitions, because it would have been profitable for him. I thought he'd eventually betray the Mayor when it was convenient, bank his "evil lieutenant" booty in his numbered Swiss account, then high-tail it out of the 'Dale like a truly smart supervillain. Alas, he was staked too soon. Too bad. He would have been a great recurring character, and the possibilities of a team-up with Ethan Rayne or other Buffyverse "contract" players were barely hinted at in Band Candy. Trick must've had one hell of a rolodex.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree with Masq AND cjl -- Q, 09:50:34 08/05/03 Tue

1st season gave us The Master-- a truly orthodox, set in the old ways-- almost RELIGIOUS vampire.

2nd season gave us Spike-- the anti-Master. A live-for-the-moment, a lot less ritual and a lot more fun, do first--plan later, loose cannon, vampire.

3rd season gave us Trick-- completely different than EITHER Spike or the Master. He was very cool and collected, and what really intrigued me-- VERY technologically savvy. The idea of a truly "modern" vampire seemed brilliant to me, and I was so excited to see the threat he presented-- and how the dangereousness of Trick would differ from that of The Master, Spike/Dru, or Angel. I think it was one of the shows early examples of wasted opportunity and unused potential. Sigh.

[> [> [> [> because then we couldn't argue about how people of color are treated on the show -- Diana, 08:40:43 08/05/03 Tue

[> Too bad it's not Darla vs Tick! -- Rochefort, 21:56:34 08/05/03 Tue

[> [> Or The Tick vs. Daria -- d'Herblay, 00:23:13 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> The Tick beats both Darla and Daria. (Spooooooooooooon!) -- cjl, 06:41:02 08/06/03 Wed

Somewhat OT: Question concerning Buffy and Lolita -- Sheri, 08:39:29 08/04/03 Mon

I seem to recall people saying that the way Buffy looks the very first time Angel sees her (i.e. sucking on a lollypop) is supposed to be modeled after the way Lolita looks the first time Humbert sees her. But I was watching the Stanley Kubrick version (yuck to that one with Jeremy Irons) and I didn't see any lollypop licking scenes. So, were parts cut out of what I watched? Or is the lollypop in the book, but not in the movie? I know there's a picture of Lolita with heart shaped glasses and a lollypop on the cover of the DVD I've got, but neither of those seem to appear in the movie.

If anybody can let me know, that would be great. Thanks!

[> Re: Somewhat OT: Question concerning Buffy and Lolita -- Lumina, 18:37:39 08/04/03 Mon

The first time Humbert sees Lo she's sunbaking seductively in her back garden in a two piece swimsuit and non-heart shaped sunnies. The heart shaped glasses and lollipop featured prominently in the original advertising campaign ("how did they ever make a movie of Lolita"), so from the beginning the girl-sucking-on-lollipop image has been very closely associated with the film.

Fray #8 out this Wednesday -- Kenny, 09:00:39 08/04/03 Mon

Just a heads-up for you people needing their WhedonFix(tm). The last issue of the Fray comic, written by JW himself, hits stores Wednesday (Aug 6). If you haven't read previous issues, you might just want to wait for the trade paperback to come out. If you're really Jonesing for some Jossian goodness, however, the (incredibly long) wait for this issue is now over. If you've read Buffy comics in the past and been burned because they're not up to snuff, have no worries. This is quite a bit better, full of the Joss humor and tragedy we know and love.

If anyone hasn't read the book and wants a recap of what's happened, speak up. If no one beats me to it, I'll post a recap of issues 1-7 so you can have some idea what's going on if you decide to pick it up.

[> Love a recap of the Fray Series -- heywhynot, 12:30:58 08/04/03 Mon

Kenny I would be one who would like a recap of the Fray mini-series. From the bits of what I can pick up seems to be a very interesting tale especially given the events of season 7. Hopefully will pick it up in paperback version when it comes out.

[> [> Re: Love a recap of the Fray Series (spoilers for the comic) -- Kenny, 12:58:47 08/04/03 Mon

Previously, on "Joss Whedon's Fray":

Maleka Fray is a thief-for-hire in a not-really-post-apocolyptic(as there was never an apocolypse)-but-still-not-very-cheery future. Flying cars and ray guns type future. She's strong and agile, which makes her a good thief, but she doesn't really think about why.

The old city has been built over, with the rich living up in the towers and the poor living in the dark. Nobody's heard of vampires, but they are terrorized by Lurks, who really like it down there. As mutation is pretty rampant, it's just assumed they're products of science, not the supernatural, which is pretty much dead.

Enter a crazy man who tries to explain vampires to Maleka and ends up setting himself of fire. It's the last of the Watcher's Council (meaning, yes, it looks like they were restarted). She doesn't get much info from him. Instead, she's approached by a demon named Urkonn, who explains that she's the first slayer to be called in quite a while (the series gives an intentionally vague reason as to why). She doesn't take it take it seriously at first, but before long she realizes the threat the lurks present.

She's got an older sister, who's a cop. She also had a twin brother, Harth, but he died when she took him on a job. Not only was he killed, he was turned in the process. The twist is that, while Maleka got the physical aspects of the slayer, Harth ended up with the SlayerDreams. In some ways, he knows more about being a slayer than Maleka does. He's now the big bad, and he's currently in the process of opening a hellmouth-like plot device. Cue issue #8.

[> oooh good -- MsGiles, 05:38:49 08/05/03 Tue

I like Fray. I want the conclusion! My local comics shop guy keeps going 'Fray 8? Joss Whedon *expressive shrug*'
Here's a fansite with some pics and .. anaylsis ..

http://geocities.com/josswhedon_fray/webpage/introduction.html

I'm sure there are more.

Anyone else think Urkonn looks exactly like Giles around the chin area?

[> [> Re: oooh good -- Kenny, 12:04:34 08/05/03 Tue

After rewatching "A New Man" when the S4 DVDs came out, I had to run and find a picture of Urkonn. I was a bit disappointed that Demon!Giles and Urkonn didn't look exactly alike.

gnosticism on the radio today -- anom, 09:36:39 08/04/03 Mon

The Leonard Lopate Show on WNYC public radio will have a segment today (quite soon now, actually) in which "Karen King explains the history and belief system of gnosticism, What Is Gnosticism?" King is on the Harvard Divinity School faculty. You can hear the show by going to WNYC's website & clicking on either the AM or the FM button under "On The Air Now" at the right side of the screen (you may need to scroll over); the segment should be the 2nd in a show that starts (OK, started) at noon Eastern time. If you miss it live, you can hear it after ~5 pm today at the same site by clicking on "The Leonard Lopate Show" & then on the link for the segment.

[> Thanks for the heads up, Anom -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:26:47 08/04/03 Mon

[> Thanks! -- mamcu, 10:35:59 08/04/03 Mon

She recently wrote a book on that topic--wonder if anyone's read it?

Angel and losing his soul -- Diana, 10:41:15 08/04/03 Mon

I was thinking about what Bit said at the DC Meet Sunday in regards to the danger of Angel losing his soul because of Connor season 3. She has a very good point, but I think that point is addressed by "Awakening." Angel has grown as a person/vampire. No longer will a quickie with the object of his affection induce that moment of perfect happiness. Not even passionate Hallmark Hall of Fame love will do it. Instead before he could lose his soul, he had to straighten out all the crap that was his life. When Connor is born, he is having tons of crap going on. He doesn't lose his soul for those few times we see him actually happy with his son because of everything that is going on in the background.

Could even sex with Buffy break the curse any more? Angel's focus isn't quite so personal any more. He is a champion and how can he be happy when the world truly sucks? How can any of us?

Just a thought. Feel free to agree or disagree.

[> Re: Angel and losing his soul -- dub ;o), 11:26:20 08/04/03 Mon

Could even sex with Buffy break the curse any more? Angel's focus isn't quite so personal any more. He is a champion and how can he be happy when the world truly sucks? How can any of us?

Good point. Also, is there not still the faintest possibility that Willow may have restored his soul in such a way the last time that the curse is no longer effective? Oh, but in that case we wouldn't have Angelus to kick around anymore, and that would truly be a tragedy. They don't have to bring him back every season, but having the possibility that he'll appear is delicious. If the curse was gone ME would have to come up with another way to temporarily dispose of Angel's soul.

dub ;o)

[> [> I fully believe that Angel isn't cursed any more -- Diana, 11:59:25 08/04/03 Mon

When Willow recursed him, I was pretty sure it was no longer a vengeance spell. However, when Lilah said "Isn't it more fun when you handle her," in "Home," I knew either Willow didn't curse him or more likely Wolfram and Hart was offering to take care of that pesky problem and so did Angel, hence his reaction. Either way, the Angel that we saw in "Chosen" wasn't cursed. If he was, talk about acting out of character. When he offered to be in it "shoulder to shoulder" there was a lot of subtext (mostly not-so sub) going on. Would Angel be as happy as we saw him with Buffy IF the curse was still between them? I think it will be interesting what happens if Buffy finds out it is gone (say around sweeps perhaps).

There are plenty of ways to get Angelus out. I would be interested in seeing "Eternity" revisited to see how Angel nows sees this side of himself. There is also the way that the Mayor was going to desoul him in "Enemies." Thing is, other than Jasmine, no one is interested in Angelus. They all want Angel souled. If we see Angelus it will most likely be with the horrid wigs for him and whatshisface :-) That hopefully will also include the female half of the fanged four.

And how is the workshop going?

[> [> [> Re: I fully believe that Angel isn't cursed any more -- Rina, 13:24:36 08/04/03 Mon

I don't agree. I suspect that what Willow did was simply returned Angel's old soul - the one that was cursed.

[> [> [> [> Angel's soul wasn't cursed, Angelus/Angel himself was cursed -- Random, 09:12:17 08/05/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: I fully believe that Angel isn't cursed any more -- random_lurker, 03:48:29 08/06/03 Wed

I agree. When Angel and Company asked if she was sure she could do the spell, she said it was the first spell she learned, and she wasn't likely to forget it. And since we know the first time she gave him his soul back in season 2 it was still cursed, it stands to reason that she kept the curse intact this last time.

[> [> [> [> [> We do know that? How do you figure? -- Random, 10:13:43 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> i don't...here's why -- anom, 23:23:49 08/05/03 Tue

When Willow was doing the spell, something took over. (I thought it was the spirit of the Gypsy elder who invoked the curse in the 1st place--in fact, I thought we saw her during Willow's spell--but Masq's analysis says the q. has never been answered.) Willow may or may not have known how to do it w/out the happiness clause, but I don't think it was her doing it anymore, & I think the curse was reinstated w/the happiness clause intact.

(BTW, I'm not sure that link will go direct to the part of the page where this is discussed--you may need to scroll down.)

[> [> [> [> Not the second time -- Diana, 05:00:32 08/06/03 Wed

When she resouls him in "Orpheus" they make a point to show that NOTHING takes over her like it did in "Graduation Day." That was done to show how far Willow had come in her Witchcraft and she is decidedly different when she comes back for "Dirty Girls." Since this is the case, the nature of the spell may have changed.

Really depends on what the needs of future scripts. At this point, I think Wolfram and Hart saying they took care of the curse (much the same way in "Enemies" that the Mage pretends to take Angel's soul), but in reality it was taken care of by Willow would fit with the theme of corruption best.

[> [> [> [> [> my mistake--thought you were talking about "becoming" -- anom, 11:24:56 08/06/03 Wed

In that case, I don't think it's clear 1 way or the other. It'll be interesting to see if--& how--they clear that up in future episodes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> If she removed the curse, I think she would have mentioned it -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:31:21 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow is always conscious of what her magick does, not -- Diana, 11:48:25 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She recited the spell the same way, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:31:28 08/06/03 Wed

Any change to allow Angel true happiness would require an alteration of the words, which she would be aware of.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why? -- Diana, 20:08:06 08/06/03 Wed

There was nothing in the words about happiness. It is a vengeance spell because of intention. Vengeance drives the spell. Willow is so powerful that she could drive it with something else. She was there out of friendship, as illustrated by the hug (which may be why it was in the script). That could have just as well been used to drive it.

Just an idea. They showed some specific things with regards to Willow and Angel. Why?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do you have the exact translation of the spell? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:47:10 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Do you have the exact translation of the spell? -- Arethusa, 06:01:52 08/07/03 Thu

From Becoming:

Oz: Quod perditum est, invenietur.
Translation: What is lost, return.

Willow: Not dead... nor not of the living. Spirits of the interregnum,
I call.
Willow: Gods, bind him. Cast his heart from the... evil... realm.
Willow: Return. (pants) I call on... (pants)
Willow: Te implor, Doamne, nu ignora aceasta rugaminte.

Translation: I implore you, Lord, do not ignore this request.
Willow: Nici mort, nici al fiintei...

Translation: Neither dead, nor of the living...
Willow: Lasa orbita sa fie vasul care-i va transporta, sufletul la el.

Translation: Let this Orb be the vessel that will carry his soul to
him.
Willow: Asa sa fie! Asa sa fie! Acum!

Translation: So it shall be! So it shall be! Now!
Willow: Acum!

Translation: Now!

From Orpheus:

FRED
(reading) Quod perditum est invenietur...

WILLOW
(reading) Nisi mort. Nisi al finitei. Te invoc, spirit al trecerii...
WILLOW
Este scris aceasta putere este dreptul poporuil meu de a conduce.

WILLOW
Asa sa fie, acum.

The spell looks the same, although I didn't have complete copies of both spells. There are three factors of spells so far-physical items, words, and the state of mind of the spellcaster. We don't know for sure if the words were changed to eliminate the curse. The only item used in both spells were the spell itself and the Orb of Thesulah, which WIllow had. Did her emotional state change part of the spell? In Something Blue, Giles tells Willow that her emotional state can afffect spells.

Willow: I know. I-I've been off. I-I even tried to do a spell last night. To have my will done? I was hoping it would make me feel better. But it just went ka-blooey.

Giles: A spell? I don't think it's wise for you to be doing that alone right now. Your energy's too unfocused.

Giles seems to be saying that she needs to focus to complete a spell safely and successfully. There's no evidence that her emotional state will change the nature of the spell.

And in Lover's Walk, the magic shop owner tells Willow:

Willow: (flustered) No. Oh, I mean, yes! I... I know how to do a love spell, but this is more of an anti-love spell. Yeah. Uh, kind of a de-lusting. The supplies are basically the same, right?

Shopkeeper: (smiles) Basically. (starts to gather things) Although raven feathers tend to breed a little more discontent than canary. Let me just get some things...

This passage shows a spell's ingredients are changed to change the intent of the spell. There is still no evidence intent will or definitely will not change a part of a spell. Perhaps someone can think of another spell that will prove or disprove the theory.

Quotes from buffyworld.com.

[> Re: Angel and losing his soul -- LittleBit, 09:42:02 08/05/03 Tue

To expand on what I was talking about, in my opinion Angel would not be in danger of losing his soul while having sex with anyone, simply because of his awareness of that likelihood. That knowledge alone would prevent him from reaching a moment of "perfect contentment" or "pure happiness". However, when Connor was born, Angel's happiness with his son was, I think, a far greater concern, because he was not aware of that as a means to breaking the curse, and all it was supposed to take was a moment.

[> [> That makes sense. Sex doesn't have to always equal "pure happiness". -- WickedBuffy, 09:56:21 08/05/03 Tue

Of course, Angel is more champion than humanlike - so maybe he always did have pure joy with all the previous wenches he bedded. And still will 100% of the times he has it.

Which might be how it goes in Jossworld, but not necessarily in ours.

But his preknowledge of what would happen could be a very effective emotional condom.

[> [> Not sure if he could have even a moment, though -- Diana, 16:31:41 08/05/03 Tue

In order to have those moments, I have to concentrate on wiping all the other stuff that goes with having kids, like worrying about their future, worrying about the world they live in, worrying about their safety, worrying about what that smell is and whose turn is it this time. Angel is a much better worrier than I am. Even though Connor made him incredibly happy, I can't see him putting aside all that baggage that goes with being a father.

And he didn't get the benefit of Relaxin. Talk about an amazing hormone. [warm contented sighs as I remember how it felt]

Kids are just more complicated than the action it takes to make them. Harder to have a perfect anything with them.

Just my experience.

[> [> [> I could use some Relaxin now !! Thanks for the reminder. -- Ann, 17:04:28 08/05/03 Tue

My experience also. No perfect moments here as my husband has been out of town for 1 1/2 weeks and the kids have been very much themselves!!
I also remember the warm fuzzy sighs!! I used to sink back in my chair and enjoy. Thanks for the reminder Diana. I needed it.

Anger Much? -- Rina, 10:52:15 08/04/03 Mon

So, I'm supposed to judge from SMG's past resume of movies that she'll flop as a movie star? Gee, anger much! You're not even willing to give her a chance to improve her "resume"? Because I can think of a lot of stars (whether they started out in the movies, or began in television) who went from so-called "bad" movies, to first-class ones. But I guess you're unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance. You seem as if you're pissed by her decision to leave BUFFY and pursue a movie career.

[> Are you replying to someone? Cause the board as a whole has no opinion here -- Random, 21:23:09 08/04/03 Mon

[> Re: Anger Much yourself? -- grifter, 01:01:45 08/05/03 Tue

I can see where youĄre coming from, thereĄs a lot of SMG-bashing going on among the Buffy-fans, but certainly not here (or I just havenĄt seen it). There where some threads in which people discussed her possible future career, but certainly nobody was "unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance".

[> [> Re: Anger Much yourself? -- Rina, 10:19:47 08/05/03 Tue

I'm afraid that I've read a good number of SMG bashing posts on this forum. Mind you, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I've noticed that ever since SMG decided to renew her BUFFY contract, there seemed to be some kind of backlash against SMG that rears its ugly head a little too often. I tried to ignore it at first, but it's becoming increasingly hard as more of these backlash posts are popping up.

[> [> [> Then please respond to them, instead of indicting the whole board by initiating a thread... -- Random, 12:39:48 08/05/03 Tue

That speaks directly to the board at large with the 2nd person personal pronoun:

So, I'm supposed to judge from SMG's past resume of movies that she'll flop as a movie star? Gee, anger much! You're not even willing to give her a chance to improve her "resume"? Because I can think of a lot of stars (whether they started out in the movies, or began in television) who went from so-called "bad" movies, to first-class ones. But I guess you're unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance. You seem as if you're pissed by her decision to leave BUFFY and pursue a movie career.

I personally find it rather discomfiting to be accused of stuff I never did...especially since I don't give a damn about SMG's career outside of Buffy anyway, for good or bad. It's not the sort of behaviour that makes for productive posting.

~Random

[> [> [> [> Or... -- ponygirl, 13:34:38 08/05/03 Tue

Maybe write in a more general way, like "I believe I've noticed a trend of SMG bashing and it bothers me because..." or perhaps in letter style to a non-specific amalgam of all that upsets you, "Dear SMG-hating stuck-in-the-past freak, this is why you and all your like-minded gaucho pants-wearing [sorry- my issue not yours] friends get stuck in my craw." Nothing wrong with a good rant, just warn a gal so I can duck and cover. ;)

[> [> [> [> Excuse Me? -- Rina, 14:52:50 08/05/03 Tue

Why do I have to read messages like these? Did I indict the entire board? NO. I merely stated that I have read SMG bashing on this board. I didn't state that every member on this bashed SMG.

[> [> [> [> [> trying to understand -- sdev, 15:03:03 08/05/03 Tue

You used a very general and inclusive pronoun "you're" two times in your original post. Obviously by the current post you have indicated that you did not mean it as a general indictment, but I can see where it might be misunderstood.

Was there some post in particuliar that upset you? Can we discuss that?

[> [> [> [> [> Let's try this again and see if you can understand what I'm getting at.. -- Random, 15:44:39 08/05/03 Tue

You did not in any way say that it was only some posts in your original post. I was merely noting that you started a thread in an inflammatory manner. As sdev points out, you use the personal pronoun "you" without establishing an antecedent. As such, since there was no obvious referent from preceding post (since you started a thread with this one), I had no choice but to assume you were lashing out at the board as a whole. My reply wasn't a reply to your second post, it was observing that if you hadn't started with an inflammatory post in the first place, you wouldn't need to backpedal. For example: "Gee, anger much! You're not even willing to give her a chance to improve her "resume"?" Who? Anyone who happens to read your post? "But I guess you're unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance. You seem as if you're pissed by her decision to leave BUFFY and pursue a movie career." We do? Again, you expressed your dissatisfaction in the broadest possible terms, not bothering to aim at the proper targets. I was forced to conclude that you intended it as an indictment of the board as a whole, much as you indicted us a while back for not liking S7, which many of us did. As such, I felt a need to tell you that it was unfair and perhaps (unless you're trollish) you could either respond directly to such a post or phrase your accusations in such a way as to not include innocent bystanders. I didn't attack you, nor did I write just to hear the keys on my keyboard clacking. If you feel a need to get upset because I point out what was patently obvious about the first post, then there's nothing I can do except assume you deliberately intended to incite and react appropriately. If you can accept a valid observation, such as ponygirl's, Bit's, or sdev's observations, then everything's cool.

[> [> [> Actually, I wasn't aware of being angry at all -- LittleBit, 13:12:18 08/05/03 Tue

I've seen many posts on this board expressing opinions about a very wide variety of subjects some of which I agree with and others with which I don't. However, I have yet to consider that because the posters in those threads express those opinions they must be speaking for the board as a whole. If I disagree strongly enough to want to argue their points (Note: not to say they're 'wrong' or 'mean') I make my own case in response to theirs.

To start threads accusing the entire board of holding an opinion you don't happen to agree with or like is counterproductive in that there is no dialogue produced.

The recent posts that I saw about SMG's career (and I may not have seen them all) were about her choices of movies and whether or not these choices were going to help her to become a 'movie star', but not that she didn't have the talent to do so. I believe it is as much the right of a poster to state an opinion, if s/he wishes about those choices, as it is to critique the work of the actor/actress or the quality of the film itself. This is not the same as bashing.

And finally, I've been an SMG supporter, liking her performance, even when others were expressing disappointment with it. I love the show. I wish it weren't over. But I don't believe the show is over solely because SMG decided that seven years was enough. I understand that decision. A post like this is merely inflammatory, and makes few if any points that can be discussed, since I don't see it as a defense of SMG as much as an attack on the board in general.

I would like to read a post that would generate or at least encourage a discussion.

'Bit

[> [> [> [> Beguile the Beguine -- fresne, 13:47:22 08/05/03 Tue

I also am far from being angry. It looks like I may finally get rid of the Technical Architecture (version 15 and counting) and thereís a Fred Astaire marathon on today, which I am taping thus filling that Broadway Melody of 1940 sized gap in my life. The Thief and Yolanda, Iím not so sure about. That movieís just wack. Wackety wack. So, wack that, okay there is this great Technicolor dream sequence with ribbons of cloth, but wack all the same.

SMG is much cooler and I certainly hope for her a much brighter future than whosit from Yolanda. Not Fred, the chick. Though Fredís career could certainly bear emulation. Except the bit where he and his sister were upstaged by trained seals on their vaudeville circuit.

Anyway, I am looking forward to Romantic Comedy, enjoyed Simply Irresistible (psst, I have a copy) and Scooby Doo. Cruel Intentions was cruel and plus, cool corsetry.

So, in an arm and arm amity and peace and fellowship and sistership and something, something, something, I say hey there to all and I wish all a Begin the Beguine tropic splendor of a day.

[> [> [> [> [> Ahhh, Fred! (with a p.s. to Rina) -- Marie, 03:44:05 08/06/03 Wed

I remember, years ago BBC2 also showed all his films, in order, and I taped all the dance sequences, one by one. Then my twin bought me most of the films for our mmmth birthday. Just watching Fred and Ginger dance to 'Let's face the Music' makes my romantic heart go pitty-pat! (Though that may be my hormones at the moment!)

M

and p.s. to Rina, if she reads this - nobody's trying to inflame you, sweetie, but I also read your original post and thought you'd started a new thread by mistake! If you re-read your post and some of the answers, I'm sure you'll see what people mean.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, la belle, the perfectly swell -- fresne, 09:30:06 08/06/03 Wed

Oh, God, yes, Letís Face the Music and Dance.

My housemate and I burned a CD with like five versions of the song on it.

There may be trouble ahead
But while thereís moonlight
And music and love and romance
Letís face the music and dance.

That little playlet, where Fredís dancing to seduce Ginger into wanting to live again. At first, sheís so passive and then as the music moves her, she begins to bend and swirl skirts on her own. Until that wonderful, final, over the top kick.

Random factoid that Iím sure you know, but I canít resist. In that scene, Gingerís sleeves were weighted with lead weights, to get that perfect fall, and in the first filming, her sleeve wacked Fred in the head. Of course, they kept dancing, cause hey, professionals. However, all the subsequent takes just werenít quite as good, so that is the take that they used.

So, at the get together next year, weíre bringing some musicals right?

And I must confess that I too have a Fred dances tape. A bit more haphazard as I compiled it via tape/broadcast over time. Excellent, for when Iím feeling depressed. Get in a little rapid Slue Foot or stylish Top Hat or sigh, Night and Day. I donít smoke, but hand me a cigarette.

fresne ń waiting, waiting, waiting for Fred DVDs with dance analysis.

[> [> [> [> Probably Going to Get Kicked Off -- Rina, 15:00:39 08/05/03 Tue

I'm probably going to get kicked off this board eventually, so here it is:

AGAIN, I didn't accuse the ENTIRE BOARD of SMG-bashing. And I wish people would stop accusing me of something I didn't do. Again, I stated that I have read SMG-bashing messages on this board. I didn't state that everyone posted them. Jeez!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Probably Going to Get Kicked Off -- fidhle, 15:37:49 08/05/03 Tue

Don't leave. I think the mistake you made was to post what appears to be a response to a specific post as a new message thread. Thus, the pronouns "you" and "your" which, I think, refer to the poster or posters to whom you are responding, sound like you are criticising the entire board. You should have made your post as a response to a specific post, rather than posting it as a new message.

Remember we need to have respect for all of the posters to avoid things like the recent unpleasantness on the board. JMHO.

Fid.

[> [> [> [> [> Rina -- Rufus, 21:30:39 08/05/03 Tue

You're post comes out of nowhere, is accusatory and doesn't reference a specific post. Basically it looks like an invitation to a pissing contest. If you think there is some anti-SMG sentiment going on here it would make more sense to post in a thread where there is some actual anti-SMG posts going on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rina -- Rina, 10:31:03 08/06/03 Wed

[You're post comes out of nowhere, is accusatory and doesn't reference a specific post. Basically it looks like an invitation to a pissing contest. If you think there is some anti-SMG sentiment going on here it would make more sense to post in a thread where there is some actual anti-SMG posts going on.]

I read an anti-SMG post on this board and pointed it out. Someone stated that there were no anti-SMG posts on this board. I corrected that person and stated that I have read anti-SMG posts on this board. And now, everyone is pissing on me. And by the way, I posted my original message as a repsonse. For some reason, the message popped up as a new message, instead of a response. Please spare me the lecture. Thank you.

[> you who? -- anom, 22:01:27 08/05/03 Tue

When I read this, I just figured it was meant as a reply in another thread & was posted as a new one by mistake. But as it is, the "you" is entirely ambiguous, & given the tone of the post, I can certainly understand people reading it & thinking "Who, me? Why's she pissed at me?"

So who did you (Rina, that is--just to make sure it's clear) actually mean by "you"? In a new thread coming out of nowhere, who did you expect we'd think you meant by "you"? Was it a mistake (it happens, just today I replied to myself w/the same message over again), or did you mean to start a new thread? Your replies seem very defensive, & they don't clear up the question.

[> [> You Know What? -- Rina, 10:33:09 08/06/03 Wed

Please do me a favor and drop me from this board. I'm getting sick of all of these sanctimonious crap about my attitude. Fuck ALL OF YOU!

[> [> [> Okay, now I'm sorry I responded to you in your other thread...A mistake I will not make again. -- Rob, 10:39:06 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> i was trying to say i understood how the misunderstanding could've happened... -- anom, 11:20:36 08/06/03 Wed

...& give you a chance to let us know what you intended. I didn't give you any crap about your "attitude." I see in another of your replies that you say you did mean the original post as a reply to another, but you don't clarify what was said in that other post. I still don't know who the person you were correcting was, or what they said that you were replying to. Your "Anger much?" post doesn't sound like a reply to just a statement that there aren't any anti-SMG posts on the board, so there's no context for understanding what you say in it.

You say in your reply to Rufus, "For some reason, the message popped up as a new message, instead of a response." The reason is that you put your reply in the reply space at the bottom of the main board rather than the one for the post you meant to reply to. It's been known to happen, but usually the poster follows it w/a post saying, "Whoops, the above post belongs in x thread after y post." Then we can get that context & have some idea what you're talking about. I for one can't keep up w/all the posts on the board & find quoting or at least a reference to whose post you're responding to helpful.

It's not up to me to drop you from the board. People hardly ever get kicked off, either. If you don't want to post to or read the board anymore, that's up to you.

[> [> [> This is a test, right? -- dub ;o), 12:53:56 08/06/03 Wed

Y'know, after what we've all just been through here recently, I'd think you would know by now that no one just gets "dropped" from this board. Not without a heck of a lot of soul-searching, discussion, and yes, argument about it. And all that is in public, right here for all to see.

So, I'm thinkin', you've been around here for a while. You must know this. Why are you taunting Masq to ban you? Just to see if she finally will? This is a test, right? Ha!

dub ;o)

Thinking out loud... -- ZachsMind, 11:36:01 08/04/03 Mon

One of my dream plotlines for a season seven episode was that Xander, Willow, Giles & Buffy of season seven get mystically trapped in a pocket dimension that consists of their season one-three counterparts (played by lookalikes in a campy melodramatic way) and at first they assume it an illusion of some kind, but as they seek a means of escape they find that it's painfully and dangerously real - an actual self-contained pocket dimension, roughly the size of Sunnydale itself, created before any of them were born. Something the pocketD Giles refers to at one point as a "stunted offshoot from the fractal repeater dimensions" and also a "false terminus shard" but that _our_ Giles waves off as poppycock.

The reasons are left kinda vague, but it is hinted that it's waiting for someone's death. I'd want the audience to contemplate who it might be intended for, and whether or not it'd ever get used. And whether or not some of the entities discovered in there are already inhabitants being tortured for eternity, or just part of the pocketD's disturbing surreality. The idea would also be played at, that this is where Buffy was for at least part of her after life, and that she might go back there.

I also couldn't decide if Tara or Dawn would appear there, or other post season three characters. Or whether there would be Angel, Angelus, or both simultaneously.

It's a fanfic idea I've batted around in my head but has yet to coalesce, because I wanted to introduce the idea without adversely going against canon. The idea is that this pocketD replays aspects of seasons one through three over and over again, but not always in order. Different variables all exist simultaneously in a way that makes twisted sense within itself but not in the normal continuity. The season seven counterparts would interact with their likenesses in the pocketD, and would have to work with them to accomplish something inside the pocketD in order to find a way out.

The working title was "Private Little Hell" - an homage to STOS's "Private Little War" where the starship Enterprise visits a more primitive planet and learns a few things about mutual cultural interference. I never finished it but I might go back to the idea some day.

[> This fascinating, Zach! Write it! -- Scroll, 19:51:23 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> Gee thanks... -- ZachsMind, 21:34:15 08/04/03 Mon

[> Agree with Scroll. Write it! -- HonorH, 08:14:49 08/05/03 Tue

Could be really good.

To all my DC meet buds... -- Rob, 13:04:57 08/04/03 Mon

I arrived home about an hour ago, and I just wanted to tell everybody again what a fantastic time I had. It was so amazing to meet and hang out with all you guys. I had such a terrific weekend...and now I'm even more excited about next year's Gathering. And hey, I finally got to see the Hamster Dance!!! :o) :o) :o)

Oh, and to Ran and Bit, my hotel "slumber party" friends, I hope you had (or, as I'm writing, this, perhaps still are having) a really safe, enjoyable ride to your respective homes.

*sigh* Tonight will be the first time in 3 days that RanBitRob will have to sign into chat as separate units.

Rob

[> Hamster Dance -- Diana, 14:42:50 08/04/03 Mon

My youngest daughter adores it and we have seen it at least a dozen times today. It is hard to turn down a two year old when she says "Again eeee-die-dee-do." She even does the Angel dance now.

I had a great time and it was sooooo good for me. Thanks a bunch guys. I made it home in THREE hours, listening to OMWF the entire time. Can't wait for the next one.

So how bad was Taboo?

[> [> *shivers* Bad. Very Bad. -- Rob, 16:16:25 08/04/03 Mon

...although we did have quite a fun time trying to deconstruct the names of the characters, after the film was over, in an attempt to dredge any depth that we could from this otherwise completely worthless (verging on wretched, or, um, maybe not verging) hour-and-a-half of celluloid.

Oh, but it was almost sorta kinda worth it to see Amber Benson play a complete lush.

Rob

[> [> Oh, and P.S. to Di... -- Rob, 16:21:49 08/04/03 Mon

I didn't realize you had such a long drive home or I would've wished you a belated safe trip, too!

Rob

P.S. Chocolate. Ice. Cream. ;o)

[> [> [> [blushing] -- Diana, 17:28:33 08/04/03 Mon

See the lengths I am willing to go to see my buds?

And I figured what dance was missing, which is incredibly stupid of me to miss, since I AM Buffy while under the spell in "The Witch." I'm sure my buds will verify this for those in doubt.

Still think Dawn's anchoives from CwDP would have been nice, too. I have seen that thing waaaaaaaay too much today. Or from "Five-by-Five" Faith's dance with the cops. An awesome, incredibly creative product nonetheless. I wish I could do that. I will just have to content myself with writing sex scenes that have no actual sex in them.

[smoochies]

[> It was lots of fun -- Random, 21:36:38 08/04/03 Mon

Little or no sleep, awful, awful movies, tight squeezes...oh hell, it was great. I loved meeting everyone, and had the time of my life. Look forward to doing it again real soon. Hugs to everyone.

~ Random

[> [> Not only was it lots of fun -- LittleBit, 09:36:11 08/05/03 Tue

But I have the ~~blackmail~~ pictures to prove it!

Just Wondering (OT) -- jbb, 17:48:36 08/04/03 Mon

Is anybody watching "dead like me" on Showtime. For me, it's lessening the withdrawal from BtVS. In a lot of ways it reminds me of S1, with uneven but mostly excellent writing and great performances from a young and mostly unheard of lead actress. Give it a try if you haven't already.

[> *sniffle* I don't get that show here. -- Rufus, 17:57:14 08/04/03 Mon

Maybe in time they will bring it here so I can see what all the fuss is about.

[> Re: "Dead like me" on Showtime is a good cure for those summertime, Buffy's over blues -- Brian, 20:41:13 08/04/03 Mon

And for those folks who need a silly TV fix, try Nip/Tuck, a very over-the-top drama that manages to redeem itself each week just when you thought it was "hopper" bound.

[> Dead Like Me is wonderfull, yeah -- grifter, 00:55:50 08/05/03 Tue

I love the very dry humor of the lead character, and the supporting cast (even the Happy Time-woman) grow on you.

Buffy it is not, but very good tv anyway.

Doyle vs Quentin -- JBone, 20:05:33 08/04/03 Mon

Well, that's the thing, you see. Glory isn't a demon... She's a god.

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html

yesterday's results

This has been a pretty good night for me. Three hours of American Chopper on Discovery and I get to bring back Doyle. Nice. Oh, and post comments here. Or email me.

[> Please... -- Alison, 20:10:20 08/04/03 Mon

Not only is Doyle stronger than Quentin, but he had a spark of humanity for all his half-demoness that Quentin lacked. And at least Doyle got incinerated in a respectable way.

[> Doyle. -- HonorH, 20:15:49 08/04/03 Mon

Doyle would figure some way to make this a no-holds-barred drinking contest. Quentin wouldn't have a prayer.

[> A study in contrasts -- cjl, 20:32:42 08/04/03 Mon

Doyle: a former schoolteacher, pressed into the service of Powers he barely understood and tormented by a demonic nature he hated. Quentin: master of all he surveyed, self-assured to the point of arrogance, secure in the belief that he knew everything he needed to know to fight the dark forces surrounding him. Doyle, working with his friends, found the courage he thought he never had and died a hero; Quentin, tight-lipped, sclerotic bureaucrat, moved too late, and died a fool. Doyle.

[> Re: Doyle vs Quentin -- ApOpHiS, 20:46:19 08/04/03 Mon

Ahh, Doyle. Of all the Irish half-demons I've known, he was the best. In a physical match, Doyle would first be reluctant to utilize his demonic nature, but Travers' smug attitude would goad him into delivering a good old-fashioned Finnian/Brachen ass-kicking. However, I agree with HonorH in that Doyle would find a way to turn the match into a drinking contest. Choose the battlefield and make your enemy come to it; Doyle knows his Sun Tzu.

[> Re: Doyle vs Quentin -- Anneth, 22:15:55 08/04/03 Mon

Mr. Green-pokey-faced-sneezy-half-demon-man wins on principle. Cordy never woulda kissed Quentin, for crissakes!

[> Doyle -- KdS, 03:03:20 08/05/03 Tue

Poor Doyle - one of several people whose punishment was out of all proportion to his crimes, which were mainly of omission.

I had some sympathy for Quentin when I thought he was a lone low-ranking idealist in an utterly corrupted organisation. Then, of course, it turned out he was the corruption. Hope Doyle beats the crap out of him.

[> Re: Doyle vs Quentin -- Celebaelin, 03:41:50 08/05/03 Tue

In a contest more about psychology than physicality and amidst the gasps of the audience Doyle collapses in the fourth screaming something about 'prolifatorum crucimentum' or some such. The not so cute QT calmly walks over, places some sort of pre-constructed fetish about Doyle's neck and it's all over, with one of the biggest anti-clamaxes yet seen. Travers explains in an unexpected post bout victory interview that 'it was an exhibition regarding the use of power'. A large number of smug Watchers Council survivors show up later for the celebration with copies of the Council's Standard Proceedure (revisited and revised 1971 by you know who) and strange little cases containing hypodermics. Amidst allegations of a fix Doyle supporters request an inquiry/re-match.

Current board | More August 2003