August 2004 posts
where can i download
the "previously on angel" things from? -- ghady,
12:56:30 08/13/04 Fri
bcs i just pre-ordered the R1 AS4 on amazon,which doesnt include
the previouslies, and i plan on showing some episodes to friends,
but i REALLY don't feel like explaining everything. so.. does
anyone know?
Replies:
[> Re: where can i download the "previously on angel"
things from? -- Ames, 20:14:16 08/13/04 Fri
They are only available on the DVDs from other regions. I've looked
for some other source, but haven't found one. Now I've started
a project to record my own from the broadcast shows. Not easy
to integrate with the DVDs unfortunately. :-(
[> [> an (propably illegal) idea -- littletrigger,
03:55:20 08/15/04 Sun
how about setting up some kind of exchange - region2 people could
provide the "previously on"s and the region1 people
could provide the commentaries that region2 is missing (in mp3
format or something)?
lt
The war for good vs. evil
is never ending?(spec. for Buffy and Angel) -- megaslayer,
10:37:21 08/13/04 Fri
As Powerful as Wolfram and hart have become the time will come
when they will fall and a new power arises. The thing about empires
as great as they are they won't last forever. The first evil is
probably the only entity that will probably never be destroyed.
Angel and his crew diminished their power on earth even for a
little while and who knows how much of the army is taken out.
Buffy has a new army forming to be a real threat to evil on earth.
The battle between good and evil will never end.
Essay Idea--should I go through
with it? -- Majin Gojira, 15:49:54 08/13/04 Fri
Earlier today I had a thought of an essay to write that may even
be applicable to the Main Site. However, I don't have that much
time, so I'd like to know if there is actual interest in it before
I begin (I should be writing it over vacation if anytime).
The Subject: An Athiest Perspective of the Buffyverse.
In the "Religion" section, there are dosiers on many
major relgions (Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca). So, I pondered
if anyone considered a Non-Religious, or Religion-Less view of
the Buffyverse worthy of discussion.
Replies:
[> Re: Essay Idea--should I go through with it? -- Loki,
20:47:45 08/13/04 Fri
Sounds like an interesting topic (I am an atheist of some stripe),
though you should probably note it's ath e i st :) (It tends to
piss off the more militant atheists to have it misspelled for
some reason).
[> Sounds good to me-- go for it if you have the chance!
-- OnM, 15:45:13 08/14/04 Sat
And take your time-- after all, the pressure's sorta off, what
with the sitch being the way it is re: new Whendonverse shows.
I have often wondered if the many people who would describe themselves
as religious, and who see religious meaning in Whedon's creations,
could have created the same universe if they themselves
had attempted to write it.
In other words, does Whedon's professed atheism allow him to 'step
outside' conventional religious belief structures in a way that
allows him to address the issues those structures concern themselves
with, without inevitably veering towards a more restrictive rather
than inclusive viewpoint?
[> [> Actually, the more I think about the essay
-- Majin Gojira, 09:45:46 08/15/04 Sun
The more I realize how Humanist his shows are. Humanism is a form
of Atheism that basically stresses the importance of human dignity,
worth and the capacity for Self-Realization without reliance on
Supernatural entities. Yes, I shall go through with the essay!
May take me a while, but It shall be done!
[> [> [> Re: Actually, the more I think about the
essay -- Loki, 17:59:49 08/15/04 Sun
Not to nitpick, but technically it'd be secular humanism.
The creative failures of
genre television in comparison to the Whedonverse -- Maryoku,
17:19:21 08/13/04 Fri
This coming fall season, The WB will still have two genre television
shows airing: Smallville, and Charmed.
I'd like to discuss where these shows have failed, how they could
become better, and what they would have been capable of had they
had the Whedon touch.
Opinions on other genre shows also appreciated.
In general, I feel that genre shows have the highest disparity
between their potential for greatness and the actual results.
Why is this? Why are so few shows willing or able to engage in
the practices that made the Whedon troika so great?
Replies:
[> Re: The creative failures of genre television in comparison
to the Whedonverse -- dub ;o), 20:24:38 08/13/04 Fri
Why are so few shows willing or able to engage in the practices
that made the Whedon troika so great?
Well, is it because they stay on the air longer by steadfastly
refusing to rise to the level of ME shows? Presumably these "failures"
have enough mainstream audience base to keep them in production.
Not sayin' this is a good thing...
;o)
[> [> One difference that stands out to me... --
AngelVSAngelus, 23:00:51 08/13/04 Fri
is the fact that Whedon's shows weren't ABOUT the fantastic elements
of otherworldly story, but rather used those elements as a vehicle
for the ideas that served as the shows' actual focus.
Buffy started about growing up and the pain of adolesence. It
communicated this through vampires, demons, and mystical events,
and later blossomed into even more expansive thematic territory.
Angel and Firefly used the same manner of fantasy elements to
tell a human story. What's Smallville ABOUT? Superman in his youth.
What's Charmed ABOUT? Man I won't even digify the vapidity of
that show with a sarcastic or ironic answer to that question.
[> My answers. -- SS, 17:27:48 08/14/04 Sat
"Why is this? Why are so few shows willing or able to engage
in the practices that made the Whedon troika so great?"
In my thirty two years of being a couch potato, I have come up
with the following theories.
1) Very contrary to what television likes to say about itself,
Television is really not about educating us. Television is also
really not even about entertaining us. It is meant to whet our
appetites for whatever commercial goods are sold in it ads. We
think of TV as being shows with commercials. I think that the
deciding people in television think that television is commercials
with shows.
The ugly truth that I have come to believe is that somewhere along
the line, a very long time ago, even before I was born, those
deciding people learned that giving people shows that could honestly
teach people something, make their lives more functional, etc
was bad for the aim of (subtly) focusing the audiences attention
on the advertisements. Make the people think too hard, and they
won't be able to think about Uncle Bubba's Crispy Snax, etc. (With
apologies if there actually is an Uncle Bubba...)
2) Those deciding people occasionally get shows happy looking
enough for their ads that they really fall in love in those shows
and they then will do anything to keep them going. No promotional
opportunities will be denied them, no scheduling choices will
be denied them....the marketing people will spin anything that
is said about them good or bad to twist it into being that this
show is so wonderful...That is why certain shows that are really
bad get such very good press. An example? 7th Heaven. If you read
between the lines, that show is a little disturbed. Even my mother,
who hates reading into shows, thinks so. (Why is it disturbed?
Because every single last time they have ever had a real issue
come onto that show, they have shown it resolved in the most exploitive
and unrealistic way possible) From my way of thinking that show
could be the most unhealthy show on TV. But yet it sells the stuff
on its ads so its network thinks it is the best thing going. (And
that is not WB bashing. Any other network does and would do the
same thing. Months ago in fact, I was upset because after being
the best quality network on television for so long, WB seemed
for the first time to start slipping. For years I thought the
WB was the best thing to hit TV since I was born.)
3) This is my final theory and this is the worst of it. This is
where shows like Charmed come in. 7th Heaven, the golden boy of
the WB is produced by Aaron Spelling. The same Aaron Spelling
that gave the world Dynasty and Fantasy Island (on ABC) in the
eighties, Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place (on Fox) in the
nineties, and also Charmed. (Now for a disclaimer. I have spent
less than five days in my entire life in California, let alone
ever really been to Hollywood. I have called this my theory, and
that is what this is, a theory. I have no proof of this in any
way.) But I can't believe that the WB would have touched let alone
kept Charmed without 7th Heaven. (That is also not WB bashing,
my opinion is that CSI : Miami wouldn't exist without CSI, and
that Law & Order : Criminal Intent wouldn't exist without L&O or
L&O SVU. Etc.) But AngelVSAngelus is right. Man, that Charmed
is a vapid show.
I would comment on Smallville, but I have seen less than five
whole episodes. For a long time I kept hoping that Charmed would
get better, so I kept watching.
What can be done about it?
Thank God for when the Whedons of the world show up(my personal
opinion is that Gregory Widen, creator of Highlander, and Gene
Roddenberry of Star Trek were former Whedons of the world.)
If you have a Nielsen box, watch the quality shows when they come.
But unfortunately that is about it for my ideas..oh except for
turning the TV off.
I hope this reply isn't too cynical.
I really would like to know what other people think on this subject
too.
:)
SS.
[> Couldn't it simply be that Whedon is a good writer?
-- Finn Mac Cool, 22:06:03 08/14/04 Sat
Give creative control over to a good writer, and you'll probably
have a good show. I know, I know: there were a lot of other writers
at Mutant Enemy, but, in their interviews, they've openly admitted
that Joss comes up with many of the important plot points and
often rewrites sections of their scripts. Plus, I know of at least
two who have stated that their reason for joining ME was because
they admired the work Joss had done. So, can't the reason Buffy,
Angel, and Firefly were better (at least in our opinion) than
other genre shows be because the guy in charge was a better writer?
P.S. I had to go back and change most of the verbs in this post
to the past tense. That really drove it home: Buffy, Angel, Firefly,
and Mutant Enemy as we know it are all gone.
::goes into a corner to cry::
Angel entering Kate's apt.
after suicide attempt -- Loki, 20:44:29 08/13/04 Fri
I apologize in advance if this has been done ad nauseum, and also
if it will be explained later in the series (I'm only through
season 2 so far).
I am just curious about Angel being granted permission to enter
Kate's apartment to save her life without her consent. Did she
make some offhand remark earlier in the series that would count
as an invitation? Is it because the PTB are in a very real conflict
with Wolfram & Hart, and they wanted Kate alive, or it a Deux
ex trick to write themselves out of a corner?
If there are other threads on this, plesae point me to them; I
haven't figured out if this board is searchable.
P.S. This is a really shiny place you have; intelligent discussion
and respectful people.
Replies:
[> Re: Angel entering Kate's apt. after suicide attempt
-- Kennu, 11:30:26 08/14/04 Sat
I believe you'll get differing views on this. One thing that is
clear is that Angel was never invited in. They added dialogue
in Kate's last scene ever (sniff) to drive that point home. Some
(most?) people believe that the TPTB dropped the invite clause
this once to encourage Angel, as he had finally put himself back
on the right track.
Personally, I think Kate was dead, so the invititation thing didn't
apply. In this case, TPTB intervened in actually bringing her
back to life. While it has the same basic effect as the other
theory, this is much more powerful to me. Also, I think that would
have a much more profound effect on Kate.
Either way, it ties in nicely with "The Trial." I believe
this is Angel's actual payoff in trying to save Darla. Because
of circumstances she couldn't benefit from his sacrifices, whereas
Kate could. TPTB owed him. It's especially beautiful, because
through that one act he was able to help two people (sidenote:
"The Trial" is where Darla mentions her love of Jasmine
in the Hyperion garden...neat little coincidence).
[> [> Re: Angel entering Kate's apt. after suicide attempt
-- Loki, 15:31:03 08/14/04 Sat
I like the idea of the PTB repaying him for his efforts to save
Darla by saving Kate. Assuming she was dead, shouldn't he have
been expelled from her apartment when she revived, though?
[> [> [> Re: Angel entering Kate's apt. after suicide
attempt -- Kenny, 16:59:47 08/14/04 Sat
Eh, they played fairly fast-and-loose with the whole invitation
thing. I'm not sure they intended for the guy Faith beat up in
"5x5" to be dead, but Angel made it in there. IIRC,
the invitation rule is about crossing the threshold in various
vamp lores (which would seem to include windows as well), so if
he can circumvent it (in this case by Kate being dead), he can
stay in the house. Whether he'd be able to enter again without
an invitation is another question. The truth is these rules just
aren't defined too well, and the writers can bend them around
the need of the plot.
[> To search through the archives, click on "Atpo Archives"
on the main page -- Sheri, 15:30:49 08/14/04 Sat
[> [> Excellent. Thank you much. -- Loki, 15:56:28
08/14/04 Sat
[> i saw that episode on rerun recently... -- anom,
22:11:49 08/14/04 Sat
...& noticed something I hadn't before. Angel kicks Kate's door
in, & then there's a stroby/jumpy-image effect as he goes through
the doorway, as though there's something other than normal about
his entering. This isn't the same as the ripple-in-the-air effect
in Untouched when Angel falls through the no-invite barrier as
soon as Bethany's attacker dies in the hospital, so I don't think
Kate is momentarily dead when Angel gets into her apt. Besides,
if that were the case, taking her into the shower wouldn't be
enough to bring her back. We know from Prophecy Girl on Buffy
that vampires can't give mouth-to-mouth rescucitation, so that's
not a possibility either. And what became of the life Angel couldn't
give Darla in The Trial is explained in an episode from a later
season--which I won't spoil you for, except to say that it also
has a link w/Darla's comment about jasmine.)
Another theory is that something in Kate's phone message to Angel
can be construed as an invitation--that it was a cry for help
& that was enough. As Kenny pointed out, though, Kate herself
doesn't seem to think so.
So it's still an open question. Let us know what you find in the
archives, OK?
[> [> Re: i saw that episode on rerun recently...
-- LadyStarlight, 08:08:30 08/15/04 Sun
It has always, always, always bugged me that ME declared that
vampires can't give mouth to mouth.
My first reaction to that is "wha-huh?". Technically,
vampires should be perfect for that. They'd function just like
someone bagging a victim -- air into the victim with no loss of
oxygen.
The only way I've been able to fanwank this is someone at ME heard
what I was told in one of my earlier first aid courses: that it
isn't the oxygen that starts people breathing again, it's the
increased carbon dioxide that trips the "we need air"
switch in the brain.
I still don't like it though.
[> [> [> Re: i saw that episode on rerun recently...
-- LittleBit, 10:20:54 08/15/04 Sun
For me, this is another one of those 'examine the messenger, not
the message' moments that occasionally pop up on the show. That
it's not so much that vampires can't give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,
but that Angel believes he can't. I find it quite impossible
to believe he'd ever even tried. Angelus certainly wouldn't have.
And by the time the technique became well-known to the general
public (the current technique was first used in WWII, but it wasn't
until the '60s that it was routinely taught to lifeguards, and
not until after Vietnam that the aggressive campaigns to educate
everyone were begun) Angel was well-into his hopeless, not-caring
stage, and it was in the '70s when he went into his "I'm
so sorry. I give up. I'm gonna live in a sewer!" period.
So my fan-wank is that by "Prophecy Girl" Angel still
hadn't quite learned to hope, to believe in himself, to even 'try'
when he didn't think he could succeed. He had to be kick-started
by Xander to even be there. And that he was still much
more likely to believe that he couldn't do anything to help his
heroine besides fight. He's come a long way since then.
[> [> [> no kidding! -- anom, 21:45:02 08/16/04
Mon
It bugs the hell out of me too. "No breath"? Right,
then how does he talk? He's got a functioning set of lungs (well,
the inhale/exhale function, anyway), & there's no reason he couldn't
use them for mouth-to-mouth respiration. I figure they came up
w/that because they wanted Xander to be the one to revive Buffy,
& I suppose it's a nice idea that there's something a mere human
can do to save a life that a vampire can't, but still. And then
they were deservedly stuck with it when they wrote Epiphany. So
there!
Anyway, nice fanwank, LadyS. Maybe you're right. Either that,
or it's the Magic Clause....
[> [> Re: i saw that episode on rerun recently...
-- Vickie, 17:06:44 08/15/04 Sun
Wasn't that lightning?
I just popped Epiphany into the DVD player, and it looked light
lightning from the storm outside, to me.
[> [> Re: i saw that episode on rerun recently...
-- Loki, 17:58:45 08/15/04 Sun
I like the theory that she inadvertantly invited him hin via the
phone message. Part of that might come from being an atheist :)
It's much tidier.
[> [> Re: i saw that episode on rerun recently...
-- Loki, 18:30:18 08/15/04 Sun
All I've found in the archives is essentially what we've hypothesized,
and also that the phone call itself might be an invitation because
she wanted someone to save her from her suicide attempt.
[> Re: Angel entering Kate's apt. after suicide attempt
-- Tyreseus, 16:46:40 08/15/04 Sun
I've always kinda believed that Kate's attempt at suicide somehow
triggered a mystical "this person has surrended ownership
of this place." I mean, if Kate is trying to die, then she's
given up ownership of anything physical, right? Maybe it didn't
matter whether she was dead or not yet, she'd sent out the signal
that she no longer intended to reside there and the mystical universe
took note.
[> Kate didn't live there anymore. -- skeeve, 13:26:57
08/16/04 Mon
I don't mean that she was dead.
She had decided to 'move' and had taken steps to complete the
move and had implicitly given up her erstwhile residence.
An analogy is when one has all one's boxes in the van and one
is headed out the door.
Joss on bringing back Tara
in season seven (from Wizard Con report) -- Rufus, 16:55:37
08/15/04 Sun
I was looking around at the Wizard con reports and came across
this at Whedonesque...
http://kernelm.blogspot.com/
Somebody asked about whether there had ever been real conflicts
with an actor about the way their character was evolving, and
brought up reports of SMG's dissatisfaction with season 6. Joss
said that SMG did talk to Marti Noxon about how while she understood
why the character was making the turn that she was, she didn't
feel that it needed to be quite so drastic and sustained. Joss
also said that on the very same day, without having spoken to
Sarah, Joss had basically the exact same conversation with Marti.
Very interesting.
The return of Tara question. He said he didn't think he'd
ever talked about this publicly, but basically there was going
to be an episode near the end of season 7 when Buffy somehow got
a "get out of jail free card" with which she could get
any single wish (presumably without the usual baggage) such
as getting Angel back, etc. At the end of the episode, she
would be showing Willow a new pair of shoes and talking about
how she really loved those shoes and was really happy now that
she had them. Willow would basically be shocked, "What? You
used your wish to get a pair of shoes?" And then Buffy would
say, "No! Of course not silly." And then Willow would
turn around and there Tara would be. Even as I'm typing this
now I'm getting a little emotional thinking about it. Even though
everybody knew where the story was going pretty much from when
Joss started describing the ep, there was still a tangible rise
of emotion from the crowd at the end. I know I felt a lump in
my throat. You could tell Joss felt very strongly too, and mentioned
that not being able to work out that whole thing was one of his
biggest regrets.
Replies:
[> Call me crazy -- Pony, 18:51:57 08/15/04 Sun
But I'm kind of glad the Tara return didn't happen. I'm sure it
would have been great and beautiful, but it makes death lose its
impact in the Buffyverse to have people coming back. The idea
of a baggage-free wish seems to fly in the face of what most of
the series had established over the years, and it's an odd thing
for Buffy after her own troubled resurrection to do. Obviously
the circumstances of Tara's death were very different but still.
Also and this is what I was thinking about the most while reading
the discussion over on Whedonesque, it makes Tara's very life
only a gift to Willow. I can see the poignancy in it but when
Tara and Willow's relationship had so much difficulty over issues
of boundaries and autonomy I have trouble seeing this as completely
good.
[> [> No, you aren't crazy. I agree. -- OnM, 19:42:22
08/15/04 Sun
I miss the character too, but her demise did serve the greater
story. I think it was a courageous writing choice, and the fact
that Joss has regrets now doesn't invalidate the original decision.
Besides-- alternate universes always a possibility!
:-)
[> [> Completely agreeing with Pony -- Dlgood, 20:28:07
08/15/04 Sun
Those are the same two objections I have.
1. Characterization: Given Buffy's feelings about life, death,
ressurection, and the ability to make her own choices, why would
she choose this of all things?
2. Commodification. Buffy would resurrect Tara, not for Tara's
own sake, but for Willow's? And what if Tara did not want Willow?
She is still allowed to not want Willow, right? You're doing the
ressurrection on Tara - shouldn't one consider what she wants?
That proprietary conception of love creeps me out. Celebrating
such an action without exploring the flip side of it would seem
to violate much of the point of S6, wouldn't it? Having Buffy
take this sort of choice without exploring why she would do so,
given her experiences, would seem to be a disservice to the character.
I'm glad this is one of those things that stayed on the floor
- I doubt ME could have done it any justice.
[> [> Also agreeing with Pony -- Cactus Watcher,
21:59:43 08/15/04 Sun
This is another case of 'good inside information' that we've gotten
lately that just doesn't add up. I don't think Tara's return makes
the least bit of sense considering what Buffy went through, in
terms of the price Willow paid to bring Buffy back and where season
seven was heading. Any such return of Tara would have been a nice
emotional moment, but what does she do afterward? It can't happen
during the meat of the last episode or two because the Scythe
is already strectching credibility and you badly detract from
the focus on the final fights. If she comes back sooner, you lessen
the impact of the return of Faith and then you have to find a
role for Tara in the final fight. Does it make more sense to have
Willow working on the Scythe with Tara in the finale or with one
of the potentials? If you understand Joss' story you have to say
Kennedy rather than Tara. If she comes back at the bitter end
then the focus of the ending is on Willow and Tara instead of
Buffy and the new slayers. It just doesn't make sense.
[> [> [> I can't cite a source for this information,
but . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:44:46 08/15/04 Sun
I've heard that, part way through Season 7, Joss had to re-tool
how the storyline would play out due to it being the final season.
I've got no clue how much had to be changed, but I do think that
there had to be at least a few changes made since, during the
summer beforehand, comments were made that Dawn at the new high
school would recieve a fair bit of attention and that the episodes
would be of a more stand-alone nature. This obviously did not
pan out. So the ending we saw may very well have differed in a
number of ways from the original conception, which would have
been able to include Tara.
Also, I'd just like to mention that Buffy might choose to resurrect
Tara if certain guarantees were made (she's restored exactly as
before, no memory of being dead, etc.) Having been brought back
from the dead once herself, Buffy would know what potential consequences
could result, and so would be able to make sure to avoid them.
[> [> [> [> Re: I can't cite a source for this
information, but . . . -- CW, 22:59:07 08/15/04 Sun
Amber Benson was pretty clear about why she didn't want to return.
She was told what she was going to do in Conversations with Dead
People and didn't like false Tara's part in it. She did not want
to leave Tara's character that way. If Joss had any serious idea
of bringing her back after that, clearly he could have told her
enough to ease her fears about that.
Once you start bringing people back with no consequences then
you have to ask why they can't bring back Anya, Miss Caledar,
etc. It's a bottomless trap.
[> [> [> [> [> Plus, in the real world we don't
get to ressurect people -- Dlgood, 04:48:49 08/16/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: I can't cite a source for this
information, but . . . -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 08:14:53 08/16/04
Mon
Finn Mac Cool (do you know that there is a bar in LA with that
same name?) - The information you are thinking of (Joss altering
the S7 arc midway through) may come for Roz Kavenry's lead article
in "Reading the Vampire Slayer" where she has a Jane
Espenson quote about Joss wiping the big white board clean in
regards to Faith's return and starting all over again. She takes
this to mean that Joss basically reconceived the last several
episodes fo the season which seems a bit of a leap from Jane's
quote but she may have some insider infor that I don't (she has
a good size interview with Jane in the book).
People seem to love to come up with ideas on what went wrong with
the arc of S7 but it doesn't seem that surprising to me that you
can't go from producing two shows to producing three (plus lose
arguably your most important collaborator in David Greenwalt and
have that new show be a particularly difficult start-up) without
having some serious problems come up.
In a recent talk, Jane Espenson shed some light on this when she
talked about how little time the staff had with Whedon and that
they would basically throw their best ideas at him and see what
we he would go with. Needless to say, this method does not seem
ideal to constructing a seasonal arc.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I can't cite a source for
this information, but . . . -- RJA, 09:15:40 08/16/04 Mon
Joss's wiping the white board - according to Drew Goddard, Faith
would have returned in episode 18 and help with some kinda murder
mystery thing, and not really be central to the episode. Joss
came in, introduced Caleb, changed it all around.
I think the introduction of Caleb was a big change. Before then
there were rumours that it would be more to do with the First
and the previous Big Bads. Both Glory and The Master (the actors
that played them) talked about returning in the last few episodes,
although I think this didn't happen partly due to costs and partly
due to the fans lack of love for The First by that point.
Wish I had kept some interviews to back all this up though.
[> [> [> [> [> Of course, we must consider how
many of these changes were just par for the course -- Finn
Mac Cool, 09:37:39 08/16/04 Mon
Joss usually (if not always) has the theme for the season figured
out before filming ever begins. However, from several interviews
over the past few years, I think he's been fairly clear on the
fact that the exact plot points near the end aren't usually planned
out far in advance (with the exception of "The Gift",
obviously). In Season 2, Spike was supposed to die, but he ended
up living. In Season 3, Faith was supposed to leave Sunnydale
after a few eps and only make the occasional guest appearance
(ala Kendra), but she ended up staying. In Season 4, Oz was supposed
to have a big, "nature of the werewolf" arc involving
Veruca, but he ended up leaving. So, I think we can be pretty
certain that the end of Season 7 wasn't exactly what Joss had
in mind while writing "Lessons", but the question arises:
was it any moreso than usual?
P.S. "Finn Mac Cool" was actually the name of a mythical
Irish warrior, so me and the bar probably just drew it from the
same source (although with an Irish name, that bar might technically
be a "pub".)
[> [> [> [> Get-out-of-jail card -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
08:24:11 08/16/04 Mon
My title above is how Whedon described (at this weekend's Wizard
con which is linked to at Whedonesque) the 'wish' Buffy would
be granted. This imply's that it would be a rare no-strings attached,
no problem solution.
This seems a wonderful way to explore Buffy's emotions about the
last seven years of her life. What does she want to change? What
would she do anything to get back?
[> [> [> Re: Also agreeing with Pony -- LadyStarlight,
05:29:29 08/16/04 Mon
This is where my "Joss was planning a Season 8 before SMG
said "I'm done"" theory works too.
(LittleBit helped with the refining of this -- or maybe I just
stole it from her and I don't remember doing so)
If you look at what happens in S7, taking into account
two other things -- that SMG decided S7 would be her last season
after filming had already started and that Joss always had the
final scene written -- there's several points to be made that
S7 was designed as a two-part season, ending (or S8 beginning,
either way) with Conversations with Dead People.
-- we saw no character development. Always Joss' strong point,
after the devastating year that just happened, you'd think that
there'd be bushels of it.
-- Several plot points that were leaned on in the first ep were
just dropped. (Kit? Christopher? The SG, 2.0? Remember that?)
There's probably more that I'm forgetting right now, but it's
very early.
[> [> [> [> Re: Also agreeing with Pony --
CW, 06:17:05 08/16/04 Mon
If I remember correctly the conversation between Joss and Sarah
about her returning is said to have taken place about December,
after which they didn't speak much about anything so serious according
to both of them. What you've just said almost leads me to believe
that what we haven't been told is that season seven was going
to be Joss' last year of any involvement in Buffy all along. With
Firefly starting I'm sure he'd thought about it. When Firefly
failed Joss barely has enough time to weigh the effects of that
when Sarah comes in and says she wants out. Instead of going through
at least a few weeks of trying to change her mind he tells her
'Okay, I guess it's time.' It looks like to me he may have been
prepared to walk away leaving the series open ended for others
to direct. Sarah deciding it was over, just made the package a
little more tidy.
This is all just a wild guess, but it makes sense to me.
[> [> [> [> [> And also close to what happened
too -- RJA, 09:12:29 08/16/04 Mon
I believe the actual conversation took place around early September
though. There's an interview (possibly the MSN one) in which he
talks about it.
I think he said that he went into this intending it to be the
last one he was so involved with. When SMG told him she wanted
out, it cemented it as the last season. It was still fairly early
on though.
I believe that spinoff hunting may have given them some troubles.
Plus they changed direction (apparently) due to the Iraq war (a
Marti Noxon interview in early S7 referred to her writing and
directing episode 21 and looking forward to this because she had
never directed any major battle scenes before. Those didn't happen).
I don't think they wanted to be so gung ho in the face of it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And also close to what
happened too -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 09:31:40 08/16/04 Mon
I believe your timeline on the whole last season conversation
to be correct. I mean, everyone knew (or at least suspected) that
this would be the last season of Buffy at the end of S6 (nearly
every interview or article about the show that summer talked about
it) with the whole SMG contract issue likely to draw the series
to a close.
Also, Marti Noxon was going to direct ep. 20 although I believe
you are right that ep 21 was the original plan but this changed
as the arc developed. However, she was unable to direct or write
it because of work on the Still Life pilot she had become Executive
Producer on. "Touched" (ep. 20) with it's clear focus
on the characters personal & sexual lives feels like a Noxon episode
anyway (just not as strongly written) plus it does have some battles.
I also wanted to add that I think the whole Iraq War thingy is
a little overblown by some. It's not like Whedon suddenly dropped
the building-to-war storyline just because of the Iraq invasion
(I mean Chosen still ends in the show's largest battle sequence).
I know he was a little put-off because people were drawing comparisions
to Buffy's & Bush's wars but he said there were none intended
(and there aren't, just because it's a war narrative doesn't mean
it has anything to do with a simultaneous war)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And also close
to what happened too -- RJA, 13:05:35 08/16/04 Mon
Touched as a Marti episode would have been amazing.
I was under the impression that Joss, or at least one of the writers,
alluded to the Iraq war as being responsible for a few changes.
I don't mean the whole plot was changed (I think that was more
to do with the effectiveness of the First), but they may have
not taken somethings in a certain way because of it. I'm sure
I heard that said by a writer, but since I don't keep a hold of
interviews I may be completely wrong. Oh well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And also
close to what happened too -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 17:16:07
08/16/04 Mon
First, Marti's "Touched" would have ruled. The episode
right now is pretty good but she could have taken it to a whole
other level.
I keep pretty good track of the interviews and I don't remember
seeing any of the writers talk about pulling back plot elements
because of the Iraq War but you may be right & I just missed it
somewhere. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you suggested
to the whole plot was changed because of that but I can see how
you would get that impression from my comment. I concur that whatever
plot adjustments were made late probably had a lot to do with
The Taunter.
[> [> Re: Call me crazy -- Rufus, 05:25:36 08/16/04
Mon
Well, I don't know. It depends on how they did it in the end.
I see the idea of bringing Tara back as some bookend to the ways
one can return to life. The dead deer way Willow took when she
was crossing to the dark side, or as a result of someone thinking
of something more than themself. Buffy had been seen as a bitch
in season six. Self absorbed and resentful she had been disturbed
in heaven. So, I would have to see how the "get out of jail
wish" was offered and there isn't enough of the story to
make a conclusion. It would be a sacrifice on Buffy's part not
to bring Joyce back. That means if anyone else was in the room
at the con I'd love their input as the details of the Tara return
are too sketchy to make any conclusions on.
[> [> Re: Call me crazy -- skeeve, 13:54:30 08/16/04
Mon
Both objections could be dealt with in the following scenario:
Mr. Giles has a load of magic that he dearly needs to offload.
He can, if he chooses, offload it as one free wish for the recipient.
The safest person happens to also be the person to whom he feels
most indebted.
Buffy in turn, gives it to Tara.
Buffy and Willow discuss shoes.
Mr. Giles would already have paid the baggage.
The need to offload would probably be a side-effect of accepting
the coven's magic when he protected the world from Willow.
My recollection is that Amber Benson didn't want to come back
because her character was scheduled to become evil and she didn't
like that.
This might have been a reference to the First Evil using her appearance
to influence Willow.
[> [> [> Re: Call me crazy -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
15:34:57 08/16/04 Mon
At first, the inability t get Amber Benson back was chalked up
to contract problems (reason unknown) then a little later, Ms.
Benson said she was uncomfortable with Tara being evil. I guess
she meant a manifestation of The First although she didn't use
that term specifically. However, Whedon seems to have been building
to bringing Tara herself back (this inofr is now about as confirmed
as confirmed can be) which means we either have an epic case of
miscommunication between parties or Ms. Benson told a little fib
so as not to tick off her fans.
[> [> [> [> Another alternative is ..... --
Sophist, 16:23:10 08/16/04 Mon
that JW is the one fibbing. I have no reason to doubt AB when
she says she never heard of any plan to resurrect Tara in a good
way. Nor do I see any reason why she would have rejected such
a role.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Another alternative is .....
-- Mr. bananagrabber, 17:06:43 08/16/04 Mon
Yeah, that's true that JW could be fibbing. I guess I just don't
see why Whedon has any real need to fib. Ms. Benson may no want
to tell the fans who pay to see her at conventions and buy copies
of her movie that she turned down the chance to reprise Tara.
I mean that is a direct financial motive not to make people cranky
while Whedon doesn't really have much of a motive. I mean he's
still gonna make Firefly & fans are still going to beg him for
more Bufyy & Angel whether he talks about bringing back Tara or
not.
Maybe it is just miscommunication but Whedon has stated (twice
now actaully) that other actors & writers knew about it. Heck,
Jane Espenson hints at it pretty broadly in a Succubus Club interview
at the end of S6. So, I have a hard time seeing how no one bothered
to inform the actress but maybe that's true. You never really
know unless you are involved in these things.
[> Re: Joss on bringing back Tara in season seven (from
Wizard Con report) -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 21:14:58 08/15/04
Sun
Lots of things I could say on this one but first, I have to disagree
with the idea that this is somehow a "gift" for Willow.
I mean we can draw that conclusion in the abstract but we can
just as easily say that Buffy makes this choice because of the
arbitrary cruelity of Tara's death. I mean,she was a twenty-year
old girl who died because she wasn't standing two feet to the
left.
Almost any objection I've seen can be easily be written around
with the possible exception of the whole resurrection business
which, much like redemption, is getting a little out of hand in
the Buffyverse.
I have to say that I think it's a brillant idea, both impossibly
moving and beautifully tying into the theme & story of season
seven. It's a crying shame Amber Benson didn't decide to return.
[> [> Allow Me To Elaborate -- Mr Bananagrabber,
21:56:17 08/15/04 Sun
Now my head is buzzing. I want to elaborate (hence my title) on
the"written around" point I made. Basically, Buffy could
say she was able to commune with Tara's spirit before the wish
(if 'wish' is the term we want to use) was granted in order to
see if Tara wanted to return. Almost all major objections would
be elimanated by about two lines of dialogue.
Actually, I have been waiting for Whedon to elaborate (there's
that word again. Must dig out my Thesaurus) on the Tara-returns
plot for about a year now since he mentioned it in an interview
last summer. Now if only someone will ask him to expand (dug out
the Theasaurus) on his ideas for Angel S6 (although I am sure
the fan-fic here will be quite satisfying) and to clarify (yeah
Theasaurus) his plans for Oz's return in S7. He mentioned Oz leading
a werewolf army to help Buffy in the final episode but I also
rememebr an interview with Marti Noxon where she said Oz would
have been a mainfestation of The First.
[> Joss continues to amaze me. -- Caroline, 21:21:54
08/16/04 Mon
I have a good friend from the Middle East who learnt dream interpretation
from the old wise woman in the village she grew up in. This dream
interpretation has been passed down for hundreds of years. Apparently,
in dreams, shoes symbolize a partner/lover/spouse etc. The reason
that I know this is because I had dreams about shoes several times
and asked her why I was doing so. She accurately interpreted the
dreams - in one dream, I didn't like the pair of shoes and gave
them to my best friend, who is gay. She soon afterwards found
her life partner.
Joss is just freakin' amazing with the symbolism.
Classic Movie of the Week
- August 15th 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. III
-- OnM, 18:40:34 08/15/04 Sun
*******
It's not the bullet with my name on it that worries me. It's the
one that says To whom it may concern .
anonymous Belfast resident, quoted in London Guardian,
1991
*******
Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which
makes death a fulfillment.
Dag Hammarskj ld
*******
There are two ways of meeting difficulties: you alter the difficulties
or you alter yourself meeting them.
Phyllis Bottome
*******
I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed
with success as opposed to failure.
George W. Bush
*******
One of these days, I figure someone will ask me, On, how do you
come up with the ideas that you weave into your essays? After
verbally bestowing admiration upon the questioner s choice of
the elegant word weave , I will probably respond with a list like
the following:
1. I fell and hit my head once, and since then random thoughts
just pop into my brain. I write them down.
2. You pronounce On either as Ahn or Owen , but never as Awnn
. The full nick is Owen-em (see? random. told ya.)
3. Actually, you can pronounce it any damn way you want. Who am
I to be so demanding?
4. I look for connections in things that normally don t get connected,
and connect them.
5. It s George W. Bush s fault.
Now, after you think Hah! I knew it! , I will attest that a great
deal of the time, the likeliest answer is the fourth one with
all the connections. I was a big fan of the original PBS series
of the same name, the one that starred writer James Burke. Not
only were the stories he related fascinating, the way events evolved
you could end up with a link between the unlikeliest beginngs
and endings.
This doesn t always work out, naturally. I might envision a connection,
have it very clear in mind, but elaborating upon the thought in
a way that communicates successfully to the reader can be very
difficult, perhaps ultimately impossible. Words have great potential,
but they also have substantial limitations. The right word or
phrase might be out there (channeling Chris Carter for a mo ),
but if you can t wrest it out of the ether at the right moment,
you re done for, done in, done done, etc.
The visual arts have a great advantage over the written word in
the communicative scheme of things. Language is an extended attribute
of our senses, not a primal one. The poet and the scribe all attempt
to conjure the memory of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, physical
sensation. This is true regardless of intent, be it high literature
or base pornography. Depending on the talent of the typist, you
can have elegant erotica or lousy literature. Still, there is
faint question that at the core, we seek sensation.
Which leads me right into the next connection, which is that people
often do really empirically wacky physical sh*t sometimes, I mean
it. The summer olympics are set to start tonight (as I write this)
and people all over the world will tune in to watch other men
and women run, jump, swim, vault, gymnasticize, and generally
engage in maximum bodily exertion, and for what? Their 15 minutes
of fame? A permanent place in the history books? Lucrative corporate
endorsement work?
Of course not. Those are the verbal reasons, the extension
from the primal need, the athletic equivalent of words. What they
really are trying to do is feel, sense something never
felt or sensed before. Most of us long to do this, we just don
t always go to extremes in the pursuit of the grail. Often this
is because we lack the basic natural talent or ability, other
times we d like to but we re too damn busy doing other things
like marginally existing.
Whatever the reason, I happen to be firmly in the camp that would
much rather watch other people exert themselves and risk the increasingly
probable death or dismemberment or other annoying side effects
of the whole extreme sport continuum. I also can t help but wonder
if humans as a global society aren t getting carried away with
the need to supersize athletics. Going back to things Olympic,
I still clearly remember the year that I finally became dismayed
with watching women s gymnastics, a sport that was one I inevitably
tuned in for.
I ve always had a notable preference for sports that involve not
just sheer physical strength, like weightlifting, or high muscular
precision like the target-shooting stuff, but a combination of
strength and precision. For me, the finest reason to visit
the Olympic broadcasts and their various run-up programs is to
viddy events like ice skating and gymnastics. I still feel a sense
of abject wonder almost every time I watch a pairs skater s team
and realize that the male skater is holding a 100+ pound woman
above his head with a single extended arm. While moving. On
a surface as slippery as teflon. Without dropping her and screaming
My arm!! My arm! Or that the woman is being whirled around
with her fragile cranium scant centimeters off the surface of
something as hard as concrete at a high rate of speed, and that
she s crazy-talented enough to allow this just cos it looks
cool.
Ah, the disillusionment part. Yeah. A certain very famous women
s gymnastics coach. I really do not like this guy. Because,
I very much did not like the time that a young woman obviously
injured herself after performing a difficult vault during a previous
Olympics, and this nutjob is agressively insisting that you
can do it! , that she could make the second vault despite
the injury and possibly earn enough points to allow the American
team a medal win. I clearly remember the look of fear in her face,
fighting with the desire to please everyone. In the end, she did
the vault, got enough points, the team won a medal. All s right
with the world, right?
Not with me. If that girl was my kid, I would have slipped in
backstage afterward and strangled the bastard. What, risk crippling
my child, possibly for life, so you can win your stupid
game? What an anus. The ankle could have been broken, the vaulter
could have staked the landing and ended up screaming in agony
on the mat, a bloody shaft of bone sticking out of her leg. Ahh,
wouldn t that have been a great television moment?
If it had been an adult doing that vault (or jump, or climb,
or anything else), that s one thing. We assume that an adult has
truly free will, and that if he or she wants to do patently dangerous
(albeit controlled) things for the chance to grab a moment of
passion and glory, so be it. But this was a kid-- maybe
what, 15? 16? What is she gonna do, say no, I really don t want
to do this? Let down her family, her coach, the whole friggin
arrogant know-it-all American world watching on the teevee? Of
course not. She ll give it her all. And if the result is a lifetime
limp and the team loses-- oh, well.
Yes. Strangle the bastard. For not stepping in and making the
decision for her, being the responsible parent-surrogate figure
and putting the child s welfare above his own. This is the kind
of guy who would happily push a bleeding Dawn off the platform,
and say, Hey! Saved the world didn t I? Sorry about the death
thing.
I d like to say that it s gotten better, but the amount of disconnective
obsessiveness in this (and some other) sports has only increased,
and the participants seem to get younger every year. And obsessive
children grow into obsessive adults. The fall of the Roman empire
largely came about over a long period of time because of subtle,
gradual forces within, and not from overt attacks without. What
mature individuals do with danger on a personal scale is one thing,
for societies en masse, death can become something that is sought
out heedlessly, with predictable results. So, speaking of falls
, I now connect to this week s Classic Movie, another very recent
release that can certainly use some additional video-based attention
beyond the fair but still very modest business it did at the box
office.
A film that has just now gone into current release has as its
basic plot line a story that involves a young couple who go scuba
diving out in the ocean (out-out, not near-the-shore out), and
after returning to the surface find that the boat that brought
them there has disappeared. By virtue of an accidental miscount
of the collection of divers that were aboard, the operators of
the boat think that everyone who was out diving had returned,
and so they left. The remainder of the movie is about the couple
dealing with the ineveitable and terrifying thought-- what
if the boat never returns? The couple can theoretically stay
afloat for several days at least, aided by their scuba gear. But
a great deal can happen in several days, and all of it is very,
very bad.
Touching the Void deals with a similarly terrifying
situation, but even more incredibly, it is essentially a documentary,
a retelling of the actual events that befell one Joe Simpson and
his climbing partner Simon Yates as they attempted to scale the
face of a mountain named Siula Grande in the hinterlands of Peru.
To be perfectly fair, it is possible that the story is an exaggeration,
or even a fabrication. Only Simpson, Yates, and their guide/base
camp protector Richard Hawkins were present at the time the events
of the story took place. If completely true-- and the consensus
of opinion in the climbing community seems to be that it is--
what happened is so incredible that watching it unfold before
you on the screen might lead you to redefine your beliefs as to
what a mere human being is capable of surviving.
Simpson and Yates both star in this film, along with actors Brendan
Mackey and Nicholas Aaron who stand in for them (respectively)
in the majority of the scenes. The film is so skillfully organized
and edited that you become involved with the story to a degree
where you easily fail to tell actor from re-enactor. Director
Kevin Macdonald based his film closely on Joe Simpson s novel
of the same name and shot the bulk of the footage at the actual
Siula Grande location in Peru.
Joe and Simon set out to do what had never been done before--
they intended to climb the 21,000 foot high Siula Grande via a
route that was considered impossible, one that required them to
scale sheer, nearly vertical faces of rock and ice, while dealing
with the horrific weather conditions that go foot-in-piton with
the altitudes involved. Keep in mind that this expedition was
composed of only the two climbers, and not an entire team--
an extreme sport in a field that already defines the word
under normal conditions. Astoundingly, they actually make it to
the summit, but as difficult as this task was it became the trip
back down that proved to be the straw that broke the mountaineer
s back.
Or more precisely, his leg. After reaching the peak of the mountain,
the already difficult weather turned for the worse, and the two
men could no longer tell where the planned return route should
begin. A single misstep in the middle of a whiteout could send
one or both plummeting over an edge they literally cannot see,
so they need to wait out the storm. When the storm clears and
they finally begin their descent, it becomes evident that the
path they are taking is even more dangerous than the one that
took them upwards. Despite exercising great care, at one point
Simpson loses his anchor, and falls.
While his skills at this sport serve him well enough that he arrests
his uncontrolled slide, it s not before slamming his leg into
a piece of jutting rock or ice, breaking the bone and driving
it up into his knee. He is in agony, attached to his partner only
by a rope, and they are still thousands of feet above the base
camp. With Joe unable to continue the climb down with his
injured leg, Simon does the only thing that he can do, which is
to lower Joe repeatedly in stages until a new stable position
is reached, and then follow him down. This works for several attempts,
but well, you ve guessed it. The phrase end of his rope isn t
a banal clich in this instance.
As I mentioned at the start of this brief outline, Touching
the Void is a reiteration of real events, it isn t a fiction
or a fantasy. What I ve revealed so far may seem spoilerish, but
in truth I ve taken you barely 20 minutes into the movie, and
the real guts of the tale are just getting underway. Since it
is plainly obvious from the beginning of the film that both men
managed to get back down off the mountain, anything that happens
after the upward climb might seem like an anti-climax, but such
isn t remotely the case. I normally hate to utilize the hackneyed
phrase defies belief to decribe incredible events, but that is
the reality. What happens to Joe Simpson on his way back down
Siula Grande does defy belief, and that s all there is
to it. If you think that Buffy exhibits the ability to bend reality
by sheer force of will when the situation requires it, but also
believe that such things can never occur in the realverse, you
may very well harbor serious doubts as to that belief after watching
the remaining 4/5 s of this film.
As stunningly engrossing as the movie itself becomes, the extra
features included with the DVD complement it perfectly. The most
fascinating extra is a featurette about returning to the scene
of the original adventure, and among other behind-the-camera insights
it records the differing and sometimes unpredictable reactions
of Simpson and Yates as they revisit the mountain and the often
unsettling memories it evokes.
Many professional film critics complain that the documentary genre
is all too typically slighted at the box office by a public looking
for fast, fictional thrills. I m not sure that the public is the
primary problem here, because it s also a fact that many major
theater chains are often reluctant to book docs because they fear
weak ticket sales, and that this attitude can lead to a self-fulfilling
prophecy. This is really a shame, if true, and I hope that the
continued success of such films in the video market will encourage
a change of heart regarding such policies.
Two weeks ago, I had noted that another documentary offering,
the strikingly unconventional but extremely involving American
Splendor was one of my picks for the best movie of the last
year. Touching the Void is right up there along with it,
and I have high expectations that you ll be likely to agree after
making the viewing journey yourself.
Watch your step.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically Sisyphus had it easy:
Touching the Void is available on DVD, which was also the
format of the review copy. The film was released in 2003, and
has a running time of 1 hour and 46 minutes. The original cinematic
aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which is preserved on the DVD edition.
Writing credits go to Cinematography was by Mike Eley and Keith
Partridge with film editing by Justine Wright. Production design,
art direction and costumes were by Patrick Bill. The original
theatrical sound mix was Dolby Digital.
Cast overview:
Brendan Mackey .... Joe Simpson
Nicholas Aaron .... Simon Yates
Ollie Ryall .... Richard Hawking
Joe Simpson .... Himself
Simon Yates .... Himself
Richard Hawking .... Himself
*******
Miscellaneous Department:
Curious as to what previous films Touching the Void director
Kevin Macdonald had made, a quick check of the IMDb reveals that
there haven t been a lot, and some of them are apparently productions
that only aired on British TV. Here s a brief bio (sorry, but
I couldn t find much more info despite checking several other
sources) and a list of his work:
Oxford-educated brother of Andrew Macdonald and grandson of
Emeric Pressburger, whose sympathetic biography, Emeric Pressburger:
The Life and Death of a Screenwriter (1994) he wrote, Kevin Macdonald
is a documentary filmmaker. His films include the Oscar-winning
One Day in September (UK/Switzerland/Germany, 1999), about the
terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and Channel Four's
Humphrey Jennings: The Man Who Listened To Britain (23/12/2000).
He is married to production designer Tatiana Lund.
(Bio by Brian McFarlane, from the Encyclopedia of British Film)
Director - filmography (via the IMDb):
Touching the Void (2003)
Being Mick (2001) (TV)
Brief History of Errol Morris, A (2000)
Humphrey Jennings (2000) (TV)
One Day in September (2000)
Donald Cammell: The Ultimate Performance (1998)
Howard Hawks: American Artist (1997) (TV)
Moving World of George Rickey, The (1997)
Chaplin's Goliath (1996)
Making of an Englishman, The (1995) (TV)
Some commentary from Kevin Macdonald on making Touching the
Void (also via the IMDb):
It was very slow, hard work. We were at 15,000 feet, it was
a tiny crew, we all had to learn to use crampons, and it was so
f**king cold. I was huffing and puffing, Joe got panicky, and
then Simon started getting irrationally angry about things-- he
accused me of trying to kill people, saying I was getting climbers
to do things that were unsafe. He became paranoid that we were
trying to stitch him up, which we weren't. I think Simon's got
a lot of emotions that he can't necessarily understand. He's clearly
wracked with guilt in some way - maybe not so much about cutting
the rope as the fact that he didn't go and look for Joe the next
day, before he went back to base camp. He's not a happy man, I
think, and this story is tied up with that.
~ ~ ~
Besides the release of Kill Bill Volume 2 last week, another
strange but compelling film snuck more quietly onto the shelves,
director Tod Browning's infamous 1932 release Freaks. I
ve only ever heard about this movie, I ve never seen it. Here
s the opening portion of the detailed review from the DVD Journal:
What was it, really, about Tod Browning's notorious Freaks
that repulsed audiences so profoundly in 1932? In the U.S., civic
groups attacked it as an example of Hollywood's depravity. England
banned it altogether for thirty years. MGM's Louis B. Mayer removed
his famous logo from all prints and the studio did its best to
disown the film. It was savaged by shocked critics and, reportedly,
audience members ran from the preview theaters screaming. Browning,
who helped ignite the Universal horror-film craze by directing
1931's Dracula, had been hired by Irving Thalberg at glamour-house
MGM to make a film even more horrifying. He succeeded, though
not in ways that would be appreciated for more than a generation.
http://www.dvdjournal.com/quickreviews/f/freaks.q.shtml
~ ~ ~
And the TV-on-DVD juggernaut keeps on a-gathering momentum:
Columbia TriStar will release Seinfeld: Seasons 1-2
and Seinfeld: Season 3 on November 23rd in four-disc sets,
and with plenty of good stuff. Every episode will be of NBC-broadcast
length (rather than the trimmed versions in syndication), and
we can look forward to cast-and-creator interviews, audio commentaries,
deleted scenes, outtakes, unused footage of Jerry Seinfeld's comedy
act, promos, and production notes.
~ ~ ~
What was I saying before about how fast films go to video these
days? Submitted for your approval (or diss):
On the way from Columbia will be Michael Moore's Fahrenheit
9/11, which will include the featurette The Release of Fahrenheit
9/11 , a montage of Iraq before the invasion, a look at the Abu
Ghraib Prison, Condoleezza Rice's 9/11 Commission testimony, and
plenty more. (October 5th)
And if you don t care for real-world-politick, then by all means
have some cartoon politick instead:
DreamWorks has set aside a Friday street-date, November 5th,
for Shrek 2, which will arrive in separate two-disc versions
with anamorphic (2.20:1) and full-screen transfers.
~ ~ ~
OK, enough misc-in for now-- it s a wrap!
(Release date info above courtesy of dvdjournal.com)
*******
The Question of the Week:
Last week my question related to taking some parents to task because
they took children to see R or even PG-13 rated movies that really
were not suitable for small children. This week, I m curious for
your opinions on a related subject, namely:
If your (non-adult) children or grandchildren are actively involved
in athletics, particular those that are fairly risky ones, such
as gymnastics, football, or swing choir, how do you find a balance
between being too concerned over the possibility of injury versus
the child s desire to participate in the sport? At what point
do you draw the line? If an injury does occur, do you tend to
adopt a get back up on the equine philosophy, or do you allow
the child to make the entire decision yea or nay regarding whether
they want to continue to participate? Or is there no one certain
answer, and do the circumstances dictate the response?
Whatever the case, as always, post em if you ve got em,
and I ll see you next week with an older film that fits a good
bit more into the guilty pleasure category, dealing as it does
with a logically ridiculous situation that could never actually
happen in real life, but one that I find charming and warm-hearted
despite its naivet .
Take care.
*******
Replies:
[> I would say Touching the Void is one of the best movies
of the last five years -- Pony, 19:08:03 08/15/04 Sun
If someone wanted an illustration of both existentialism and humanism
I would point them to that movie. After I saw it I not entirely
jokingly called it The Passion for atheists. There's that
great scene in the crevasse where Joe talks about how it didn't
even occur to him to pray, all he could do was keep going forward
- he had no other choice but to save himself. And when he realizes
his goal was to simply see another person before he dies... it
makes being alone in the universe one of the most heroic and,
yes, uplifting things I can imagine.
[> [> Not that 'Touching' is the movie being reviewed
this week. Pony's just sayin'. -- OnM, 19:26:17 08/15/04
Sun
[> [> [> Yes! I just occasionally burst out with random
praise for it -- Pony (sorry OnM!), 19:39:55 08/15/04 Sun
[> On the Beach is indeed a Buried Treasure (sorry OnM!)
-- CW, 22:38:03 08/15/04 Sun
I have a lot more problem with parents spending tens of thousands
of dollars to train little Johnny or Suzie to get into big time
sports especially when most of the kids who get close are just
canon fodder for those who are actually going to make it.
I think the point of what happened with Miss Strug was not so
much that the coach, who you're not mentioning, was asking her
to do something that would hurt her, but rather that there was
a whole process that put the focus of a whole life on one silly
flip over a vaulting horse. Once in that position, all I could
do was admire Miss Strug's courage. Like the coach or not it was
one of the bravest things I've ever seen.
[> QoTW - tangential answer -- Rahael, 05:40:48 08/16/04
Mon
Your question struck a chord with me because this week I spent
time with my 14 year old cousin, who is very talented at playing
the piano. He has an imaginative power, and a sophisticated sense
of interpretation way beyond his years. He goes to a specialist
school, and his not very well off parents scrimp and scrape to
put together the money to cover up the shortfall from his scholarship.
His ("public") state school basically refused to teach
him after a while, saying they couldn't a) handle him b) provide
for his educational needs, so my aunt had to find this fee paying
one for him.
THey have bought a grand piano for him, at the behest of the school,
they've had to restructure the entire house to fit the grand piano
in, and to sound proof the room so the neighbours can't complain.
So they've gone out of their way to accommodate and provide for
him. He has to work really hard - wake up extra early, practice,
do all his homework etc. And because he has to travel all this
way to his school, he has an early start and a late finish. He
probably has to work harder than I do, and I get paid!
Some of his peers at school have been doing this since they were
2 or 3. Most of them practise for 8 hours a day. He practices
about 2 or 3 on a good day. There was a time when my aunt was
on his back to practise more, but now we're just leaving him to
his own devises. It's his decision to make now, how much of his
time to sacrifice on this. No one wants to rob him of his childhood
- and who knows whether he'd want anything to do with the piano
in 5 or so years time?
So far he's lucky in that he seems to be able to keep up with
the work doing it his way. Mostly we want to avoid the dread thing
that is "burn out".
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 15th 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. III -- Ann, 06:04:12 08/16/04
Mon
Great review as usual.
QotW. If a child finds their passion early, then they should be
able to guide themselves. My sister is dealing with this with
both her kids. Both will probably end up in the Olympics some
day. One for figure skating and the other for hockey. Her daughter
who would prefer to spend all her days on the ice has been allowed
to explore this for herself. She seems to have natural talent,
finding figure skating easy and fun to do. Her parents contribute
the financial opportunity to her goals. She has grand dreams despite
only being 10 years old. Her brother has been limited to just
above his age group playing hockey. The coaches want to move him
up because of clear abilities, but he is small so my sister has
not allowed it. They see themselves as the guardians of their
kid's dreams. The kids have never been pushed and could quit completely
if they wanted. They don't want to though. It is amazing to see
kids so young know clearly what they want to do with their lives
and are handling it in a surprisingly mature manner.
What is the ranking most
powerful being to the weakest on Buffy/Angel? -- megaslayer,
18:05:21 08/16/04 Mon
From what I seen on Buffy/Angel:
Powers that be/Senior Partners/First Evil
demongods/old ones/hellgods
higher beings
demons/vampires
slayers/champions
humans
Replies:
[> Do you mean who would win in a fight? -- Merle, 00:53:44
08/17/04 Tue
I'm not sure you can make a clear-cut ranking.
Slayers/champions have dispatched countless demons/vampires quite
handily.
And of course, not every member of a species is equal: Some vamps
like Angel can survive centuries killing nearly everything in
their path; some vamps are "red shirts" who appear on
screen for five seconds, then are dusted by the likes of Xander.
Some humans freeze in terror in the presence of a vamp/demon;
some like Gunn can slay them left and right.
I don't know how you'd rank the PTB or SP, since we've never actually
seen one in true form: they've only appeared in the vessel of
a human or demon body, which alters or constrains their powers.
And the PTB's actions from afar haven't been terribly impressive.
Maybe they portaled Angel back from Hell. Big deal. We've seen
a dozen times that any fool can chant and open a portal. Maybe
they made it snow in Amends. Big deal. Even Willow can make it
rain, without even trying. Sending the visions isn't that hard
either (we saw that a (presumably) human with his brain exposed
could do the same thing.) and they don't even do it that well
(how many too-vague visions have there been over the years?).
Finally, getting a vamp pregnant? Jasmine couldn't even do that
herself and had to piggyback on the creation of a new life by
whatever force/entity was represented by the butler in the Trial.
Come to think of it, the PTB pretty much suck. Look out, I'm going
to toss a car at you! Jasmine could enthrall people? So could
Dracula. She just did his same lame Gypsy parlor trick on a grander
scale. Whatever Connor was should outrank Jasmine-in-human-form.
The First obviously has no power whatsoever apart from psychological
manipulation. Bringers are humans and Turok-hans should get their
own position in the ranking.
old ones/hellgods I'd also say are hard to classify, since we've
only seen them in human vessels. The Scoobies outclassed Glory
fairly easily.
When ranking humans, you have to remember that only humans have
technology and humans are usually the ones that use cunning to
defeat brute force. Initiative weapons and steroids let ordinary
soldiers defeat countless demons/vamps. Illyria could win in a
hand-to-hand fight, but only humans could have invented the power-sucking
ray gun. (The same cunning allowed the Council to best the physically
stronger slayer by using hypnosis and drugs.)
Illyria had no other powers besides ability to open portals (which
anyone can do) and the ability to slow down time (which I bet
Willow could have done easily). Old Ones, schmold ones. Maybe
people tend to assume the Old Ones and PTBs must be incredibly
formidable simply by virtue of being old, but the evidence we've
seen doesn't back that up. Don't believe the hype!
Finally, was Lindsay correct when he said that humans drop-kicked
the last pure demon out of this dimension? If so, that's another
mark in the humans-kick-everyone's-ass column.
[> [> You're missing one impressive PTB feat -- Finn
Mac Cool, 11:28:08 08/17/04 Tue
In "I Will Always Remember You" they turned back time,
but was able to leave one selected individual's memories in tact.
Also, when you're comparing Jasmine to Dracula, you must remember
that anyone who so much as saw Jasmine came under her power; if
Dracula had such far reaching power, I think we would have seen
it. As for portals, some are more difficult than others (such
as the one to Quortoth), and some research is required for most
people to open portals, or at least to open the correct portal.
And I'd like to mention that Jasmine's power seemed to wane after
her name was spoken (at first she seemed to quite clearly dominate
Angel in the quarrel, but he starting faring better as the fight
went on).
Regarding Glory, they were only able to beat her by utilizing
the power of other gods. It was very clearly stated in "Blood
Ties" that the other two hellgods of Glory's dimension bound
her in human form, which greatly reduced her power. Also, Buffy
defeated Glory by using the troll hammer, which worked because,
according to Anya, it was the "weapon of a god".
I think it's hard to make these rankings because most of the very
powerful beings don't exist in this dimension. The PTB and Senior
Partners exist on other planes of existence and almost always
work through creatures on our level of existence. It could be
it's some deal they struck up (I've read works of fantasy/science-fiction
before where two very powerful beings agree not to fight each
other directly because of the destruction it would wreak, and
so instead manipulate beings like humans as chess pieces). It's
also possible that they literally can' do anything in our dimension.
There seems to be a lot of that in the Buffyverse: the very powerful
demons don't seem to be able to enter our world without assuming
a smaller and weaker form (see "Graduation Day Part I"),
the Senior Partners and the PTB both needed to take a different
form than their true one to come here, and Lorne said that being
killable was an unfortunate side-effect of existing in this dimension.
Now, something happened a long time ago that drove the Old Ones
out of this dimension and stopped them from re-entering our world
in their true form. Exactly WHAT did this is unknown. Was it human
rebellion, interference of other higher powers, in-fighting, mystical
whoops, or a combination of the above? We can't really know for
sure.
[> [> [> That was the Oracles -- Merle, 19:28:13
08/17/04 Tue
who worked for, but were not themselves, PTB.
Re: Troll Hammers, let's not dignify one of the show's biggest
writer wanks by treating it as canonical. But in any case, no
one ever stated or implied that the hammer itself was imbued with
any special powers. It just happened to be really heavy.
Re: enthralling and portaling, with all of Jasmine's blather about
"untold power", I would expect to see these various
higher beings be able to do something completely unlike anything
we've seen before, not merely the same old same old, albeit more
efficiently and on a bigger scale.
[> [> [> [> What makes you say the Oracles did
it? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:03:03 08/17/04 Tue
They talked to Angel, agreed to his request, then walked through
back through the misty doorway behind them. What's the point in
having them be PTB messengers if they just do everything themselves.
It was heavily implied that they brought the message to the PTB
to turn back time. The farthest I'll lean from that is say we
can't be sure either way, but then IWRY can't really be used as
evidence then, can it?
First off, your comparison between Jasmine and Dracula/Drusilla,
yes, Jasmine's thrall power was another variation of what these
vampires did, but we only saw Drusilla hypnotize one person at
a time (and it didn't last after she looked away from them) and
Dracula only mesmerized two at a time. Jasmine was able to bring
everybody on earth under her seemingly unbreakable thrall (short
of blood exposure, that is). Riding her off as not that great
because Dracula and Drusilla performed a weakened version of her
power is like dismissing a nuclear warhead because a fire cracker
has slightly similar results.
Finally, I again must state: many of the most powerful being seem
unable to fully use their abilities within our world. It's mentioned
many times during the Illyria arc that, in her Fred incarnation,
she is far weaker than she was before being imprisoned in the
deeper well. In order to be reborn in this world, she had to invest
her power inside a human body, which severely limited what she
could do (same goes for Glory and most demons). So, while I'll
admit Illyria's powers could probably be countered by some of
the more powerful human sorcerors (keep in mind, though, that
most aren't anywhere near Willow's level ("most powerful
Wicca in the Western Hemisphere" even before she sucked out
the Devon Coven's magic)), that would be against an Illyria whose
powers are greatly restrained. That's why it would be an end of
the world scenario if the Hellmouth opened: demons would enter
earth in their unlimited form (ie, large, strong, and possessing
tons of mystical power).
P.S. The hammer did so have mystical powers. First off, Anya tells
Buffy to get Olaf's hammer away from him, as it makes him much
easier to fight. Second, the hammer managed to physically injure
Glory; that's something even a speeding bus and a wrecking ball
weren't able to do, and those things way multiple tons, far more
than Buffy can lift. Third, the implication seemed to be that
the Troll Hammer was actually the Mjolnir, the Hammer of Thor.
Look at the facts: Buffy can swing it around with ease while Spike
can't even lift it off the ground; Buffy would have to be something
like five or six times as strong as Spike for this to make sense,
which their fight scenes seem to indicate she isn't, therefore
it's probably got to do with Mjolnir's clause that only its rightful
owner can wield it. Then there's the fact that Anya refers to
it as the weapon of a god (and she would know, given how close
she was to Olaf). Finally, Olaf was a Norse mythological figure,
so it kind of fits for him to have a weapon from Norse mythology.
Fourth, even if you believe the hammer to be a lame plot device,
that doesn't mean it didn't happen; if you just ignore it like
that, then I could just ignore Connor being able to punch through
Jasmine as a lame plot device (afterall, why didn't Angel's punches
do that?)
[> [> [> [> [> She says so herself. -- Merle,
16:16:22 08/19/04 Thu
The female oracle says, "We swallow this day... we take it
back." Not the same as "We'll ask our bosses to swallow...."
And then when he talks to Doyle, Angel says he went to the Oracles
to ask them to turn back time. He doesn't say he asked the PTB's
to do it. If Angel can make that distinction, so can I.
They may have consulted the PTBs about it, but you might as well
ask what is the point of Angel being the PTB's champion if he
has to do all the work himself.
"Finally, I again must state: many of the most powerful being
seem unable to fully use their abilities within our world."
Why do you keep saying that? I said the same in my first post.
"The hammer did so have mystical powers."
I looked it up and you're right. Anya says the power is in the
hammer and later calls it an enchanted hammer. I don't know any
Norse myth, so you may be right about the rest.
"that doesn't mean it didn't happen"
Buffy defeated Glory in part by using the hammer. What I'm de-canonizing
in the privacy of my own mind is Olaf's being a god. Are we to
believe human Anya's spell turned him into a god right off the
bat, or did he start out as an ordinary troll, then get promoted
to troll god later? What the hell is a troll god, anyway? Is there
a difference between trolls and troll gods? Is the god version
just more skilled at smashing stuff? Did such a thing as a troll
god exist five minutes before they wrote that line in The Gift?
This is far too wanky for me to tolerate; sorry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: She says so herself.
-- Finn Mac Cool, 16:47:06 08/19/04 Thu
I keep mentioning the limited power thing because it seems unfair
to compare beings whose true powers are hampered to ones whose
aren't. It's like if you chained up Buffy's arms and legs and
put her in a cage match with Andrew; the fact that Andrew wins
doesn't make him more powerful, circumstances just worked in his
favor.
Also, regarding Olaf, it could be that it was possessing the hammer
that made him god-like, not necessarily Anya's spell (in some
mythologies, possessing the right artifact makes someone either
literally a god or at least very close).
Finally, let's say you work in an office and as a friend who is
a little higher up on the totem pole to get you a raise. Said
friend is really just appealing to his bosses to give you a raise,
he's just an intermediary, but wouldn't you still give him credit
for getting it for you and refer to him as "giving me a raise"?
I probably would. Besides, consider this: if the Oracles had enough
mystical mojo to turn back time, how come they were killed by
Vocah, whom Angel was able to beat?
[> Suggestion -- Majin Gojira, 05:43:34 08/17/04
Tue
Go yo your local comic-book shop, go to the RPGs section and look
at Eden Studios Buffy and Angel RPGs. Your answers lie within.
If need be, I'll post various "Combat Scores" for the
characters...or if asked.
[> Wrong -- Lunasea, 05:48:35 08/17/04 Tue
Humans are the most powerful.
Humans are what drove the demons off the earth.
Humans are who the PTBs put their faith in (except for Jasmine)
when it comes to defeating evil.
Humans have the power of choice and mercy, the most powerful things
in the universe. None of the rest of that list has those.
It is not the Slayer spirit/essence that makes Buffy strong. It
is being human that does. Human goes at the very top of the list.
The rest don't matter. They are all clumped up after human in
one big traffic jam.
[> [> Re: Wrong - alternative viewpoint -- Ames,
08:37:56 08/17/04 Tue
or...
Demons and other evil beings actually run the world behind the
scenes for their own benefit, as frequently postulated on AtS.
Humans may appear to dominate by numbers, but actually the majority
of the human race are slaves to this system. The true masters
just keep a low profile to avoid attracting unwelcome attention
from others of their own kind. The most powerful beings are the
ones we've never seen, like the senior partners or TPTB.
It all depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it?
[> [> Actually... -- Majin Gojira, 09:17:19 08/17/04
Tue
In "Fray" it is stated that it was Human Mages and Loranites
who did it...and they didn't get them all -- otherwise there would
not be a series!
[> [> Thank you, Lunasea -- ladyhelix, 16:58:58
08/17/04 Tue
I vote for HUMANS. The show is about the trials - but ultimately
the TRIUMPH - of the human spirit.
Pretty much everything else is a metaphor for something that human's
experience - whether its another human, institutions or situations
created by humans, or our own inner demons.
This is even true in season 6, where Joss admits he says "farewell
to the metaphor".
[> He-Man has the power! -- Dlgood, 12:26:47 08/17/04
Tue
[> The white labe mice -- Loki, 15:06:58 08/17/04
Tue
Ooh.. sorry, wrong mythology.
I do agree that humans seem to have a different sort of power
than physical/supernatural, and cannot be discarded because of
that. Haven't met Jasmine or some of the others yet.
I'm not sure such divisions can be clearly made. Some humans seem
to be important in the grand scheme of things; I'm assuming not
all the W&H lawyers are demons. They manage to tap into whatever
force W&H has.
[> [> HumanSSSS are powerful. A human is NOT. --
ghady, 16:35:41 08/17/04 Tue
ANY one of the other beings would easily KILL a human in two seconds.
However, given TIME (and a LOTTT of it), humans, w/ their techonology,
can SLOWLY begin to defeat whatever threats they have.
GIVEN TIME. LIKE EONS. and as long as they UNITE. AANNDD as long
as there is some sort of civil war in the demonic clans.
[> [> [> But seldom do they fail of their seed
-- auroramama, 14:39:00 08/20/04 Fri
...or however Legolas puts it. Humans screw up constantly, their
plans come to nothing, and individually, as you say, they're weak
and fragile. Tolkien's Elves have a whole list of words for humans
that (to me) add up to "Eru's pathetically defective afterthoughts."
I suspect they don't like to acknowledge that humans (and their
cousins the hobbits) are necessary to the defeat of evil; they're
Plan B all right, and the Elves were Plan A. It turns out that
beauty and grace and wisdom and even courage, skill, and sorcery
aren't enough to deal with the problem of the destructive will.
There are (at least) two kinds of power in that universe. Human
power is the unglamorous kind, mostly invisible, rooted in earth.
Life-force and common sense and stubborn will to go on. The other
kind of power is far more attractive, especially to humans, and
it makes for much better stories. But in the end it isn't what
endures.
Sorry. That got pretty tangential. And I didn't even get into
the rabbits.
[> But - if cavemen and astronauts got into a fight, who
would win? -- troublemaker, 13:12:19 08/21/04 Sat
I really like the baby arc
*Excited newbie seeing Angel for the first time* -- Loki,
15:08:50 08/17/04 Tue
Hi!
I just watched the first two baby episodes in the 3rd season *the
kid isn't born yet*, and I"m really enjoying this arc. It's
so exciting, and I'm renting the disks, but I think I might go
buy 'em because this is so enjoyable, and I can't wait to see
what happens next.
Sorry, just wanted to share my excitement!
Replies:
[> I'm definitely a Season 3 baby-arc lover, too! --
Masq, 15:29:51 08/17/04 Tue
There's some disagreement about whether the baby was an annoying
plot device or an emotional turning point for Angel (or both!)
But I was and am a fan of the kid, and enjoyed the pregnant Darla
episodes immensely, because of the new facet they provided on
the Darla/Angel relationship.
As they say, a baby changes everything.
Mal as Existentialist (spoilers
aired episodes of Firefly) -- Lunasea, 15:11:38 08/17/04
Tue
What do you know, Joss finally wrote an actual existentialist
universe. YAY Joss. Get rid of Greenwalt, pick up Tim and good
things happen. Not to the characters. To me and hopefully any
other angry atheist existentialists out there. Christmas day comes
late this year, April 22. Or maybe it's early for 2005. Then again
"Day" is a vestigial mode of time measurement based
on solar cycles. It's not applicable.
Doesn't matter. Joss isn't gifted. He's a gift.
*********
"Mal, bad. In the Latin." That's what River says in
"Train Job." As much as not having "Serenity"
messes up River's introduction, it does the same with Mal. I understand
how Joss had to work with limited time and had to get across key
information quickly. I also understand he didn't want to just
retell "Serenity" with "Train Job." Joss likes
to write new stories. "Train Job" leaves out the most
important piece of information about Mal. It's one of those leaps
that is hard to see, even with visual representation.
Mal watches his air support retreat, abandoning him. We see the
pure shock on this face. In that single action, Mal loses all
hope. In that single action, his eyes are opened. This is such
an important thing to show, that they CGI out one of Nathan Fillion's
blinks.
"Mal, bad. In the Latin." Buffy, the silliest name that
Joss could come up with. Angel, who is anything but an angel.
Most of Joss' characters resemble their names. Not the heroes.
Joss' heroes' names are a misdirect, but also an important statement
that things aren't what they appear to be. Joss' existentialism
permeates his work so much that even the heroes' names become
a statement of it.
Mal is not bad. Mal does not need to be redeemed. He is not Angel.
Angel wasn't even Angel. Before I can visit Firefly let
me revisit Angel. Angel was a character and show that
served two masters, Joss Whedon and David Greenwalt. It is Greenwalt
that wrote the season one Buffy episode "Angel." It
is Greenwalt that Joss turns to when he decides to base a spin-off
on Angel. It is Greenwalt that leaves Angel after season
3, rumored to be out of protest possibly to Cordelia's arc season
4. It is Joss that fully helms the ship season 5.
Angel's existentialist themes are watered down by Greenwalt.
Greenwalt is like his Miracles character Paul Callan.
He is looking for faith. It is a nice tribute to Greenwalt when
in "Peace Out", the sign outside the church reads "God
is nowhere. Jasmine is the way." Joss is more like Mal. He's
lost his faith and doesn't want it back.
Angel struggles to find hope. Angel actively engages in the fight
against evil. Angel believes in good. Angel is seeking redemption.
Everything that makes Angel is absent in Mal, except that neither
Angel or Mal are bad. Both have hearts of gold.
Sixteen year old Joss had what he calls his existential epiphany
watching Close Encounters of the Third Kind. A few decades
later, he grabs the one writer on Angel that understands
things and has him co-exec with him this time around. Joss needs
more than just someone who knows how to run a tv show. He needs
someone who understands the themes that he wants to run.
I've written a decent amount on existentialism and how it plays
out on Angel. On Angel it exists on a symbolic
level. It does not form the fabric of the literal universe. That
fabric, which does differ a bit from Buffy's, is also formed by
Greenwalt. Season 3, when Joss' influence is the least, is my
least favorite season. It's entertaining, but the themes are meh.
Season 5, when Joss' influence is the greatest, is my favorite
season. That is because like Joss, I'm an atheist existentialist.
I'm going sum up existentialism with one sentence: It is the universe
laid bare. It isn't something you can intellectually comprehend.
You can understand it, but not comprehend, to paraphrase River.
You can't comprehend, because the belief itself, the subject of
"Jaynestown," is required to comprehend comprehension
itself.
Now back to Mal. Mal's eyes are opened by the Battle of Serenity
Valley. He names his ship after this battle. He does not want
to go back to what he was before. He isn't looking to be redeemed.
It is so easy for the audience to look at Serenity Valley and
say that Mal was damaged there. It is so easy for the audience
look at River and say that the BHs damaged her. There is a problem
with that. It makes them no longer Objects in Space.
Take a piece of paper. Now rip it. Tear it however you want. Is
that now damaged? It has changed. The word damaged implies that
it is supposed to be something particular that it is no longer.
The opening of Mal's eyes and River's new mental state are only
damage if you assume that humans are supposed to be a certain
way. That is not an assumption an existentialist can make.
The key to Mal, the most important thing, IMO is that he is not
damaged. He has not been vamped. His eyes have been opened to
the world as it is. We can argue whether how Mal sees the world
is how it is. That isn't arguing the show. That is arguing your
belief. That is arguing what you imbue the world with. The best
stories do what their message is. In order to understand Firefly,
especially River and Mal, you have to drop what you believe. A
gun doesn't have to be a gun.
Replies:
[> Mal as the New Hero:The Business of business is business
(sp ALL episodes) -- Lunasea, 15:19:45 08/17/04 Tue
BADGER: What were you in the war, that big war you failed to win?
You were a Sergeant, yeah? Sergeant Malcolm Reynolds, Balls and
Bayonets Brigade. Big tough veteran. Now you got yourself a ship
and you're a captain. Only I think you're still a Sergeant, see.
Still a soldier, man of honor in a den of thieves. Well this is
my gorram den, and I don't like the way you look down on me. I'm
above you. Better than. I'm a businessman, see? Roots in the community.
You're just a scavenger.
"Serenity" not only introduces us to the characters,
but it does so through the theme that drives the show, business.
Freedom is the central metaphor with space and Serenity. It was
what Mal was fighting for as an "Independent" in the
war. It is what Mal believes in above all else. What threatens
that freedom is business, specifically the Alliance which is run
by Uber Corporation Blue Sun.
Mal will not submit to the intrusions of the Alliance and Blue
Sun. On "Ariel" he is so against the Alliance and being
on a Core Planet that "No one's setting foot on that fancy
rock. I don't want anyone leaving the ship. Come to think of it,
I don't want anyone looking out the windows. Or talking loud."
This does not mean he is against making a buck. As he tells Badger,
" Well, maybe I'm not a fancy gentleman like you with your...
very fine hat... but I do business. We're here for business."
That is what Mal does, business. That is why Inara is on Serenity
(more on her later). On Persephone, Shepherd Book and Simon come
on board as passengers. So does River, though the crew is unaware
of her presence in the big box. They also pick up a Fed, not knowing
he is a Fed.
All characters are on the Serenity because of business. Mal and
Zoe pick up odd jobs so they can afford to live just outside the
reach of the Alliance. Wash (as pilot) and Kaylee (as mechanic)
directly make their living through Serenity. Jayne's living is
also tied to Serenity, since he needs her to get him from crime
to crime. He even hangs from her in "Train Job" as he
does his job.
The plots revolve around jobs they take. Those jobs don't go smoothly.
That not only makes for interesting TV, but is symbolic. Business
is a word with many definitions.
MAL (to Inara): How's business?
INARA: None of yours.
Mal resents the Alliance's intrusion into other people's lives.
"That sounds like the Alliance. Unite the planets under one
rule. Everyone can be interfered with or ignored. Equally."
The Alliance, as big business, represents the ultimate intrusion
into people's business. In order to stay away from them, Mal has
to go into business for himself. Then, interestingly enough, as
captain, he has to be interested in the business of those on his
ship. With force Jayne confines Simon as Mal kicks off the lid
of the box containing River to find out what is going on. This
a fine line to walk, and that is Mal's story.
The new type of hero isn't actively fighting evil, like Buffy
and Angel. The new hero is walking a very fine line, between Alliance
and Reaver. These two extremes, with neither being "good,"
are what Firefly is about. The way to walk this line
is given in Dickens' A Christmas Carol:
"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again.
"Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business;
charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business.
The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive
ocean of my business!"
That is the story of Mal. He has a Heart of Gold. In the Battle
of Serenity Valley, he lost hope. He lost his faith in others.
He no longer actively seeks out the fight for others. "Time
was, I thought humans existed just to hurt each other." Ooops.
Wrong character ;-D
Mal's eyes have been opened to the darkness that Man can be. He
is not bad, but he has seen bad. He is trying to distance himself
from that. He cannot. As John Donne said, "no man is an island."
Or better yet Matthew 25:40 "whatever you did for one of
these least brothers of mine, you did to me." This is something
that Mal understands. At the end of "Ariel"
JAYNE: I got stupid. I'm sorry, okay? Be reasonable. What're you
taking this so personal for? It ain't like I ratted you out to
the feds.
MAL (angry): Oh, but you did. You turn on any of my crew, you
turn on me. But since that's a concept you can't seem to wrap
your head around, then you got no place here.
You did it to me, Jayne. And that's a fact.
Mal does business. He isn't business. Taking jobs
as they come is so that "we'll never be under the heel of
nobody ever again." That was years ago as shown in flashback
sequences in "Out of Gas." Now Mal is little more than
business. Where he goes is determined by whatever job he is currently
on. An interesting thing to note is that since River entered his
life, he isn't as active in trying to find work. It annoys Jayne.
"My pop always said anyone who can't find work ain't looking
hard enough. We ain't even looking at all." That wasn't Mal's
original plan, though. "Take jobs as they come." Mal
isn't a business man. He's someone trying to live. Since he has
no other reason to live, he becomes a business man.
MAL: None of it means a damn thing.
That is what River sees when she sees what he is really is. That
is what he learned at the Battle of Serenity Valley. That is why
he names his ship after this battle. On Angel or Buffy, the arc
would involve finding something to sing about. It would involve
discovering something that has meaning. That something is friends
and love. Joss still believes in those things, but he believes
in them because he imbues them with meaning.
Mal is right. None of it means a damn thing. His eyes are open
to this. The universe lies bare before him. His arc isn't in finding
something that has meaning. His arc is in giving meaning to something.
At the end of "Heart of Gold" he is about to do just
that, to Inara.
Inara is the spirt of the ship. Morena Baccarin believes her to
be the heart of the ship. It's a common misconception, confusing
heart and spirit. Kaylee is the heart. As Inara forgives the Shepherd
at the end of "Serenity" she cements her position as
spirit. If anything her role as spirit contrasts with Shepherd
Book.
She is a Companion. Mal likes to refer to her as whore. She isn't
whore, but Horae. That is why Mal's insults are so insulting.
Her society sees her as a "legitimate businesswoman."
Her trade has a guild. That isn't how Inara sees things.
From "Train Job"
INARA: A Companion chooses her own clients, that's Guild law.
But physical appearance doesn't matter so terribly. You look for
a compatibility of spirit. There's an energy about a person that's
difficult to hide, you try to feel that--
From "Jaynestown"
INARA:Hello, Fess. Mr. Higgins, this shuttle is a place of union.
I'm sure you can appreciate...
HIGGINS: What is this? I brought you here to bed my son, not throw
him a tea party.
INARA: Sir, the Companion Greeting Ceremony is a ritual with centuries
of tradition...
HIGGINS: My son is 26 years old and he ain't yet a man. Twenty-six.
And since he can't find a willin' woman himself...
INARA: Mr. Higgins, you're not allowed here.
HIGGINS: What?
INARA: As I've said, this room is a consecrated place of union.
Only your son belongs here.
INARA: Your father's not right, Fess. It's not embarrassing to
be virgin. It's simply one state of being. As far as bringing
me here, Companions choose the people they're to be with very
carefully. For example, if your father had asked me to come here
for him, I wouldn't have.
INARA: You're very quiet
FESS: I'm sorry. I just...I just thought I'd feel...different...after.
Aren't I supposed to be a man now?
INARA: A man is just a boy who's old enough to ask that question.
Our time together....It's a ritual, a symbol. It means something
to your father. I hope it was not entirely forgettable for you.
FESS: No, it was..
INARA: But it doesn't make you a man. You do that yourself.
There are three things Inara doesn't like. 1) having her job reduced
to being about sex. 2) people saying her job is about money 3)
accusing her of dishonesty. Inara is a priestess and her "job"
is sacred to her. Jayne and Mal are about business, even if that
business is crime. Inara can make a living at what she does, a
comfortable living, but that isn't why she does it.
Mal is in a similar position as to what his real job is.
INARA: Yesterday. Oh, no. I - I know this man. He just has this
idiotic sense of nobility, you know? He can never just let things
go. He thinks he's this hard-hearted criminal, and he can be unrelenting...
but there's a side to him that's just so...
Mal has been corrupted by having to earn a living, sort of. He
thinks he is this "hard-hearted criminal." We've seen
him be a tight, uncaring ass before, even saying he was going
to abandon Simon and River in Whitehall. Inara tells him if he
does that, she will go with them. She's right. As spirit of Serenity
and Mal, if he turns his back on these people that needs his help,
his business will just be the business of business.
We see Mal soften as he comes into contact with those that need
his help. To keep his humanity alive, he needs reasons to exercise
it. Otherwise, in the darkness of space he will lose it. He is
still walking that tightrope between extremes.
From "Heart of Gold"
MAL: We run. Math just don't add up. Our weapon store ain't exactly
overpowerin' at
the moment, and I don't much like what we'd be up against...Nothing
worse than a monster who thinks he's right with God. We might
turn Burgess away once, but he'll
keep comin' -- won't stop 'till he gets what he thinks is his.
So we--
NANDI: Captain Reynolds, I understand. You have your people to
think of, same as
me. And this isn't your fight.
MAL: Don't believe you do understand,Nandi. I said 'we run'. We.
My people. Your people. And whatever bits of precious you got
in this place you can't part with. We
load up Serenity and leave Burgess in the dust.
Nandi doesn't want to run, so they stay and fight. At the end
of the episode, Mal is ready to confess his feelings for Inara
to Inara. It is Inara that runs away.
MAL: Inara, I ain't looking for anything from you. I'm just feeling
kind of truthsome right now. Life is too damn short for ifs and
maybes.
INARA: I learned something from Nandi. Not just from what happened,
but from her. The family she made, the strength of her love for
them. That's what kept them together.
When you live with that kind of strength, you get tied to it,
you can't break away. And you never want to. There's something
that I... that I should have done a long while ago. And I'm sorry
-- for both of us --that it took me this long. I'm leaving.
Mal isn't conflict free. As River sees him "say," "None
of it means a damn thing." Spirit is scared to let it mean
anything. To give it meaning. That meaning takes it from Object
in Space. That meaning ties it to us. Then it hurts. "Love
is pain." Oooops wrong series again. We don't have hearts
of gold. We have flesh and blood hearts that can bleed.
But that heart is also the source of our strength. Mercy is the
strongest thing there is. It keeps us from becoming Reavers. It's
a fine line to walk.
SIMON: I already know you'd sell me out to them for a pat on the
head -- Hell, you should probably be working for 'em, you certainly
fit the profile --
Mal decks Simon for that insult. That insult isn't too far off
the mark, which is why it strikes such a strong chord in Mal.
The more Mal becomes all business, the more like Blue Sun he will
become. The more Mal worries about becoming like Blue Sun, the
more in danger of becoming like the Reavers he is as he isolates
himself from the herd. What can protect him from both is his heart.
That is Mal's story. It's not the arc we are used to because there
it no place for him to go. He isn't damaged. He doesn't need redemption.
He doesn't need to grow up. He can't fight evil/his society on
a grand scale. All he can do is take what jobs come their way,
both business and humanity. By doing that it will be a good day
because "We're still flying."
MAL: I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not
to mention more than a few unkind words as regards to my character
so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. I get paid.
(He moves his gun from her face.) And that's all.
That's life. Mercy and survival all tied into one sentiment. Instead
of anything as grand as some epic battle of good and evil being
the metaphor for life, it is simply a series of jobs. Some of
them "legitimate" and some crime. What matters is not
the job, but what we do with it.
The business of business is business. The business of humanity
is humanity. Mal has to walk the line between them.
"I don't think people should suffer, as they do."
"Did it ever occur to you you were one of them?"
It does to Captain Malcolm Reynolds. If you want a totally selfless
hero or one that is working toward that end, Mal is not your guy.
If you want to watch a high wire act, April 22 is the day to keep
in mind. That is when Serenity flies again.
[> Re: Mal as Existentialist (spoilers aired episodes of
Firefly) -- Loki, 15:22:24 08/17/04 Tue
Another atheist existentialist here (or so others tell me; I'm
not so good with philosophy myself). All three of JW's shows resonate
strongly with me, though Firefly is my favorite. I do love the
beauty of the firefly universe, where there appears to be no overarching
force trying to make things right, where people and events just
exist as things unto themselves, without grand meaning, but with
meaning all the same. One of my least favorite things in a JW
show so far is the PTB allowing Angel into Kate's apartment after
her suicide attempt. I dislike external intervention.
It is fun to play with absolutes, though, and JW is able to do
that in BtVS and AtS. Sort of like a refuge of something concrete
for the atheist existentialist.
I don't know that atheistic existentialism is for everyone, though.
Some people are genuinely better off with a theistic worldview.
I maintain that Mal never lost belief in God, just his faith.
He still believes God exists, but he hates the bastard. He has
no faith in the goodness of god or God's willingness to intervene
in human affairs.
[> [> Re: Mal as Existentialist (spoilers aired episodes
of Firefly) -- Lunasea, 15:49:20 08/17/04 Tue
Gotta leave the theists, like Kate, an out. That is all her comments
about Angel not being invited in are. River can be dismissed as
a paranoid schizophrenic and Angel got in because of the PTBs.
Is a gun a gun or a branch? As an existentialist, *I* decide what
the PTBs are. I've written about what I see them as when I talk
about existentialism. In some ways it is angry atheist existentialist
Joss trying to work with agnostic Greenwalt. Greenwalt can have
the literal universe. Joss can swoop down from his helicopter
loaded with his metaphors that will sustain even the angriest
atheist existentialist.
I maintain that Mal is an atheist. I base this contention on my
belief that Shepherd Book is his foil. Both men are going to be
tied to Serenity Valley (my speculation) and how they react is
different. It is different because Mal has lost all hope and Book
fights to maintain it. If there is still a God, even if God is
a bastard, that is maintaining some hope. It is the thin slice
of hope that Angel held onto. To lose ALL hope, Mal has to lose
ALL hope.
Too bad we didn't get to see more.
[> [> [> Mal the disappointed lover. -- shambleau,
11:57:14 08/19/04 Thu
I mostly agree with Loki on this one. Mal was a believer. Now
he's not, but it's because God didn't come through for him, and
he's judging God as unworthy. His stance reminds me of , I think,
Ivan Karamazov's. I remember a speech he gave in the book. Ivan
said (paraphrasing) he didn't care if a little girl who suffered
horribly and died spent eternity in the Baby Jesus's arms, he
wouldn't accept any God who allowed such suffering. That, to me,
is where Mal is emotionally, even if he has intellectually reached
the position you described. Look at his dislike for Book being
on the ship in Serenity. Look at his attempt to make Book uncomfortable
when he introduces him to Inara. If none of it means a damn thing,
why bother to discomfit a stranger?
Also, I'll have to check out the deleted scene where the exhausted
Browncoat remnants are waiting for rescue, but I recall a comment
after Zoe says "Thank God" that's bitter as hell, but
seems to imply that he thinks there's a God.
[> [> [> [> angry atheists -- Sheri, 00:22:44
08/20/04 Fri
I like how you put this. I've always found that the term "angry
atheist" is an oxymoron... if he's a true atheist, Who is
he angry with? I do see Lunasea's point that there is a dichotomy
between Book and Mal, but I think that the opposition can still
occur without Mal being a *true* athiest. The spiritual crises
(IMHO) would be even greater for Mal if he *wasn't* an athiest--he's
going through the pain of feeling that God has abandoned him.
Why would he feel abandoned if he doesn't (deep down) believe
that there was something out there to abandon him?
I think Book can still work as a foil, but in terms of Mal being
all "I'm ticked off with God, so I'm going to have no use
for Him." versus "There is no God." Both play off
the presence of a spiritually minded character quite well... just
in slightly different ways.
[> [> [> [> [> have to agree -- Seven, 18:43:57
08/20/04 Fri
Lunasea
Simply an amazing analysis, but I tend to agree with the others
when identifying Mal's theological beliefs. If Book is his foil,
and, as you say, Mal does not believe in the existence of a God,
then why was Book so worried in "Out of Gas?" He has
a super strong belief in God, but there is room for some doubt
on his part. Just like Mal may not want to believe but there is
room for some doubt.
By the way, I'd consider myself an agnostic existentialist which
is obviously different and I had a question concerning athiest
ex'tists.
An athiest believes that there is no supreme absolute power in
the universe, correct? Does that leave the door open for simply
a higher power? Not an absolute power, just one that is naturally
more powerful? Or is this simply ridiculous to mention, since
"higher" would simply be a matter of opinion?
just wondering.
7
[> [> [> [> [> [> would it be too simple
to go for the dictionary explanation? -- Sheri, 21:42:13
08/20/04 Fri
Ok, probably not the best resource in the world...
But by definition, an athiest doesn't believe in god(s). So, not
quite the same as not believing in something bigger than oneself.
Keeping that in mind... I've known many people who don't believe
in god(s), but do believe in spiritual concepts like karma or
meditation. Spirituality tends to be a lot more fluid/flexible
and able to accomodate those who (a) don't believe in god, (b)
aren't sure if there is a god, (c) couldn't care less, but still
wants to be able to satisfy the innate human need for serenity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In my experience
-- KdS, 02:56:21 08/21/04 Sat
Although there are atheistic religions (Buddhism, certain forms
of neo-Paganism, Church of Satan) most people who self-describe
as atheists are materialists who don't believe in any kind of
supernatural entitity, however strong or weak.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> just one of
those "have to look at the individual" situations
-- Sheri, 11:05:31 08/21/04 Sat
I tend to go back and forth between self-identifying myself as
an atheist or as an agnostic. But on the days when I'm feeling
less "is there a god? and why should I care?" and more
"no, there is no god. thanks for asking.", I don't particularly
feel like the spiritual world is closed off to me--I just don't
believe that there is a (as you put it) a "supernatural entity,
however strong or weak" that's in charge of that world.
I once had a discussion with my husband on the topic of life after
death. My husband is a staunch atheist and not a member of any
atheistic religions. Yet, he believes in life after death. Why?
Because, matter cannot be destroyed. It's scientific fact that
when you die, your molecules and atoms and whatnots will still
be around... just in a different form. So if this is true for
the body, why would one presume that it's not true for the mind/spirit/soul?
See? Spiritual conclusion garnered from an atheist position.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mal & existentialism
-- Tzegha, 17:21:45
08/21/04 Sat
Oh, I'm so excited that others are talking about this!
Fascinating point that in that moment in Serenity Valley, that
he wasn't damaged, but had the wool removed from his eyes.
Mal began with a naive belief that the righteous would be rewarded
in their lifetime, that the good would inherit the earth and the
guilty would be punished (again, in their own lifetime, and not
in the afterlife). He seemed to have missed the part about god
being the only one who had the right to punish, and that this
punishment might take place in the afterlife. But that's bringing
my own upbringing to the table.
But I don't believe that Mal has had his epiphany yet. He's got
too much roiling under the surface to believe that he's at peace
with believing that God is apathetic, or with the idea that there
is no god.
I think that at this point, he believes that God failed him, that
his own people failed him. Now what he believes is that he can
do it better than God. Mal still has a self-righteous streak a
mile wide. If you've noticed, Mal has in effect set himself up
as a kind of god in his own little universe. On his ship, it's
his word that goes. He has, in effect, bought the souls of most
of those onboard.
Moving on before I digress too far down that path.
Mal still believes in God, and believes that God failed. He needs
that presence so that he can blaim it, direct his anger for what
happened at something. Otherwise, where's the meaning in the deaths?
Having God around to blame allows him to not fully take control,
to not fully take responsibility, even as much as it contradicts
his desire to have full control-- his "I can do it better
than God" attitude.
What I love about this show, and Joss, is that in most cases of
a story, the resolution to such a situation is that the lapsed
believer regains their faith. Mal still needs to finish losing
his.
The epiphany that Mal still needs to face is that there is no
god. That there was no big bad malevolent entity out there that
failed them, that there was no grand meaning to the defeat of
the Independents. That all the harsh injustices, all the cruelty,
it just is. There is no meaning to it at all.
Then Mal will either flail against that void and be overwhelmed
by it, or he's going to have to fill that void. I think this is
where humanist existentialism would come in. Finding meaning in
his relationships with those around him (meaning that he'll have
to stop trying to piss everyone off, he'll have to stop living
his life against the big bad Alliance, and start living for the
people he cares for.
There's a whole lot more to this that I am not doing justice to,
stuff that ties into Mal's ability to love et al, but I'm gonna
stop before I hurt myself since I'm not as eloquent as the rest
of y'all :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Mal & existentialism -- Loki, 09:27:49 08/23/04 Mon
I think you got it right on. Perhaps we'll see more of that in
the coming movie.
[> [> [> [> question -- Rufus, 23:28:58
08/22/04 Sun
Mal was a believer. Now he's not, but it's because God didn't
come through for him, and he's judging God as unworthy.
I agree that Mal was a believer, but I feel that he wasn't necessarily
a religious man. He believed that if he fought there would be
a better existance for many instead of a few. Now he is disillusioned
with everything. Yet, there is this longing for more, and that
longing causes him to do things that go against the persona he
projects, one that makes one ask the question, why? If there is
nothing in it for him, why does Mal keep doing things that are
sometimes selfless? Is his dislike for "Book" as a preacher
concealing his own wish to again truly believe in something more
than just a little bit of crime?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: question -- Arethusa,
15:02:51 08/23/04 Mon
Perhaps Mal is merely angry with God, refusing to acknowledge
him but still trying to live by His rules.
But maybe Mal truly no longer believes in God, and doesn't have
a longing for more. It wouldn't necessarily follow that he wouldn't
have a code of ethics. He's determined for himself what he considers
right and wrong. Right includes helping the helpless, defending
a lady's honor, living as a free man. It also includes taking
a life if he deems it necessary. That is not the action of a man
who fears God's wrath, who believes only God can dispense justice.
Mal's a Southerner, and the South has a long tradition of the
Southern gentleman's code. I found a website that lays out rather
thorougly and totally without irony what a Southern gentleman
is considered to be.
A Southern Gentleman is a different breed altogether. He is
sensitive and tender when appropriate. He stands when you come
to his table or leave it. He knows the proper way to light a lady's
cigarette whether it's politically correct to know it or smoke
in the first place. He holds your door for you and any lady or
elderly he encounters. He always holds doors for people-not just
to try to impress a date; it is instinctive and second nature.
He says yes, ma'am/sir and no ma'am/sir. When eating in a group
or just with a special lady, he does not begin to touch his silverware
until all are served and have begun to eat. He keeps it to his
self, but he notices and cringes inside when eating in a dining
party that the oldest woman is not served first and that the youngest
male is not served last.
He doesn't claim manhood or to be a gentleman-if someone cannot
tell, they clearly don't understand what a Southern gentleman
is in the first place. With so many people lacking self confidence
in these times, a self confident man is often accused of arrogance.
He is not perfect. However, when he commits offense or makes a
mistake, he owns up to it or makes appropriate amends. He is not
afraid to say he was wrong or that he is sorry. His humble attitude
is often lost on people in modern days.
We understand that 'no' means no, and if a lady says yes, it is
one of the higher compliments she can give you by offering herself
to you and not someone else. You may know a Southern gentleman
is intimate with someone, but you'll never hear us tell. It may
even be rumored with whom a Southern gentleman is engaged in intimacy,
but he'll never reveal. He will not reveal her name or their relationship
in order to protect her honor.
A Southern gentleman is often mysterious because he keeps secrets
close to his vest. This is where he begins to differ from the
sweet sensitive guy. He is not scared to tell his lady when she
is out of line. Just as Rhett Butler held Scarlet O'Hara to account
when she behaved like a spoilt brat, a Southern gentleman does
not allow a woman to run roughshod over him. He is strong enough
and confident in himself to walk away. A woman is shocked when
he does and learns very quickly that she cannot treat him like
she does another men. She may get a second chance, but it's unlikely
and it will not be on her terms. In short, he is sensitive and
sweet, but he is strong. When she has gone too far, it may hurt
her and him both, but he will turn away, glance over his shoulder,
and say, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
The Southern gentleman is exciting and dangerous. He is not scared
to stand up for a lady-any lady. He will defend the weaker amongst
us and stand up to those who would harm them. If he needs assistance,
his friends will stand by him. He does not seek out trouble, but
deals with it when trouble finds him or someone near him. He is
kind to people in general, generous to those truly in need, polite
even to the boorish.
He has an overall sense of decency. By being just, he not only
defends the innocent, but also punishes the wicked. In punishment,
he is fair not exceeding the punishment due the offense. He will
also forgive. He is honest and gives an honest answer. If the
truth will hurt, he answers in the gentlest way possible or not
answer at all.
Being a Southern gentleman is much like the code of chivalry.
As many of the first educated immigrants to the South came from
England, there may well be an ancestral heritage stemming back
to the knights of the middle ages that has molded what we now
call a Southern gentleman. Though I wish I could claim I was a
Southern gentleman, I believe in the tradition of the knighthood,
I'm probably more like a shire or a page, thereby a Southern gentleman
in training.
In being related to chivalry or a descendant thereof, being a
Southern gentleman is a way of life. One is not born a one, he
must become one-either by his raising or by his conscious adoption
of the principles and code that defines Southern gentlemanliness.
http://www.singlesouthernguy.com/archives/000229.html
The code didn't seem to mind racism and sexism and I think this
author has seen "Gone With The Wind" one time too many,
but this mindset could explain some of Mal's determination to
live by a moral code. Mostly, though, I think Mal's code is a
way for him to impose some sort of order on the chaos of living,
a structure for making choices and relating to the world. He maintains
self-respect by living up to his ideals.
[> links from FF board -- miyu_tVP, 12:19:49 08/21/04
Sat
Hey, there!
I know I haven't posted here in forever, but I'm still lurking!
Wanted to just let you guys now that some folks over at the Firefly
board are linking to you, with lots of appreciation for the recent
Firefly discussions.
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=17577.1
All I can say is, keep it up! (pretty please??)
[> A quick announcement -- Lunasea,
21:42:18 08/24/04 Tue
I am sorry, but I am going to be unable to continue this thread
here. If you wish to talk with me about this or anything else,
I can be reached at my live
journal. I am continuing to write essays about Firefly and
will post them in my journal. My last one was about "Objects
in Space" as River's existential epiphany. Currently I am
working my way up to Inara's character. There are several essays
that need to be written before that, including one I did today
about Buffy's CwDP as it addresses the problems inherent in atheism.
Tomorrow's might be on why I do believe Mal to be an angry atheist
and not just someone angry at God. Not sure yet. Have to see how
I feel when I wake up.
I wish everyone here luck in whatever they wish for themselves.
Just remember, two roads diverged in the woods and they can't
take the sky from me.
Signing Out
Stick Girl
[> [> Am I do something wrong? -- aka Ms K, 23:03:11
08/24/04 Tue
When I click on your link it just takes me to your original post.
[> [> [> Re: Am I do something wrong? -- LittleBit,
02:20:57 08/25/04 Wed
Try this
instead.
[> [> [> [> Thanks! -- aka Ms K, 09:23:27
08/25/04 Wed
And article that explains
the plans to bring back Tara better than the last...:) --
Rufus, 21:12:55 08/17/04 Tue
www.mediasharx.com
To read the article go to the link above, now for the quotes...
"In one of the final episodes, the third to last episode,
Buffy was going to basically get a 'get out of jail free' card.
One completely reality-altering things that she could have
she could bring Angel back to her, she could do anything she wanted.
At the end of the episode she basically comes to Willow and says
'Look at these shoes I got!' and Willow's, like, 'What?' 'I got
these really awesome shoes. I wanted them, and now I have them!'
and Willow's like 'You... used... the wish... for shoes?' and
Buffy says 'Of course not, you idiot,' and walks out of the room
and Willow turns around and Tara's standing behind her."
Given that Buffy's reaction to being ripped from Heaven was negative
in the extreme, this seems surprising. As does the idea that she
would bring back Willow's lover, rather than her and Dawn's mother
Joyce, who died of a brain tumour in the fifth season. However,
Whedon notes that the impetus for the storyline would also
show Buffy being self-less, giving to Willow, rather than
for her own gain.
Which is exactly what I thought he would be going for...;)
Replies:
[> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring back
Tara better than the last...:) -- CW, 22:51:12 08/17/04
Tue
The objections to this still are valid. Forgetting everything
said in the thread below, Buffy proved at the end of season 5
that Dawn meant more than the whole world to her. So now Joss
says that looking unselfish to Willow is more important than giving
Dawn back her mother? It just looks like Joss has decided to throw
Tara fans a bone so that they'll be interested in the next ME
show. As far as I'm concerned it was no more than a passing thought
for a story like many others that must have come and gone over
the years. Obviously what Joss was talking about would have been
in a much different season seven, but I think bringing Tara back
in this fashion would have set off another firestorm. It's just
as well it didn't happen.
[> [> Are you ready to be strong? -- Rahael, 05:52:27
08/18/04 Wed
I agree completely with you CW.
The whole wish fulfillment of the get out of jail free card, reversing
bad stuff that has happened to wish for something that is the
subject of fantasy and day dreams and refusal to face reality
-
Wasn't this where the Troika got it so badly wrong? What about
Superstar? Forever?
Bringing back from the dead loved ones who have been killed is
the subject of much longing - so much so, I can't even describe
how much it rules your life for a while. This is why I loved season
6. They did the fantasy. They showed beautifully why I eventually
rejected the fantasy for myself. That creepiness of risen from
the grave Buffy walking down the stairs, in reality a dead body
reanimated - it sent chills down my spine. This is what it means
to keep the dead alive with you all the time, in the wrongest
way possible. It was an incredible metaphor of bereavement gone
wrong.
This bringing back of Tara feels like Angel's dream day. The handling
of this kind of issue in the past has always been the hallmark
of why BtVS and AtS had an emotional and moral depth and clarity
that other shows lacked.
What was the message of Chosen again? "Are you ready to be
Strong?"
Yes, I am. And so is Willow - her strength was demonstrated throughout
Season 7 in a manner that was meaningful, and that this plot twist
would have undone it all.
[> [> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring
back Tara better than the last...:) -- Rufus, 06:04:52
08/18/04 Wed
I still think that it could have been done and that I agree it
would be a definate bone to Tara fans who made the writers lives
miserable. Joss admits that he underestimated how important that
relationship was to some. If they went that way there may have
been a firestorm but many happy Tara fans.
[> [> [> Re: And article that explains the plans to
bring back Tara better than the last...:) -- Dlgood, 06:24:52
08/18/04 Wed
However, Whedon notes that the impetus for the storyline would
also show Buffy being self-less, giving to Willow, rather than
for her own gain.
It doesn't particularly address my concerns, though.
So Buffy is giving Willow back Tara? Which would be great if "Tara"
were a long-lost stuffed animal. But was Tara a person, not a
piece of property.
Maybe we're only getting one-half the story. But particularly
considering the reasons Tara broke up with Willow in the first
place, and considering that nobody considered what Buffy wanted
when she got ripped out of heaven - it find Whedon describing
this solely in terms of Tara as gift to Willow kind of creepy.
[> [> [> [> Re: And article that explains the plans
to bring back Tara better than the last...:) -- skeeve, 11:57:17
08/20/04 Fri
The only way it works morally, is if Buffy gives the wish to Tara
and she chooses to come back.
Of course there are still the issues of where one would get such
a card, what it would cost, who would pay for it when, and just
how much it could do.
The cost could get rather large if it's a vengeance demon wish.
That could set up a really nasty choice.
Anyone remember Xena saying goodbye to her brother?
[> [> [> [> [> Well, resurrection is reversable
state -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:02:01 08/20/04 Fri
If Tara was brought back to life and honestly preferred being
dead, she could choose to kill herself if she wanted. If she chooses
to go on living, then she obviously either prefers being alive
or at least believes she does. As long as Buffy talked with Tara
about her feelings after reviving her but before allowing Willow
or Dawn to meet her (thus sparing them any additional angst if
Tara chooses death), I don't see the problem with it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Quote of the month above
-- Sophist, 15:56:10 08/20/04 Fri
However, you may be ignoring some not-so-collateral issues, like
whether you'd end up in the same place as a suicide which you
left as a hero.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good point, hadn't
considered that -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:29:07 08/20/04 Fri
Of course, so little is known about afterlives in the Buffyverse
that speculating on what would happen would really just be guesswork.
We do know there's a Heaven or some state akin to it, and we have
it on pretty good authority that there's a hell (and not just
of the "dimension ruled by demons" variety). However,
whether or not those are the only states of being and what determines
who goes where is unknown.
P.S. Was that quote thing sarcastic or sincere (it's so hard to
tell online)?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sincere.
-- Sophist, 09:04:01 08/21/04 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ressurection is an
event, not a state -- skeeve, 07:54:33 08/27/04 Fri
[> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring back
Tara better than the last...:) -- Dlgood, 06:40:52 08/18/04
Wed
It is also kind of limiting, so I'd like to know what the bigger
set of details were regarding "The Wish" -- particularly
considering they spent years on a 'be careful what you wish for'.
It's also a story where people will wind up being angry no matter
what Buffy chooses, for not chosing something else...
Wishing Angel never lost his soul might well bring back Jenny
Calendar, Theresa, and a host of people. Indeed, there are a whole
host of people that have died when she failed to save them - she
could wish for any number of them.
She could wish for Kendra. She could wish that Dawn had her mother
back.
She could wish for peace in the middle east. Wouldn't that have
been even more self-less? She could wish that Oz never got bit
by a werewolf, or that Spike never got turned into a vampire,
or that Xander and Anya had a chance to for a do-over.
As Rahael commented above, there are a number of reasons
'wish fulfillment' stories are problematic.
[> [> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring
back Tara better than the last...:) -- Kenny, 18:37:25
08/18/04 Wed
I think there's an important difference between many (not all)
scenarios you mention above and bringing Tara back. Some of those
would be, in effect, messing with people's wills. Anya and Xander
weren't together at that point because of Anya and Xander. To
change that would mean changing one or both people so that the
problems keeping them apart don't exist. Same for peace in the
Middle East (I mean, wasn't that part of the point of the Jasmine
arc?). In other cases, what happened to a character is a consequence
of said character's previous actions. Angel had a curse on him
because Angelus was a bastard. Jenny was complicit in keeping
a secret that hurt a number of people. In contrast, Tara was simply
at the wrong place at the wrong time.
There are some cases that are similar to Tara. Oz being bitten
is one. Theresa and Kendra are others. As is Joyce. For most of
them, I don't have a problem at all with Buffy choosing to do
something for her best friend. She and Oz weren't that close,
and curing Oz wouldn't have as large an impact. As an analogy,
let's say you've earmarked $100 for a good cause. You could donate
it to a charity. You've got a pretty good friend who's in badly
in need of money, so you could give it to her. And your best friend
is badly in need of money, so you could give it to him. I'd probably
give it to my friend, and I don't see this as being that different.
The biggest problem I can see is the choice between Tara and Joyce,
since that's really a choice between Willow and Dawn. If she consulted
with Dawn, and they both decided that they wanted to use it to
bring Tara back, then I'd have no problem with it. And if they
make sure that they had Tara's permission before bringing her
back, no problem. Those are really the only two in-story problems
I can see with this scenario, but it's not too hard to work around
them. This doesn't really address other issues others have brought
up, such as Rah's comments about the season's theme and such,
but I don't think it's hard to justify this particular use of
a wish versus any of the other choices Buffy could make.
[> [> [> Re: And article that explains the plans to
bring back Tara better than the last...:) -- dlgood, 11:53:19
08/19/04 Thu
In other cases, what happened to a character is a consequence
of said character's previous actions. Angel had a curse on him
because Angelus was a bastard. Jenny was complicit in keeping
a secret that hurt a number of people. In contrast, Tara was simply
at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Angelus got a curse, not because he was a bastard, but because
the Gypsies were vengeful. There are many bastards the Gypsies
did not give souls to - among them Darla - who was more responsible
for taking away and klling the favored Gypsy girl than Angelus.
But regardless, what crime was souled-Angel guilty of that removing
his soul was justice anyway? The murder of a girl while soulless,
that he wouldn't have committed with a soul? The gypsies themselves
contend that it was vengeance and not justice.
Angel is punished by the loss of his soul for trying to be happy.
The same thing Tara does when she goes to bed with Willow.
Neither is any more or less deserving of the 'punishment'. Was
Tara deserving of getting shot because she disrupted spells and
performed tricks on the scoobies to keep her own "demon"
identity secret? And why does Jenny's secret keeping outweigh
her efforts to set things right later on when the same apparently
does not apply to Tara?
[> [> [> [> Re: And article that explains the plans
to bring back Tara better than the last...:) -- Kenny, 07:37:53
08/21/04 Sat
I'm not comparing the innocence/guilt of characters and saying
that Tara is a better person, hence she should get another shot
at life. I am saying that both Angel and Jenny were co-authors
of their own troubles. Because Jenny let vengeance for her people
cloud her judgment, she placed herself in harms way to make up
for her mistakes. I'm not saying that Jenny deserved to die (I
don't think she did), but I am saying that her death is a direct
consequence of her own mistakes. Likewise Angel's curse. Regardless
of the Gypsy's motivations, they would not have wanted to curse
him had he not been a monster.
On the other hand, Tara wasn't a co-author of her own death. Her
transgressions in the past had nothing to do with a stray bullet
meant for someone else being put into her chest. Had she died
at the end of "Family" because of the spell she put
on the Scoobies she would have been complicit in her own death.
Likewise, had Jenny survived past "Passion", made it
all the way to S4, and then got hit by a bus while crossing the
street, it would be a freak accident, not consequence of previous
failings that made it necessary for her to put herself in "Harm's
Way" (OK, there was absolutely no reason to refer to that
episode, but it was just really funny to me)..
[> [> [> wishing for peace -- skeeve, 12:30:15
08/20/04 Fri
Wishing for peace in the middle east wouldn't necessarily involve
messing with minds.
One could mess with bodies instead.
Messing with the tools of war might also work.
Why settle for just the middle east?
[> BUFFY the Vampire Slayer -- Lunasea, 09:24:26
08/18/04 Wed
At least I could swear that is what the show was called. It wasn't
Spike the Slayer Slayer. It wasn't The Scoobies. It wasn't Willow
the Bitchin' Witch. It had a very specific title because it was
a very specific story about a very specific character.
I am sick to undeath of people bitchin' that the story they wanted
didn't get told. It was Joss' story and what he told, he told.
If you really don't like that, I believe Charmed is still on.
If Joss comes out and says, I would have liked to have done X,
but couldn't for whatever reason, I think that idea deserves as
much respect as the story that was shown. Then again, the story
that was shown isn't shown a whole lot of respect.
I personally like this idea. I think it would have been a beautiful
moment and important to the story. I realize the show has a supporting
cast that can't just be dismissed, but it also has a star that
keeps getting dismissed, at least by the audience. Maybe if she
had gone back in time and gotten her virginity back so she could
give it to Spike people would have liked the idea more. It also
would have made Angel showing up in "End of Days" that
much more powerful. It also makes what she says about him being
the one person she loved most mean more. Joss set this up and
never got to really deliver.
Not only would it have been a beautiful gift Buffy gave to Willow,
but it wasn't a way to silence the critics of Tara's death. It
was a beautiful gift to the audience. Not just to have Tara back,
but to have her come back in such a beautiful way. The show was
ending, there was no get-out-of-jail free card, no wish fulfillment,
that was going to prevent that. This was a nice moment to give
the audience, not just Buffy to Willow, but ME to us.
If the show isn't into absolutes, then saying there is no such
thing as X isn't right. There can be X. Sometimes things do work
out and work out beautifully. From what I heard, first Willow
would have to get over Tara's death before this happened. It was
going to be a powerful episode where Willow really does deal with
her grief (as opposed to the crap we got with Killer in Me) and
then AFTER that, Buffy gives her Tara back. It's sweet and it's
beautiful.
Who cares if it is real? If you want real, read the newspaper.
[> [> Gee -- Pony, 10:14:21 08/18/04 Wed
And here I thought that this board was to discuss our opinions
on the shows, I guess considering whether a story that Joss didn't
get to tell was in fact a story we wanted to see falls outside
the guidelines that you have set for us.
Thanks for clearing up the title thing too, makes it much less
confusing when I arrange my DVDs.
[> [> [> Thanks, Pony. You said what I wanted to a
lot more pleasantly. -- Cactus Watcher, 10:58:27 08/18/04
Wed
Lunasea, your opinions on the topic are certainly welcome. But
why turn your reply on the subject of Tara into yet another Spike
bashing fest? I like Buffy and Angel, too. But, it's difficult
to continue to read what you've written when you go off like this.
[> [> [> [> The Topic isn't Tara -- Lunasea,
11:10:07 08/18/04 Wed
That's just it. The topic is what Joss Whedon, creator and executive
producer, wanted to do with HIS show.
I don't care whether Buffy decided to get Xander and Anya back
together, give Giles a love interest, find Dawn a boyfriend, turn
Drusilla sane and normal so Spike could have her, or any number
of things. What matters is this was about BUFFY. This was about
Buffy who had the chance to get the one thing she wanted most
and she gave that up to get something for a friend.
THAT was my point. This wasn't about Tara. It was about BUFFY.
Remember Buffy Anne Summers, the star of the show? It was also
about the audience. The ones that complain that a show about vampires
wouldn't be real enough [fill in the blank].
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Topic isn't Tara
-- CW, 11:23:56 08/18/04 Wed
I think you did manage to say that in your first reply. The problem
seems to be, for both Pony and I, the extra baggage you put on
it in saying it.
I agree that the show is Buffy's. But we have the right to disagree
about whether Tara's possible return as outlined in the quote
from Joss, would add or detract from that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> You have every right to
do pretty much anything you want -- Lunasea, 17:50:29 08/18/04
Wed
Never said you didn't. I love how when I say "I don't like"
somehow the leap is made that "you can't do" is said.
This is Masq's place and the only one that has a right to say
what can and can't be done is her. She's pretty hands off, so
that leaves us to govern ourselves (Lord of the Flies anyone).
I have every right to say that I don't like, 'cause quite frankly,
I don't like. I have every right to say I don't like however I
do like. If I want to do that with a bit of restrained snark,
I don't see anything against that in the rules.
You have the right to disagree with whatever you want. You have
a right to state this disagreement here however you want. However,
once upon a time, this board was a place full of insightful essays
that analyzed the show and even occasionally talked about philosophy.
Kaboom was not an uncommon occurance. Now it has become a place
where people complain and complain and complain. Anlaysis is about
what is wrong with the show. Reading this board why would anyone
watch the show?
Oh well. Maybe you can't leave Serenity.
[> [> [> [> [> You're right -- Pony, 11:40:57
08/18/04 Wed
It's not about Tara at all. Neither CW or I are mentioning that.
Look, I realize we have a profound difference in how we view the
shows, and on the use of subjective and objective tone in writing
- and that's fine. I just have a problem with what I see as your
attempt to prevent any discussion that is critical of the show.
Or more specifically critical of your view of it. If I'm
misreading your intent then I apologize.
You should have a look at some of the posts in the threads on
Tara's return, most of them are actually about what it would mean
for BUFFY - or as I like to call her, Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I was not aware that I
had that power -- Lunasea, 18:03:27 08/18/04 Wed
Is this a Jasmine-like power where I can enthrall the board into
behaving how I want them to? That is so super cool. I didn't even
have to sleep with Connor to get it (though that may be a downer).
Do I get to decide who everyone votes for this September? 'Cause
that's actually important. Maybe I can get everyone to buy American,
even the non-Americans. Maybe I can get everyone to stop listening
to rap music, especially rap metal. How extensive are my powers?
Can I determine whether you drink Coke or Pepsi? What about chocolate?
The very substance of it is blech. Can I have a world without
chocolate?
Or maybe it is more like Jonathan in "Superstar"? Not
quite the extensive thrall that Jasmine had, but everyone here
thinks I'm worth listening to. Imagine the possibilities....sorry
I was imagining the possibilities. I'm sure my calendar would
be quite nice. I'd even autograph it for all my friends here on
the board. Even for my not-friends. Everyone can have a little
piece of lunacy.
Or more like "Tabula Rasa." I could wipe the slate clean.
Make you forget all about the show. Like "Spin the Bottle."
Take everyone back a few years and let them fall in love with
the show all over again.
So which power is it that I am attempting to use to prevent discussion?
I was just ranting. Do I need to label them for you?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I give! You've slain
me with your subtle wit! -- Pony, 18:53:29 08/18/04 Wed
Maybe if you actually responded to what CW and I were saying we
could have a real discussion, but that doesn't seem to be your
goal at all.
Bottom line: I found your initial post unecessarily rude, and
filled with major assumptions about anyone and everyone who disagreed
with you. There were some interesting posts by Rahael and Dlgood
discussing the cons of this entirely hypothetical situation regarding
Tara, just as Rufus and some others had good posts on the pros.
I'm not sure what your contribution of stating that people who
disagreed didn't respect the show and should stop "bitching"
added to the discussion, but then you did the unthinkable and
suggested any who didn't like it should go watch Charmed.
Dude that's just cold.
I love BtVS with a profound and scary love, but I don't believe
that prevents me from looking at some of the show's aspects with
a critical eye. I like discussing such things because sometimes
in the process we can fill in the gaps we perceive in the text,
or I can change my mind altogether. Or simply have even more appreciation
for the completely random and fucked up nature of making television.
However I wouldn't want to diminish your enjoyment of the series
if it is dependent on this particular view you have.
Since you seem determined to take this in a direction that will
only lead to nastiness on both our parts, I would suggest we end
this now. My experience in the past with you has not led me to
believe that either of us will reach an understanding in this,
or anything else show-related. I'm going to try to say "Vive
la difference" with only a slight grit of my teeth and hope
that you'll be able to do the same.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I really didn't
think I was being subtle, but if you say so -- Lunasea, 07:22:25
08/19/04 Thu
Why should I respond to assumptions made about the show or what
Joss would have done that are just that-assumptions? There is
no evidence of how exactly Joss would have dealt with things beyond
a very quick description that didn't describe the episode in its
entirety. What it described was the purpose of it and how beautiful
things were. Those pesky details that make an episode were left
out.
Basically, people are assuming that Buffy is treating Tara as
a gift that can be awarded. By extension, they are saying that
Joss is also treating Tara this way. Joss has done nothing but
show his characters the upmost respect. He would take things into
concern. He was just giving the important part.
As my darling hubby pointed out in his much longer and more "objective"
post (serves me right to take a nap), it is also a gift to Tara.
He didn't even go into the special relationship Buffy had with
Tara, the one person she could turn to season 6. Tara and Willow
had made up, so it isn't like Buffy is taking away her free will
and forcing her to be with Willow. That insinuation was offensive.
It was offensive because Joss doesn't do that. Buffy was the one
that wanted to give up power because of her life. Why assume that
Tara didn't want to come back? Cordy did. According to Skip, Cordy
and Buffy were in the same place.
Most of the plot lines, given in a short description, would sound
either lame or downright contrary to the show. Angel gets a son?
Buffy gets a sister? Talk about having to pull a rabbit out of
a hat. Joss did both and did them well.
A lot of assumptions are made to paint the idea in the worst possible
light. There is no "discussion" going on. Rather than
look at the glass as half full and discuss how the idea could
have been done, the rush was to condemn it.
One of these days I'm going to open that virtual torch stand.
Buy three torches and I'll throw in a free pitchfork.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I
really didn't think I was being subtle, but if you say so
-- Dlgood, 10:57:07 08/19/04 Thu
Basically, people are assuming that Buffy is treating Tara
as a gift that can be awarded. By extension, they are saying that
Joss is also treating Tara this way. Joss has done nothing but
show his characters the upmost respect. He would take things into
concern. He was just giving the important part.
The important part being that Tara was a gift that she could award
to Willow... because that was what he said. He didn't mention
anything about it being a gift to or for Tara.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So . . . are we gonna
fight, -- mrsubjunctive, 11:12:10 08/21/04 Sat
or just have a monster sarcasm rally?
[> [> [> [> [> Something for a Friend --
Dlgood, 12:39:49 08/18/04 Wed
This was about Buffy who had the chance to get the one thing
she wanted most and she gave that up to get something for a friend.
Considering what BUFFY (or as Pony calls her, Buffy) had just
gone through in S6-7, and the objectification she was striving
against, what does it say about her that Buffy (Whedon) would
view Tara first and foremost as "something for a friend"
rather than as an individual person in her own right?
It's great that she wants to do something for her friend Willow.
But unbreaking a crayon is quite different than delivering her
a person. If Buffy wanted to resurrect Tara for Tara's own sake,
and having done due diligence or communed with her spirit or what
have you, this particular objection would melt away. But Buffy's
to raise Tara as a thing for Willow. And the last time I checked,
the only person with the rights to give Tara to Willow was Tara
herself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Seeing as you aren't Joss
-- Lunasea, 18:20:20 08/18/04 Wed
how the heck do you know how it would play out? How do you know
what concerns he would and would not address? You are assuming
from a brief description what would happen.Let's take some other
brief descriptions:
Buffy will die (twice no less)
Oz will be werewolf
Angel will go evil
Angel will go to hell
Angel will come back from hell
Angel will leave
Angel will become a private investigator
Wesley will become cool, important and evey sexy
Wesley will fuck Lilah (sorry about the profanity, but nothing
else fits)
Angel will go to an alternative dimension/Angel meets the Wizard
of Oz
Darla will come back
Angel will have a son
Angel will be given Wolfram and Hart
Back to Buffy...
Willow will go evil
Buffy will get a sister
There will be a second Slayer
Spike will be toasted and ghosted
Do I need to continue? We can say whether each of those were lame
or contrary to the messages of the Buffyverse, but there are more
than a handful of people that believe these brief descriptions,
when they were fleshed out, became not only not lame, but moving
and important parts of the story. Rather than just trash Joss'
idea, that had all the writers crying, why not think of ways it
could have been done?
I trust Joss. I think he respects his characters and his story
and it shows.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beg to differ ...
-- Earl Allison,
12:56:23 08/19/04 Thu
"I trust Joss. I think he respects his characters and his
story and it shows."
I USED to think he respected his characters.
And I know that, not only am I in the minority, but that my thoughts
aren't arranged particularly well.
I don't think episodes like "The Girl In Question" were
particularly respectful to Buffy, Angel, or lord help me, even
Spike. I also think a lot of disrespect was visited on Buffy in
Seasons 6 and 7, and never really recovered from.
I understand your comments, where they are coming from, and what
you mean. It might well be somewhat unfair for people to criticize
an unfinished thought, but I think some twelve seasons of Buffy/Angel-verse
stories give some indication of things.
Additionally, how "fair" is it for Joss to toss this
tidbit out there? And once he did, didn't it become fair game
for discussion, given what Joss said?
I can totally understand some people's concerns. Some viewed Buffy
as a prize for Spike (or Angel) to win, as opposed to a person
with her own wants and desires. I think a small part of that came
from the writing, so I can see where some might view the same
angle, or fear it becoming the same.
You're correct, we will never know what might have been -- then
again, neither does Joss. He threw the idea out there for consumption,
and we as fans/critics/whatever are saddled with working with
what we have only. Claiming it isn't fleshed out, and therefore
not a fair subject for criticism, seems unfair to me. Joss threw
it out there, and until and unless he fleshes it out, that's all
we have to go on.
And frankly, given Buffy's experiences with Higher Powers, death,
and rebirth, I can't believe she'd pick a resurrection, either.
Could Joss have made an excellent case? Maybe. Could he have written
it as terribly (IMHO) as the UPN years of BtVS? Sure.
It's all an unknown. But that's all we have.
And as I've said before, I give a LOT more credit to posters here
than I do to Mutant Enemy anymore. I really, truly wonder how
many of the gorgeous themes brought up here were intentional,
and how many were simply "lucked into" by ME. Many times,
I wish someone like Sophist, or sk, or Dlgood, or so many others
had been in charge. To anyone I left out, don't despair, y'all
are always great to read, no omissions were deliberate :)
Ah well, I'm spinning off on an unrelated tangent.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm flattered,
but -- Sophist, 15:27:05 08/19/04 Thu
can you imagine what might have been Xander's fate if I had been
in charge?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't
have been wanting to be his other eye ;-) -- TCH, 01:18:07
08/20/04 Fri
[> [> What about poor Kennedy? :-) -- Ames, 12:32:28
08/18/04 Wed
[> [> [> Kennedy is rich, bee-yotch! -- Dlgood,
12:41:09 08/18/04 Wed
[> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring back
Tara better than the last...:) -- Rich, 09:46:55 08/18/04
Wed
A minor problem with this is : when would they do it ?
If it happened before Buffy was "overthrown", then Willow
( & probably Dawn ) would have tended to support Buffy against
the rebellious potentials, who might have been less rebellious
- the whole "heartless general Buffy" theme would have
been a lot less credible.
If it happened after Buffy returned with the Scythe, would they
have time ? It seems to me that entire arc is already pretty tightly
plotted - what could they drop to make room for this ?
[> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring back
Tara better than the last...:) -- stratnav71, 16:17:50
08/18/04 Wed
I ve been giving a lot of thought to how Joss could have brought
Tara back and not have had it come off as forced, insincere or
some sort of cheap payoff to Tara s fans. Personally, I m not
a big fan of the Bobby Ewing effect. Shows like that one are supposed
to be grounded in the supposed real world, so when things like
that or the previously unknown evil twin show up, it can be quite
jarring and shout inducing (as in OH YOU VE GOT TO BE KIDDING
ME!!! HOW STUPID DO WE LOOK!!)
Fortunately, we are not burdened by such limitations. Joss universe
is set in our reality, but is chock full of vampires (souled and
unsouled), demons, hell dimensions, time traveling vampire hunters,
siblings formed out of green balls of energy and lets not forget
one or more super powered uber teens known as Slayers, whose mystical
powers automatically transfer to one of a preselected group of
girls upon the previous owners death without so much as a You
May Have Already Won! letter from Ed McMahon.
Since, I would assume, most everyone here has watched and for
the most part enjoyed 7 seasons of Buffy and 5 of Angel, it is
safe to say that we have had little trouble accepting Joss Whedon
s demon filled reality. As such, I would think that if he wanted
to give Buffy a mystical get out of jail free card , he could
have come up with a way for it to make sense with what we already
know. Joss described it as a get out of jail free card as a kind
of passing reference the idea in a magazine article. If things
had perhaps gone more along the lines he originally planned for
Season 7 he would have no doubt have fleshed out the idea to something
a little more exotic than a game piece from Monopoly. But hey,
condsidering his sense of humor, he could decided to be literal
for a change.
Perhaps it would have been designed as a sort of test for Buffy,
to see how much she had grown over seven years. Since no Slayer
had survived as long as she had (2 deaths not withstanding), it
could have been a previously unknown gateway to the next level
of the Slayer s existence. It could have been something along
the lines of Shanshu, where she s freed of the burden of being
Slayer, or something that would have been a tie in or condtion
to her obtaining the Scythe. In either case, whatever this step
was it would be tied into the choice Buffy makes with the wish.
Following along the lines of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,
does she choose wisely or poorly? If she chose poorly it wouldn't
mean she would melt away to dust and bones and blow into the wind.
Aside from being a really sucky way to end the series, it would
simply mean she was not ready for that next step. Of course that
also mean she was not worthy of the Scythe so the First wins,
and we end up with hell reigning on earth, cats and dogs sleeping
together, and mass hysteria, which would also be a sucky way to
end the series. So lets assume Buffy is going to choose wisely
and save the day if not the geographic location that was once
Sunnydale,CA. What choice might she have to make to do this?
1) Buffy wishes the First out of existence: Nice try but not exactly
a big climatic ending to our beloved show. Very little growth
required on Buffy s part, so a little off message.
2) Buffy gets Angel: Too simplistic and not to mention overly
selfish. (Does Angel get a say in this?) It also wouldn t show
much maturity or growth on her part. It would however make a very
good misdirect, so that when Angel does appear viewers assume
that was what she wished for, until the dreaded cookie dough speech.
3) Buffy gets Spike: Assuming this wish occurs prior to Spike
becoming a flaming ball of ubervamp destruction, winding up in
a mail cart in LA, he s already there for the taking. Also considering
the metaphorical use of Sunnydale s zoning laws and building codes
with that relationship, it never struck me as overly healthy,
not to mention mature or wise.
4) Buffy gets Joyce back: Nice thought but no. If we are looking
for growth and wisdom in the longest living Slayer, then I want
my Mommy back at age 22 isn t going to cut it. it might be a nice
gift for Dawn, but she already got one dead relative back so lets
not push it. Dawn could certainly use some situationally induced
(i.e. teenage orphan) maturity anyway, and during Season 7 was
on her way there. Bringing Joyce back would probably cause Dawn
to regress, and no one (including Michelle Trachtenberg) wants
that!
All of the above have to do with Buffy wanting something for herself.
They could be taken as signs of her immaturity, so it doesn t
really fit with what we (or at least me) are looking for. What
about doing it for someone else? Could be noble, so what are the
options?
1) Cure Oz: Eh, sounds nice, but Oz is a pretty amazing guy in
his own right. He found a way to control the wolf on his own,
so that would void his personal growth. That s not very Joss like,
and might cause complications for Willow striking up this whole,
is she gay, is she bi, and if so can we watch? mess that no one
really needs to get into.
2) Bring back Anya for Xander: Nice gesture, but Anya made a personal
sacrifice and since this wish thing was slated to happen before
the final episode, she s not dead yet anyway.
3) Get Xander and Anya back together: Uh, Tabula Rasa anyone?
Besides they had come to the conclusion that it really was over
between them despite any residual feelings, so that s not much
good anyway.
4) Restore Xander s eye: Nice, but come on now, She can wish for
anything in the world and she picks an eyeball? Might as well
go with the shoes. Besides, like Anya it s a personal sacrifice
he knew he might have to make at some point. After seven years
he s lucky that s all he lost.
Which brings us to.....
5) Bring back Tara: I think this could be done very well considering
the nature of her death. It is not as simple as bringing her back
for Willow or bringing back a friend. Buffy would certainly know
the risks involved with bringing back the dead, but as was pointed
out before, this wouldn t be the kill the cute deer, black magic,
vomit a snake style resurrection. Tara could be broght back knowing
she had been dead, but not remembering where she had been. Tara
s death symbolizes something, and Buffy would have to realize
that for it to be the right choice. I see it as representing Buffy
s shortcomings, her failures. For all the good she did, there
were many people she didn t or couldn t save. Tara was probably
one of the most tragic of those. She wasn t killed by a demon,
or vamped. She was, as someone mentioned, simply not standing
two feet to the left. However it was more than that. She was an
innocent victim of Buffy not fully getting the job done.
If she had been able to catch Warren before he flew off in Seeing
Red, or had been able to take the threat he and the others
posed more seriously and caught him sooner, Tara would not be
dead. However choosing Tara would be more than simply cleansing
herself of whatever guilt she may have felt. It would be a mature
understanding of the responsibility her powers come with.
In past seasons, when Buffy avoided / tried to run from her responsibility
as Slayer, people got hurt, killed or the Big Bad got worse. She
would finally win when she regained that focus, joined with her
friends, and reconnected with humanity. That connection was why
she lived so long. During Season 6 it took her a long time (otherwise
known as 21 episodes) to be able to deal with being alive again.
By the time she did, Tara was dead and she was powerless to stop
her best friend from destroying the world. (Thank God for yellow
crayons) By mid season 7 she was at it again. She had lost touch
with humanity to the point where everyone around her was reduced
to a set of disposable pawns in her war against the First. She
s rejected by the group, and kicked out of the house. I think
it would be at this point the card would come into play.
She s given the option in whatever clever way Joss comes up with,
and now she s faced with the choice. What does she wish for? Does
she wish the First out of existence? Does she give up her powers
and walk away? She remembers her past, reviews her options and
has her epiphany. She s supposed to protect humanity. To do that
she needs to care about humanity again. Right now she doesn t.
Humanity is disposable, her friends are disposable, she is disposable.
She has lost her focus and her connection again. She remembers
all the times she did that before. She remembers that the last
time it happened it led to Tara s death. The death of someone
who wasn t even directly involved in the fight. An innocent bystander.
She thinks of the potentials she let die. She finally realizes
the cycle of running she s been in and truly comes to terms with
who she is and what her responsibility is (She grows up - one
of the themes of the show). As a way to apologize to all of those
she failed to protect during the times she was so self absorbed
with the burdens of being Slayer, she asks to bring back one of
the most innocent victims of it, Tara.
My guess is she would reappear 1 or 2 episodes before the finale,
after Buffy has reconnected with her friends, had a chance for
the Angel misdirect to happen, and explain to Willow how she came
to have the Scythe. Her choice and reconnection with humanity
makes Buffy worthy of the Scythe, worthy to lead the potentials,
mentally able to beat the First, and able to move on in her life's
journey, from adolescence to adulthood.
[> [> Re: And article that explains the plans to bring
back Tara better than the last...:) -- DEN, 17:11:08 08/18/04
Wed
Well reasoned, Stratnav! May I offer two related points:
1. The issue of Tara's objectification. This seems easil dealt
with, either in a flashback or a brief exposition. You demonstrate
that Buffy brings Tara back for her own deep reasons, not as a
plush toy for Willow. Once she returns, it seems obvious that
Buffy would let her choose what to do next. What she will do is
obvious though some posters might consider it unwise. (In that
context it's worth remembering that the Scoobies have been fighting
what amounts to a war for years, and in that situation making
the most of time is not as questionable as it might be in a "normal"
relationship situation.)
2.What would happen if in the context of Tara's return we learn
Buffy's "heaven" was really a subtle deceit of the First?!
Her description of it always seemed to me like a post-surgery
Demerol high, when the doctor tells you to push the button when
it hurts, and for a couple of days you float in a pink-tinged,
fuzzy-edged euphoria where everything's just fine. In particular,
Buffy's emphasizing that she "knew" those she loved
were all right could hardly be further from the reality at the
end of ep 6/2! ANd given Joss' point in Comic Con that "you
never ever get to stop fighting if you want to be a decent human
being," it would not have ben implausible to set up this
alternate scenarrio.
Fanwanking, I know--but fun to consider, nevertheless!
[> [> [> Re: And article that explains the plans to
bring back Tara better than the last...:) -- stratnav71,
20:56:00 08/18/04 Wed
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Those are good points to consider. Just bringing Tara back doesn't
make everything hunky dory, we still have to consider what Willow
would do in light of her relationship with Kennedy and her attempts
to get past Tara. (Now personally I think Willow drops Kennedy
after a some a touching scene where Kennedy realizes she just
extraneous filler to get ratings, but that's just me)
I like your thoughts on Buffy in heaven. I'm not sure ME would
have gone somewhere like that, but like you, I was bothered by
the line about how she knew her friends were all okay, even though
it was pretty obvious that things were going downhill quick.
In any event, what if's are often fun to explore.
[> [> [> [> Re: And article that explains the plans
to bring back Tara better than the last...:) -- DEN, 21:56:21
08/18/04 Wed
It seems reasonable that if Amber had been willing to sign on,
the Kennedy subplot would either never have been introduced or
played far lighter than was actually the case. Similarly, if Tara
returns, Faith's rejoining is best played in the context of a
"gathering of the gang" for a final showdown. The "mutiny"
arc doesn't work well anyway because it's not thought through.
Faith doesn't WANT to take over, and only repeats Buffy's mistake
by mounting essentially the same kind of strike.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And article that explains
the plans to bring back Tara better than the last...:) --
stratnav71, 22:41:52
08/18/04 Wed
I agree with you concerning Kennedy. Knowing Tara was coming back
it probably wouldn't have been as hot and heavy and we could have
gone without the "it's all just like fairy tales" crap
from The Killer in Me.
I thought the mutiny arc did actually play out pretty well and
was fairly realistic. In a mutiny, those involved try and replace
leadership with those they think are more sympathetic to their
cause or plight. Often they find out after the fact that the new
leadership takes them on the same mission they were trying to
avoid. They might understand that whoever came before was using
the wrong tactics but the orginal intent to complete the mission
was on the right track. Some semblence of order is needed and
the new leadership is under the same obligations as the old to
provide it or else chaos would erupt.
That is the situation Faith finds herself in. She was the "cool"
Slayer who took everyone to the Bronze, but now she's in charge,
there is still a mission to complete and she realizes Buffy's
plans weren't that far off.
[> [> Wishful Thinking -- mac, 12:24:24 08/28/04
Sat
Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking on fans who wanted the show
to end without Buffy changing the Slayer line.
I'm satisfied with Buffy's Season 7, which is more than I can
say for Angel's Season 5.
[> Hey, Rufus!! -- dub ;o), 19:20:29 08/18/04 Wed
Remember on the phone last night, when I said, "If things
get too quiet on the board, if not enough attention is being paid,
then we'll get a big blow-up just to refocus attention?"
I've never had a prediction come true quite so quickly before,
but in this case it was really a simple matter of remembering
history and watching it repeat itself.
There are people who require attention as a necessity of life,
and if they aren't capable of garnering positive attention, eventually
they'll settle for stirring up negative attention. To paraphrase
ME, "It's not about positive or negative; it's about ATTENTION."
;o)
[> [> Deja vu -- Rufus, 01:40:14 08/19/04 Thu
See, this is why Mr. Rufus calls you the Supreme Wicca Basket....;):):):):):):):):):):)
Current board
| More August 2004