December 2002 posts
Response
to ponygirl's Ouch! (7.9 spoilers) -- Doriander, 08:22:34
12/04/02 Wed
Didn't want to hijack Rob's thread so:
Just had a quick read through the NLM shooting script. The
end's a bit... bloodier than the aired version. My respect for
Drew Goddard now has an eensy smidgen of fear.
Er, I kinda wished they left that in .No visual necessary. Just
focus on Spike's face, sound of hammer hitting the head of a spike
in the background as Spike screams (adds a karmic angle knowing
his favored form of torture back in the day). Not that I'm bloody-minded.
It's just that in the actual ep, the implied pain seemed so intense,
that when they revealed them to be carved symbols, I thought,
thta's it? Didn't Spike have self inflicted gashes just as deep
in 7.1?
Other things:
BUFFY
He was talking to someone up there --
I heard him through the door. He was
having a conversation...
(thinks)
And then he started singing.
ANYA
Maybe it's another musical.
(looks around; thinks)
A much crappier musical.
I laughed at this the first time, but now I realize Anya is being
logical here. During the musical, she and Xander were addressing
unseen spectators (fourth wall). From her standpoint, Spike conversing
with an unseen someone and breaking into song makes perfect sense.
SPIKE
Flashes here and there. Like I'm
watching someone else... do it. Kill
people.
One of the things I think odd with flashbacks from someone's memory
as typically presented on film is that we rarely see things transpire
from the actual POV of that person. It's always as if the
person remembering was himself a spectator, as was the case with
Spike's flashbacks in "Sleeper". I like this line's
sneaky meta humor.
Principal Wood (still carrying his briefcase) walks through
the dark basement. He doesn't seem lost; he seems to know where
he's going.
INT. SUNNYDALE HIGH BASEMENT - ANTECHAMBER - NIGHT
Principal Wood walks into the antechamber, looks down and sees
Jonathan's decaying body (not too decayed -- just a little rough
around the edges) sprawled out on the Seal of Danzaithar, exactly
where we left him in Episode Seven.
Principal Wood studies Jonathan's body for a beat, his face betraying
nothing.
Another sleeper? The entire time that Spike was in the basement,
have these two ever crossed paths? Is there something to Principal
Wood doing the honors in "Lessons" (ribbon cutting),
and Spike in NLM (activating the seal)? Isn't it interesting that
early in the season, with both of them on Hellmouth tenure, how
they're seemingly the antithesis of each other; one is collected,
suave, and well-dressed, the other mad, devoid of poise, and errr
ripe? Hmmm (drifts off... wistful thoughts of PW finding Spike,
taking him home, putting him up in his former-walk-in-closet-but-is-a-room-now.)
[> Remember, hijacking keeps
a thread alive! -- Rahael, 08:42:47 12/04/02 Wed
I'm sure Rob wouldn't mind a tangent to his Annotation thread!
Thanks for pointing out what was not actually shown on screen.
Because I don't get to watch it, I'd never spot what they didn't
show in the end - if I read a shooting script, I'd assume that
was what actually ended up on screen!
[> [> Another difference
to note (spoilers 7.9) -- ponygirl, 09:06:15 12/04/02 Wed
...is that Willow definitely did not use any magic during the
attack on the house (unless it happened so quickly I missed it),
and her confrontation with Andrew was played for laughs. There's
none of the hints of Dark Willow that seem to surface in the script.
[> [> Thread hijacks
are OK with me! -- Rob, 09:23:22 12/04/02 Wed
[> Re: Response to ponygirl's
Ouch! (7.9 spoilers) -- ponygirl, 08:44:23 12/04/02 Wed
I don't know, I'm all for the occasional Spike torture, but I
just think that the scene in that draft of NLM would have been
too much. Also I think the crucifixion imagery would have been
far too heavy-handed (unsure if I've just made a horrific pun),
plus the whole spike/Spike thing-- I'm glad of the changes.
It does seem that there was a fair amount of rewriting as opposed
to just cutting lines. The expanded B/S basement scene was pretty
interesting since it seems to emphasize to me that Spike is basing
all of his perceptions on season 6 Buffy. He doesn't know season
7 Buffy yet, but then as Buffy points out he doesn't know himself
anymore.
[> [> As an official
maker of cringeworthy puns ... I'd say you nailed it ponygirl
-- SpikeMom,
15:25:06 12/04/02 Wed
[> Re: Another Musical
-- Wisewoman, 14:04:56 12/04/02 Wed
ANYA
Maybe it's another musical.
(looks around; thinks)
A much crappier musical.
I laughed at this the first time, but now I realize Anya is being
logical here. During the musical, she and Xander were addressing
unseen spectators (fourth wall). From her standpoint, Spike conversing
with an unseen someone and breaking into song makes perfect sense.
I believe that Anya's use of the word musical at all is
an instance of metanarration. From the POV of the Scoobies in
OMwF they were simply cursed to sing and dance. It was the episode
itself that was referred to as a musical, and since they're not
supposed to realize that they're characters in a series...well,
you get my drift.
;o)
[> [> Anya referred to
Broadway/musical terminology all through OMWF as well... --
cjl, 14:17:36 12/04/02 Wed
"Fourth wall," "book song," "breakaway
pop hit"--this is all musical (and/or) theater terminology,
and Anya was spouting it like a veteran producer. It makes sense
that Anya, Joss' designated truthteller of the group (when it's
not Spike) is the one who gets the metanarrative job in OMWF,
but it's not necessarily a breakdown of that fourth wall: referring
to the singing and dancing curse as a "musical" makes
perfect for such a media savvy group as the Scoobs. In fact, calling
themselves the Scoobies is in itself classic metanarrative, but
not necessarily a breakdown of the fourth wall. In other words,
they classify their adventures as similar to another mass media
phenomenon, but they don't necessarily identify themselves as
fictional characters...
Well, THAT was confusing.
[> [> [> In the OMWF
Script Book there are definitions to stage terms used in the Musical
ep. -- Rufus, 21:02:26 12/04/02 Wed
A speculation
(spoilers through 7.9) -- HonorH, 14:56:13 12/04/02 Wed
I'm sure we've all been wondering about how Buffy's going to beat
the First Evil, especially if it doesn't get itself a body she
can pummel. Well--what if she doesn't have to beat it? What if
all Buffy needs to do is keep things balanced? Frustrate its plans?
I fully expect her to be trying to beat it for most of the season,
only to come up head-first against Uber-Vamp and Bringers and
assorted other minions. If she changes her tactics, though, she
could throw it off. The point for her wouldn't be winning--it
would be making sure the FE doesn't win. Play to a draw rather
than play to win.
Do I have something here, or am I on crack?
[> Re: A speculation (spoilers
through 7.9) -- Cheryl, 15:33:39 12/04/02 Wed
Interesting idea. It would certainly leave the door open for the
next spin-off. So are you thinking the First would go back into
hiding again, like after Amends?
Of course, you could be right and still be on crack. :-)
[> You don't beat the First
Evil.. -- ZachsMind, 15:39:23 12/04/02 Wed
She didn't really beat it the last time she went up against it.
She beat up all its minions and she tried to talk Angel into not
committing suicide, but Buffy didn't do anything to stop the First
Evil herself. It was the snow. It was hope from some unrevealed
source that saved Angel. Buffy just stood there and berated him
for ten minutes before all but giving up on him.
The First Evil has tried to point out occasionally that it's the
thing that's always around causing trouble. At best the Scoobies
will eventually shut it up but it'll still be out there to annoy
everybody next season.. or series.. or comic book anthology...
or whatever floats yer boat.
[> [> Re: You don't beat
the First Evil... (Spec, and spoilers for S7 so far) -- pr10n,
17:47:45 12/04/02 Wed
Buffy just stood there and berated him for ten minutes before
all but giving up on him.
I wonder if that doesn't speak to HonorH's point -- that when
Buffy gave up, then hope came from the sky...
Ok, maybe not. Our friend the Dewey Mackinaw shouldn't get much
play in the Buffyverse these days. It seems old hat. But answering
conflict with conflict seems, oh, e-e-e-vil? In fact, the COW
recently mentioned plans along those lines and see how that turned
out?
We don't really understand the FE's goals, except that it's bored
with balance and apparently everything is about power (and who
or what has it). So if Buffy refuses to play, then won't she in
a sense have the power?
The FE would respond to that, I'm thinking, with destruction and
death for all, but how powerful can FE really be if Goodness isn't
pushing back at it? If it's the only game in town, does it really
win?
"All right, I get it, you're evil..." FE seems a braggart
and a bully, and those are limiting character traits, except if
Evil is going to win the day. And I'm on record voting for the
Good Guys eventual triumph.
Even if FE does win it all, Evil famously eats its own, so we're
just back to power struggles and in-fighting.
I like your idea on this, HonorH, and that fangy shadow behind
you has nothing to do with it.
[> [> [> Oh, ye gads,
I'm having bad "Highlander" flashbacks now! -- HonorH,
21:27:07 12/04/02 Wed
Please, no replays of the Ahriman saga!
Seriously, though, I wonder if Buffy might have to find a way
of fighting the FE that doesn't involve, well, fighting. Last
year, Xander won the day with love. That could be a clue that
physical battle can't win this fight. Buffy might have to redefine
"Slayer" before this year is out.
[> Neat Idea -- Haecceity,
23:29:46 12/04/02 Wed
Have you heard of a book called "Finite and Infinite Games"
by James P. Carse? Coincidentally enough I just picked it up in
the bookshop this afternoon. Haven't got a chance to read it yet,
but the blurb on the back makes me wonder if it doesn't speak
to your notion here.
"Finite games are...games with winners and losers, a beginning
and an end. Infinite games are more mysterious--and ultimately
more rewarding. They are unscripted [Well, not in our case ;)]
and unpredictable [okay, back in it here]; they are the source
of true freedom."
Its a thin little book, so I'll give it a go and get back to you,
but this idea of yours sounds like it would be very exciting,
story-wise!
---Haecceity
OT to Haecceity:
interesting board name...unique, even. -- cjl, 15:16:08
12/04/02 Wed
I'm not too much in tune with modern philosophy, but does this
term have to do with an object's unique identity (perhaps even
across infinite quantum states)?
And how the heck do you pronounce it? I'm going to be talking
about your essays in actual face-to-face conversations, and I
don't want your board name coming out "High Society."
(That's a Bing Crosby/Frank Sinatra movie.)
[> Re: OT to Haecceity:
interesting board name...unique, even. -- luna, 15:22:15
12/04/02 Wed
I'm not her (wish I had that wisdom!) but I'm making a wild guess
that Haecceity is a homonym for Hecate. But I may be way off!
[> [> "Not that
it's all about me" -- Haecceity, 23:06:18 12/04/02
Wed
"wish I had that wisdom"
Trust me, it's borrowed. Any perceived wisdom is merely the result
of a small talent for picking out pertainable quotage from *true*
geniuses. Plus, there's this guy, hangs out at the corner market,
plays a "wicked" game of backgammon, can get you anything
you want--Appearance of Wisdom was on special last month, and
as I was in the midst of applying to grad schools, I figured the
$39.95 investment was the way to go.
As far as the term's origin, I haven't yet found the *reason*,
linguistics-wise that Duns Scotus coined the term. I keep meaning
to look it up in more detail, but all my online time seems to
be spent on some crazy Buffy Board...
Plus, my Latin is really really bad, almost exclusively of the
pig variety, so I'm afraid I haven't been able to suss it out
on my own. Any Latin scholars out there have any notions?
I did find it funny that the site where I first learned to pronounce
it said this: "Heks (Dutch for witch)-See-Itty", so
maybe the Hecate notion isn't far off ;)
---Haecceity
(Kind of embarrassed that she doesn't know the linguistic meaning
of her own name. And possibly pulling a Buffy sup/inf-eriority
complex, here, with all the me!me!me! posting. That's it! off
to read others' brilliance and practice humility. Though can't
help thinking that if prctice makes one perfect...
gods! The weight of my big head will snap my neck one of these
days!)
[> [> [> Hey! I've
been looking for that dude!! -- Wisewoman, 09:24:37 12/05/02
Thu
My Appearance of Wisdom purchase came with a money back guarantee,
and I haven't been able to find him again to cash in on it!
;o)
[> [> [> little Latin
and less Greek -- luna, 11:12:34 12/05/02 Thu
I vaguely recall that haec is one form of the pronoun for this
or maybe it's that (hic, haec, hoc...were the forms that I remember,
but it's from LONG ago). So Dun Scotus' term would sort of mean
"thisness". Maybe. I think.
[> The Wonderful Thing About
Tiggers is... -- Haecceity,
22:41:55 12/04/02 Wed
...that they, it, he
is a type of haecceity!
Best definition I've found--
"Haecceity (n.)From the Latin: 1. The quality of a thing
that makes it unique or describable as 'this (one)' 2. Individual.
Thisness; the property that uniquely distinguishes each individual
thing from others of its kind. Introduced by John Duns Scoutus
[13th Century Oxford Philosopher] as a name for the individuating
essence of any particular. The term has been used more recently
[in mod. philosophy, yes, but also in, funny enough, quantum physics]
in connection with the view that a rigidly designated individual
can exist in each of many possible worlds." Pronounced Heks-see-itty.
Came across the concept in my reading re: synchronicity and its
applications in super string theory, loved it, and in attempting
to find more info via the internet, stumbled onto a link to ATPoBtVS/AtS
on a narrative theory blog where they were engaged in a big "Is
*this* a Haecceity?" Fest. When it came time to brave the
waters and jump into posting, I thought this an appropriate screen
name.
"I'm going to be talking about your essays in actual face-to-face
conversations..."
Good gods, really? Can I ask in what context, or is that being
incredibly vain? Not that that has stopped me before. I'm utterly
shameless ;)
"I don't want your board name coming out 'High Society.'
(That's a Bing Crosby/Frank Sinatra movie.)"
Yes, one of my favourites--musical remake of The Philadelphia
Story, brilliant jazz bit with Crosby and Louis Armstrong and,
of course, the Sinatra/Crosby Drunken Duet!
Thanks for the (quite flattering) interest.
---Haecceity
[> [> ooh! -- Rahael,
05:35:34 12/05/02 Thu
"Haecceity (n.)From the Latin: 1. The quality of a thing
that makes it unique or describable as 'this (one)' 2. Individual.
Thisness; the property that uniquely distinguishes each individual
thing from others of its kind. Introduced by John Duns Scoutus
[13th Century Oxford Philosopher] as a name for the individuating
essence of any particular. The term has been used more recently
[in mod. philosophy, yes, but also in, funny enough, quantum physics]
in connection with the view that a rigidly designated individual
can exist in each of many possible worlds." Pronounced Heks-see-itty.
I love that, and have never heard it before! Squirreling it away
for future use!
The only thing I know about Dun Scotus is the GMH poem. But I
love both High Society and The Philadelphia Story.
This might
be stupid question territory but I'm just wonderin... -- ZachsMind,
15:34:52 12/04/02 Wed
I've looked through Masq's website, and have seen pretty much
every episode. I've made some of my own determinations, and when
it comes to some episodes it's kinda obvious (or easier to infer/interpret)
what Whedon's trying to say or where he's coming from or just
basically what philosophical concept or point that a given episode
is getting across.
But is there some way to summarize it for the series overall?
Are there repeating motifs and themes? Are there definite yesses
and definite nos in regards to the philosophy of Buffy? Is there
a consistency? What are your thoughts?
And if you just say "moral ambiguity" I'm gonna ask
you to vague that up for me. *smirk*
[> An Elemental / Philosophical
Haiku / Is this the shortest? -- OnM, 16:25:49 12/04/02
Wed
"But you're just a girl"
"That's what I keep telling them"
"Fire bad, tree pretty"
[> Re: This might be stupid
question territory but I'm just wonderin... -- Pilgrim, 17:22:37
12/04/02 Wed
My take on the big theme: It's hard to live in the world, hard
to be the kind of person you want to be, and you're going to fail
more than you succeed, but ultimately life and love are worth
the effort. Spike gets to speak (sing) the show's philosophy:
"The pain you feel you only can heal by living. You have
to go on living." I've been struck by the repeating motif
of suicide--I suppose that's natural for a show that is so much
about death, but it also seems right for a show about teenagers.
And the show affirms repeatedly that living is the more excellent
way. Jmho.
The show also seems to value engaging the world, the suffering,
the pain, not retiring behind the walls of doctrine, academia,
gated communities, computer screens. Action is better than contemplation,
even if action goes awry. Willow grows from being a research geek
to a practicing witch, and this is a good thing. Giles begins
in the school library looking up stuff in old books, and, although
research remains important to him, he moves out of the library
and works more in his apartment, then in the magic store, and
he takes on an active mentoring, parental role. Xander moves from
the role of jokester to committing himself (sort of) to Anya,
and escapes the secure retirement of his parents' basement. That
the show values action in the world might be consistent with any
number of philosophical or religious systems, but in the Buffyverse
perhaps it most consistently reflects a pragmatic approach to
morality: what's moral is what works. And if the Buffyverse arcs
toward a balance of good and evil, then what works in this universe
will be those actions that support that balance.
The show also seems to value the individual and his/her efforts
at self-actualization. The individual usually is more important
at any given moment than the community's needs. Yes, Buffy gives
up personal desires to be the chosen one, the savior of humankind,
but the show seems most interested in examining the conflict between
personal choice and destiny or fate. In my opinion, the show encourages
us to root for Buffy when she acts against fate, when she eludes
prophesy, when she resists others' interpretations of her role
as slayer. Outside authority, whether in the form of police, mayor,
parents, CoW, come across as incompetent or downright evil. Romanticizing
the individual, particularly at the expense of authority figures,
strikes me as very traditionally American by way of borrowing
from all of those 19th century English romantics. I can't decide
whether the show romanticizes the individual innocently, or whether
there is a certain satiric edge to its presentation of individualism.
[> [> There've probably
been more than a few Joseph Campbell threads that I missed
-- luna, 17:52:59 12/04/02 Wed
Still, the journey of the hero comes to mind--maybe recycled a
few times, but that's why they call it a series.
To repeat what I'm sure has been said about Campbell's paradigm:
The hero ( as Giles called Buffy in The Gift) has a miraculous
birth, or else a very undistinguished origin; becomes aware of
a problem in the community which must be solved; leaves and corsses
the threshold into the miraculous; finds a helper; passes many
tests; descends to the underworld; obtains miraculous elixir/advice/knowledge;
returns (often with more tests, threshold crossing, etc) with
something that benefits all. Does Buffy fit? Even if over and
over again, I think so.
[> [> good post. I agree
-- Rahael, 06:10:03 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Re: This might
be stupid question territory but I'm just wonderin... -- Michael,
06:49:26 12/05/02 Thu
Yes, the Buffyverse is filled with mythological allusions, especially
those that refer to Joseph Campbell's monomyth (the hero's journey:
Separation,initiation/transformation, return). Every time I watch
the show, I drive others nuts when I say: Buffy is staring into
the abyss! or He's crossing a threshold. You might enjoy reading
Campbell's classic work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, or you
might enjoy watching The Power of Myth, a PBS video series that
featured Campbell and Bill Moyers.
One of the reasons I love Buffy so much is that the show presents
this mythological material in such an entertaining manner. Each
episode addresses a rite of passage that each of us eventually
encounters. It's why the sixth season was tough for many of us
because we didn't particularly want to deal with some of those
subjects in our own lives. (Yeah, I know most of the guys would
not have cared if Buffy had used them for her own purposes as
she did poor Spike.)
The hero's journey is a motif that is found in all cultures in
one form or the other. Because it is psychologically attuned to
each of us, the Buffyverse resonates within us.
There is also a great deal of Jungian material in Buffy, especially
as it relates to shadow, self, individuation (the process of becoming
the person you are suppposed to be), and archetypes out the wazoo.
So, yes, there's more to Buffy than a blond with a stick. Thank
goodness.
[> Answer: "It's about
power..." -- frisby (the Nietzschean), 17:35:44 12/04/02
Wed
... and the consequent responsibility that accrues to power due
to conscience.
[> Re: This might be stupid
question territory but I'm just wonderin... -- Matthew, 13:05:48
12/05/02 Thu
I agree with the hero's journey posts above, but if I could only
use one word to describe all seven seasons of Buffy, it would
be transgressive.
Not to get all academic and use needlessly long words, but Buffy
is a show that seems to base itself, in the overall concept and
it the week-to-week plotting, on constantly transgressing boundaries.
The other posters have pointed out how this type of thing works
in the typical Hero's Journey. The hero may be born different
(suckled by she-wolves, lamed and abandoned, his daddy was a thunderbolt-throwin'
toga clad deity) or may become different (pulls the sword out
of the stone/lake/tree etc.) So, we have Buffy, who is set apart
by destiny.
But as Mr. Whedon has repeatedly pointed out, he deliberately
took the victim persona (female, blond, small) and turned her
into the hero. That violates almost every cliche of the hero we
know, while putting her through the same trials.
The hero is defined as a threshold crosser. Carlo Ginzberg, in
Ecstasies, his book about shamanistic beliefs in medieval Europe,
believes that all European heroes are based on the idea of the
journey into the underworld and back. A journey Buffy has repeatedly
taken.
But beyond the big picture, the show repeatedly transgresses it's
own boundaries. Think the show is about high school? We'll blow
it up. Vampires are evil? Here's a good one. And another one.
And some morally ambiguous ones. Demons are bad? Date them. Characters
cross the brink of good and evil on a regular basis, moving all
the moral boundaries we think we understand.
I think my favourite episodes are the ones where the show mocks
itself and it's own self-imposed logic, transgressing even the
notion of who the main character might be. Superstar and The Zeppo
are the best examples of Buffy parodying itself, and still creating
a good story.
[> [> Re: This might
be stupid question territory but I'm just wonderin... -- Michael,
17:55:25 12/05/02 Thu
Some interesting thoughts about transgressing boundaries. And
yes, Joss did create a hero out of a victim, but on one level,
I think that's what the whole hero's journey is about: It's not
just about heroes, it's about us.
Joss has taken a victim, which we can all identify with, and empowered
her. The whole thing is larger than life, which is the point.
The show, like any good myth, provides us a glimpse of the powerful
potential within each of us.
The show was about high school the first three years and it was
blown up to provide a transition. How many of us really want to
go back? How many of us blew the place away in our minds? It's
behind us. It's over with. Time to move on.
And the world we move into is fraught with "demonic"
and "vampiric" activity and we realize that things are
not as they seem and sometimes evil can be good and sometimes
good can be evil and whoa! Life is not a one dimensional television
show filled with cardboard characters. We have to learn to deal
with demons and vampires and lack of soul and soul and the whole
nine yards. Maturity means we do move the moral boundaries. We
are always setting and moving boudaries, just as Buffy and the
Scoobies are constantly doing.
I still contend it makes us uncomfortable as hell because we see
ourselves in it. Something Jung called projection.
I like the self parodies as well because every now and then I
have got to quit taking myself so seriously.
Folks, with all this talk about the First Evil and that which
is beneath that devours, we are definitely crossing the boundary
into our own inner shadows. Jung suggests that unless we come
to grips with those repressive tendencies, we are headed for trouble.
Buffy is so much damned fun because I can be entertained and inspired
and challenged all at once. It works on many different levels;
something for everyone. And it's all the more satisfying when
you realize it's okay to cross the boundaries.
Sorry if this sounds a bit didactic or preachy. Just love to talk
about this. Getting all goosebumpy now.
[> [> [> Shadows
-- Rufus, 00:35:48 12/06/02 Fri
Folks, with all this talk about the First Evil and that which
is beneath that devours, we are definitely crossing the boundary
into our own inner shadows. Jung suggests that unless we come
to grips with those repressive tendencies, we are headed for trouble.
When we speak of the anima, we think of a man as an individual,
of the anima of a certain being, or the ego is the ego of a human
person, and the shadow means the person's inferior side.
ML VonFranz
I like that the shadow can be seen as the persons inferior side.
The fact that Spike has changed so much has so much to do with
his interactions with Buffy. He attempted to get her to give into
her own shadow to live in the darkness with him, and ended up
going for a soul or spark that could enable him to deal with his
shadow/inferior side and live by the light with Buffy. Still doesn't
mean he will get her, but I liked the irony of it. The fact that
Buffy is more tolerant of Spike may be the result of her living
out some of her shadow side allowing her to understand Spike in
a new way. You could also say the same of Xander and Anya, both
changed because of their relationship, both hopefully for the
better.
Could someone
explain the whole sweeps thing to me? -- Juliet, 18:29:35
12/04/02 Wed
I keep hearing all this talk about sweeps, but I have no clue
what you're talking about.
Could someone explain the whole process to me? Pretty please with
a cherry on top?
[> Well,it's a network "thing".....
-- AurraSing, 18:53:45 12/04/02 Wed
You see,in order to attract advertisers,a network or show has
to prove that it has the kind of ratings that will get a product
noticed.Shows like "Friends" and "ER" are
top money-makers for NBC by virtue of good ratings but even they
must prove themselves on a regular basis and a good chunk of this
happens during "sweeps".
"Sweeps" is a period both in November and February where
for a period of three weeks,the shows compete like mad for ratings.This
competition may take the form of story arcs or unusual guest stars
(Brad Pitt is one name that comes to mind) in order to keep viewers
tuned in and therefore watching commercials. The better the ratings
of a show during sweeps,the more bargaining power it has when
selling air-time both to affiliated stations and to the commercial
sector.
With shows like BtVS and AtS,most often their "sweeps"
contain story arcs that help set the tone for the season more
firmly in place and may also re-introduce guest stars we have
not seen for a while. They are important periods and usually reflect
some high dramatic writing by the staff at ME,who I would imagine
are always hoping to boost their show's ratings.
[> I'll take swipe at it
-- shadowkat, 18:58:26 12/04/02 Wed
Assuming Doc hasn't already done so. He knows far more about this
stuff than I do. So if I'm wrong? Hopefully he'll correct me.
But here's what I know:
Sweeps happen three times a year. In November. Feburary.
And May.
Sweeps is the period that advertisers (those horrible people who
spend all their time coming up with new ways to convince us to
buy products we neither really need or want), check ratings of
the shows on television and decide which ones are worth buying
advertising time for.
Advertising time is a block of time during the broadcast of the
show in which commercials air. Each hour show has approximately
20 -30 minutes of commercial time available. The commericial time
is what pays for the television show.
It's the equivalent of popcorn and concessions at movie theaters.
Yep, that's right the money we pay for movie tickets and for cable
does not pay the cost of the program.
Those dang actors and writers and costume designers salaries are
the reason we are inundated with commercials.
(sigh).
So say you're the coca cola company and you have decided to buy
a block of air time to advertise a new soft-drink. Which time
do you pick?
Buffy the Vampire slayer at say $$$
Friends at say $$$$$
Dogface the Robot Boy
Angel
etc.
The network sets the price based on cost of show and probably
ratings.
The advertiser decides which time period to buy based on the ratings
and the demographic. For instance if you are
coca cola you might want to pick Friends - hits an across the
board demographic. If you are a young hip boutigue, maybe Buffy.
Demographic is a marketing term for say 18-20, 18-34, 34-50...etc.
Ratings are determined by several different companies, the ones
that are considered the most legit are Neilsen. Neilsen collects
ratings from little boxes they place in selected viewers tv's
- viewers are picked randomly from every demographic and during
the sweeps months their viewing choices are tabulated and released
as ratings to tv studios, affiliates and advertisers. TV shows
are cancelled
or reknewed based on ratings b/c if you have low ratings?
The advertisers won't gamble on the commercial time block.
When I interviewed for a job at a TV network - I found out that
salaries and bonuses at TV studios are often based on how good
the ratings of their shows are, and the advertising dollars. Sweeps
is when these things are determined.
This is why it is imperative for a network to show it's best programs
during November, Feburary and May. The network who gets the highest
ratings gets the best ad dollars and goes up in the stock market.
It is also imperative for TV shows to air their best episodes
during this period - since this is the period in which the network
evaluates the popularity of their show and whether their show
is worth investing more money in.
Since most TV shows can afford to produce no more than maybe 22
episodes (which is a lot btw, ER only does 13 - I think), (Again
we can blame those rising salaries and production costs - in the
by gone golden age of tv - we had no reruns until the summer and
less commercials, but there was also only 3 main channels and
PBS so no real competition) this means that we end up with bulk
of episodes in Nov, Feb and May, and just a couple in the months
in between.
Smart tv shows put a large number leading up to NOV to get audience
hooked. Then take a break during the holiday season b/c let's
face it, most people are out shopping and partying not watching
tv and all those dang specials are on, then they come back just
before Feb to hook the audience again with two episodes, after
Feb take another break, we have basketball and sports after all
and Spring Break, then come back hooking us again so they can
give us the cliffhangers and big wrapup in May, ending on a high
note so the network is just dying to spend more money on them.
Joss Whedon may ignore ratings and watch the internet. But the
Kuzuis, UPN and Fox watch the ratings very very closely and it's
their opinion that matters on whether they show continues or not.
They own the show. Whedon just have creative control over it.
He doesn't choose when and if the episodes air. Just what episodes
air and how they are created, whose cast, the story, etc.
Not sure that made sense. Feel free to correct me anyone.
My info comes from watching and reading way too much TV and Entertainment
information.
[> [> Some history
-- Darby, 19:13:24 12/04/02 Wed
The sweeps periods used to be the only time during the season
when a really comprehensive attempt to measure viewership was
conducted, including the local level - local ad rates would be
set according to those sweeps ratings. Networks pumped up their
shows so that their affiliates would get maxed ratings - that's
where the sweeps "events" programming came from, as
well as the sweeps "stunts." This obviously dates back
to well before computerization made analysis of viewership cheap
and relatively reliable over the long haul (and when a season
ran at least 26 weeks so intersweeps reruns were much more limited),
and some say that there is no real need for doing it this way
anymore. I don't know enough about it to know if that's true.
[> [> Pretty Darn Good
-- Dochawk, 00:07:49 12/05/02 Thu
Darby is correct in his historical assessment. But Sweeps month
(they last 4 weeks, usually from a wednesday night to a wednesday
night) is about prestige as well as money for the networks and
netlings. CBS won November sweeps by a smidgen, yet like George
W, gets to crow about it. But it is really all about advertising
dollars. Neilsens, a company many of you have heard of (and Arbitron
is the #2 company in this field), has boxes in the homes of approximately
6000 people across the united States (yes thats right kiddies,
6000 families decide which programs stay on the air). They use
very fancy demographic techniques to figure out which home means
what. During sweeps months, Neilsen's used to send out logs for
people to write in what they actually watch. I was asked to do
one for a month at a time when I was dating the producer of a
syndicated tv show. Her show, one I would never have watched if
I wasn't dating her, got the Brentwood professional demographic,
since I assume I was the only one in the area who was filling
the damn thing out (it was truly a pain in the ass, I was supposed
to fill out a seperate book for each of the 7 tvs in my house
[though I live alone] withthe exact times I was watching what
show oin which tv!!!)
Anyway, tv shows then set their rates for advertising (which is
18 minutes on a first run hour long show on most of the nets,
which is why Buffy runs 41:40 for anyone who tapes without commercials).
But it is much more than raw numbers advertisers want. During
sweeps ratings are broken down into many segments. Buffy, though
it only reaches 5 million households, can charge more because
those 5 million tend to be educated and have money (and are in
a young demographic). Same with West Wing. Amazingly btw, UPN
loses money on every episode of Buffy (about $300,000 dollars
I believe). Which is why even though they say they want Buffy
back, UPN won't want to pay as much as they are now, which means
Fox can't give SMG that big a raise etc.
And finally btw network drama shows all have 22 episode seasons,
except for 24, which not suprisingly has 24 episodes (so Kat ER
has 22). The cable shows do not do 22 episode runs, Sopranos was
13 this year I believe and Sex In the City as 8 and then another
8.
I am exhausted and its late, so hopefully the above was coherent
and more than you ever wanted to know about sweeps.
[> [> [> Question
-- Darby, 06:50:23 12/05/02 Thu
Do you have any idea where all of this extra money from UPN is
going? Have the staff members gotten huge raises? The production
values have gotten a bit better, but not way better. As you say,
if UPN renews Buffy, it will have to pay less (the first
time increased their visibility and had other benefits, but a
renewal at a loss will just make them look stupid), but how will
that really translate to what we'll see?
Personally, I think UPN is hoping SMG isn't coming back,
because fees will be able to drop on a spin-off and no one will
look like an obvious loser.
[> [> Well done shadowkat!
I'd also add.... -- Briar Rose, 02:27:40 12/05/02 Thu
Most hour dramas are shooting about 6 weeks in advance of showing.
Since many series are off from Christmas through New Year for
the Winter Hiatus....(some not [like all my BF chooses to work
on ~s~] - but most are, especially with Chanukka falling in there
as well) Because of the fact that Hollywood can basically become
a ghost town during that month - they tend to "bank"
shows so they can come back in February with new eps as well as
have a couple left for May Sweeps.
Only the entertainment industry has almost the same schedule as
educational institutions.*LOL
OT (but not
completely since it involves Julie Benz): Is anyone else here
totally digging "Taken"? -- Rob, 21:02:09 12/04/02
Wed
I started watching Monday night thinking Spielberg, aliens, epic
drama, but, wow, that's a lot of show to watch. I figured I'd
try it out, and if I liked it, tape the other episodes and check
them out eventually. In fact, I became so hooked on the show that
I've watched all three episodes as they aired, and edited out
the commercials for easier re-watches. Anyone here who hasn't
yet gotten into the show, there are still 7 2-hour episodes left,
so you're not too late. They're also rerunning it constantly on
SciFi.
The thing I love about the show so much is that, like "Buffy,"
it has its roots in realistic human emotion, and even with all
the outlandish sci-fi situations, it focuses on the characters
first and foremost. It lacks "Buffy"s depth, but it
is emotionally compelling, and quite addictive. Tonight's second
hour was a little slow, IMO, and made me fidget a little, but
it was saved by the stellar last few moments.
And for those of you wondering about Julie Benz...in her small
role as the wife of an abductee, she is absolutely wonderful.
It's nice to see her in a role, playing a genuinely sweet person.
In the 1940s outfits, she looks beautiful. I hope we see more
of her in the show, although since she wasn't on tonight and the
focus has shifted further away from her character, it seems we
might not.
Anyone else watching "Taken"?
Rob
[> I watch -- Majin
Gojira (I'm not dead!), 21:17:42 12/04/02 Wed
I watch, I find the situations interesting, and, like you said,
it is reminiscent of Buffy
Plus, we finally get to see a clear and concise version of what
those UFO nuts are screaming about :-)
[> Scifi lost me when they
canceled Farscape -nt- -- Corwin of Amber, 21:20:46 12/04/02
Wed
[> [> I'm furious about
Farscape, too, but... -- Rob, 22:47:05 12/04/02 Wed
...there are still 11 episodes left, in January, so we need to
watch SciFi anyway then.
Also, SciFi, being a cable channel, won't be hurt by poor viewership
as other channels would. It's basic, so people can't just choose
to not order it, like HBO or Showtime.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Also
x 2 -- Silky, 07:39:50 12/05/02 Thu
Farscape marathon on Christmas eve day and...
There was a very interesting bit of narrative last night in Taken
that applied perfectly to my theory on Spike. I plan to re-watch
and write it down for the list later.
[> [> I understand your
pain, but ... -- Robert, 12:41:26 12/05/02 Thu
I believe you are being a little too rash about boycotting the
Sci-Fi channel. Here is my reasoning.
First I want to state that I have no problem with boycotting a
company that has sufficiently pissed me off. I haven't contributed
one cent to the coffers of Sears in 15 years since they damaged
my credit rating due to their own misbehavior. It turns out that
Sears is so incompetent that lending institutions don't hold it
against me. I purchased three houses since. Just last week I mailed
a letter to the FOX network, warning them that I will boycott
them (but not FOX studios) if they succeed in destroying Firefly.
If this board so requests, I would be happy to post the contents
of my letter. If I boycott FOX network, it will not be solely
because of Firefly, but also because they ruined nearly
every other science fiction show they've presented.
I affirm that Farscape is an exceptionally good show, and
it deserves the best chance possible. I believe that the Sci-Fi
channel has done nearly so. Farscape has enjoyed a four-season
run. My only major complaint will be if the story lines are not
properly resolved. According to http://www.farscape.com, a movie
project is in active development and I'm confident that such a
movie would adequately resolve at least the most important story
lines. In plain words, I don't believe that Sci-Fi channel has
grossly mismanaged the show, as FOX network has done for Alien
Nation, VR5, Space:Above and Beyond, X-Files,
and now Firefly.
However, even if my opinion is accurate, it does not justify my
claim that you are acting rashly. Farscape is a show that
has engendered fierce loyalty among the fans and it can really
hurt to lose one's favorite show. However, the Sci-Fi channel
is the only science fiction specific genre channel we have. And,
for the most part, they make sincere efforts to respect the genre
and the fans. If not for the Sci-Fi channel, we would not have
had the Dune mini-series last year or the Children of
Dune mini-series next year or (for that matter) the current
mini-series Taken. Sci-Fi channel has a limited viewership,
because it is genre specific, and thus they have a limited budget.
I would have preferred that they cancel Stargate SG1 over
Farscape, but given Stargate's higher ratings they would
have been foolish to do so. I'm assuming their budget couldn't
support both shows.
In conclusion, I believe that the Sci-Fi channel has generally
done a good job with very limited resources and generally rates
our active support and feedback. I believe that Sci-Fi channel
respects science fiction and the fans of science fiction. FOX
network, on the other hand, is good at serving the illiterate
unwashed masses. FOX knows that they want to have some quality
shows, but they don't understand what that means, and they demonstrate
exactly ZERO respect for the fans.
I'm confident that Sci-Fi channel will (in the future) bring us
new quality shows, and that they will try to do a good job. I'm
also confident that FOX network will (in the future) ruin new
quality shows, and they will screw the fanbase in the process.
[> I too am taken by "Taken"!
-- Robert, 11:58:26 12/05/02 Thu
Quote from
Drew Goddard re: Shooting Scripts spoilers for "Never Leave
Me" -- Rufus, 02:22:33 12/05/02 Thu
Bronze Beta
Okay, with regard to shooting scripts - a script can vary from
the aired version for a variety of reasons. We're usually revising
scripts up until the day we start shooting. And then we change
things in editing all the time - sometimes things don't go according
to plan
on the day of shooting and you have to cut things out, sometimes
scenes need to be trimmed down, sometimes "happy accidents"
happen on set and you suddenly have brilliant new elements to
work with and so you change things around (for instance, Tom Lenk
ad-libbed that "Ooo - steak sauce" on the day we were
shooting and it made us all laugh so
hard we kept it in.) With regard to specific questions about the
Never Leave Me script, I'm not sure which draft you guys are looking
at so I can't say for sure, but I have a feeling the scenes were
changed to better service the overall story arc of the season.
And these scripts should not be treated as canon. There are so
many versions and revisions that take place that you can only
go with what you see on screen. However, anything I say here about
zombies is definitely true and should be considered a fact.
Drew Goddard
I must inform Mr. Goddard that to Trollops, a Shooting Script
or Wildfeed is considered a simple studyguide where any or all
the contents may appear on this years final exam.
And for those who aren't sure what blew up at the end of the episode.......
Other answers to questions - Spike's trigger song was simply
picked at random and it will in no way play an important part
in upcoming episodes this season. Or, perhaps, something else
is true.
The Watcher's Council blew up. They all died. Sorry for any
confusion. Drew Goddard
So, for all you confused folk.....they're dead, they're all dead
and it's Drew's fault....;)
And now to why they used leather straps instead of nails on Spike
to affix him to that cross type thingame.....
Hey - I'm getting censored. Is this site run by UPN? Next thing
you know you're going to be telling me that a graphic crucifixion
scene with a vampire might "offend" virtually every
human being who watches our show.
You damn suits can be so uptight sometimes. Drew Goddard
[> As to not waste space....more
news Fox DVD Releases Angel winning popularity poll -- Rufus,
04:38:14 12/05/02 Thu
thefutoncritic.com
20th century fox sets massive dvd slate
Get ready for the television series on DVD market to explode in
2003. In a chat with the fine folks over at Home Theater Forum,
Peter Staddon of 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment revealed
a startlingly large slate for the coming year from the studio
with over a dozen planned season boxed sets in the works. 20th
Century Fox has been one of the true pioneers in the TV on DVD
market with its "The X-Files," "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer" and "The Simpsons" releases. And with these
new additions to its catalog next year, it certainly will live
up to that name.
Staddon confirmed that in addition to the "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer: Season 3" (Jan. 7), "The Shield: Season 1"
(Jan. 7), "Angel: Season 1" (Feb. 11) and "N.Y.P.D.
Blue: Season 1" (Mar. 18) sets previously announced, fans
can look forward to releases of the complete first seasons of
"Dark Angel," "Family Guy," "Futurama,"
"King of the
Hill," "Millennium" and "Son of the Beach"
to reach the format next year, as well as subsequent seasons of
"The Simpsons" and "The X-Files." The majority
of them are planned for the second quarter of 2003, however no
specific release dates were given.
Due to the chat format, Saddon also managed to answer specific
questions about other series from the studio. He reported that
while the studio does want to release full season sets of "Roswell"
and "Ally McBeal," music rights issues have become a
significant obstacle. As the DVD format is still relatively new,
most contracts to use music on a TV series do not include the
rights to release it
in other formats, particularly DVD. While that is slowly being
rectified with many current productions, sadly many older releases
face multi-million dollar fees to ensure the original music used
is what you see on DVD. It appears that now with the syndication
hurdle slowly disappearing, this new obstacle will prevent many
shows that use music from outside sources from a DVD release.
Also facing legal
issues are "The Ben Stiller Show" and the 1960s "Batman"
series however no specific reasons were given.
Saddon mentioned that the studio is also looking into releasing
season sets of "Alien Nation," "Hill Street Blues,"
"Lost In Space," "St. Elsewhere" and "The
Time Tunnel." Sales figures for its current 2003 crop will
likely decide if they are worthwhile investments. He also confirmed
that while he personally would like to
see them released, the studio is not currently looking into releases
for "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.," "Firefly,"
"Greg the Bunny," "The Honeymooners," "Space:
Above & Beyond," "The Tick" (live
action or animated) or "Undeclared."
You can find the complete transcript of the chat here.
To review, here's what's in the works at 20th Century Fox:
already announced:
angel: season 1
buffy the vampire slayer: season 3
shield, the: season 1
n.y.p.d. blue: season 1
firm go for 2003:
dark angel: season 1
family guy: season 1
futurama: season 1
king of the hill: season 1
millennium: season 1
son of the beach: season 1
simspsons, the: season 3
x-files, the: season 7
x-files, the: season 8
x-files, the: season 9
legal rights hell:
batman (1960s)
ben stiller show, the
music rights hell:
ally mcbeal
roswell
under consideration:
alien nation
hill street blues
lost in space
st. elsewhere
time tunnel, the
not being worked on:
the adventures of brisco county jr.
firefly
greg the bunny
honeymooners, the
space: above & beyond
tick, the (live action)
tick, the (animated)
undeclared
I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say 20th Century Fox is giving
TV fans a lot to cheer about next year.
**************************************************
viewer poll
your voice is heard here
Which of 20th Century Fox's new DVD releases are you looking forward
to the most?
Angel: 35.94%
Dark Angel: 22.06%
Family Guy: 12.46%
Futurama: 7.12%
King of the Hill: 5.69%
Millennium: 6.05%
N.Y.P.D. Blue: 3.91%
The Shield: 5.34%
Son of the Beach: 1.42%
total votes: 281
************************************
I hope you don't have to ask what show I voted for.
[> [> Noooooooo! I want
"The Tick"! Live and animated, every last frame!
-- cjl, 13:37:42 12/05/02 Thu
[> Link to..Buffydom An
obsessed professor and some soul-bearing slayer fans. -- Rufus,
04:46:19 12/05/02 Thu
An article on that Buffy survey we did awhile back.....Trollop
Group
[> Little Mermaid and Red
Shoes quotes from OMWF Script Book -- Rufus, 05:26:10 12/05/02
Thu
"Walk Through the Fire"
The Red Shoes
The premise of being afflicted by nonstop dancing is common
in theatrical mythology and grows out of a children's story by
Hans Christian Andersen called "The Red Shoes." The
famous tale has been adapted into a ballet, which was further
adapted into a classic 1948 film. Though Joss Whedon was familiar
with the basic tale of a girl who cannot stop dancing he had not
seen the famous movie or read the actual story prior to the filming
of the episode. However he made reference to it in the script.
"A man is cancing, a frenetic little tap cance that he clearly
has been doing for hours - he is sweaty and panicking, but Red
Shoe-like (the ballet not the diaries), he can't stop."
"Something to Sing About"....excerpt from OMWF script
book
The opening number, "Going Through the Motions,"
has the responsibility of setting the tone for the musical. Right
at the start it needs to bring the audience seamlessly into the
unique episode. Conveniently, it was the one number Joss Whedon
had the clearest image of the start. "'Going through the
Motions' was a pure Disney number. It was what Jeffery Katzenberg
calls the "I want," which is where the heroine explains
her problems like the song 'Part of Your World' in The Little
Mermaid."
With the motivation behind the number set, he had no problem blocking
out the scene. "By the time I shot it," he explains,
"I already had every visual worked our perfectly in my head.
I knew I wanted that last big powerful note to be like in 'Part
of Your World,' where Ariel's face comes out out behind her hair.
When Buffy sang the last note, I wanted her face to appear from
behind a dusting vampire. It's both amusing and very emotional.
Sarah never looked better. And then I knew I wanted to do the
big pull back with the gently blowing vampire dust swirling into
frame. Stuff like that is so easy."
[> [> Does this mean
-- Rahael, 05:41:11 12/05/02 Thu
that he watched the movie after he filmed OMWF? Cos that still
fits into my Waiting in the Wings/Red Shoes theory!
Thanks for the info, Rufus!
[> No Spoilers above and
all you Shooting Script Controversions Should Read Above --
Dochawk, 08:42:58 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Correction: Spoilers
thru Season 7 episodes Aired -- Dochawk, 08:44:25 12/05/02
Thu
[> Thank you Rufus for answering
my questions! -- shadowkat, 09:10:15 12/05/02 Thu
You rock! Went over to Bronze Beta and got even more wonderful
stuff. Thanks again for this.
Xander - Metaphorical
goodness? (spoilers to date, maybe) -- Darby, 07:41:08
12/05/02 Thu
I'm probably completely off the mark here, I'm probably having
too many thoughts...
Xander in his initial incarnation was High School Joss, the wise-cracking
underachiever, his voice if not entirely his viewpoint. Since
high school, Xander has moved on, but has he gone from Joss shadow-self
to Jossian metaphor?
Joss went on to college, and afterward entered the family business,
scriptwriting. Could job-of-the-week Xander represent Joss in
college and beyond, unsure of what to do but maybe resistent to
following in his father's footsteps? I strongly suspect that Mr.
Harris is employed in construction, possibly in the unions (that
would explain a lot about Xander's progression through the ranks,
even if he didn't actively seek his father's aid) - Xander has
settled in a similar place, with some resistance, but has turned
out to be talented and has a real understanding of the ways of
the business. Joss followed a similar arc, coming onto Roseanne
as a writer and quickly moving up to a Story Editor position -
one wonders if his boss in Life Serial might have been
representative of Roseanne as a boss: abrasive, quick to make
assumptions, easily angered but underneath willing to see the
value in someone.
If my theory tracks, we're now seeing Xander at a stage corresponding
to Joss as a journeyman writer and script doctor, doing odd subcontracting
work. Will he start complaining about how he's getting no credit
for how well Sunnydale High has turned out? Will he start branching
out as his own man, only to have a client completely alter what
he's trying to build?
I'm looking forward to Buffy the Movie - the Xander version.
Do any spoiler trollops know if there is a Xandercentric episode
in the offing this season?
And does this tell us anything about Joss' life in other ways?
- Darby, always reaching farther in the obsession derby.
[> As I mentioned in a previous
post...(spoiler spec S7) -- cjl, 08:16:21 12/05/02 Thu
It may be possible that Xander is working on a project that was
tainted by evil (BtVS the movie), but eventually turns out to
be a blessing for both himself and the world (BtVS the series).
I think it's the school: everyone in the Buffyverse and most of
fandom thinks when Xander's construction firm completes the gym,
it'll be a blasphemy, a temple contracted by and consecrated to
evil. But I think Xander (with his allies) has a trick or two
up his sleeve and will turn the abomination (BtVS the movie) into
a powerful force for good in the end (BtVS the series).
You know, I hadn't seen Xander's job as an extension of the Xander-as-metaphor-for-Joss
before. But it only reinforces my theories...
[> [> The what now?
-- Dyna, 12:16:11 12/05/02 Thu
"everyone in the Buffyverse and most of fandom thinks when
Xander's construction firm completes the gym, it'll be a blasphemy,
a temple contracted by and consecrated to evil."
Huh? When did this consensus come about? Did I miss an episode
or something?
[> [> [> I think that's
true of all high school gymnasiums -- ponygirl, 12:22:12
12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> Right now,
does anybody think the reconstruction of Sunnyhell High is a GOOD
thing? -- cjl, 12:30:12 12/05/02 Thu
"High school is Hell" was the central metaphor of the
series for the first three seasons, and I can't imagine anyone
out there in Buffyland (either fans or characters) thinks the
re-opening of the high school is a hap-hap-happy day on their
calendar. The high school has been--and is--a place where Evil
Comes, sets up lawn chairs, and leaves empty beer cans all over
the place. It ain't going anywhere.
And the school isn't even finished. If it's this much of an evil
magnet now, what'll it be like when Xander's crew tightens up
that last bolt?
[> [> [> [> Nobody
does. However-- -- HonorH, 12:36:23 12/05/02 Thu
It's a fairly big leap to go from "Sunnyhell High reconstruction
is a bad, bad idea" to "the finished gym will be a temple
to all badness." I think that's what was confusing Dyna.
As far as I know, there's no fan consensus on exactly what will
happen when the gym is completed--only that the rebuilding of
the school itself, right on the fried-Mayor ground it once stood
upon, is a bad, bad idea, and nothing good will come of it.
[> [> [> [> [>
I see your point. However, I can't help but think... --
cjl, 12:49:18 12/05/02 Thu
...that the construction of the school is an important plot point
this season. We have the walls of the basement shifting around,
we have the Gnarl demon dumping a body into the future gym site,
and Principal Felix Ungar being EXTREMELY fussy about the condition
of the school--to the point where he feels he's got to bury poor
Jonathan elsewhere. The physical structure of the school is something
that's being closely minded by both sides, and that ties in to
the firm constructing the rest of the complex, and that, of course,
ties into Xander.
Maybe I'm making a leap here, but I don't think so.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Make no mistake: I like your idea. -- HonorH, 13:34:40
12/05/02 Thu
I, too, can't help but feel the rebuilding of the school and all
the activity centered thereon is highly important. As Buffy said,
"It means something." I was just pointing out there's
no fan consensus on the matter. Theories, so far as I've seen,
run the gamut.
[> We desperately need a
Xander-centric ep. -- Rob, 10:31:59 12/05/02 Thu
So far, the "not enough Xander" is my only real complaint
for this season. Every supporting character has been spotlighted
in an episode so far:
Dawn--Lessons; Spike--Beneath You and Sleeper; Willow--Same Time,
Same Place; Anya--Selfless
And while Xander has been given great stuff to do, he has not
yet been the main focus of an episode this year. It's time to
rectify that situation!
Rob
[> [> I don't think we're
going to get one. And believe it or not...(Bronze Beta spoiler!)
-- cjl, 10:53:35 12/05/02 Thu
I'm not too upset about that.
Xander has been given plenty to do. And even though he isn't in
the center of the action, he appears to be a prime mover in the
events of the season, reeling off solutions to the problems of
the week (especially in "Him" and NLM), and being in
the right place at the right time on a suspiciously large number
of occasions.
I get the feeling Joss and Co. want our awareness of Xander's
role in the Grand Scheme to be just under our radar and yet, paradoxically,
right in front of faces (mixed metaphor alert!)--so when ME finally
lets us know the truth, we'll be both relieved, exultant and flabbergasted
at the same time. I look forward to the revelations, and have
faith that Joss will give us the clues in their own time.
Besides, Drew Goddard recently said on Bronze Beta that they just
filmed a Xander scene that give him "chills." And when
New!Drew gets the chills, you know it's GOTTA be bad (in a good
way).
[> [> [> Re: I don't
think we're going to get one. And believe it or not...(Bronze
Beta spoiler!) -- shadowkat, 11:24:10 12/05/02 Thu
Uhm...I read that spoiler too and I could be wrong about this
but from what I've seen of the last two years and the overall
structure of the show? It's Xanders turn for the big fall. I don't
see Xander as being the hero this year.
Remember it's about female empowerment. And Xander was the hero
last year just as Willow was the hero at the end of Season 5,
Buff's big gun and the one who brought Buffy back.
I'm not saying they'll make him evil - just that he does not have
good days ahead and will most likely be the one who loses the
most by the end of the year.
[> [> [> [> Scooby
heroism in S7 (spoiler spec) -- cjl, 12:06:58 12/05/02
Thu
I agree. Xander is going to get put through the wringer and hung
out to dry. But that doesn't mean he's not going to be a hero.
I think ALL the Scoobs are going to be heroes this year. Buffy
is going to need the very best from every last one of her friends
and extended family (Giles, Xander, Willow, Dawn, Anya, Faith,
and boyoboy, especially Spike) if they're going to survive the
First Evil. The ultimate triumph/ultimate sacrifice/ultimate transcendence
(pick your choice) will be Buffy's alone, but she's not going
to make it there if her friends can't climb at least 9/10ths of
the mountain with her. This is it. This is the End. It's all for
one, or it's nothing. Literally.
The Scoobs learned a lot from their experiences in Season 6 and
the first few eps of Season 7, and all their hard-won wisdom,
all the field time they've clocked in the service of fighting
evil, every ounce of strength they've drawn from each other will
be pressed into service. Xander, to pick one person out, is obviously
still hurting over Anya, still unsure whether his newfound success
is a reflection of maturity or an illusion projected by the same
old loser he's always been. There are larger forces at play all
around him, and somewhere deep inside, he might feel he's completely
inadequate to deal with his responsibilities in the coming armageddon,
to make the impossible decisions he has to make for everyone to
survive. We've only seen glimpses of this internal conflict, with
his "dateless wonder" spiel in Beneath You, and that
incredibly creepy and sad speech he made to Andrew in NLM--but
it's there.
I can't imagine what Joss will do to Xander this season. There
are worse things than turning the character evil, and with Emma
leaving for better places, the possibilities are terrible to contemplate.
Let's limit it to seven:
1) Xander dies (too easy)
2) VampXander (unlikely)
3) Evil!Xander (also unlikely)
4) Sleeper!Xander (possible, but on which side?)
5) Martyr!Xander--enlisted in a higher cause he cannot explain
to his friends without blowing his secret, resulting in:
5a) A split between Xander and the rest of the Scoobs
6) Xander reconciling with Anya, then watching her die; or
7) Xander somehow being forced to kill Anya (a grotesque twist
on both Selfless and Becoming).
You can add your own Xander torture here.
Each of the other Scoobs will be faced with his or her own test
of fortitude, and I gotta believe they'll all triumph. I'm not
saying they'll all SURVIVE, but they'll all come out the other
end as mature, complete, self-realized individuals. And then,
it'll be time for Buffy to take the stage one last time, take
us by the hand, and lead us to the ultimate series conclusion....
Reply to HonorH
and Haecceity's now archived thread/A Plague of Jungianism
-- alcibiades, 09:51:07 12/05/02 Thu
This went to the archive as I was posting.
Spoilers for Checkmate/The Lymond Chronicles and the Earthsea
Trilogy
About playing to a draw and keeping things balanced:
This is what I am currently thinking.
So far the two powerhouses of the Buffyverse, besides Buffy and
a yet to be revealed Dawn have come up against their demon selves
-- played not at all incidentally by the same actor. I think that
might be important.
During STSP I was annoyed at the stupid coincidence of a flesh
eating monster appearing in Sunnydale just as Willow returned
-- it seemed too easy. Gnarl wanted to devour her, just as the
blackness devoured Willow last year.
So too, Spike's ubervamp is empowered by his (transmogrified pig's)
blood, just as he has been empowered by the blood of others.
Willow was paralyzed to act by her fears, both mentally and then
physically when Gnarl touched her. Spike is now immobilized on
a cross-thingee. We have yet to see if he can begin to fight this
on his own without any help.
It seems that everyone is coming up against their monster selves
-- played by the same guy embodying these roles.
Anya came up against her monster self too -- and fought it.
So I think Dawn -- we have seen Dawn's journey start with the
visit from her mother and her agonizing over whether what she
was told was true -- and Xander and perhaps Giles will all have
to do it as well.
And finally Buffy will have to do it. And I think she will eventually
need the help of friends and family to do it. Just as Willow did.
Just as Spike probably will.
Kind of like Gad fighting himself as his final adversary in the
Earth Sea Trilogy or at the end of Checkmate/The Lymond Chronicles,
the symbolism of Lymond, newly resurrected non-volitionally from
the mostly dead, after losing the battle with himself at the Authie,
and with Marthe -- his shadow self -- in the room, playing chess
with himself as his own adversary before he makes the final journey
back from death -- very much with the help of family and friends
and his loved one -- at the VERY moment that Marthe, his shadow
self is killed off.
Hey, this Jungianism is starting to infect everything!
[> ^ future spec/no BTVS
spoilers/Spoilers for EarthSea Trilogy and Checkmate ^ --
alcibiades, 12:59:48 12/05/02 Thu
Angel: Control,Choices,
and Changes (minor spoiler) -- luvthistle1,
11:40:52 12/05/02 Thu
I think the beast might have control over anyone who is part demon.
Because when Angel went to stab him in the eye, (remember, vamps
are fast) the scene focus on the eye, Angel looked shock and surprise,
like something was stopping him, although we later see that the
demon/beast had his arm, there were no struggle. no fight. it's
as if Angel had stopped in his tracks. If the demon had control
over anyone who is part demon, than that would explain it, as
well as explain Cordy action with Connor. For some reason by asking
Angel if he thought "She" was safe, it's like it wanted
Angel to see Connor and Cordy together.
There are rumors floating around that state that "Angel"
might turn into "Angelus" again, in order to fight the
beast/demon. But I do not know how that's going to work, considering
Most demon welcome "chaos ", so if Angel were to turn
into Angelus again, it will be about "choice",. will
"Angelus choose to be on the side of good, or side with the
demon?
I also notice that were the beast might control other demons,
who have control over the beast? when Connor and Cordy was fighting
it, what made him stop? Was it something he saw in Cordy's eyes,
or was it because of Connor told him to?
I have a thought about Cordy being a "higher being"
in BTVS season 3 Doppelgängland, D'Hoffryn told Anya she
was to live out her life as a "lower being". If Human
Anya was a 'lower being' than Cordelia being a 'higher being'
might not have anything with her being a god or even good. it
just might mean that she is no longer human.
Note: if Angel were to turn into "Angelus" during the
Apocalypse, that would only leave one vampire with a soul who
will be able to .....
[> Spoilers for season 4
so far and a future spoiler rumor above -- Masq, 12:05:20
12/05/02 Thu
[> Angel: Control,Choices,
and Changes (future spoilers and speculation based upon) --
Masq, 12:17:08 12/05/02 Thu
OK, I admit it, through one reason or another, I've been spoiled
on the fact that Angel is supposed to voluntarily turn into Angelus
in order to fight "The Beast". I also wonder
about by what insane Troll logic that decision is made.
The one characteristic we can assign to Angelus is that he is
not easily controlled. Darla, his sire, the one person he ever
took counsel from or listened to, could not control him when he
made decisions like vamping Drusilla.
This is also the reason Wolfram and Hart want Angel a dark souled
vamp they can control, and don't want Angelus on their team. He's
not a team player.
The other characteristic we can assign to Angelus is that he is
a vicious bastard. I could see him joining forces with the Beast
out of sheer love of cruelty and destruction, although perhaps
being in a constant power struggle with the Beast to prevent himself
from becoming in any sense the Beast's "minion".
But Angelus working on the side of good in any way? Why? How?
Angelus without a soul is no namby-pamby boring lap-dog like Spike,
mooning over the Slayer and doing things just to please her.
I just hope they don't do a "redeem Angelus without the soul"
story line, 'cause ewwww, that was tedious enough with Spike.
On the other hand, I am looking forward to seeing just how they
think Angelus is the guy to fight the Beast.
And don't you think Connor will decide he's the one to fight and
kill Angelus? I mean, we gotta get that last bit of the
Oedipal story going.....
PS. I think the Beast controlled Cordy when she did that sleeping
with Connor thing, too. At least I hope so. : )
[> [> Re: Angel: Control,Choices,
and Changes (future spoilers and speculation based upon) --
Angela, 12:28:01 12/05/02 Thu
Maybe part of the point will be to illustrate that Angelus is
not the right guy to fight the beast. This is going to also set
a similar story line for Connor (to Buffy's) in that he will be
put back in the position of Slayer and it may also echo the season
premiere where they fought together and against each other. I
hear you on the troll logic and I have to say (especially after
the last ep) I'm starting to feel a lot more sympathy for Connor.
;-)
[> [> [> Any speculations
on the Troll logic, though? -- Masq, 13:06:30 12/05/02
Thu
Because I'm quite flummoxed!
And why do I suspect it's going to be Wesley's nifty idea from
some book or something that they ought to turn Angel into Angelus
to fight the Beast?
[> [> [> [> Nooooooooo!
-- luvthistle1, 13:26:18 12/05/02 Thu
Wesley is usually very logical. I think if it turn out to be Wes
idea, it would have been Lill who put him up to it.
I remember reading a post a long time back, (like a couple of
season ago) about one of the watcher (between Giles and Wes) is
suppose to actually be working on the side of 'evil' all along.
If Wes, was to think of that himself, well.....
[> [> [> [> Re:
Any speculations on the Troll logic, though? -- alcibiades,
13:35:28 12/05/02 Thu
And why do I suspect it's going to be Wesley's nifty idea from
some book or something that they ought to turn Angel into Angelus
to fight the Beast?
Cause your evil?
Maybe the First Evil?
Or the Second Evil?
Or the Third Evil?
(g)
[> [> [> [> [>
The First Evil, but of course -- Masq, 14:07:01 12/05/02
Thu
And the First Evil's agenda was always to get Angelus back.
Not dark noir Angel
Not dead dusty Angel
But Angelus Mwah hah hah hah!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> No no no no no no no -- KdS, 05:16:45 12/06/02
Fri
Looking back at Amends in the light of Reprise/Epiphany,
does one really think Angel would have achieved "true happiness"
through raping Buffy? (She would certainly never have had sex
with him voluntarily at that point).
My personal feeling is that the First Evil is tto clever to confuse
orgasm with "true happiness", but thought that Angel
did at that point. I suspect that the FE's plan was for Angel
to rape and kill Buffy, and then realise that he still had his
soul. Can you think of anything more, ah..., evil?
[> [> [> [> a pylean
interlude...(season 2 spoils) -- black_eyed_veiny, 13:59:58
12/05/02 Thu
Seems to me that this current story arc is drawing quite a bit
from themes developed in the Pylea cycle (season 2). Allow me
to highlit a few of the similarities.
Cordy: In Pylea Cordy is taken by the powers of that dimension
(the priests of the covenant) and exalted to a throne, but only
so she could mate with a demon and pass her visions on to an (assumedly)
unholy offspring.
Angel: In Pylea Angel is forced to deal with his demon, to show
what he really is "in its purest form" to the people
he loves and works with. Only by getting in touch with his "inner
demon" did he feel he would be capable of fending off the
Groosalug.
Groo/Conner: I think a case can be made for an associate between
these to characters. First off they are both part demon, and part
cow (though the ratios are probably quite different). Second,
they both had upbringings in demon dimensions as outcasts, third
they are both undefeated warriors (remember Conner is the Destroyer).
Third, they a share a deep affection for Cordy. In Pylea Groo
was to be mated to Cordy so that their offspring might possess
the Sight. Later he became her devoted defender and lover, but
she eventually left him because "deep down" she truly
loves Angel.
Wes: In Pylea we get our first real view of a Wesley who is grown
up, cold, calculating, and most importantly able and willing
to do what is necessary for the job at hand whether Angel is there
or not.
Sound anything like this season?
[> [> [> [> And
I have a feeling you're exactly right. -- HonorH, 14:12:38
12/05/02 Thu
I think it'll be Wesley's bright idea, which he'll come to regret--especially
as it's Angel who seems to be keeping track of who's sleeping
with whom this season. Who doesn't think that info will make for
some patented Angelusian Emotional Torture? As for what Insane
Troll Logic (tm) will conspire to make Wesley et al think this
is somehow a good idea, ya got me. If they can sell it, though,
I'll not complain. Especially if he pulls out the ol' leather
pants!
[> [> [> [> Re:
Any speculations on the Troll logic, though? -- Angela, 17:08:02
12/05/02 Thu
No, I don't. Not without looking to be spoiled.
And why do I suspect it's going to be Wesley's nifty idea from
some book or something that they ought to turn Angel into Angelus
to fight the Beast?
Well, I'd say that's your experience talking. ;-)
[> [> Demon evolution
(future spoilers and speculation based upon rumors which may or
may not be true) -- alcibiades, 13:25:41 12/05/02 Thu
Just wondering.
Now that Angel is a better man than he was in Season 2, will his
demon be the same or also more evolved, as Spike's evolved?
Does a demon need a chip or an artifical soul to evolve, or does
his nature depend on the man he is tied to? In which case, this
incarnation of Angelus might not be as sadistic as the one we
saw in Season 2?
Is the Beast Angelus' shadow self just as ubervamp is Spike's?
(okay :-} had to get the Jungian question in somewhere) Will Angelus
individuate beyond the Beast, his shadow self, or identify? Does
he have a hope of shanshuing if he can't destroy the shadow self
he has been terrified of for quite some time?
If Spike can control his demon without a soul for the most part,
shouldn't Angel learn how to control his?
[> [> [> Agreed (Future
Spoilers for AtS) -- Rahael, 13:47:58 12/05/02 Thu
I think the Spike storyline has major implications for the future
Angelus storyline.
Because I tend to think that Angel/Angelus has come a long way
from BtVS S2, and in between then, we've had noir Angel. I've
always thought that there has been osmosis between Angelus/Angel,
and if the experiences of Angelus can be felt by Angel, shouldn't
it happen the other way around too?
Didn't Angelus react with anger at Buffy loving Angel and the
way that made him feel?
I wonder how Angelus is going to feel about things. Can't wait
to find out!
[> [> [> [> God,
I hope they don't water him down (future Angel spoilers) --
Masq, 14:13:58 12/05/02 Thu
I want Angelus back, full-blooded and nasty and all those things
I hate to love.
If they start doing some redemption thing with him, I'll *yawn*.
My conception of Angel is that even with a soul, he struggles
against a part of himself that is very dark, his demonic nature.
We have seen this Angelus-like Angel before. Like when he almost
tortured Linwood in "Forgiving".
I don't want to see them watering down Angelus, because he is
a symbol of something, the darkness in Angel. It represents, to
me, a metaphor of the "dark side" many human beings
hold within them. If they start saying his dark side isn't so
dark after all, they don't give credit to the real evil that lurks
in human nature, especially some of humanity's worst monsters.
[> [> [> [> [>
Maybe William was a more decent man than Liam. -- DickBD,
14:55:48 12/05/02 Thu
Would the type of human he was before have an effect? William
may have been more pitiful, but he was a more decent man than
Angel's former human self.
But I'm with you. Angel would be no fun just half bad!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> We got a good picture of Liam in Spin the Bottle
-- Masq, 15:10:48 12/05/02 Thu
That is, Liam when he was 17 as opposed to 26. This is pre-womanizing
debaucher. It shows us a picture of a kid who was somewhat awkward,
basically decent, but with a puritanical father who he could never
measure up to.
I think Liam rebelled against that father, and became everything
his father accused him of being, out of pain, and out of spite.
It's that spiteful element in his human self that was his weakness,
and I think that carried over into Angelus. Angel still feels
it.
But I think it is unfair to start stacking William and Liam up
against each other. They both had weaknesses as humans and as
soulless vampires, people just tend to see Spike's weaknesses
as more forgiveable.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Exactly! -- Rob, 15:13:26 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Just something interesting that probably everyone
already knows -- Deb, 16:22:12 12/05/02 Thu
Liam is the Irish version of William. Wil-Liam. The name William
means protector and this meaning comes from William the Conqueror
(Battle of Hastings - 1066 a.d. Last time England was successfully
invaded. Norman. Father of Henry II, second husband of Eleanor
of Acquataine founder of chivalry and courtly love along with
her daughter-in-law Constance of Seville. Eleanor's father was
the first identified trubador (sp.). Eleanor's first husband was
Louis the [single digit] King of France who booted her after she
failed to produce a male heir. Eleanor then turned around and
birthed seven sons for Henry including Richard the Lionhearted
and John Longshanks, both future kings of England and parts of
modern day France. John is Robin Hood's Nemesis. Richard gets
kidnapped returning from the Crusades and held for ransom, which
his mother payed. Some believe Richard to have been gay having
never married nor having heirs and preferred soldiering to ruling.).
Sorry. I was channeling my high school history teacher.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Just something interesting that probably
everyone already knows -- Angela, 17:26:00 12/05/02 Thu
Sorry. I was channeling my high school history teacher.
No apologies needed. It's interesting and I hadn't thought of
it in terms of the stories this season. Do you think there's some
parallels in the shows this season?
Eleanor's first husband was Louis the [single digit] King of
France who booted her after she failed to produce a male heir.
Actually I heard this a little different. That she basically wasn't
satisfied and took off. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Just to be pointlessly off-topic, pendantic
and a... -- Dead Soul, 21:42:53 12/05/02 Thu
pain in the ass know-it-all, William the Conqueror wasn't the
father of Henry II. You're missing three kings between them:
William the Conqueror
William Rufus (any relation?)
Henry I
Stephen
Henry II, whose father was Geoffrey of Anjou and whose mother
was Henry I's daughter, Matilda. Stephen's only son died and Stephen
named Henry II his heir in order to forestall another invasion.
Also, Richard the Lionheart, who still very well may have been,
even probably was, gay, did marry Berengaria of Navarre (I think,
all this stuff is off the top of my head). They had no children
and were very rarely together long enough to have made any, even
if the spirit had been willing.
Sorry, I so rarely know what ya'll are talking about that when
I do know something I have to charge in in hob-nailed boots.
Dead (and shutting up now) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> pedantic, even -- Dead (but somehow
still spelling things wrong) Soul, 03:41:40 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Not sure if you were asking or not,
but... -- Sophist, 09:17:00 12/06/02 Fri
William Rufus was the son of William the Conqueror. As was Henry
I.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, I thought DS was being funny
. . . -- Sarand, 09:44:09 12/06/02 Fri
and asking if William Rufus was related to the Rufus on the board.
Oh, well, must be Friday and I'm just being silly, myself.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: God, I hope they don't water him down (future Angel spoilers)
-- yabyumpan, 15:07:37 12/05/02 Thu
I understand what you mean about not watering down Angelus but
I do think that if we just have a re-run of BtVS S2 Angelus it'll
be pretty boring. I found that Angelus two dimensional, fun but
flat. When they bring him out this time I think there does need
to be more depth to the character. I also think there should be
some evolution, Angel himself has change A LOT in the past 5 years
and I would hope that's reflected in the Angelus we get this time.
Not watered down but just with more substance and layers etc.
[> [> [> Spike without
a soul just was his demon -- Masq, 14:09:29 12/05/02 Thu
You can't differentiate "Spike without a soul" from
"his demon". They are one and the same.
[> [> [> [> Major
S4 future spoilers -- yabyumpan, 15:00:49 12/05/02 Thu
According to the sides for Ep 9 or 10, it is Wesley who arranges
for Angelus to be released, with Angel's consent. They have him
locked in a cage and a shaman performs a ritual. I think it's
supposed to be some sort of 'Hanibal Lecter' set up: release a
beast to catch a beast, although I don't think the plan is for
Angelus to actually be released but he does escape.
[> [> [> Ohhh! Like
the Jungian shadows for Angel and Spike. -- Deb, 16:03:07
12/05/02 Thu
I think Spike's is scarier. I found the Beast to be over-rated
and rather disappointing.
[> [> [> [> We
haven't seen much of "The Beast" yet (future spoiler
rumors AtS) -- Masq, 16:13:01 12/05/02 Thu
In all fairness. Rumor has it he's supposed to be quite snarky
and charming in a devilish way. Rather Spike-ish, I hear.
[> [> [> [> [>
Ohhh. Thanks for sharing. Beastie has my interest again.
-- Deb, 16:26:10 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: We haven't seen much of "The Beast" yet (future
spoiler rumors AtS) -- Angela, 17:32:42 12/05/02 Thu
And actually, I thought he was pretty effective. Although, not
the most verbous I admit. Didn't seem to need to be.
And I agree with your feelings about Angelus. There's a part of
me that's really looking forward to his return. Course, I hadn't
thought of the watered-down nightmare. Thanks for that. ;-)
[> [> Can anybody explain
to me..(spoilers and spec) -- Shiraz, 14:50:26 12/05/02
Thu
What the hell good bringing Angelus back would do!?
I mean he's no stronger than Angel, and I seriously doubt he's
any smarter than Angel. Furthermore, everything one knows the
other knows as well, so Angelus can't help with some super-secret
piece of Demon Lore.
The only thing Angelus has that Angel doesn't is a penchant for
creative cruelty, on an epic scale.
Therefore, the only reason I could see for the gang to bring back
Angelus is if the only way to beat this thing is to beat is to
beat it to death with a sack of live puppies and kittens.
-Shiraz
[> [> [> See 'major
spoilers' post above -- yabyumpan, 15:10:08 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Spec on Angel's
motivation (no more spoilers than other posts in this thread)
-- KdS, 05:21:46 12/06/02 Fri
My only suggestion as to how Angel/Wes might think it worthwile
to talk to Angelus would be if they wanted to know what the Beast
would be up to, and felt that only someone who really was that
evil could follow the thought processes. Angel's been developing
quite a bit from his brood mode in recent years, and he might
feel that he'd become too human to have a clear view of how his
former self might think.
Still find the idea very hard to justify though. And surely they
can just chain up Angel then shoot him full of smack, talk to
Angelus and just wait for him to come down. Maybe that's how it'll
work - Angelus running round desperately trying to score every
couple of hours so he doesn't get his soul back, or chewing his
way through crack houses to stay high :-)
Current board
| More December 2002