December 2002 posts

Previous December 2002
More December 2002

In real life 'close to Christmas' is around... What? the 4th of July for adverts.*L -- Briar Rose (spoils for Season7), 01:01:00 12/27/02 Fri

They never actually showed anything that would say it was Christams in the homes that I remember. Was Dawn in front of a Christmas tree?T

What I did see was shots that showed store windows dressed with Santa Clause and lights and some evergreens. An EMPTY Christmas Tree lot (since they start selling Christmas Trees in California just after Thanksgiving (talk about a fire hazzard in the making!) it would be rather insynch with the idea that it was just before Thanksgiving, IMO. The signs are up but no green to be found yet.

Giles didn't mention having any problems getting flights. So snow in England and on the Eastern seaboard wasn't an issue yet - so not after Thanksgiving (this year anyway) and the CoW blew up on a dreary, but not snowing day.

I don't think that they're too far off the time line at all. They stated the date for CWDP as a starting point and picked up the next day in the next ep. But then moved out of sequence for Bring on the Night. Not much out of squence, mind you. Just enough to progress the story line.

It is actually a natural flow when you consider Giles had to steal the papers, get the SITs in order and travel to Sunnydale. And Willow & Dawn were already calmed down from the aftermath of CWDP with NLM and including Spike's meltdown having been a long gone forecluesion moving conveniently into Andrew's capture in the lull before the storm that was the arrival of the SITs. Robin Wood already stated that he keeps tabs on the areas around the school regularly - so no reason to believe that he's still burying the same body at all.

Now if they come back on January 5th with Christmas still in progress or hop to That Evil Holiday That Shall Not Be Named in February? THEN I will worry that ME is truly slipping.*L

[> Questioning the Timeline (spoilers through Bring on the Night) -- Tyreseus, 17:09:44 12/27/02 Fri

Interesting observations about the timeline, but didn't Buffy say something to giles like "I didn't even realize it was December"?

Logically, everything that has followed CwDP has to have happened within about a week, but the most recent episode throws us off. I posted an anaylisis of the Buffy timeline in a thread several weeks ago, and I can't quite find it now, but it went somthing like this.

Conversations With Dead People
Tuesday, November 12, 2002, 8:01 pm. We know this because, well, they tell us in titles on the screen. The events of the episode happen within the span of a single night.

Sleeper
Wednesday, November 13 - around dawn: Buffy wakes Xander looking for Spike (same outfit and hairdo from prev. episode, so logic says she came here from the cemetery)
November 13, daylight hours: Anya "babysits" Spike all day while Xander goes to work.
November 13, evening: Spike leaves, Buffy trails him, we see him bite the girl in the alley.
Thursday, November 14, early a.m.: Buffy confronts spike about Holden and the girl. Spike denies it.
November 14, after sunset: Spike punches Xander to leave, at the Bronze, he encounters a girl he sired. He calls Buffy, the meet at the basement where she fights of demons before taking him to her home.

Never Leave Me
Friday, November 15, daylight hours: I assume it's the following day for two reasons - one, Dawn makes an excuse for Buffy to be out of work (so it's obviously a school day) and two, the feel of it is that Spike didn't just sleep through the entire weekend. Over the course of the day they capture Andrew, Spike attacks him, and they move Spike to the basement. At nightfall, of the same day (unless no one changed their clothes for several days) the Bringers attack and capure Spike. Even for the sake of argument, it couldn't be much later than Monday, November 18.

Bring on the Night
Okay - there's like zero way the timeline makes sense in this episode. Either a weekend has passed, or several weeks. But it feels wonky.
Here are the timeline clues I've picked up on:
1) Zander is sweeping up glass at the beginning of the episode - how long has it been there?
2) When Buffy, Xander, Dawn and Andrew go to the basement to bury the seal, they encounter Principal Wood, who wants to know if Buffy is coming back to work, because things are backing up. How many days of work has Buffy missed? How many days was Andrew unconscious before waking up to tell them about the seal? General rule of thumb - longer than a few days and it's considered a coma.
3) A night passes where Buffy fights the Ubervamp, dawn comes, Buffy goes to work, comes home, sunset, another fight with the ubervamp. Buffy gives her war speech.
4) During her conversation with Giles, Buffy comments, "You know, I didn't even realize it was December." How could she? Unless two weeks passed between Never Leave Me and Bring On The Night (that's two weeks with Andrew asleep, glass on the floor, the gang researching the First unsucessfully, and Buffy apparently not showing up to work).

All these timeline clues lead me to conclude one of two things. Either Joss and the ME team have lost track of their own timeline or the majority of event in Bring on The Night are symptoms of a dream Buffy is in. Perhapsshe did fall asleep on Saturday, November 16 while Xander was sweeping up the glass and everything that's happened since has been a dream of some sort. Or a wacky alt-dimension or whatever.

I'm just saying that the timeline is off - by at least two or three weeks. Look at the clues (wardrobe, dialogue and common sense [i.e. how long do they leave unconscious Andrew tied to a chair before seeking real medical help? How much time can Buffy miss from work before Principal Wood checks in on her? How long did Principal Wood hold onto the shovel before returning it to the basement?], etc.)

[> [> Re: Questioning the Timeline (spoilers through Bring on the Night) -- ponygirl, 20:08:07 12/27/02 Fri

If it weren't for the very deliberate and, for BtVS, unprecedented time and date stamp on CwDP I would just write off the time wonkiness to a story editing mistake or a fudging to get BtVS on track seasonally for viewers. But there was that pesky date. As far as I can recall the first time we're aware of the time mistake in BOTN is when Buffy's out with Giles which makes me wonder if Giles who may not be Giles is having some effect on Buffy. While a case could be made for Buffy dreaming there's also FE Dru's remark about it almost being Christmas day. Insane Dru talk, or reinforcing the timeline?

Then there's Dawn's remark about Andrew possibly being in a fugue state. It seemed like an odd thing to say (and I remembered an old William the Poet post that mentioned fugues) so I looked it up. In psychiatric terms a fugue is: A pathological amnesiac condition during which one is apparently conscious of one's actions but has no recollection of them after returning to a normal state. This condition, usually resulting from severe mental stress, may persist for as long as several months.

Now that sounds nothing like an unconscious guy in a chair. It does of course sound exactly like Spike, but it makes me wonder if Buffy could have slipped or be heading into such a state and has taken the audience, and every other character along with her. Weirdness upon weirdness.

The other definition of fugue doesn't help with the timeline but it does seem significant for the season as a whole. In musical terms: A polyphonic composition, developed from a given theme or themes, according to strict contrapuntal rules. The theme is first given out by one voice or part, and then, while that pursues its way, it is repeated by another at the interval of a fifth or fourth, and so on, until all the parts have answered one by one, continuing their several melodies and interweaving them in one complex progressive whole, in which the theme is often lost and reappears.

I get a little lost in the talk of fifths and fourths, but the last part seems to beautifully sum up the season thus far, and offer a promise of further returns to old episodes and themes.

[> [> [> I took fugue as the later as well....(spoilers through Bring on the Night) -- Briar Rose, 17:23:21 12/28/02 Sat

That was why I referred to the idea that it had actually been a matter of a week or two where things were riding on the last episode and just progressing us along a week or so to catch up with the coming eps (YAY! Only One more full week!)

I agree with all that Tyreseus states that it is a bending of the time line and must have some repercussion to the Buffy-verse IF it was ME's intent.... However, I'm not sure that the missing time was all ME's fault at all.

It wouldn't be the first time the carrier station pulled a program (like Earshot) for their own nefarious/commercially considered reasons.

Only question I have is didn't Buf say, "I can't believe it's almost Christmas" not 'December'? because December is actually a precise term, where "Almost Christmas" is much more interpretive. I many times say,'It's almost Yule...', when it's actually three or four weeks away, because relative to what I have to start or finish it makes a difference in how my personal timeline is flowing in my mind.

[> [> [> [> Re: I took fugue as the later as well....(spoilers through Bring on the Night) -- Flo, 20:02:06 12/28/02 Sat

Not to drive the timing thing into the ground (since I quite agree it's probably a UPN decision, not a ME conspiracy to confuse us), I'll let you know that Buffy definitely said, "December" -- not "Christmas." This is a detail that will probably not have any relevance to the overall plot or outcome, but a detail nonetheless, and don't we obsessive types thrive on knowing them?

--Flo

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks Flo! So December is the starting point from the timeline to date. -- Briar Rose, 19:31:42 12/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks Flo, just finished rewatching BotN to confirm, you beat me to it. -- Tyreseus, 21:25:56 12/29/02 Sun

Yeah, it definately is "December." Had myself all wrapped up in knots wondering if I misheard. Had to rewind and rewatch like 8 times playing the "am I just hearing this the way I want to?" game - especially since my tape isn't the clearest.

Can't decide yet if the wonky decision comes from UPN or ME - could be a minor point that'll make sense later, could be an error in the continutity department, could just be something the writers hoped fanatics like us wouldn't latch on to and talk to death.

[> [> Re: Questioning the Timeline (spoilers through Bring on the Night) -- lolamellor, 12:36:39 12/30/02 Mon

Thank you for this! In the very first post on any board I made here last week, this is exactly what I was trying to point to; my obsession over this has become too great, and I felt frustrated by the postulations that it is merely the result of carelessness. I know that I am certainly not the only one to notice. There were all sorts of things about 'Bring on the Night' that felt quite disjointed and Todorovianally 'uncanny'. Hence the unease. I get a funny feeling it's something to do with the wonky time; in my experience of watching 'Buffy', it is a show in which one is rewarded for paying attention. If I could only suss out what it means... and that's not to deny it means nothing, but I should certainly be disappointed if I am proved mistaken. Perhaps if I listened to some Wagner and did a few crossword puzzles over a pint or several of ale, I'd get it sorted- where's Lewis when one needs him?

[> [> [> Just noticed kind welcome message above. Cheers, anom! (NT) -- lolamellor, 12:59:09 12/30/02 Mon

Oh, and I just discovered the nice welcome message above. Cheers, anom.

[> OT? Looking for the specific fish product for good luck on New Year's day. Was it lox, or herring? -- Briar (desperatly seeking employ), 17:26:55 12/28/02 Sat

[> [> Herring, darling! Though hopefully not red. -- ponygirl making with the good luck fishies, 07:44:32 12/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> Merci, M'Lady pg!!!!! Pickled okay? Ready to do anything to turn this luck.~w~ -- Briar Rose (happy snoopy dancing), 19:12:56 12/29/02 Sun

And regardless of the old Southern Charm Belief - Black eyed peas just don't work.*LOL

New mythology tidbits? (Angel comics miniseries spoilers) -- Darby, 09:58:34 12/27/02 Fri

It took me a while to track all of the issues down (the last of the 4 issues was dated May 2002, but I just read them Tuesday), but I can't find much discussion to have occurred here, so I'm assuming it won't be old news to many.

Joss did an Angel miniseries for Dark Horse comics, co-written with Brett Matthews (who got top billing, whatever that means). Not great comics - very heavy on the action and skimpy on character and plot, although the dialogue is, surprise surprise, fairly true to the show. But it introduces a couple of major elements that I'm assuming are, since they come from Joss, legitimate additions to the AtS / Buffyverse (my base assumption here is that, since Joss can barely keep the stuff he's accumulated for the shows straight, he wouldn't be bothered with a "separate mythology" for his comics, too much trouble)...

New character: "Perfect" Zheng, shown in 1310 as a major demon killer - the word "champion" is used. Injured during a fight with vamps (including being bitten) enough to be dying, but uses the vamp blood on his sword to become a vampire himself. Meets souled Angel in 1920s London, as a high-profile citizen but a low-profile vampire, beats the crap out of him but senses Angels' suicidal streak, lets him go. That much we are shown, which makes it reliable information. Some of the rest we are told (although sometimes shown as flashbacks), so the information may or may not reflect actual happenings.

In modern-day L.A., Zheng has enthralled agents snatch Angel, and the rest of the story depends upon whether his version of reality is actual additions to the mythology or not - it's interesting, nevertheless. Zheng's story is that the gypsies had developed a way to ensoul a vampire as a method to create a great champion - it was to be used on Zheng, who had actually been a great champion - but they tested it on Angel (not implied, but maybe the "perfect happiness" was built in to release the soul when the demons had been dealt with). But the spell did not work on Zheng, and here the implication is that the "dry run" with Angel had actually put Zheng's soul into Angelus (certainly a foreseeable "bug" in the process), making it unavailable for Zheng.

But for some reason, by today, Zheng wants to have Angel's soul, which he believes is his, for himself, a very Spikelike turn of events although we are never told exactly why he wants it - maybe it has to do with the Shanshu prophecies. Maybe Zheng sensed the brief time that the soul was free and potentially available during the return of Angelus.

As you can see, much of this fits fine with the established Angel mythology. Is there any way that this can't actually be the real backstory? Angel has Liam's memories and shadows of his personality, but is Angel the Champion really consistent with the human he once was? Does any of this matter in the larger scheme of things?

- Darby, loving the "you think you know what you are, but you haven't even begun" aspects of the story, since I've been expecting something similar to be thrown at us on Buffy this season.

(Verrry OT).. your favorite Movies of 2002 -- neaux, 10:20:45 12/27/02 Fri

I'm dying here. at work. I have 4 hours to go. please gimme some reading material.

So... I propose a list of sorts of your favorite movies of 2002. Although I havent seen the Two Towers yet.. (I shall see it this weekend forsure) I'm sure its at the top of many peoples lists. Well here is my quick list of Favorite movies I've seen this year.

Two Towers (I assume it rocks so I'll put it up)
Equillibrium (best action movie of 2002)
Shaolin Soccer (will be released in the U.S. in 2003)
Volcano High (Korean Film I purchased on DVD Hilarious and Matrix inspired)
Spirited Away (Best Animated feature of 2002)

movies I should have never seen
1. SWIMFAN (ugh)
2. XXX (I liked at first now i think its lame)

please cure my boredom and tell me your favs and disses.

[> Absolutely, without a doubt, Spirited Away--best movie of 2002, PERIOD. -- cjl, 11:28:54 12/27/02 Fri

[> [> Gorgeous, made me wish I knew Japanese mythology. -- Darby, 12:44:23 12/27/02 Fri

[> [> [> That's why it was magnificent--you didn't need to know Japanese mythology -- cjl, 12:58:37 12/27/02 Fri

Chihiro's journey was universal. We've seen it in literature from all ages--we see it in Buffy. I was going to do a comparison between Spirited Away and BtVS (shadowkat keeps egging me on), but the film disappeared from the theaters way too quickly, and I don't know how many of our fellow board members actually had a chance to see the movie. Might do it anyway when "SA" comes out on DVD....

[> [> [> [> WHEN?!?! When will it come out? *anxious* -- AngelVSAngelus, 22:24:26 12/27/02 Fri

Miyazaki is right up there with Joss as far as my writing inspirations and heroes go. For a brilliant interview with the man on why he created Spirited Away, and to see the correlations between his intentions and Joss' with Buffy, go here

[> [> [> [> [> No Disney DVD release yet for Spirited Away. But--Miyazaki fans rejoice!... -- cjl, 10:32:03 12/30/02 Mon

From Moriarty at Aint-It-Cool-News.com:

"Hayao Miyazaki has announced his next movie, Howlís Moving Castle, based on the popular novel by Diana Wynne Jones. Studio Ghibli had planned to make this film with another director, but he has since left the project and Mr. Miyazaki has taken it on.

Howlís Moving Castle is about a young girl who is turned into an old woman by a witch in a flying castle. Iíve never read it, but it is supposed to be a very lighthearted and funny story."

NEW Miyazaki! (Is it too early to reserve tickets?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> I just heard this! -- Rahael, 06:00:59 12/31/02 Tue

I'm a huge, huge Diana Wynne Jones fan. Should I be glad that this person is directing? I've never heard of him!

Apparently she's good friends with Neil Gaiman, another person I've just discovered recently. I'm out of the loophole.

Howl's Moving Castle is a very nice, witty take on lots of fairy tales. The heroine is great. I like some of her darker stuff better, but I have a deep affection for her engaging and happy novels. They've been cheering me up for years!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Should you "be glad" Miyazaki is directing?! (spoilers for Howl's Moving Castle) -- cjl, 06:56:18 12/31/02 Tue

Oh, my dear Rahael--you should be doing backflips.

His intelligent, empathetic, lyrical, poetic treatment of fantasy/mythology themes, especially when it's filtered through the experiences of children, makes Uncle Walt's regular crew look like the crass hucksters they are. (Uh, Joss and the Toy Story gang at Pixar, excluded, of course. And Nick Park and Aardman Animation. OK, cjl, less generalization, more on-topic enthusiasm...)

Buy on DVD--immediately:

Kiki's Delivery Service
My Neighbor Totoro
Princess Mononoke
Whispers of the Heart (if you can find it)
Laputa: Castle in the Sky (ditto)

For those who've never read the Wynne-Jones book, here's a summary from the Miyazaki website:

"Howl's Moving Castle is based in a slightly fantasy setting, in that magic fantastical creatures and many fairy-tale conventions exist. The heroine is Sophie, who lives with her step-mother and two step-sisters after her father dies, leaving them his hat-shop. Since they are very poor, the step-mother decides it would be best to send to of the daughters away where they can be assured of a good start in life. In fairytale convention, the youngest child will always suceed best when seeking their fortune, so the youngest daughter Martha is sent to learn magic with a friendly white witch, while the middle daughter Lettie begins an apprenticeship with the local baker. Sophie, the
eldest, doesn't have much chance, so she stays on with her mother to help run the hat-shop, which she will inherit someday.

However, things don't work out as planned. Martha and Lettie use a spell to switch places, since Lettie wants to learn magic and have adventures while Martha wants to get married and raise a family. After Sophie discovers this, she crosses paths with an evil sorceress who for some reason that is not
revealed at first, casts a spell on Sophie that turns her into an old woman and prevents her from telling anyone about it. Forced to leave the hat shop, Sophie goes to find some way of breaking the curse and ends up taking refuge at the
moving castle (yes, it is a castle that can move about, and also has a door that can lead to four different locations). This place belongs to Howl, a charming yet seemingly irresponsible wizard with a reputation for chasing pretty girls. The castle is powered by Calcifer, a fire demon who lives in the hearth and is bound by a contract with Howl. He makes a secret bargain with Sophie; he will break the curse she is under, if she can find a way to break the contract as it could destroy him and Howl. Sophie takes a position as
housekeeper and tries to find out what the contract is (Calcifer is also bound not to tell her what it is), whilst putting up with Howl's annoying behaviour, and there are further complications when he clashes with the evil sorceress."

Movie should be out by the Summer of 2004.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cool!! -- Rahael, preparing to get enthusiastic, 07:00:40 12/31/02 Tue

Haven't seen any of his movies. Will be looking out for them, he looks great!

[> Well...... -- AurraSing, 11:38:31 12/27/02 Fri

I so have to agree with you about XXX.....I was a big Vin Diesel fan until I watched it-but I walked out just a-shaking my head!

I just watched "Lilo and Stitch" for the first time and think it's one of the best Disney flicks in ages,with great artwork and a storyline that kept me in stitches.(heh heh..!)

"About A Boy" was one of the other best movies I saw this year and I enjoyed "Signs" quite a bit as well.Unfortunately I'll probably have to wait a while to catch most of the great movies released this season on DVD,though I will do my best to catch "Two Towers" when it hits the old theater over in Alberta my family usaully goes to.(we don't have a theater in our home-town)

2002 was actually a great disappointment to me movie-wise."Spiderman" mostly bored me,"Attack of the Clones" was wretched to both me and my family (and I've been a rabid SW fan since 1977!),"Men In Black II" was yet another bore....and these were the three big-ticket movies I waited in line to see! Again,I'll try to catch up with the cream of the crop once the titles come out on DVD but for now,I'm reading lots and hoping 2003 will give me something to cheer about come summer.

[> Re: (Verrry OT).. your favorite Movies of 2002 -- Flo, 12:24:18 12/27/02 Fri

Bowling for Columbine. Thought-provoking and funny as heck.

I finally saw South Park, the Movie this year and almost developed a hernia from laughing. I'm more inclined than ever to move to Canada....

Far From Heaven made me want to kill myself, but it was remarkably well-done.

All in all, I'm with AurraSing on the feeling disappointed wagon. Watching Buffy tapes into the wee hours beat out most movies I saw this year. You know, I never went and saw the Star Trek film, though. Did it even come out? Where did it go?

Anyhow, I'm crossing my fingers for next year! --Flo

[> [> The Trek movie. -- Sci, 12:37:46 12/27/02 Fri

Star Trek: Nemesis did, indeed, come out on Dec. 13, 2002. It reached #2 on its opening weekend -- a disappointment. Then The Two Towers came out five days later and Nemesis promptly dropped to #9 on its second weekend. It still hasn't even made enough money to pay for its own budget yet. Sad it say it died a horrible death, a victim of bad timing. If they had opened the damned thing in the summer or early Sept. it would have done better...

It's still in theatres, though. Go see it. It's actually pretty good.

[> [> Re: (Verrry OT).. your favorite Movies of 2002 -- Anneth, 12:50:13 12/27/02 Fri

I don't know if I'll be able to think of everything right now, but here's what I can think up off the top of my head.

Usually I'm a big movie-goer, but as I spent my summer abroad, I didn't have a chance to spend long summer afternoons at matinees, so I missed out on a lot of stuff I was really excited about. I have been able to see Eight Legged Freaks (lame-ish), Men in Black II (the first was better, and it really wasn't that great) and Reign of Fire (the dragons were cool, but it was a lame movie otherwise) once they were released on DVD. Reign of Fire is notable in that it was filmed in the Dublin, Ireland mountains. THey built a castle on the ruins of an actual castle and then... ruined the castle. The tour guides in Dublin were very proud.

Spider-Man was terrible, I thought. I recall the reviews saying that its saving grace was the "romance" between the two main characters, but I found that as contrived, poorly-written, and uninteresing as the rest of the movie. And I was somewhat appalled at the Green Goblin's graphic end; otherwise the movie would have been okay for kids, I felt, but that macbre touch was over the top.

But Harry Potter gets my vote for most contrived, over-inflated movie of the year: it was big, pretty, and empty, trading entirely on the fame of the series. I think the same can safely be said for "Attack of the Clones" - but that movie gets the award for worst title of the year.

The James Bond flick was diverting but not fabulous, same with XXX. I also spent time in Prague this summer, so it was fun to see Prague on the big screen - although the beginning sequence in XXX takes place in Sacramento (quote unquote) - for anyone familiar with central California, where Sacramento is, you may have been a little amused at Vin Diesel's running that car off that high bridge into that deep gully. There are neither high bridges nor deep gullys in or anywhere near Sacramento.

On a side note - Blade II was also filmed in Prague, though you'd hardly know it as it was mostly filmed at night or indoors. And it's a really bad movie. Really bad. Not at all amusing, as the 1st was.

Now for the good stuff: Two Towers was amazing, and I didn't find that it dragged at all despite clocking in at 3 hours and 5 minutes. The effects were really good, the acting was good, and the director negotiated three pretty disparate main story-lines very capably. And that Orlando Bloom... mmmmm.... Spirited Away was likewise spectacular. The animation was beautiful and inventive. And the comedic relief - the little bird and fat mouse - if only Disney would learn its lesson that understated is sometimes just as effetive, if not more, than over-the-top comedy. Compare the comedic relief in the last couple of Disney movies, fast-talking idiot-creatures, to the totally silent, hysterical mouse-and-bird duo from Spirited Away. They stole every scene they were in, just by virtue of their presence! Also notable - the paper airplane-birds and the little coal-bugs.

I also liked Ice Age; I think it was far better than a lot of the animated offerings for this year. The comedy was excellent, even if the ending got a little drippy, and it had Skrat! Need I say more? I was dubious at first of computer animation, but it gets exponentially better every year.

That's all I can think of right now. For anyone looking for an interesting drama, I recommend Stephen Soderberg's The Limey. It's one of my top 5 movies ever, and especially good to see if you saw Solaris and loathed it. Soderberg can be an amazing, talented director, or he can be as contrived and absurd as anyone else.

Cheers!
Anneth

[> [> [> addendum -- Anneth, 12:55:31 12/27/02 Fri

ON a side note - I had an interesting reaction to Harry Potter while watching it. I kept waiting for there to be some consequences from the characters using magic, or at least some discussion of consequences, but there wasn't. Characters used magic irresponsibly, or at least unnecessarily, many times, but never really suffered the ill effects of their (mis)uses of power.

Buffy has spoiled me, I guess. :)

(maybe that's why I like the 4th Harry Potter best - actions have sometimes dreadful and permenant consequences, FINALLY.)

[> [> [> I hated "Men In Black II" with a passion. -- cjl, 13:51:39 12/27/02 Fri

Just behind "Batman and Robin" as the sequel that proves there is no intelligent life in Hollywood. Loud, empty, with huge plot holes, and phoned in performances from Messrs. Smith and Jones. Horrible.

I happened to like Spider-Man. The characters were well-defined, and since I saw it in a Queens, New York theater, I felt I was watching home movies of the Parkers and the Watsons. (Agree about the unnecessarily gruesome demise of the Goblin, though.)

Cannot summon up the enthusiasm to see Chamber of Secrets and Attack of the Clones. Read the book of the former, and after Phantom Menace, the only feeling I can summon for Episode Two is a lingering sense of dread....

[> [> [> [> Re: Goblin's death -- Sci, 15:23:37 12/27/02 Fri

You guys do realize that that was how the Green Goblin died in the comics decades ago, right?

[> [> [> [> You should try Attack of the Clones, cjl... -- Rob, 15:16:35 12/29/02 Sun

It renewed my faith in the "Star Wars" franchise, and while I will admit that it fails to convince in its romantic subplot, due to an utter, complete, total, etc lack of chemistry between Ms. Portman and Mr. Whoever-Is-Playing-Anakin, the bulk of the movie is fascinating. There are many brilliantly staged sequences, and unlike the last movie, they are connected by a strong story, which is full of many allusions to the later movies. There are many "a-ha!" moments where you see something fall into place, or foreshadowing for a "later" event. And even if you're dissatisfied with every other part of the movie (and I strongly doubt that that would be the case), there's no denying that the Yoda scenes kicked much ass.

Rob

[> Re: (Verrry OT).. your favorite Movies of 2002 -- Sci, 12:34:57 12/27/02 Fri

I don't generally see movies that often in the theater. I saw four movies this year, which is actually a lot more than I usually go to see.

I loved Spider-Man. I know it's a bit cheesy at times, and I know a lotta people didn't like it, but I adored it. It was the first really well-done comic book movie I've ever seen. (X-Men was okay, but it wasn't great.) It captured the heart of Peter Parker's character for the most part, and Willem DeFoe is an acting god. The visual effects were great, and it had a wonderful emotional core. I loved it.

I really wanted to like Attack of the Clones. Really, I did. I tried. I thought that Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did great jobs for the shit they were given the read. And the visual effects were wonderful. But the characters were so goddamned emotionless... I felt like I was watching a movie full of Vulcans.

No, strike that. Vulcans are more emotional than the prequal Star Wars characters. I mean, George Lucas made Samuel L. Jackson boring.

He made Samuel L. Jackson boring.

It takes TALENT to make Samuel L. Jackson boring. It mean, making him boring takes creative genius. My God, those characters were so flat.... the only explanation I can come up with is that Lucas must have told them not to act too much lest it distract from the visual effects.

On the plus side, the plot itself was good, save a few plot holes. Now, if only there had been some three-dimensional characters for the audience to bond with....

Austin Powers in Goldmember was a hoot, as are all AP movies. I adore these movies. Yeah, I was peeved that Felicity Shagwell was nowhere to be seen, nor was Austin Powers From Ten Minutes In The Past While On The Moon Austin. But, hey, I figure that they're both covered under Basil Exposition's "Don't think about it and just enjoy yourself" clause. It was nice to see some character development between Austin, Nigel, and Dr. Evil, though I must admit that it's a bit sad to see Dr. Evil go and turn good. He was such a wonderful villian! Scott Evil should be interesting to watch, though. And Michael Caine was great as Austin's dad. Loved the scenes where he convinces Dr. Evil's goons just to go ahead and drop dead to save him the effort of killing them. And Beyonce Knowles was good as Austin's Girlfriend-Of-The-Week. All in all, a nice, fun little ride (though I could have done without the thousand and a half celebrity cameos during the opening sequence). My only issue was that Burt Backarat (sp?) didn't appear to sing a song while Austin romances Foxy Cleopatra! Blasphemy.

I went into Star Trek: Nemesis not expecting much. From what I'd heard, the writer, John Logan, had written a piss-poor script that went out of its way to regress the characters of Worf and Data while totally missing the mark on Picard. So imagine my surprise when the movie actually turned out to be GOOD. Yeah, there were several plot holes. Yeah, there were several elements that could have come into play that didn't. Yeah, Shinzon's characterization could have used a bit more work. But on the whole, it worked. You could connect with the characters emotionally, and that was the big thing. There were actual CONSEQUENCES. No reset buttons here. I loved that. Not as good as First Contact or The Undiscovered Country, but very good nonetheless.

[> The Two Towers ! -- grifter, 13:56:25 12/27/02 Fri

looking through my cinema-ticket-collection, I can find the following:

movies I loved:
"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (ok, 2001 movie, but I¥ve seen it about half a dozen times in 2002)
"Brotherhood of the Wolf"
"Resident Evil"
"Ghost World"
"Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones"
"Spiderman"
"Signs"
"Mulholland Drive"
"Lord of the Rings 2: The Two Towers"

"ok" - movies:
"From Hell"
"Panic Room"
"The Scorpion King"
"Lilo & Stitch"
"Scooby Doo"

disappointing movies:
"Harry Potter 2"

Hmm, only one really stinky one, not bad...there were years when there were only a couple of good ones against a whole bunch of stinkers...

[> [> I forgot about how great Bro of Wolf was!! I loved it! -- neaux, 14:19:48 12/27/02 Fri

[> [> [> Mani! Mani! -- ponygirl, 19:13:02 12/27/02 Fri

Brotherhood of the Wolf! Now that was one f***ed up movie, and I mean that as a compliment. It seems to be of the kitchen sink school of film-making -- you want French pre-revolutionary drama? Check. How about graphic bloody horror? Done. A semi-mystical Iroquois warrior who's down with the kung fu? Done and done!

Just saw Gangs of New York and it was amazing! Daniel Day-Lewis was fabulous, and as always I want to throw myself down before Martin Scorsese and grovel in the dirt. Beyond epic!

[> Personal choice -- KdS, 03:51:56 12/28/02 Sat

Top five (alphabetical):

Donnie Darko (2002 release in UK)
L.I.E. (even if admitting it will cause News of the World readers to burn my house down)
Lantana
Mulholland Drive
Talk to Her

Ghost World is left out only because I can't remeber if it was 2002 or end of 2001.

"Give me those two hours of my life back!":
Goldmember (when the most memorable joke involves an Oriental character named Fook Mi you know the franchise is in trouble)
The Royal Tenenbaums (loved Rushmore, went into Tenenbaums with high expectations, had great difficulty staying awake)

[> My list for 2002. -- Rob, 09:27:41 12/28/02 Sat

1. Adaptation
2. Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones
3. Spider Man
4. Pumpkin
5. Chicago
6. Star Trek: Nemesis

This was obviously not a great year for movies, because I couldn't come up with more than 6, but here's a little warning about films to avoid at all costs:

K-19: The Widowmaker
Men in Black II
Halloween: Resurrection.

[> [> Re: My list for 2002. -- Rob, 09:29:49 12/28/02 Sat

Oh my God, I forgot The Two Towers! Stick that between Star Wars II and Spider Man, please. ;o)

Rob

[> Didn't see many -- dream of the consortium, 11:02:25 01/02/03 Thu

But of what I saw....

I would give high ratings to:
Lovely and Amazing
Someone else mentioned Mulholland Drive, though I thought that was last year. Any which way, a great film.
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed About a Boy, as I entirely expected to hate it.
Was Amelie this year?

Mixed feelings about:
The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys. Found the cartoon sequences very interesting, and Jodie Foster was great, but I disliked the ending.

Spiderman. Dull, dull, dull, but I like Tobey Maguire, and thought the sequences where he first learns to play with his power gave hints of the movie it could have been.

Frida. Thrilled to see any film about an artist, particularly a female artist, and I liked the sequences in which her life and art blend, but there was something dull overall about it, which is amazing, considering how interesting her life was. The best biographies find some sort of connecting thread in the life of the subject. This lacked such a thread - or perhaps we were supposed to consider pain the center of her life, an idea I can't quite accept. I don't know, it didn't move me. I found the most interesting sequence to be the animation by the Brothers Quay - it stood out as an actual piece of art in a movie that was not.

I think the represents all the films I saw this year. I think I need to get out more.

[> [> About a Boy -- Rahael, 03:41:01 01/03/03 Fri

I too really enjoyed About a Boy. I don't even like Hugh Grant, but the film was really great. Touching, and sad and funny. It's actually one of the two new releases I saw in the cinema (and you thought you hadn't seen any!). The other was Spider Man.

I've seen other films in the cinema last year of course. All for the first time - Rear Window. The Seventh Seal. To Catch a Thief.

They were all great! Obviously RW and SS are pretty fabulous. To Catch a Thief was a lot of fun. Grace Kelly - pretty frocks!

Hmm, there were some others I saw for the first time as well - His Girl Friday, was also seen for the first time. I'm very behind on the Film Canon! (btw, enjoyed that as well)

[> [> [> Re: About a Boy -- dream, 08:04:40 01/03/03 Fri

His Girl Friday is one of my favorites! Also Bringing Up Baby. The super-fast screwball comedy has really fallen on hard times, hasn't it? There's a nice book out there on those movies called Fast-Talking Dames - a quick read that you might enjoy if you like that sort of thing. There another on women in pre-code Hollywood (I can't remember the title, the author spends a lot of time on Norma Shearer - Complicated Women?) that is only so-so as a work of film criticism, but makes a nice pairing with Fast-Talking Dames - you can see how the comedies came in to replace the women's pictures which had been censored out of existence - or at least out of life and vitality.

I only saw three or four movies from last year in the theater, the rest on videotape.

You're lucky to be in a place (you're in London, yes?) where you can see older films on the large screen easily. We have a few options here in Boston, but I think you probably have it better there. Paris is amazing.

[> [> [> [> Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder, Ernst Lubitsch -- cjl, 08:22:52 01/03/03 Fri

Ladies and gentlemen of the board...

If you're looking for the origins of Buffy's quick-witted repartee and the high-powered females of BtVS in American popular entertainment, look to the work of these four directors. Find their films. Learn them. Know them.

His Girl Friday
Bringing Up Baby
The Palm Beach Story
To Be or Not to Be
Sullivan's Travels
The Apartment
The Lady Eve (a big fave)

I could go on forever, but these are a good start.

[> [> [> [> Ooh, thanks! -- Rahael, 08:25:18 01/03/03 Fri

Those two books look great...now I know what I'm getting my soon to be flatmate for her birthday! And then I can borrow them back and read em.

I usually go to the National Film Theatre, which is an amazing place - it always has such a variety of films. I started going there when they did a Cary Grant Season a year or so back, and this winter they've done James Stewart (hence Rear Window).

I loved His Girl Friday - I got it on DVD after I saw it.

'Bringing up Baby', 'It Happened One Night', 'I was a Male War Bride', I love all those kinds of films!! My flatmate and I are going to get cable so we can get old movies at home.

[> [> [> [> [> The Philadelphia Story - Grant, Hepburn and Steward -- Sara, 11:58:50 01/03/03 Fri

does it get any better than that? I don't think so! Absolutely one of my favorite movies, although as far as I'm concerned if it's got Cary Grant, that's all I need to know. I keep waiting for someone to start the Cary Grant Network (CGN) all Cary, all the time - for that I'd switch up to digital cable!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually it's Stewart, as in Jimmy -- Sara, with the hubby who loves to catch her spelling errors, 16:12:01 01/03/03 Fri

[> Check out "Kissing Jessica Stein" - very funny! -- Sara, 19:33:57 01/02/03 Thu

Just saw it on video last night and it was alot of fun! Highly recommending it. Really captures the feeling I get whenever I go to NYC. I love movies that really feel like the city.

Xuffy -- Rochefort, 16:03:17 12/27/02 Fri

I just like to bring that up occasionally. I was reading the shooting script for "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and the way Xander is introduced to us is as someone who will obvioulsy one day be a lady killer. When will this happen?

And when it happens, will Xander and Buffy hook up?

I mean maybe when Buffy gets over her "issues" (an inferiority complex about her superiority complex etc) and her fear of intimacy that forces her into impossible relationships that can never be (Angel) or relationships where she is in no fear of losing her heart (Riley) or abusive relationships that can never be anyway (Spike), she will wake up and see the guy that has always been there for her and loves her dearly, and that she probably loves too. (sniff)

In an unrelated question, can anyone tell me what the plot of season 4 was GOING to be before the major cast departures? I always heard it was supposed to be different, but what WAS it going to be?

[> Re: Xuffy -- HonorH, 16:17:45 12/27/02 Fri

I, too, have wondered about Xander and Buffy. At this point, they seem to regard each other as brother and sister, but just as Buffy's playing mother for Dawn, Xander's playing Dad. So they form a cohesive family unit amongst themselves, which has been emphasized repeatedly this season. Makes me wonder if there is a pairing in the offing.

One thing, though: it's not just Buffy not looking at Xander that way. Xander hasn't appeared to look at Buffy in a romantic way since season 2. He made no move for her in early S4 before she was involved with Riley and he with Anya, or since his breakup with Anya and her breakup with Spike. Sure, they love each other, but would a romantic relationship really be any better than what they've got now?

[> [> Re: Xuffy -- JM, 16:55:53 12/27/02 Fri

Heard that S4 was supposed to be way different. All rumors, from my POV. Oz was in for a major protracted nature-of-the werewolf arc. Willow was supposed to just dabble in same-sex attraction. Maggie was supposed to be the main villain, and the sex surveillance was supposed to come into play in regards to making Riley doubt Buffy when stuff about her and Angel came out. Adam was supposed to do a classic Frankenstien, more victim than monster, and ultimately help bring down the Initiative. Ever since I've heard these rumors I've been much gentler on ME about some of S4's shortcomings. Considering the blows, they came back swinging. The intersection between reality and ideal is what make art.

For the first time in almost ever I'm getting a tiny X/B vibe and am excited about it. I did get a tiny one from the pilot, but I watched it between S3 and S4, so it didn't have the same effect. I've suddenly become a huge Xander fan so I could totally get behind her loving a normal guy.

[> [> [> Season 4 and Boy Smell Good -- Rochefort, 21:00:19 12/27/02 Fri

Thanks for the season four stuff, can anyone back that up? I really liked season 4 actually, but that original plot sounds pretty cool.

I agree Xuffy would be great, and while what they have now is great, this would be different than that. And HonorH, I actually think there's lots of vibes between them since Season 2. For instance, when Riley tells Xander Buffy doesn't love him, Xander gets all "Not that I love her anymore, or that I ever did I mean." And when Buffy is cave-woman Buffy she thinks "Boy smell good." Also there's the moment in the funeral home when Buffy seems to see him differently for a moment and Xander goes "As if things aren't complicated enough." And I don't think Xander doesn't look at Buffy that way. I think he does, he just puts it away because there's no use in feeling it. I mean he let Buffy know how he felt. She turned him down hard core. But hopefully she'll come to her senses.

[> [> [> [> Season 4, and of course 'Restless' -- slain, 15:58:17 12/28/02 Sat

I think JM might be elaborating on the sketchy details we've been given... from listening to the S4 DVD commentaries and from researching this a bit, I think all we know is that Oz's arc was going to be more prolonged (but with a similar outcome), and Willow and Tara was going to be played on the metaphorical level, rather than literal. I'm not sure about Adam, though it's worth mentioning that it's a myth that Lindsay Crouse (Maggie Walsh) left the show; in reality, she was killed off unexpectedly, and the actress herself has said it came as a surprise to her. I think most of the season played out as planned; the only real change I can see was in Willow's arc.

I think 'Restless' shows us how Xander views his relationship with Buffy, and perhaps also suggests how it will go (the Restless dreams being somewhat prophetic); she's his 'little' sister, and he's her big brother, looking out for her. As yet 'Restless' hasn't been contradicted, but it has been superceded, as the events that were foreshadowed have already happened.

[> [> [> [> **RANT WARNING** -- HonorH (the mad ranter), 11:34:04 12/29/02 Sun

Sorry, Rochefort, but you've just pressed one of my Buttons. Try not to take the ensuing personally.

**WARNING: RANT AHEAD. PROCEED WITH CAUTION.**

First of all, Buffy "turned (Xander) down hard-core" when they were sophomores in high school! If Xander hasn't gotten over that enough by now to declare himself to her, it's his own damn fault she doesn't know how he feels, if indeed he feels that way. She's made no move for him, true, but neither has he made a move for her. It's a two-way street. If he can't get up the gumption to say something and she's oblivious, see above re: it being his own damn fault.

Secondly, why does Buffy need to "wake up" to Xander? What's superior about a romantic relationship as compared to what they have already? This is one thing that consistently gets me about a great many B/X 'shippers (not all, just widespread enough that it Gets Me): Buffy "doesn't appreciate" Xander, evidenced by the fact that she's not trying to jump him. What does that have to do with anything? Buffy has consistently relied upon Xander as her friend and basically the only steady male in her life. He has no special powers, but she has explicitly stated that he's "part of the unit." She loves him like a brother. No, she doesn't see him as a potential lover, but why should she have to? She's wide awake regarding Xander: he's one of her two dearest friends, and she knows that just as she'd do anything for him, he'd do anything for her.

Third, I have a real problem with the idea that Xander may have been carrying a torch for Buffy all this time. If he got involved with Anya, declared his love to her, lived with her, and well-nigh married her, all while feeling on some level that he was only with her because Buffy was out of his reach, I just can't like the boy. And I like the boy. At this point, if both Buffy and Anya told Xander they were in love with him and wanted him desperately, I fully believe Xander would go to Anya over Buffy.

**END RANT**

[> [> [> [> [> However. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:36:34 12/29/02 Sun

I find it very probable that Buffy was the first person that Xander really loved in the romantic sense. Because she was the first, his feelings for her will probably be what he compares all relationships to. Sort of like what Buffy did after Angel was gone.

On another note, I think the reason that B/X shippers see Buffy as not appreciating him is that, to them, it seems obvious that he's in love with her, and thus conclude that she is ignoring his feelings. Now, if one believes that Xander hasn't been carrying an unending love of Buffy for the past seven years, than it looks a whole lot different.

[> [> [> [> [> So basically, they DON'T have that same spark that you and I do, eh? -- Rochefort, 00:24:31 01/02/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, they couldn't show *that* on TV! -- HonorH, 20:05:27 01/03/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> As long as we're ranting -- MaeveRigan, 11:19:32 01/04/03 Sat

This is really minor, but it kind of irks me that so many fans seem able to conceive of only two types of relationships: mad passion and casual acquaintance.

Is this based on people's personal experience, or some kind of wish-fullfillment fantasy projection? Because friendship, from what I've generally read, seen, and experienced, is usually *not* a thin veil for unrequited romantic love. Though friendship can grow into romance, IMO, it undermines the validity of friendship to see it only as a pale substitute for or precursor to passion.

JMHO, of course.

XANDER: You'll find him. He won't be much good without his friends.

BUFFY: [softly] No. He won't. ("Seeing Red")

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. Well said! -- shadowkat, 14:21:24 01/05/03 Sun

Because friendship, from what I've generally read, seen, and experienced, is usually *not* a thin veil for unrequited romantic love. Though friendship can grow into romance, IMO, it undermines the validity of friendship to see it only as a pale substitute for or precursor to passion.

Couldn't have said it better. Completely agree.

[> Will Xander and Buffy hook up? I'd love that to happen. (But Angel...) -- Snow White, 21:46:58 12/27/02 Fri

[> [> Wrong network, and really she may as well hook up with Joey Triviani as Angel. -- Rochefort, 22:00:25 12/27/02 Fri

how YOU doin?

[> [> Xuffy is fine the way it is -- Flo, 01:47:05 12/28/02 Sat

Something I love about BTVS is its portrayal of rich relationships of all kinds -- friendship, mentorship, sisterhood, parents, pseudoparents, etc. If the only meaningful connections occuring in the show involved romance, it would be just another Dallas kind of nighttime soap.

The deep love and commitment in the Xuffy relationship, without the romance component, is a fine thing. I think it's great to see this develop platonically -- it offers a vision of how people can connect intimately in ways beyond the _When Harry Met Sally_ message that tells us anything meaningful must be sexual. I don't see a reason to make it romantic.

--Flo

[> [> [> (Problem I have with S3 of AtS described succinctly above) -- KdS, 03:56:49 12/28/02 Sat

First Fred succumbs to Ezri Dax Memorial Syndrome (the promising new female character whose sole interest for the writers becomes who gets to shag her), then the whole C/A thing.

[> [> [> [> Re: (Problem I have with S3 of AtS described succinctly above) -- Shiraz, 12:53:21 12/30/02 Mon

"Ezri Dax Memorial Syndrome"

Heh,

I'll have to remember that one.

-Shiraz

[> [> [> [> [> Following cjl... -- KdS, 13:39:44 12/30/02 Mon

I intend to trademark it and charge royalties.

[> [> [> O.k., I bought your argument. I have it set up in a corner at home and put flowers on it. :) -- Rochefort, 20:53:28 12/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> *thank you*--i'm glad to see someone say this! -- anom, 16:20:34 12/29/02 Sun

"...a vision of how people can connect intimately in ways beyond the _When Harry Met Sally_ message that tells us anything meaningful must be sexual."

It seems to be almost impossible for TV shows to have male & female leads & not make them a couple in the romantic/sexual sense, or at least get them in bed together a few times. Even a series whose premise was supposed to be that the main characters weren't romantically involved, Anything But Love, ended up having them...fall in love. Very few shows escape it. It's almost as bad in the movies, although there are a few exceptions, like Outland (no, not the comic strip! the sf movie w/Sean Connery).

It'd be fine w/me if Buffy & Xander's relationship continued as the deep friendship we've seen develop over the duration of the series.

[> [> [> Re: Xuffy is fine the way it is -- Snow White, 19:22:48 01/04/03 Sat

>>Something I love about BTVS is its portrayal of rich relationships of all kinds
Yeah, you're right. I forgot about that. It is nice.

^_^

[> Xuffy from the M.E. writer's perspective... -- ZachsMind, 10:32:34 12/28/02 Sat

Any time you have a core group of regulars in a show which is less than seven, particularly in scifi or horror genres, it's never a good idea to have them romantically involved with each other for long periods of time. It minimizes the conflict and makes the group appear smaller. It lessens the dynamics and limits possibilities for stories.

Throughout the series, the core group has been Buffy, Willow and Xander. Giles was core until season six. The episodes "Primeval" & "Restless" illustrate this the best. It was Giles, Willow, Xander & Buffy who were integral in the mystic ritual that connected them together with The First Slayer in order to defeat Adam. Spike, Anya, Dawn, Joyce, Tara & other characters are also important (as illustrated in the Restless dream sequences) but they're supporting roles. All other characters are periphery roles. They're satelites that revolve around the gravitic center of THREE characters.

From a writing perspective, if they were to romantically put Xander & Buffy together, or for that matter any other combination of the three inluding Xander & Willow or Willow & Buffy, it would make the gravitic center of the series appear smaller. More time would have to be devoted to the core characters and less to supporting roles, which turns the gravitic core internally onto itself, and makes for less interesting dynamics. Notice that throughout the series they've toyed occasionally with gravitic center relationships but never really explored them.

Instead the three main characters each explore interests outside their gravitic center. Buffy with Angel, Parker, Riley and Spike. Xander with Cordelia, Faith, and Anya. Willow with Oz and Tara. Note that when Xander & Willow briefly explored a romantic relationship it was for purposes of conflict and upset the balance of that season for many characters. Long term relationships between two members of a tv show's gravitic center ultimately weaken storyline possibilities. I cite the latter seasons of X-Files as a classic example. Once Scully & Mulder almost kissed in the motion picture, the writing dynamics for the series went downhill from there. Things taken for granted before had to be reapproached. The chemistry between the characters altered.

You will point out exceptions. Some shows are designed specifically with a gravitic center relationship. Remington Steele for example, or Moonlighting, or even Get Smart with the relationship of Agents 86 & 99. They're very successful. However, there's always only so far such a storyline can go. Once the characters have consummated their relationship, surprises become either forced or nonexistent, because they either break up (which means no more show) or they get married and have kids which domesticates the story and makes it as interesting to the average viewer as staring at a mirror.

Buffy can't get with Xander during the run of the series, although the writers could opt to end the series that way, with Buffy turning to Xander with new eyes and a quaint speech saying how through thick and thin he's always been there for him and she was a fool to not have seen his love for her as real before now and blah blah blah.. Then they can walk off into the sunset together.

However if they were to do this before the series is over, it would suddenly restrict a lot of story possibilities. So don't expect Xuffy until near the very end. IF it happens at all.

[> [> Depending on the writers views of romance.... -- Briar Rose, 17:36:42 12/28/02 Sat

I am more likely to believe that Willow will finally get her man.~w~

[> [> [> Re: Depending on the writers views of romance.... -- Flo, 21:27:35 12/28/02 Sat

Willow doesn't seem to need a man at this point, or want one for that matter. I think it would be tragic to depict the most well-developed queer character on television as having just gone through a lesbian "phase." This would reinforce the perception that heterosexuality is the only acceptable norm and anything else is deviance.

--Flo

[> [> [> Aack! I hope [bleep]ing not. -- Tyreseus, 21:55:24 12/29/02 Sun

If there's one thing that could possibly make me refuse to ever watch another episode of BtVS (or any other ME show), it would be the ME team deciding that Willow should go back to being straight and that her lesbian relationship was just a phase. Even as a series finale, I'd be so offended and feel so mocked and cheated that you could be [bleep]ing sure I'd be writing hateful letters to everyone at ME and UPN.

You know, I might have been willing to accept Willow as bisexual. Bisexuality exists, but that's not how they've shown Willow's sexuality emerging. So now, to ultimately write off her experience with Tara as a one time thing and have her settle down with Xander or any other man...

With the way ME has drawn the characters, you might as well believe that Angel and Spike will someday get down and dirty. To deny that Willow is, fully and at heart, a lesbian would alienate the thousands of us viewers who tune into Buffy for the positive portrayal of a gay character in a lead role on network television (1 of only 6 this season, 2 of the remaining being in Will and Grace).

Besides, in interviews following Tara's death, Joss has clearly stated that Willow is a lesbian, and that has not and will not change despite Tara's death.

[> [> [> [> other queer characters -- Flo, 00:23:12 12/30/02 Mon

Who are the other gay characters you refer to? I don't watch much TV outside the ME empire. :)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: other queer characters -- Tyreseus, 14:15:09 12/31/02 Tue

According to a press release from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a media watchdog group), the six gay lead characters on network tv are:
Will Truman, Will and Grace
Jack (Just Jack!), Will and Grace
Willow, BtVS
Jack McPhee, Dawson's Creek
Dr. Weaver, ER
John Irwin, NYPD Blue (debatably a lead or recurring character)

The season also started off with a gay lead character in the ABC drama MDs, but I believe the show has been cancelled.

There are, of course, a few other recurring and minor characters on other shows, and the list doesn't include cable or reality shows. But the interesting thing about the press release that GLAAD put out is that currently, there are no bisexual or transgender characters, nearly all gay characters are white (all of the "lead" characters are, anyway) and the number of overall gay characters has drastically fallen since the cancellation of shows like Felicity, Spin City, and The Education of Max Bickford from last year. A trend that the unfortunate death of our beloved Tara contributed to - although we may see the number edge back up with the introduction of the S.I.T.s

[> [> [> [> Um... Tyreseus -- KdS, 04:01:56 12/30/02 Mon

you might as well believe that Angel and Spike will someday get down and dirty

Quite a few people on this board seem to think that's already happened ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Um... Tyreseus -- Tyreseus, 14:16:26 12/31/02 Tue

Only in my fantasies, but those included myself as well :p

[> [> Re: Xuffy from the M.E. writer's perspective... -- Darby, 13:15:37 12/29/02 Sun

The problem with well-accepted principles is that they aren't necessarily true. Putting Chandler and Monica together on Friends has produced some of the funniest exchanges ever, and drawing Rachel and Ross together has allowed them to pull back from the caricature that Ross had become. The only reason that hooking characters up doesn't work is that writers locked into a certain type of repartee or dynamic can't make the change work. I am not pulling for Xander to hook up with Buffy, but I trust Joss and company to be able to make it work if they were to.

But I still think that Xander and Anya are much more interesting as a couple, married or otherwise, than they are apart.

[> [> [> This again? Sigh. OK, might as well put in my 1/50th of a dollar... -- cjl, 21:41:11 12/29/02 Sun

B/X is over. "Restless" confirms it. Xander's dream has red-hot sexual fantasy versions of just about every woman on the show, with the exception of Anya (no fantasies needed there) and Buffy. Buffy's playing in the sandbox, and she calls Xander "big brother." This is NOT Buffy talking; this is Xander's own subconscious mind spelling out how HE sees the relationship.

There has been a common shorthand describing Xander's relationship with the two most important women in his life over the past seven years: Willow is his best friend, and Buffy is his hero. I see nothing to contradict this.

Anya, as of this moment, is probably the love of his life. The speech at the end of "Into the Woods" is Xander's most heartfelt romantic declaration to date. There's nothing like it anywhere else in the series, even when he was hormonally magnetized to Cordelia, Willow or Buffy. (Unfortunately, Emma hasn't re-signed for season eight, and we all know what happens to anyone a Scooby calls "the love of my life." Be afraid, Anya--be very afraid.)

If you want to bring up the false vision in "Hell's Bells" as proof of sublimated Xuffiness (or Banderness), I can't agree. Xander's life falls apart after Buffy dies, not because he still has romantic feelings for her, but because he fails to save her and feels worthless. And the whole "Daddy Xander" bit he's got going now? An almost knightly devotion to Buffy, a genuine big brotherly love for Dawn, and a futile attempt to paper over that gigantic hole in his heart he ripped out his own self when he walked out of the bison lodge and into the rain.

As for the "Mandler" or "Chonica" ship on Friends, playing with the dynamic of six regulars is easier than linking up two out of three.

[> I'd do ANYTHING for Xuffy to happen!!! -- Rachel, 16:01:31 12/30/02 Mon

I've been wanting it since ep1, really, and you have no idea how many times i've been shouting "Kiss! KISS!" at the screne!

I guess from the way season 1 was set out, i expected they were the typical "will end up together in the end" kind of couple. And I'm clinging to the hope that that's what will happen, I think they're right for each other - will do each other a lot of good.

[> [> To offer some hope, did you hear Greenwalt's comment? -- Rochefort, 18:43:24 01/01/03 Wed

To offer some hope...

on the Season 2 DVD, Greenwalt says "Poor Xander has a crush on Buffy, but it wasn't meant to be. At least not yet. Stay tuned."

I agree with some of the above comments that they have kind of a cool platonic relationship and it's nice to see that represented on t.v., but why DOESN'T she want him? Just sex. She doesn't think he's sexy. Aren't there lots of girls who think Xander's sexy?

[> [> [> JUST sex??? -- dream of the consortium, 10:08:30 01/02/03 Thu

***but why DOESN'T she want him? Just sex. She doesn't think he's sexy. Aren't there lots of girls who think Xander's sexy?***

Sure, lots of girls must think Xander's sexy. I don't. (Giles, yes.) Presumably Buffy doesn't, or if she does, does so in the same way you might *know* that your own brother is handsome and that girls think he's sexy, without desiring him at all yourself.

I think there's several dangerous ideas floating around the idea of Xuffy. One, as many posters have noted, is the idea that the ultimate expression of a male/female relationship is romance, that Xander and Buffy's relationship is lacking because they are not romantically involved. I think enough has been said about that.

There's also this idea that Buffy's sexual desire should be able to awakened by any fellow that is good and decent and cares about her, whether she has ever felt any real desire for him or not. Or maybe the idea is that sex just shouldn't be that important. Sex is a huge part of romantic relationships and can't really be forced. I've never known a long-term friendship that "blossomed" into a romantic relationship successfully, though I have known friendships destroyed by acting on a physical attraction that went one way. (Why would someone get romantically involved with a friend s/he wasn't attracted to? Security. Pity. Guilt about rejecting someone you care about. And so on.) I believe that the idea that "the best relationships grow out of friendships" is a myth - one that should be as rejected by the Buffy writers as "there is only one true love" and "passion can overcome anything" have (Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Spike, respectively).

The problem with these myths of the romantic life is that people actually live by them. People obsess over long-lost "true loves." Couples stay together for passion, even when the relationship lacks mutual respect, because they believe that love IS the sort of obsessive passion that throws your whole being into absolute chaos. Women in particular get into relationships with people they like, but feel no attraction to, because a man's devotion is more important than a woman's sexual desire to most current myths of romance. It's important to keep in mind that the particular ideas our culture sanctions at the moment about romance are not necessarily true or universal.

I have had great respect for the way that ME has treated the various romantic relationships through the years, wiht the depth and complications that the relationships deserved. I would be terribly disappointed in a final Xander-Buffy coupling - it would feel cheap.

Besides, I would find it very hard to respect Xander if I believed he had maintained an unrequited love for seven years. Unrequited love may make for great poetry, but in healthy people, usually runs its course fairly quickly.

grumble, grumble

dream, who seems to be a terrible cynic in all things romantic, but is really a hopeless romantic deep down, honestly

[> [> [> [> nice catch! -- Flo, 12:58:13 01/02/03 Thu

You've captured some incredibly complex notions about sexuality succinctly and articulately. And I completely agree with your points. Thanks!

[> [> [> [> Re: JUST sex??? -- BunnyK., 17:12:04 01/02/03 Thu

While I can see that maybe in general what you say is true, I'd just like to add that I was friends with my boyfriend for 2-3 years before we ever got together. We've been together almost 5 years now ..and..err..I still desire him (trying not to give too much info)! Maybe we're the exception, but at least you now know it's possible.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: JUST sex??? -- auroramama, 19:56:23 01/03/03 Fri

Sometimes a friendship does change into a romance. I'm married to the guy I thought was just a forever friend and best confidant. (Seventeen years married, in April, after dating on and off for four years.) But he was a bit of a dark horse -- there was more in him than I'd found out in four years, and when I discovered it, I fell in love with him for the first time. The chemistry changed.

Whereas I think Buffy already knows Xander, both light and dark, and while she loves him, the chemistry failed to ignite for her.

I don't think Xander is pining, either. He hasn't gone blind and he's a young man, so he probably appreciates her desirability as well as loving, admiring, and wanting to protect her. But he's in love with Anya, and he's romantically a serial monogamist (IMHO) despite Season 3.

If Buffy were still his goal, rather than Anya, surely he would have noticed that *Spike*'s persistence met with (Pyrrhic, perhaps) success and given it another shot?

(I always thought Riley should have taken a lesson from Spike's attitude. He gave up just a little too soon -- in the second that he turns away from the helicopter window. And we got the infamous AYW but never found out whether he took that particular point. Sigh.)

Okay, enough rambling.

auroramama

[> [> [> [> Part of the problem... -- Darby, 19:09:30 01/02/03 Thu

People, including writers, see relationships in a combination of their first, second, and third-hand experiences, but often decide early what constitutes an "actual" relationship, or "love."

They can't love you if they don't respect you.

Don't confuse sex and love - they're totally separate things.

Love is incomplete without sex.

Love from friendship is a myth.

Once you have your parameters set, it's easy to judge others' relationships by those boundaries - oh, that's not really love, or it's only a matter of time with them. It can be comforting, but pay attention - no matter what your own personal rules, others will break them over and over.

- Darby, trying to be a proponent of love and let love.

[> [> [> [> [> Indeed, I went too far -- dream of the consortium, 08:34:25 01/03/03 Fri

I just wrote a long response, but voy ate it, so I'll do the quick version. Yes, of course friendship can turn into romance in some cases. I don't want to deny anyone's experience there. I just don't think it's anywhere near as common (or as simple) in life as it is in popular culture. And I tend to think that when the culture pushes a particular narrative, people will try to find that narrative in their own experience, even when it is destructive to do so. In the case of dating a friend you aren't actually attracted to, well, without gory details - been there, done that, not pretty. Was amazed afterward to find how many people could understand, had fallen into the same trap themselves. So I'm not trying to deny that this can happen, or trying to judge other people's love, or define love in a precise way. I just think it's important to recognize that the stories we tell affect the way people understand their own lives. Shortcuts, simplistic use of a culture's favorite romantic structures, hinder that process. I've never seen Buffy do that before, and I don't think it will now. (I don't expect a Xander/Buffy coupling either, but I suppose it might be possible to do it in a way that would be convincing. They don't have much time, though.)

dream, both loving and letting love

[> [> [> [> I think they already have rejected the idea that friendship (on one side) is enough... -- KdS, 06:11:43 01/03/03 Fri

Look at Buffy and Riley.

[> Would Xuffy contradict the female empowerment message of BtVS? (possibly spoilery speculation) -- Clemency, 00:42:55 01/03/03 Fri

I think a good argument could be made for that interpretation if the series ends with a Xander/Buffy pairing, based on Xander's behavior to date, anyway. Much of what he says and does can be viewed (by me, at least) as abusive, controlling, manipulative, and possessive.

While I enjoy Xander's witty comments, I sometimes think they could be considered verbal abuse. He insulted both Cordy and Anya quite a bit while he was dating themóis this playful banter or verbal abuse and humiliation? He called Cordy a slut because she dressed attractively and called Buffy a slut when she was first starting to talk about dating again at the beginning of Season 3. In Dead Manís Party he publicly humiliates Buffyóa common type of spousal abuse. He patronizes Anya throughout Seasons 4, 5 and 6 (but of course she valued his patronage!)

Xanderís motivations are often equivocal:

Were his comments in The Pack his true feelings, released from the usual inhibitions of society? When he lied to Buffy at the end of that episode about his memory of the events, was it really because he was too ashamed of his attempted attack on her to admit to remembering it? If so, why did he joke about it later?

When he lied to Buffy in Becoming 2, was it to make it easier for Buffy to fight Angel, or was it because he wanted his chief rival for Buffyís attention out of the way? In Revelations, did he manipulate Faith into trying to kill Angel for the same reason?

Was Xanderís romantic speech to Anya in Into The Woods his true feelings, or was he shamed into it by Buffyís comment earlier in the episode that she would be surprised if Anya was anything more than a convenience to him? Was Anya right about his motivations for proposing to her in The Gift? Did he really leave Anya at the altar because he was afraid their marriage would be as bad as his parentsí and didnít want to subject her to that or was it because he didnít want to commit to Anya because he realized she might come between him and Buffy? Why didnít he make any attempt to work things out with Anya over the summer? Is it because when he found out that Buffy had slept with Spike, Xander believed that Buffy might now be within his reach, also? In one of the recent episodes, why does Xander leave Anya alone with Spike, and make snide comments to her under his breath as he leaves her there, knowing that Spike is probably killing again?

Did Xander really summon ëSweetí in Once More With Feeling and if so, was it as innocent as he made it sound? Was he trying to find a way to make Buffy tell him about what happened to her when she died? Why does Xander so often try to coerce Buffy into sharing with him all the intimate details of her life, without reciprocating by sharing his secrets and personal life? Is he shy? Are we to assume that this actually happens off-camera? Or is he being controlling and possessive? How much of his friendship with Willow is based on possessiveness?

Is part of the attraction that Xander feels for Buffy based on the fact that she isnít at all attracted to him and is therefore a challenge? Was his relationship with Anya just for comfort purposes (ìsay housework and he freezesî and sheís ìwarm in the nightî) while the conquistador within still lusted after Buffy? If he won her love, would he soon start looking elsewhere for thrills, just as he did with Willow, Cordy, and now, possibly, Anya?

I donít mean this as a condemnation of Xander, in fact, I think these questions make him a more interesting and complex character and raise interesting questions about relationships between men and women in our society. And if Xander ìgetsî Buffy at the end of the series, I will be disgusted, emotionally, but fascinated intellectually by the irony of the situation.

[> [> When did Xander insult Anya? -- Shiraz, 13:24:21 01/03/03 Fri

[> [> [> Do you want a list? Re-watch Season 6 -- shadowkat, 18:15:52 01/03/03 Fri

Here's a list of episodes from Season 6 when Xander says insulting things to Anya and treats her as sub-standard:
1. Flooded
2. Life Serial
(putting off the engagement...and interrupting her, treating her as if everything she says embarrasses him)
3. OMWF
4. Tabula Rasa (beginning of the episode)
5. Smashed
6. Wrecked
7. DoubleMeat Palace
8. Gone
9. Hells Bells

He's done it off and on throughout the series with smart alec remarks and quips. He did the same thing to Cordy.
Xander is the king of the insult which I suppose some people would consider one of his great qualities, but it is also a sign of immaturity and if he continues? Well see Mr. Harris in Hell's Bells who couldn't do anything but insult his wife with cutting smart alec remarks. Xander uses it as a defense mechanism - and they are funny remarks - probably why you didn't catch them - they are the jokes. The quips.
But as Anya discovers in her discussion with Hallie in DMP they are also painful and poor Anya isn't exactly the most confident person in the world.

What we might have considered amusing in high school - the cordy/xander insults and the anya/xander insults in season3-4 - isn't so amusing as an adult. Until he grows out of it - he's may one day wake up and see his father looking at him in the mirror.

SK (steering clear of Xuffy ship argument, though for record - agree with cjl, Zachsmind, flo, HonorH, and Dream on this baby.)

[> [> [> [> Re: Do you want a list? Re-watch Season 6 -- JM, 19:58:48 01/03/03 Fri

God, itís hard to pick a position. (Probably because I can't imagine arguing with sk.) Because IMHO, Xanderís comments to Anya on a number of occasions did cross into, at the least, the no-manís land between verbal abuse and relevant criticism. In the beginning, he was simply, patiently trying to integrate her into our world. And he was often far more amused and helpful than exasperated. But it went on over a two year period. And the cumulative effect was enough that I thought that Hallieís comments rang true in DP. Because it had caught my ear in ìInto the Woodsî and ìThe Bodyî especially in the way he didnít immediately jump to her defense in ìThe Giftî and ìFlooded.î And it in no way indicated that he didnít love her, it was the more poignant because I was convinced that he did. And even when he wasnít criticizing her, he was almost always ìcorrectingî her. And the major uncomfortableness wasnít purely from the instances, but from the fact that his acerbic relationship with Cordy represented a pattern. As in the two of them traded barbs far into their relationship. And also that the incredibly uncomfortably example of his parents in ìHellís Bellsî took out any possibility of humorous interpretation.

I think that Xander was morally right, though terribly cruel in his decision, at the wedding. His relationship with Anya had enough subtle signs to make legitimate the fear of eventually perpetuating his parentsí relationship. One that is at the least very negative and miserable. At the worst the subtle, sub-textual implications are that their relationship was occasionally physically violent and may have extended beyond the couple to their offspring. Itís certainly not canonical, but the subtle hints have been chilling. And I imagine Xander would rather die at the hands of his ex-demon than perpetuate it.

That said, I donít think that heís the prick that an entirely negative reading of his actions would indicate. For one thing, I donít think that he plans or manipulates. He didnít manipulate Faith into attacking Angel. It was an unfortunate confluence of their mutual desires.

The ìLieî was one of the most complicated moments of the show. He had to fight the conflicting desires of destroying the detested Angel, giving the beloved Buffy what she truly wanted, and obeying the adored Willow. I donít think anything but tactics won out at that moment though. This was the end of the world and their only weapon had to be made of steel. And I personally believe he saved the world. Buffy going into that fight with anything other than rage would have lost.

I donít believe that DMP was an abusive public humiliation. By the time he lost his temper, he had forgotten he had an audience. This was the ugly internal feelings he had been trying to suppress, because he, just like Willow and Joyce and Giles, were trying to put Buffy in the forefront, and step on their own response. Because they knew intellectually that she was in pain. And more than anything they wanted her back. But that in no way actually abated their anger. Giles suppressed it more effectively than anyone, but the fury seeped out in the hot-wiring sequence, the encounter with Snyder, and the argument in ìRevelations.î There were a lot of going on there.

Simply the fact of knowing Buffy had caused them considerable agony. Loving Buffy had caused them unimaginably more. They had spent three month not know where she was, or whether she was even alive. When I first started babysitting my sisters, when they were in middle school, one of them didnít show up. Some confusion of communication had obscured the fact that she had an after school activity. When she didnít get off the bus I was absolutely positive she was abducted and dead. (Somehow it made it even worse because I still remembered the feeling when a couple of year later three girls the same age in our community disappeared and turned up dead.) Several hours later when she showed up, I socked her across the face. Iím not proud of it. But I remember the instantaneous feeling of grief and fear transmuting instantaneously to almost homicidal rage. I know a lot of people hated DMP, but it will forever be a favorite ep of mine. Because thatís how it feels. Helplessness translating into an almost malevolent rage. Itís twice as strong because you care so much. For me it was one of the few moments Iíve never been able to rationalize; it wasnít nasty, it was visceral. That was after three hours, I canít, donít want to, imagine what three months would have felt like. And, confession, right before I hit her I kind of remember her that she had mentioned something about being late the day before. But that was immaterial. It had nothing to do with reason or right, it was about pain, fear, grief, translated into physical expression.

IMHO Xander isnít a piece of sh*t, or even a bad guy to get involved with. Heís a guy who wears his heart on his sleeve. A heart thatís fierce, passionate, but always true. If he still loves Buffy that doesnít negate his love for Anya, which I thought ìSelflessî did everything to prove. So Buffy still loves Angel, she still feels for Riley and Spike. So what if Anya once loved Olaf, sheíd die for Xander. Just because Willow would kill for Tara doesnít negate the connection she has for Oz, where they could round the corner fifty years from now and not be surprised, or the fact that Xander can pull her back from the brink. I suspect that if you ever love someone, you never entirely stop. Maybe you move on, maybe you donít. But the seed, the past reality is always there. Even if its resonance changes over the years.

If Xander and Buffy were to ever feel a mutual spark, I wouldnít feel disappointed. Itís not thatís heís earned it. That theory doesnít work, and Buffy was never anything but respectful and polite. But if what she needs and wants has changed, and if he still wanted her, I wouldnít be adverse.

[> [> [> [> [> I agree with almost everything above, and a few more important points... -- cjl, 22:25:18 01/03/03 Fri

For me, the most telling sign that the Xanya wedding was going to be a disaster has always been the appearance of Halfrek in Doublemeat Palace. I mean "appearance" in every sense of the word. When Xander asked if Anya "really looked like that," the comment indicated he wasn't dealing with Anya's past AT ALL, hadn't thought through his relationship, and he wasn't relating to Anya as a distinct, complex individual.

Anya shares some of the blame here. She latched on to Xander in another one of her chameleonic identity shifts, projected an idealized wife/mom/businesswoman future, but ignored the void at the center of her being. In a previous post, I said they buried enough relationship problems to fill Sunnydale Cemetary. Go back to Xander and Anya in the ice cream truck in "Restless." You can see the crash coming even then. "I'll Never Tell" and "Mrs." were Joss' very own singin' and dancin' red neon signs indicating the danger up ahead.

I realize Xander can be a difficult character to like at times. But sometimes, I think Buffyphiles find it difficult to forgive his flaws because he's the Ordinary Guy, his flaws aren't couched in supernatural terms, and we don't have the distance of metaphor. He doesn't go nuts with Dark Magic or go back to Vengeance Demonhood or fail to kill the vampire who was once his lover. There's no metaphor when Xander cuts out on the wedding; it's a readily identifiable, entirely Real World catastrophe. And it's tough to take.

On the other hand, though, his triumphs are entirely Xander-powered. There's no wizardry, Slayer or vampire strength, or Watcher training--it's all just heart. That's why Xander is my co-favorite character (along with Willow). Always has been. Always will be.

If this is the last season, let's hope Joss sends him out right.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Do you want a list? Re-watch Season 6 -- shadowkat, 17:14:59 01/04/03 Sat

I don't disagree with your analysis JM - I actually like Xander, quite a bit. He's not my favorite character - sorry Willow and Spike are, I identify more with them. Xander reminds me too much of my little brother and I keep wanting to whap him over the side of the head - in a good way. But I do like him quite a bit. Particularly this year. And I see him going off in a good way. Actually if they do a spin-off, he'll probably be in it as the excellent SUPPORTING character he is.

I despise the idea of him in a romance with Buffy with a violent passion - one that I have been refraining from going into. I think Honor H, dream, Zachsmind and others have stated my reasons well. But I'll add one more: it's Buffy's show NOT Xander's. It's Buffy's fantasies, not Xander's. What I happen to love most about Whedon's concept of Btvs - is that is slanted to the female view yet guys can still enjoy it. A tough thing to pull off but he did it. And he does it while staying true to the idea that the main pov is the female. That's not to say we don't see Xander's pov/fantasies- usually with negative results, but the focus is still on Willow and Buffy. So when the writers decided to pursue the old - we've been friends forever, I've always had a crush on you, but you only had eyes for the popular and cool girls when will you look under your own nose theme - they did it with Willow NOT Xander. ( A relationship that IMHO had far more chemistry that X/C, X/B or X/A ever did). It was Xander who finally saw Willow and appreciated Willow and tried to go there - it blew up in their faces and Willow realized she loved Oz in that way and not Xander, Xander was her best friend like a brother - a realization that Xander eventually comes to regarding both Willow and Buffy around the same time.

Good post JM. Very well written.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Do you want a list? Re-watch Season 6 -- Clemency, 21:19:22 01/04/03 Sat

I agree with much of what you say, including that a completely negative interpretation of Xanderís actions would be wrong. If I gave the impression in my message that I think Xander is a bad person, Iím sorry. Xander is undoubtedly very courageous and a loyal friend to Buffy and Willow. I also agree that his contributions to the Scoobies are all the more impressive because he has no magic or superpowers. Xander is a white hat and I like white hats (except Saruman, of course, and I even felt a little sorry for him in the end).

I differ with your interpretations on some specific points, usually because I tend to suspect Xander has less than pure motives for his actions. Xander may not think things through far enough to form a plan, but I do think he manipulates. In Revelations, I think when he met Faith an opportunity presented itself and he took it. He used the same technique as in Becoming 2, he didnít tell Faith the whole story, he withheld information and let her make assumptions and decisions that would benefit him. My personal interpretation of Xanderís motivations, based on what he said in the library and at the Bronze, was that he did not trust Buffyís judgment that Angel was no longer dangerous, and even if Buffy was right, Xander believed that Angel should be killed because of what Angelus had done. I also think Xander was jealous of Angel and that greatly influenced his opinions in this situation, whether he realized that or not.

I feel the same sort of thing happened in Becoming 2. I agree with you that Xander thought that Buffy wasnít strong enough to kill Angel if she knew that Willow was trying to restore his soul, so Xander withheld the information. By doing that, he manipulated Buffy, he tried to use her as a tool to achieve the outcome he desired. As you said, if we agree with Xander, if we believe that Buffy really could not have done what was needed if she knew the truth, this implies that Xander saved the world at the end of Season 2. And that, in my opinion, diminishes or even negates the importance of Buffyís moment when she calls on her own inner strength then grasps Angelís sword and pushes him back. Because if Xander was right, it isnít really Buffyís strength any more. It is the false strength that Xander gave her with his lie, it is Xander working through her because she was not strong enough to do the job herself. When Buffy stabbed Angel at the end, though, that was clearly her own moment and her own strength, thank Joss.

Regarding DMP: Xander knew that he had an audience. Just after Xander first joined the argument, originally between Buffy and Joyce (who really was in a rage), Buffy, obviously extremely embarrassed, looked around at all the people in the room and asked if anyone else wanted to ìweigh inóHow about you, by the dip?î (Poor Jonathan declined to join the fray.) The camera cut back to Xander as he was turning back to look at Buffyóhe couldnít possibly have missed seeing all the others in the room, even if he was oblivious to Buffyís acute discomfort. Which I donít think he was. My impression from watching this scene is still that Xander enjoyed having an audience watch him browbeat Buffy. When tears were running down Buffyís cheeks and she begged Willow in a tremulous voice not to join in, Xander snapped at her to let Willow finish and the expression I see on his face at that moment is not blind rage but satisfaction. Irregardless of what his motivations were for doing this, I think Xanderís actions definitely constituted public humiliation. And although I agree with you that all her friends were angry with Buffy for running away, I think with Xander it was a little bit more than that. I suspect Xander was also angry because Buffy escaped from his sphere of influence, from his possession. And less anyone doubt that he was still thinking of her as a sexual object at that point, when the Scoobies were organizing the gathering earlier in the episode, he commented "And what'll we talk about at a gathering anyway? 'So, Buffy, did you meet any nice pimps on your travels?' "

Despite my best effortsóand I am normally inclined to sympathize with most characters and see validity in all the various points of view in most situations (thus Clemency)óI canít just excuse away all the things that Xander has done, partially because Xander seems to have plenty of sympathy for himself already without any help from me and, more to the point, Xanderís actions and words have so often implied a lack of respect for women that I canít help but feel that being paired off with Xander would be the ultimate degradation for Buffy. Itís not that I want Xander to be punished, I just donít think he deserves to win the grand prize and I donít think Buffy (or any woman) should be treated like a prize or the brass ring on a carousel. And I agree with what Shadowkat says above, I would very much like to see the series end as it began, with Buffy as the hero.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Great post. Agree completely. -- Sophist, 18:10:47 01/05/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> Re: Do you want a list? Re-watch Season 6 -- JM, 20:12:48 01/03/03 Fri

Reponse to SK's post:

If there were ever a X/B relationship, which I supsect you dont't support. It would at least cover interesting territory. Buffy's biggest romantic fear seems to be abdonment. Xander's fear (he's so fixated on forever)seems to be tied up in the realization that often people don't leave when they should. He cheated on Cordy, but never abandoned her. He had huge fears about the wedding, but wouldn't act on them until a demon made him fear he might eventually kill his bride. And he still wanted to continue the relationship. Buffy never left a lover until she realized she was using him and killing herself. And even after the assault, she was still unwillingly disappointed that he left town. Xander's and Buffy's fears are almost completely opposites of one another.

[> [> [> [> Re: Do you want a list? Re-watch Season 6 -- Random, 03:50:42 01/05/03 Sun

Poor Xander. Unlike many here, apparently, I've always been fond of Xander. I don't identify with him particularly, and have found some of his dialogue to be, well, a little tacky, if not downright cringe-inducing (I still can't watch that scene where he throws Jenny's death into Gile's and Buffy's collective faces. But that's perhaps what makes Xander the most underrated character on the show. Let's face it. The real reason Riley never quite fit wasn't an issue of 'ships or chemistry. Hell, I think he was more tolerable than Angel because at least he stopped brooding for more than ten seconds and we got to see what a nice, healthy relationship might look like. You know, the kind we all like to have in real life, where we go to the beach and just frolic around, or have a normal conversation about non-apocalyptic stuff? But Riley's problem was that he was cast as a normal, everyman type and turned out to be a cardboard imitation of Xander -- who had been workin' those trenches for four years (and doin' quite well, thankyouverymuch.)
But Xander has always been underrated. even by the members of the Scooby gang. Giles could be quite cruelly British toward Xander (check S 1-3) and the others have been patently dismissive of him on occasion (Buffy in "The Zeppo," Willow's total lack of concern in "Pangs," just to name two, plus most of S4.) So where does that leave the whole X/B (no, I didn't forget the thread topic!) issue? Just to come clean: I was a X/B hopeful for much of the first four seasons. But, gradually, I came to see the pov that shadowkat and Clemency express. Xander does not treat his s.o.'s well, verbally. True, Cordy gave as good as she got -- probably better, and she might have easily been more abusive than Xander, even before the breakup. It was just a borderline dysfunction that died a happy (in a manner of speaking) death after a season's worth of eps. Of course, Xander knew what he was getting into, just as he did with Anya. Anyway, I do not doubt for a single instance that Xander loves them. Furthermore, I would not argue that Xander was abusive because he lacked respect for them. No, his lack of self-respect was more than adequate. He was merely being the same Xander that he was outside of the relationships. The s.o.'s gave him ammunition (come on, imagine dating Anya and having so little independent thought that you couldn't think of a dozen snide, and dead-on, observations a day...) Unfortunately, he pulled the trigger and fired that ammunition when he might have done better to take the issues into a private back room and talked them out. Or learned to deal on his own time. (It is an interesting point that I do not recall a single gratuitous barb thrown in Buffy's direction. Thoughtless comments, yes, even cruel ones, but always as a result of powerful emotion -- generally anger or pain. Never an insult just to display his wit and lay bare his defense mechanisms. Neither Giles nor Willow nor Spike nor Angel escaped such abuse. Of course, I could be forgetting something....)
So where does this leave Xander/Buffy? I won't reiterate the above arguments concerning the nature of their relationship. I pretty much agree that they have been developing a close friendship that, while not actually antithetical to romance, seems to be something to aspire to in its own right without the necessity of a sexual and/or romantic complication. The observation above (can't remember whose) concerning the nature of popular culture and our perceptions of love and relationships was marvelously dead-on. Of course, BtVS is part of that popular culture itself (the whole tragicomedy of Angel/Buffy was clearly a cliche archetypical one, with the all-consuming passion, the star-crossed lovers, et cetera, ad nausem. It was -- in my meaningless opinion, so please don't kill me, people, it's just one person's visceral "IMHO" -- a low point in a series that thrives on unconventional and highly-intelligent perspectives on life and the nature of humanity.) So to have Buffy and Xander get together would satisfy the nostalgic romantic in me, but would offend the intellectual realist. Xander is an everyman, and never quite clicks into the passion-charged drama that is Buffy's life and romantic outlook. He looks up to her -- and let us not forget the whole "pedestal" trap -- and performs a necessary function in the Scooby Gang that none of the others truly appreciate. And that may be the key...Buffy cannot perceive him in such a light, not without going against everything that's been established in the past six point five seasons. She doesn't see him as a viable example of masculinity, not in the same way that her other long-terms were (perceptually speaking.) Which is not to say she doesn't love him. She clearly does. And it is, perhaps, the healthiest love affair on the show right now (and, excepting W/O and W/T until they imploded, on the show period.) But any relationship other than (not "better than" or "greater that"!) their current one would destroy Xander's classic everyman appeal. He'd no longer be the workman follower with the ready barb and poor self-esteem, but the cliche of every eighties teen "rich girl/poor boy hopeless dweeb/head cheerleader" movie. That's the advantage the BtVS has over such cliches -- it can, and does, develop and grow. (Trust me, having dealt with a couple "blasts from the past" myself, I can tell you that developing and growing are quite the healthy things to do.) Xander clearly has grown up, and just as clearly needs to do more growing up. But he's, what, twenty-two? Give him some breathing room. He last -- and first, for that matter -- asked Buffy out approximately 100 some odd episodes ago ("Prophecy Girl")and has proven to be a reliable friend ever since.

[> [> [> [> [> Another great post. -- Sophist, 18:15:18 01/05/03 Sun

[> [> Interesting! I hadn't thought of Xander that way. hmmmm. -- Rochefort, 23:57:35 01/05/03 Sun

*Squeal!* I just won a Halo Award! -- HonorH, 16:20:11 12/27/02 Fri

"Ties That Bind" just won a Halo Award for Best Buffy/Angel Crossover, and "Aurora" got an Honorable Mention for Best Past/History! Take a look a the Summer/Fall 2002 Winners here:

Halo Winners

Happy, happy day!

[> Wonderful, HH. Congrats!!!! -- aliera, 16:26:58 12/27/02 Fri

[> Congrats, HonorH. Well-deserved. As a Dawn fan, I loved "Aurora"... -- cjl, 16:27:01 12/27/02 Fri

[> [claps loudly] -- VampRiley, 16:35:39 12/27/02 Fri

[> Wooo Hooo!! -- Just George, 16:53:53 12/27/02 Fri

[> And things for posting the link, a bunch of great stories to read! -- Just George, 16:58:20 12/27/02 Fri

[> Hey, I want to know what happens next! -- Sara, waiting impatiently for the next installment, 17:20:10 12/27/02 Fri

[> Congrats, Honor! Next time, it's MY turn. ;) -- LadyStarlight, 18:08:25 12/27/02 Fri

[> Yay! -- ponygirl, 18:59:57 12/27/02 Fri

[> Great news! -- KdS, 05:09:44 12/28/02 Sat

[> [> Re: Way to go, HH! -- Brian, 06:15:34 12/28/02 Sat

[> Congratulations! -- pellenaka, 07:01:23 12/28/02 Sat

[> Mazel Tov! -- Rob, 09:00:24 12/28/02 Sat

[> Congrats, HonorH. Wish I coulda gotten honorable mention for _worst_ Buffy FanFic. *sigh* -- ZachsMind, 09:18:43 12/28/02 Sat

[> Congratulations! That rocks! You deserve it -- Dedalus, 09:50:12 12/28/02 Sat

[> Congratulations! That is excellent news. -- Indri, 16:42:01 12/28/02 Sat

[> Re: *Squeal!* I just won a Halo Award! -- Chicklet, 17:08:53 12/28/02 Sat

Good Job, Well done!

[> [> Too Cool HonorH! -- BriarRose, 17:28:52 12/28/02 Sat

[> Woo-hoo! **Loud whistling** -- dub, 18:22:11 12/28/02 Sat

[> Go HonorH! It's your birthday! Uh huh! -- deeva, doing the dance of congratulations, 19:13:25 12/28/02 Sat

[> It's only what you deserve -- Vickie, 23:16:55 12/28/02 Sat

I've loved all your 'fic that I've read. Well done and congratulations!

[> mazel tov!! woo-huh-huh-hoo-hoo-hoo!! -- anom (fingers in ears--watch them high pitches, h!), 23:45:01 12/28/02 Sat

And I love how you gave Gunn the line about getting "in touch with these White folks"!

[> Glad to see your Evil workings haven't gone to waste....;) Congrats -- Rufus, 03:04:37 12/29/02 Sun

[> Congratulations! Good goin'! -- OnM, 20:20:06 12/29/02 Sun

[> O Happy Day!!! -- LittleBit, 20:43:34 12/29/02 Sun

[> Congrats! And by the way... -- tim, 10:23:17 12/30/02 Mon

Way back last summer I tried to download your story "Tara Incognita" but I think something went wrong--it appeared I only got the first few pages (first chapter, maybe?) Is it still around somewhere? If not, could you maybe e-mail it to me? I was quite intrigued, and would like to finish it, if it still exists somewhere.

--th

[> [> Regarding "Tara Incognita"-- -- HonorH, 16:48:01 12/30/02 Mon

Here it is, thus far:

Tara Incognita

Unfortunately, my Muse seems to have hooked up with a Bad Boy In Leather(tm) and headed for the Bahamas for the winter, and the story is as yet unfinished. Bad me. Will try to remedy the sitch, but no promises.

[> [> [> Thanks much! -- tim, 04:42:58 12/31/02 Tue

[> [> [> Again, wanting to know what happens next!!!! -- Sara, needing your muse to stop the responsibility shirking, 20:51:19 12/31/02 Tue

[> That's wonderful-Congratulations! -- Arethusa, 14:51:43 12/30/02 Mon

Attn: Metanarration Fans! You MUST see "Adaptation"!! -- Rob, 09:16:27 12/28/02 Sat

I was blown away last night by a movie, the new film by the creators of "Being John Malkovich." It's called "Adaptation," and it stars Nicholas Cage and Meryl Streep. The entire film is an exercise in metanarration, which will make it of great interest to many people here.

The film is multilayered in the way it blurs the lines between non-fiction and fantasy. What do I mean by this? In real life, there is a book called "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean. It is a virtually plotless, non-linear book, making the idea of turning it into a movie very difficult, and yet, it gets optioned into a movie. The screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman had great difficulty writing the screenplay, and so instead he wrote a screenplay, this movie, about his own difficulty in turning this book into a movie. And of course, in the movie, the character Charlie Kaufman writes the screenplay for "Orchid Thief" by putting himself into it, just as the "real" Charlie Kaufman did. So, like two mirrors facing each other, the reflection goes on and on forever. The entire film is rife with metanarration. Constant references are made to things outside the movie, the phoniness of Hollywood, how cheap and unoriginal voice-overs are (of course, the film is filled with voice overs!), etc etc.

The structure of the film was amazing, as it bounced from Charlie Kaufman in the "present" trying to write the screenplay to the story of Susan Orlean, as she was trying to write the news piece for The New Yorker that would eventually become "The Orchid Thief." Meanwhile, there were a plethora of small flashbacks, stream-of-consciousness style fantasy sequences, and more zaniness. At a certain point, it becomes clear that the film has become total fiction and no longer what happened to the "real" Charlie, and yet it is unclear whether, in the movie, this was supposed to be reality or whether we are seeing the "fictional" screenplay that Movie!Charlie was writing. See? It's very complicated!

This is truly a movie that, for me, succeeded on every level--acting, directing, plot structure. It was brilliant, and has already made a lot of top 10 lists for the year. Do not miss it!

Rob

[> Re: Attn: Metanarration Fans! You MUST see "Adaptation"!!--CONTINUED -- Rob, 09:23:19 12/28/02 Sat

Here's a spoiler-less portion of Ebert's review, which perfectly sums up what I was trying to convey:

"And now my plot description will end, as I assure you I have not even hinted at the diabolical developments still to come. "Adaptation" is some kind of a filmmaking miracle, a film that is at one and the same time (a) the story of a movie being made, (b) the story of orchid thievery and criminal conspiracies, and (c) a deceptive combination of fiction and real life. The movie has been directed by Spike Jonze, who with Charlie Kaufman as writer made "Being John Malkovich," the best film of 1999. If you saw that film, you will (a) know what to expect this time, and (b) be wrong in countless ways.

"There are real people in this film who are really real, like Malkovich, Jonze, John Cusack and Catherine Keener, playing themselves. People who are real but are played by actors, like Susan Orlean, Robert McKee, John Laroche and Charlie Kaufman. People who are apparently not real, like Donald Kaufman, despite the fact that he shares the screenplay credit. There are times when we are watching more or less exactly what must (or could) have happened, and then a time when the film seems to jump the rails and head straight for the swamps of McKee's theories."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-adaptation20f.html

Rob

[> [> Re: Attn: Metanarration Fans! You MUST see "Adaptation"!!--CONTINUED -- slain, 15:38:12 12/28/02 Sat

'Being John Malkovitch' was easily my favourite film of '99 and Jonze is certainly a genius, and he has a better hang of watachable postmodernism than any other director I can think of. Of course it'll be months before I can see 'Adaptation'... but it's on my list, I promise you!

[> My favourite film since Memento (spoilers for Adaptation) -- Caroline, 21:20:23 12/29/02 Sun

Rob,

I have to agree with your assessment of Adaptation. I particularly loved the idea of Charlie's twin Donald, who I am assuming does not exist in the realverse. He basically functions as a mix of Charlie's ego/id made manifest and his eventual reintegrations back into Charlie is wonderful. It was incredibly psychologically insightful - not just about the characters that inhabited the film but how they were aware that they were inhabiting the film (it was very self-referential). But I still felt that at the end, the character of Susan remained an enigma, we didn't really penetrate her except through the skewed lens of Charlie's fantasy - but perhaps that in itself was a commentary on any search - it's really just a search for self - thus Donald's last wise words. (I was thinking that several posters here who think of Spike as an existential hero would really enjoy this movie and shadowkat would get a real kick out of applying her pov analysis). I'm enjoying it more even as I think about it. Thanks for the recommendation.

[> [> Re: Donald Kaufman -- Rob, 08:21:50 12/30/02 Mon

Yes, you're right. The brother is fictional. But to skew the mix between fantasy and reality even further, the screenwriting credit goes to Charlie & Donald Kaufman!

And you made a good assessment of Susan Orlean and her purpose in the movie. I do not think the film's purpose was ever to delve deeply into her psyche. It was always about Charlie and his quest to capture and understand the mystery that was this woman. And remember, for most of the movie, he is observing her, even in the scenes that he's not in, because he is, of course, reading the book. Probably the only time we know he is not watching is the sequence after their day in the marshes looking for the flower, including their lovemaking and the subsequent scene where Susan snorts the drug (perhaps Meryl Streep's funniest-ever scene captured on film). She remains an enigma throughout, and I wondered, especially in the last sequence in Florida, whether any of what was happening on film was "actually" happening at all, or was an extended fantasy on Charlie's part, like his having sex with the waitress at the orchid show. Where did one screenplay (the movie we're watching) stop and the other screenplay (the one Charlie's writing) begin? Was the end "real" (not that it happened in real life, but in the real life of the movie)? Was it part of Charlie's screenplay? Was it dream Charlie had? Does it make a difference?

Rob

Current board | More December 2002