December 2002 posts
BUFFY
and the Lord of the Rings (spoilers for LotR; S7 spoiler spec)
-- cjl, 09:51:34 12/28/02 Sat
Yes. The inevitable joint comparison.
Iím surprised Buffyphiles and Ring fanatics havenít
jumped on this topic since "The Twin Towers" movie came
out a week ago. Then again, I only arrived at the ATP board in
early 2002, and this topic might have been beaten to death during
the "Fellowship of the Ring" discussion in December
2001. (So if Iím treading on well-traveled ground, I apologize.)
Still, the events of late Season 6 and early Season 7 have only
strengthened the link between these two mythic franchises and
a fresh look at the similarities might point the way to the conclusion
of BtVS.
Letís start with the heroes. Buffy and Frodo are both classic
heroes in the Cambell-ian sense of the word. Each is secure in
the womb of childhood, safe in isolation, until the outside world
intrudes and sends them off on the heroís quest...
THE CURSED HERO - Frodo is relatively content (if a little restless)
in the Shire, and could spend the rest of his days living vicariously
through his Uncle Bilbo, or pestering his good friend Gandalf
for hints of greater realms--all the while never setting foot
outside the village. But Gandalf knows the sweet but strong-willed
Hobbit has a greater purpose, pulls him out of his normal life,
and puts the fate of the entire realm in Frodoís hands.
Frodo does not disappoint. Overcoming enormous physical and psychic
obstacles and constant temptation, he completes his journey to
Mount Doom and destroys the Ring. But Frodoís spirit is
mortally wounded by prolonged contact with the Ring, and he departs
with Gandalf to the misty realms, leaving his good friend Sam
behind to enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice...
Buffy Summers is a perfectly happy 15 year-old Valley Girl, confident
in her status as center of the universe, and blissfully unaware
of the hard, cruel world around her. But Merrick knows sheís
destined for greater things, pulls her out of her normal life,
and hands her the thankless job of cleansing the world of vampires...
Most Buffy fans would say thatís where the similarities
end--but do they? Buffy may not possess the One Ring to Rule them
All, but she does possess a power that walks the Earth only once
in a generation--the power of the Slayer. It has been hinted ad
nauseum (by Spike and Dracula among others) that the origins of
the Slayer are rooted in darkness. I find it suspicious that,
just as Frodoís inner darkness grows stronger whenever
he wears the ring, Buffy grows stronger every time sheís
bitten by a vampire (The Master in S1, Angel in S3, Dracula in
S5, Spike in S7[?]). Is it possible that wearing the mantle of
the Slayer has the same price as bearing the ring--and the power
has been eating away at Buffyís soul ever since her calling?
If so, what is Buffyís ultimate destiny? Does she have
a personal Mount Doom waiting for her at the end of S7? (More
on this later.)
THE EVERYMAN - Every mystically-endowed mythic hero has to have
an ordinary Joe as a sidekick, someone who keeps the hero grounded,
who reminds the hero what the quest is all about. Frodoís
Everyman is Samwise Gamgee, his old childhood friend and a simple
gardener. Sam is never going to dazzle you with his intellect,
his swordplay wonít exactly intimidate DíArtagnan,
and he doesnít have the mojo of Gandalf to back up his
speeches; but his good heart and common sense keep Frodo on the
right path when heís ready to veer off. At the end of the
Two Towers movie, Sean Astinís Sam gives a despairing Frodo
a rousing speech, telling him a hero doesnít have to be
a dashing swordsman or a powerful wizard--a hero can be an ordinary
person who wonít give up because heís fighting for
his friends and something he believes in. The speech works: Frodo
continues on the path to Mordor, his sense of purpose renewed.
Buffyís Everyman is Xander Harris, one of her best friends
from high school and a simple carpenter. Xander is type of guy
who has to work hard for his "Ds" ("Go Fish"),
gets into slap fights with annoying bubble-headed vamps, and doesnít
have the mojo of his best buddy Willow to back up his speeches.
But his good heart, common sense, and (at times brutal) honesty
have straightened up Buffy at key points in her life and pointed
her in the right direction ("The Freshman," "Into
the Woods"). How many times this season has Xander looked
at a seemingly impenetrable mystery and solved it in a flash?
How much do you want to bet that when Buffy has her Ultimate Crisis,
Xander will be there at her side?
THE MENTOR - At the other end of the spectrum, our archetypal
hero also needs a mentor, someone whoís been around the
block a few hundred times, someone to guide the hero on the quest,
but who canít complete the quest on his own. Frodoís
Merlin-like mentor is Gandalf, an ageless wizard who teaches Frodo
about the origins and long reach of evil in Middle Earth, provides
sage wisdom and a reassuring, avuncular presence, and occasionally
rides in to pull the Fellowshipís nuts out of the fire.
Buffyís mentor, of course, is Rupert ("Ripper")
Giles, who teaches her about her powers and the world of vampires
and demons, provides a fatherly presence for a girl whose father
has seemingly abandoned her, and occasionally pops in from England
to clean up when Buffy and the Scoobs have made a mess ("Two
to Go/Grave").
If the comparison between Giles and Gandalf holds up, this might
explain what the heck happened when the harbinger swung that axe
at Gilesí head at the end of "Sleeper." Remember,
when Gandalf finally applied the deathblow to the beast on the
bridge, he was ready to go to the great beyond himself; but the
Powers that Be of Tolkienís universe told him his work
wasnít finished, and sent him back to help the Fellowship
win the war against Sauron. Maybe Giles really did lose his head,
but the Powers that Be decided he was still needed on Earth. ("If
you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine.")
Is "Ripper" now Rupert the White?
THE GREAT WAR - In Buffy Season 7, the Scoobiesí adventures
have taken on a world-wide scope (interludes in London, Frankfurt,
Istanbul) and theyíre probably playing for larger stakes
than in any of the previous six; weíre seeing an almost
Tolkien-esque assemblage of armies on both sides, building up
to the Ultimate Conflict for all the marbles. The players are
similar in both franchises, as well--a multi-racial cast uniting,
despite their differences, to save the universe from the evil
that lies within us all: in LotR, we have the Fellowship (four
hobbits, an elf, a dwarf, a wizard of indefinable ancestry, and
two human warriors) fighting against Sauron and his vassals; and
in Buffy, we have the Scoobies (a slayer, a souled vampire, a
witch, an ex-vengeance demon, a mystical key of indefinable ancestry,
an utterly cool British watcher, and an ordinary guy) battling
the First Evil and its minions. Iím not going to go too
far with this analogy--the Summers living room isnít exactly
Helmís Deep--but I think you get my meaning.
And, just as in LotR, we get the sense that this is the end of
an era. Yes, the end of the TV series--but
also the end of the status quo between humans and vampires, between
watchers and slayers, a shift in the relationship between the
supernatural and the everyday worlds. You get the feeling that
when the dust from the final battle settles, we will be at the
Dawn of a new age in the Buffyverse.
And just what will happen during that final battle?
In LotR, even though the armies of men, elves and dwarves are
fighting Sauron and Sarumanís legions, thereís no
doubt that the outcome rests on the three-foot high shoulders
of Frodo Baggins and whether he can dump the Ring in the fires
of Mount Doom. If Sauron gets his hands on the Ring, itís
just a matter of time before Middle Earth is a reflection of Mordor;
if Frodo succeeds, Sauron is effectively neutered, and his soldiers
are so much grass to be mowed down. Similarly, even though enormous
forces are lining up on both sides of the line in the Buffyverse,
the central figure in the conflict is Buffy herself. With Buffy,
as with Frodo, it becomes a question of whether she can handle
the power sheís been given. This is where it gets interesting.
I think everything the First Evil has done so far has been directed
at Buffy. Not to kill her, but to get her angry, frustrated, thirsting
for revenge. In "Bring on the Night," Buffy is so far
beyond shock and terror that sheís gone into full-blown
military mode and she wonít stop until the First Evil is
under her fashionable heel and stomped all the way back to Hell.
But to crush the FE, sheís going to need power--and power
is a trap. The Ring is capable of turning the tide of military
battles, but its very nature corrupts the wearer, and any victory
for "good" would be short-lived. I think Buffy will
invoke the First Slayer to achieve final victory and the darkness
will overwhelm her, turning her into the incarnation of the First
Evil on Earth. Itíll take the Buffyverse version of Gollum
(Spike? Faith?) to strip the power from her and release her soul.
Unfortunately, as we know from Frodo, it isnít easy to
cleanse darkness from the soul. Giles will probably tell the grieving
Scoobies that Buffy needs to (a) travel to a distant dimension,
or (b) stay with the coven in Devonshire until sheís recovered
from her soul-sickness. When will she be back? (Well--how much
money is UPN willing to spend on guest appearances by SMG?)
JMO. As I said, this comparison business isnít an exact
science. Where do Anya, Dawn, and Willow fit in the LotR model?
Who are the analogs to Aragorn, Gimli, Arwen, Legolas, and Galadriel
in the Buffyverse? But Iíve rambled on for too long, and
Iíll leave that for the general discussion.
So...discuss!
[> Hand, Mind, Heart, Spirit
-- matching mole, 14:08:11 12/28/02 Sat
Nice comparison. Quite a lot to think about.
Years before Buffy existed I had started thinking of the LotR
as having 4 heroes that represented four different qualities:
intellect, emotion, physicality, and spirituality. Which could
be rephrased in the Buffyverse terms of hand, heart, mind, and
spirit. Gandalf clearly represents intellect - he is the guiding
and organizing force behind the struggle against Sauron. I see
Frodo as the spiritual hero. Although he begins the adventure
as perhaps the most physically competent of the hobbits (e.g.
saving the others from the Barrow-wights) he gradually becomes
more withdrawn and physically passive. His is a moral struggle
- to maintain his identity in the face of the Ring's assault,
to attempt to pull Gollum back to at least a semblance of his
original self.
I have never been able to decide which of Aragorn and Sam is heart
and which is hand. The argument equating Xander with Sam that
cjl makes seems the most obvious. Sam is steadfast, kind-hearted,
and inclined to see things in black and white (e.g. his lack of
sympathy for Gollum). However Sam is also the figure that physically
overcomes the obstacles the stand between the ring and Mt. Doom
at the end. He defeats Shelob and he carries Frodo to the top
of the mountain.
Aragorn also has attributes of both heart and hand. He is the
battle leader but I would argue that his prowess in combat is
less important that the emotional impact of the returned king
upon the forces of the west.
But my indecision was not based on a comparison with BtVS. If
you do that then Aragorn is clearly hand and Sam clearly heart.
And I'd argue that Spike is an inverse Gollum. A creature of darkness
that has been corrupted to good.
So in comparing the two narratives I'd say
Buffy=Aragorn
Willow=Frodo
Xander=Sam
Giles=Gandalf
Of course Frodo is the central hero of LotR and Buffy the central
hero of BtVS which may reflect a different emphasis in the two
stories. Willow and Frodo now appear to have very similar struggles
- the struggle not use a great power which may destroy them.
On a side note - Gandalf has a definite ancestry, mentioned in
the appendices and in the Silmarillion (I think). The wizards
are Maiar (not sure I'm spelling it right) in human form, who
came to Middle Earth earlier in the Third Age to help in the struggles
against Sauron. The Maiar, along with the Valar, were originally
incorporeal beings who existed in the void before the creation
of the earth. After the world was created some of these beings
were sent down to the earth to prepare for the coming of elves
and men. The greater of these beings were known as the Valar who
are like a pantheon of gods in a polytheistic system. The lesser
of these beings are Maiar who don't get mentioned very much.
[> [> Gotta admit--never
bothered with the appendices. -- cjl, 17:23:27 12/28/02
Sat
But that's a minor point. I'm with you on almost everything you
said, although I would maintain that the question of power and
its uses and abuses is not restricted to Willow this season. I
think there's a very good reason why the image of Buffy was the
final manifestation of the First Evil in "Lessons"--Buffy
is going to have to realize the limits of her power as the Slayer
or, like the ring-bearer, risk slipping over to the dark side
forever....
[> [> I thought the Wizards
were Istari? -- Vickie, 23:24:01 12/28/02 Sat
Admittedly, it's been a few years since I read the appendices.
[> [> [> OK- deep
breath -- Tchaikovsky, 10:21:14 12/29/02 Sun
I'm quite happy to be corrected by people with more overall understanding
than me on these trickily difficult issues, but for the moment:
I believe Istari literally translates as 'Wizards'. In other words,
the five Wizards themselves are referred to as Istari, (Radagast,
Gandalf, Saruman, and the two Blue Wizards who go to the East,
mentioned in passing in 'Unfinished Tales'.)
The wizards themselves, were, according to the rather rickety
though intricate background mythology, (remind anyone of another
world?) possibly part of the Maiar, the servants of the main polytheistic
Gods, the Valar, which in turn served Eru, the One. Notably, Sauron
was a Maiar, servant of Morgoth/Melkor until he was cast down.
Gandalf mentions his name (Olorin, I believe?) when he lists his
names, 'N I was in the West in my youth which is forgotten'. This
links in to a certain Maiar. In a sense, Gandalf might be an incarnation
of a higher power, sent from the Gods, (somewhat like Whistler,
but on a more august level).
It's certainly worth noting that Tolkien kept updating and changing
his own mythos through many drafts, so there wasn't only one mythology
with all the answers. In this sense, it is rather like an organic
myth system.
Hope this clarifies rather than confuses, and please feel free
to correct me.
TCH
[> [> [> Re: I thought
the Wizards were Istari? -- aliera, 11:21:20 12/29/02 Sun
They are and TCH is correct, I believe, in that Istari means wizard.
From Appendix A:
The Third Age
"When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow
had fallen on Greenwood the great, the Istari or Wizards
appeared in Middle earth. It was afterwards said that they came
out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power
of Sauron...but they were forbidden to match his power with power
or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force or fear.
They came therefore in the shape of men...and they had many powers
of mind and hand. They revealed their true names to few, but used
such names as were given to them." (III,p417)
And if your interested in a fuller backstory...from Tolkien Online
Reading Room essay by Armenelos posted 12/21/2001:
The reason that they are called 'wizards' in the LOTR, is because
at the time Tolkien had not yet thought of the Istari. but Gandalf
says there are five in his order.
in an essay in 1954, Tolkien writes:
"The first to come was one of noble mien and bearing, with
raven hair, and a fair voice, and he was clad in white; great
skill he had in works of hand, and he was regarded by well-nigh
all, even by the Eldar, as the head of the Order. Others there
were also: two clad in sea-blue, and one in earthen brown; and
last came one who seemed the least, less tall than the others,
and in looks more aged, grey-haired and grey-clad, and leaning
on a staff."
(note: Gandalf is the only one of the order to look like an old
man. Saruman even has black hair. and none of them have hats on.
and for anyone who does not know, Eldar=high elves)
now all Maia were under a Vala. kind of like a pupil.
Curumo (Saruman) was of the Maia of Aule (note: so was Sauron
before he defected to Melkor and Aule was loved by the Noldor
who left Aman. Saruman, Sauron, and the Noldor all ended up doing
bad things. Aule also created the dwarves who weren't always doing
great things either).
Alatar (?) was of the Maia of Orome (note: Orome was the great
hunter).
Olorin (Gandalf) was of the Maia of Manwe (note: but somewhere
it is said that he was a Maia of Lorien; I'm not sure which it
is). This may be for it is said that Olorin was a lover of the
Eldar that remained in Aman (as was Manwe).
Olorin at first did not wish to go for he feared Sauron. Manwe
said that he should go as the third all the same. But at that
Varda (spouse of Manwe; called by the Eldar: "Elbereth Githoniel")
raised her head and said not as the third. And Curumo remembered
it.
It is then said that Yavanna (spouse of Aule; maker of the two
trees; when Aule created the dwarves, she had him create a defense
for the forests of trees: Ents) convinced Curumo to take one of
her Maia: Aiwendil (Radagast: explaining why he loved trees and
animals; he probably got along really well with the Ents).
It is said Alatar took Pallando as a friend.
so:
Curumo: Saruman the White
Aiwendil: Radagast the Brown
Alatar & Pallando: the Blue Wizards: "Ithryn Luin"
Olorin: Gandalf the Grey
(Cirdan gave him the third elven ring of fire: "Narya".
When Saruman found this out, he was not pleased. he probably remembered
what Varda said)
we see later on that Saruman didn't really like taking Radagast
with him when he says Radagast the simple and the fool.
It is said that Saruman went into the east with the two blue wizards
and that of the two:
"but they never returned, and whether they remained in the
East, pursuing there the purposes for which they were sent; or
perished; or as some hold were ensnared by Sauron and became his
servants, is not now known."
I think that Sauron captured at least one of them. the Harad who
were with Mordor occupied the east. And the leader of the Nazgul
was called the "Wizard King" and Gandalf mentioned slightly
that he had something to do with his order. (http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/5802.html)
From FotR the movie:
A Lament for Gandalf
A Olorin i yaresse (Olorin, who once was...)
Mentaner i Numeherui (Sent by the Lords of the West)
Tirien i Romenori (to guard the lands of the East)
Maiarion i Oiosaila (Wisest of all Maiar)
Mana elye etevanne (What drove you to leave)
Norie i melanelye? (That which you loved?)
Mithrandir Mithrandir, A Randir Vithren (Mithrandir, Mithrandir
O Pilgrim Grey)
u-renianthach i amar galenÖ (No more will you wander in the
green fields of this earth)
I reniad lin ne mor, nuithannenÖ (Your journey has ended
in darkness)
In gwidh ristennin i fae narchannenÖ (The bonds cut, the
spirit broken)
I lach Anor ed ardhon gwannenÖ (The flame of Anor has left
this world)
Caled veleg, ethuiannen. (A great light, has gone out.)
In Dreams
When the cold of Winter comes When the seas and mountains fall
Starless night will cover day And we come, to end of days
In the veiling of the sun In the dark I hear a call
We will walk in bitter rain Calling me there
I will go there
But in dreams And back again
I can hear your name
And in dreams
We will meet again
Merin sa haryallÎ alassÎ!
--aliera
[> [> [> [> The
Evolution of Myths -- Celebaelin, 17:58:22 12/29/02 Sun
'I'm sorry but that hasn't happaned yet.'
It seems that in any attempt to produce interesting, sympathetic
and entertaining stories temporal anomalies eventually slip in
to confound the telling of the entire tale in a properly pre-determined
rational order.
This is true of the myths of Norse mythology, it is true of the
myths of Sumerian mythology and it is also true of Tolkien's work,
although the latter was of course the creation of only one man.
Incidentally it is also true of the adventures of a certain pointy-eared
antihero (whose name shall not be mentioned but which rhymes with
Smellabuylin) and if such uncertainties can arise in what is clearly
an opus of immense genius then lesser mortals such as JRRT and
the collected wisdom of the entire Norse and Sumerian civilisations
can clearly be forgiven such foibles.
Christopher Tolkien makes it clear that the Silmarillion is assembled
from notes produced and re-worked over a number of years into
a credible(ish) time line by the omission of certain stories,
or versions of stories. Mythologies are supposed to be seen in
the episodic way, take Homer (please!), most people know the story
about Odysseus and the cyclops Polyphemus but how many know the
events recounted with Calypso, or that Homer places Hermes and
Calypso fully four chapters earlier than Polyphemus? Not many,
and it doesn't matter either because before it was written down
in a book you'd only get one 'episode' in an evening, and that
was enough, it had to be. If the writer(s) of BtVS can get clever
with the timeline in programs which air to a ravenous public then
great, but the way the story is presented, as was always the case,
will probably depend on what makes the best story *on the night*.
In the case of Tolkien the mythology has been expanded to satisfy
the demands of the reading public and now includes background
material that was more sketchy and less of a continuous narrative.
"There was a dreadful pass, Cirith Thoronath it was named,
the Eagles' Cleft, where beneath the shadow of the highest peaks
a narrow path wound its' way; on the right hand it was walled
by a precipice, and on the left a dreadful fall into emptiness.
Along that narrow way their march was strung, when they were ambushed
by Orcs, for Morgoth had set watchers all about the encircling
hills; and a Balrog was with them. Then dreadful was their plight,
and hardly would they have been saved by the valour of yellow-haired
Glorfindel, chief of the house of the Golden Flower of Gondolin,
had not Thorondor come timely to their aid.
Many are the songs that have been sung of the duel of Glorfindel
with the Balrog upon a pinnacle of rock in that high place; and
both fell to ruin in the abyss. But the eagles coming stooped
upon the Orcs, and drove them shrieking back; and all were slain
or cast into the deeps, so that rumour of the escape from Gondolin
came not until long after to Morgoth's ears. Then Thorondor bore
up Glorfindel's body out of the abyss, and they buried him in
a mound of stones beside the pass; and a green turf came there,
and yellow flowers bloomed upon it amid the barrenness of stone,
until the world was changed."
Sound familiar?
This is not the only recorded instance of acts of self-sacrifice
and all round good-eggedness by the Noldor btw
"...battle of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog Lord
of Balrogs in the very square of the King, where each slew the
other,"
1 all draw, counted as home win for the Elves
Ereinion son of Fingon 'Gil-galad' Last High King of the Noldor
in Middle Earth fell alongside Elendil in wresting the one ring
from Sauron in the Last Alliance of Men and Elves at the end of
the First Age
0-2 win to Sauron after extra time ajudicated as a win for the
alliance following Sauron"s disqualification for unsportsmanlike
behaviour (based on examination of video evidence at the request
of Isildur). Re-match tba.
[> A Buffy/LoTR parallel
I noticed at the movie theatre today... -- Rob, 01:40:44
12/29/02 Sun
...I was watching "Two Towers" for the second time--God,
I love this movie!!!--and I noticed the similarity between Gollum's
internal struggle and Spike's struggles with madness. Of course,
with Gollum his "evil" self is really just the mad rantings
in his head, and with Spike, he was being manipulated by the First
Evil. But in both cases, we have a character talking to himself,
while ranting like a lunatic, and acting both sides, the character
himself and his inner "devil" alter ego.
Rob
[> [> Frodo/Gollum and
Angel/Darla -- HonorH, 11:43:51 12/29/02 Sun
Bear with me, even if the above comparison makes you twitch. When
Frodo said of Gollum, "I have to believe he can be saved,"
it reminded me of nothing so much as Angel's desperate quest to
save Darla in S2. Cordy/Wesley took on the Sam role, doubting
Darla could be saved, while Angel obsessed about her to the point
of alienating them. And just as Darla had a brush with true redemption
before losing it forever, Gollum has/might have one. In the movie,
he forced away his own darkness before Frodo's perceived betrayal
brought it all back. In the book, there's another moment when
he's watching over the sleeping Frodo in true regret, and Sam
awakens and yells at him. Tolkien himself described that moment
as the last moment when Gollum could've been saved.
Just more thoughts. Frodo/Sam also reminds me of Willow/Xander,
in that Sam's steadfast love and loyalty bring Frodo back down
to the world when the Ring begins to take Frodo.
Best Episode
-- Jordan, 18:53:56 12/28/02 Sat
I have some friends who have no idea why I could possible like
a show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I try to tell them how
good a show it is but words just can't explain it. Anyways I've
convinced them to watch at least one episode, but I have no idea
which one to show them. There are a lot of really good episodes
out there, but many of them tie in to season arcs, and aren't
as good if you don't know the back story. I am determined to get
them hooked, so I need help with which one to show them...thanks.
[> Re: Best Episode
-- Anne, 19:44:36 12/28/02 Sat
Good on you, I just got a couple of friends hooked on watching
Buffy, and its almost like rediscovering the show again...
In regards to the best ep to start your friends on, I would recommend
one of the stand-alones that provide all the backplot you need
to understand them, without overencumbering them with myriad unknown
plot-arcs :) Season Three's probably best for this purpose; it
has the best overall eps in my opinion and most of them combine
the perfect elements of humour, drama and action - many of Season
Two's sa's were raspberries frankly, and you don't want to give
the game away by starting them them off with "Becoming"...
Anyway, I ramble on - the eps I started my friends off were "The
Wish" and "Anne" (one of my all-time favourites)
which have some of the best of all the aforesaid action, wit and
drama. "Earshot" and "Dopplegangland" also
went down well for the humour; I noticed I couldn't get them hooked
on the drama straight away, but the laughs and the fights kept
'em coming back.
[> [> Begin at the beginning
-- Sara, 20:10:36 12/28/02 Sat
I'd go for "Welcome to the Hellmouth" it's funny, gives
a great introduction to the characters, and a nice feel for the
tone of the show. I think I like the first season the best, actually,
now that I'm thinking about it.
[> [> [> Re: Begin
at the beginning -- Dochawk, 20:27:03 12/28/02 Sat
Funny Sara, I would have said the same thing. The second choice
for me would be, Prophecy Girl because it really shows that Buffy
has a deeper level, yet not too far beneath the surface. And me,
Season 4 my favorite (in a way, my favorite NOT the best), but
thats because I love Tara and season 4 has the best Buffy episode
(well at least for tongith), Hush. these opinions change daily.
And if you ask me which episode I want to put on right now, it
would be The Prom, or Anne or CWDP.
[> [> [> Re: Begin
at the beginning -- Rook, 20:31:07 12/28/02 Sat
If I had to pick one single episode, I'd go with Lie to Me...it's
got pretty much everything...mostly drama, but a few laughs, gives
a decent intro to all the main characters except Anya, and doesn't
really tie in to the season's main arc.
[> I hate to say this, but
it depends on the gender of the friend. -- cjl, 20:52:42
12/28/02 Sat
If it's a male friend, there's no hesitation--go for the Xander
episodes. In S1-3, they're usually funny, fast-paced and do better
as stand-alones. "The Pack," "Bewitched, Bothered,
and Bewildered," "The Zeppo" (especially since
it satrizes the trademark BtVS angst)--all good.
If it's a female, go for the Buffy or Willow-centric one-shots.
Don't go for the pilot--you're asking for two hours of that person's
time, and you might lose her halfway through. For S1, go for "The
Witch" or "Angel" instead, and if you're allowed
to relay a minimum of backstory, maybe "Prophecy Girl."
S2 is hard, because you're only going to be bowled over by "Innocence"
if you're already invested in the characters. Ditto for "Becoming,"
which--let's face it--dragged in spots before reaching that killer
ending.
But if you're going to pin me down for one ep, enjoyable for both
genders, I'd have to go with "School Hard." It has mom/daughter
angst for the ladies, ultraviolence for the guys, and it introduces
Spike and the lovely Drusilla. It's the total package.
[> Re: Best Episode
-- Flo, 21:55:10 12/28/02 Sat
I've had the most success with Hush and Something Blue. Although
these occur in S4 and are somewhat entrenched in the season's
arc, each holds well on its own. Hush has been captivating for
my more drama-friendly friends, and Something Blue, with a bit
of explanation for newbies, is hilarious!
Have fun!
--Flo
[> [> I'm dittoing both
of these. -- AurraSing, 14:51:13 12/29/02 Sun
With a teeny bit of explanation you can cover both the drama and
the comedy that makes Buffy such a delight to watch.And both eps
are reasonably stand alone once you explain the Spike/Buffy animosity
("Blue") and how Buffy's Slayer identity is a secret
to all but a select few yet Sunnydale owes her their lives many
a time.("Hush")
[> What's Your Audience?
-- Haecceity, 22:29:54 12/28/02 Sat
I know that I couldn't really get into the high school episodes
for awhile--I'd started with Season 4 and was closer to the whole
college living situation personally, so loved the more grown-up
stories. I fell in love with the emerging adult Scoobies and could
then go back to the first three seasons with more fondness for
their younger selves, like flipping through an old yearbook. If
your friends are college age+ and are razzing you for watching
a "silly" show, I'd start them off with Season 4 onwards,
conentrating on the clever humor and high concept eps--Harsh Light
of Day, Fear Itself, Hush, Fool For Love, I Was Made to Love You,
The Body, Once More With Feeling...you get the general idea. If
they're younger, I'd go for the Season Three eps first.
Hope this helps.
---Haecceity
[> [> Re: What's Your
Audience? -- Amkath, 14:03:23 12/29/02 Sun
I agree, it really does depend on who your audience is - how old
they are, and what kind of shows they normally like.
My fiance had seen a few of the earlier season episodes and didn't
like them. He really likes SciFi in general, and is interested
in vampires, but he thought the ealier episodes were "silly"
and he didn't identify with the characters when they were in high
school (I also happen to find that I like seasons 4-present much
more than the earlier ones.)
I first showed him "Fool For Love", which he enjoyed.
This episode does require a bit of explanation beforehand, but
really not too much. It has action, character history and development,
and a bit of humor, which I feel is what the show is all about.
("School Hard" might also be a good choice. It doesn't
require quite as much explanation beforehand as "Fool For
Love" does.)
Even though he did like "Fool For Love", he still felt
that the show was "light" entertainment. To convince
him otherwise I then showed him "The Body." He was stunned.
Anyway, good luck, and hope this helps.
[> Maybe Once More With
Feeling is the best starter? -- slain, 06:27:52 12/29/02
Sun
I have two friends, one of whom dislikes Buffy and one of whom
dislikes all 'sci-fi' shows in general, who happened to catch
OMWF on TV the other week - both of them were amazed by it. So
if we're talking male and female stereotypes, I have to admit
that the musical does seem to work for the gay man. But it does
somewhat tie into season arcs in a big way; so maybe something
like 'Hush'. I personally wasn't really hooked by BtVS until Season
3 ('The Zeppo' and 'Amends' being the ones which got me), so I
wouldn't recommend starting someone off with Season 1 or 2, as
it does confirm to most of the preconceptions people have about
the show. So I suppose I'd recommend 'The Zeppo' or 'Amends';
they do tie into the storylines a tad, but I think everyone knows
by now that Angel didn't die at the end of Season 2.
[> I'd suggest an earlier
episode. -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:41:11 12/29/02 Sun
In the earlier seasons, the show is easier to get into because
everyone, except for Angel, is human and hasn't been anything
else in the past. Plus knowledge of past episodes isn't as vital
in this era.
My love of Buffy began when I watched "Bewitched, Bothered,
and Bewildered", but I'd suggest not using that for your
friends, since it may just confirm their opinion that it is a
silly show.
"Prophecy Girl" or "Lie to Me" are the two
episodes that come to mind most readily. They are both fairly
serious and emotional, but do have their funny moments. And don't
worry about "Prophecy Girl" being a season ender, most
of the backstory they'd need to know is explained within the ep.
Another two suggestions I have are "School Hard" or
"Anne". "School Hard" isn't silly, but is
majorly cool, and stands a good chance, in my opinion, to hook
people with the popular villain duo of Spike and Drusilla. As
for "Anne", it doesn't have as much humor, but mixes
the drama and action well. They may be left wondering about what
set it all up, but that will just get them wanting to see the
Angelus arc of Season Two.
Now, if they watch one of these episodes, and want to see another,
I reccomend showing them a non-vampire episode. Before I became
a Buffyholic, I tended to think that it was a show with little
besides vampires for Buffy to fight. Proving itself otherwise
is important.
Of course, for making the final decision, your knowledge of your
friends is important. Are they more into action, drama, or comedy?
Do they like angst or lighter drama? Are they turned off by poor
special effects (if that's the case, try something from Season
Three to be on the safe side)?
Ultimately, the choice is yours, so take your pick.
[> [> A friend of mine
who refused to watch BtVS for years hooked himself with....
-- Briar Rose, 19:27:54 12/29/02 Sun
The ep where Faith and Buffy were first introduced. I can't remember
the name of the eppy and I wasn't there - but there are many wonderful
people here who will know it!
The second epp that he crowed about was Hush. Now his demographic
is SWM, 40 and lives with a cat, not gay and considers himself
an intellectual and has no interest in Sci-Fi at all, until he
watched the X-Files. (You notice I say he considers?*L) I will
admit - he never has become a fanatic, and never will. But he
does watch some of the eps on FX when they have marathons, by
choice.
[> [> [> 'Bad Girls'
is when Faith is introduced -- slain, 15:04:48 12/30/02
Mon
I typo'd that as 'Bad Giles'. Blame my perturbed mind for that
one.
I don't like Faith much, but as a character she is a good 'hook'
into the show for many people, even if it is sometimes in a slightly
unsavoury way! ;) Mind you, the reason I didn't watch the
show was that I wrongly percieved it as being something young
men watch to drool over Sarah Michelle Gellar/Eliza Dushku. I
initially liked non-Buffy-centric episodes because they didn't
live up to that expectation, so I got into the character of Buffy
only laterally, though Willow and Xander. Somehow drooling over
Alyson Hannigan seemed less mainstream.
Me, I rarely try to get my friends into things (usually music)
that I like - I'll occassionally slip in the odd track, or refer
to something and basically let my friends know how much I like
it; but because I don't myself respond well to being 'recommended'
things, I try to let people find out for themselves. Obviously
if you're in a situation where someone's denigrating what you
love, and you want to show them otherwise, you'd probably have
to take different measures - but I admit that when people denigrate
things I like, I tend to only like them more!
Does this help? Probably not.
[> [> [> [> Re:
'Bad Girls' is when Faith is introduced to Allen Finch . . .
-- d'Herblay, 15:25:02 12/30/02 Mon
"Faith, Hope and Trick" is Faith's initial entry into
the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> [>
knew you peeps would come through! I believe from what he outlined
it was "Faith, Hope and Trick..." -- BR, 16:30:02
12/30/02 Mon
Buffy Characters
Top SFX list -- neaux, 12:04:42 12/29/02 Sun
read the article
here..
or copy and paste this.
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?29456
[> Good news! -- DickBD,
12:35:17 12/29/02 Sun
Thank God! It makes me feel less like a fanatic when other people
find these characters fascinating! (And it helps detract from
my mourning over Firefly.) Thanks for posting this.
[> [> If being fanatical
if good news -- Robert, 14:05:16 12/29/02 Sun
>>> Thank God! It makes me feel less like a fanatic
when other people find these characters fascinating!
Instead of being a poll to identify the top 10 scifi characters
of all time, it becomes a poll for identifying the shows with
the most fanatical viewers.
[> Thus illustrating the
problem with such polls. -- Robert, 14:00:46 12/29/02 Sun
Seventy percent of the top 10 character list is occupied by current
characters from current movies and tv shows. Only 3 slots are
allocated for past shows or movies. All such polls, for the greatest
whatever of all time, will expectedly be biased to the
current or most recent events. They are foremost in our memories.
In addition, we have the added problem that tv show characters
are pitted against movie characters. We get to see so much more
of the tv show characters, so that we know and empathize with
them better. Thus, this poll tends to devolve into a poll of the
characters we know the most. This only character from a tv show
old enough to be unknown to the young viewing public is Dr. Who.
However, we (or those fans who actually liked him) had 26 years
to get to know him. Thus, as expected, the top 10 list is biased
towards tv characters (7 to 3).
I love BtVS as much as anyone on this board (possibly more
than life itself), but is it fair or representative to have
secondary characters such as Spike or Willow occupy slots at the
expense of strong movie characters such as Rick Deckard, Ellen
Ripley or Sarah Conner? For God's sake, what about the HAL 9000?
Scifi movie characters don't get any better!
Returning to tv shows, this poll, and those who participated in
it, have neglected the heritage of scifi on television. No characters
from any of the Star Trek shows made it to the list. I argue that
at this moment, James T. Kirk or Spock have for more importance
to scifi than Spike or Willow. In the realm of strong female characters,
there is also Xena. Has she already been forgotten? Another very
important and influential character is Fox Mulder. And, for my
final example, the poll neglected John Sheridan. After all, Babylon
5 for all practical purposes paved the way for BtVS and other
tightly integrated story arc tv shows.
I guess my objections boil down to the fact that I haven't been
given a clear definition of what SFX magazine meant by
the 10 top scifi characters of all time. But I believe that my
judgment is valid when I say that we have had many great (if not
greater) characters from our scifi heritage ñ not just
in the stuff currently playing.
[> [> Regarding Star
Trek characters... -- Rob, 21:48:34 12/29/02 Sun
...I would argue Captain Picard and Data as being more important
to sci-fi than Kirk and Spock, but that is just a matter of opinion.
"Next Generation," I believe, was truly a case of a
new version improving vastly on its predecessor, in scope, character
development, and narrative sophistication.
I too adore Buffy more than life itself, but it hardly seems fair,
when trying to gage a panoramic view of all of sci-fi to have
it take up 4 of the spots. And, like you said, it's very hard
to pit movie and tv characters against each other. Where is Xena?
Where is Mulder? Where is Marty McFly?!? Notice how I'm not even
touching on the fact that "Buffy" is dominating a list
devoted to the sci-fi genre, when it is actually fantasy?!?
And this issue also ignores characters from science fiction books.
How about Valentine Michael Smith from "Stranger in a Strange
Land"? I can't imagine a list of influential science-fiction
characters being complete without him. Or Ender from Orson Scott
Card's great series of books!
I think the trouble is the worth of a character is hard to judge.
I'd have trouble deciding, for example, which of the 4 Buffy characters
to remove. It's far easier to decide by the full work itself.
If I had to list most influential sci-fi WORKS, my list would
be (in no particular order):
1. Buffy/Angel
2. Star Trek (any incarnation)
3. Star Wars
4. The Lord of the Rings
5. Stranger in a Strange Land
6. Farscape
7. The X-Files
8. Xena: Warrior Princess
9. Back to the Future
10. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Trilogy"
And I'm sure I'm leaving out tons of worthy candidates. "Firefly,"
for example, although I love it, is too new, I think to yet be
qualified as "influential" on the genre, as a whole.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Star
Trek (immodestly long) -- Robert, 22:39:08 12/30/02 Mon
>>> I would argue Captain Picard and Data as being
more important to sci-fi than Kirk and Spock, but that is just
a matter of opinion. "Next Generation," I believe, was
truly a case of a new version improving vastly on its predecessor,
in scope, character development, and narrative sophistication.
Rob, I absolutely agree with you that Star Trek: The Next Generation
(ST:TNG) was a vast improvement of the original Star Trek
(ST:TOS). And, I agree that ST:TNG was extremely influential to
sci-fi and to the way television works today. However, I do believe
that ST:TOS, and the characters therein, exhibited far more impact
to sci-fi, science fiction, television, and society.
Special
Note: I consider science fiction to be the written literature
and sci-fi to be the motion picture and television counterpart.
Let
me start with ST:TNG. When Roddenberry was presented the opportunity
to resurrect Star Trek from the smoking ashes of the disaster
with NBC, he demanded that they have nothing to do with any of
the television networks. To put it in terms we all can understand,
NBC mistreated ST:TOS with approximately the same contempt as
FOX has mistreated Firefly. Consequently, Star Trek:
The Next Generation was the first high quality tv show to
produced strictly for syndication. This put the traditional tv
networks on notice. Other important contributions of ST:TNG included
the introduction of the end-of-season cliffhangers, attention
to detail of continuity, improvement of production values in general.
ST:TNG also used quality actors (Stewart and Goldberg) in a sci-fi
television production. Sci-fi had previously been considered trashy
television. Even in the cinema, sci-fi often ended up being where
good actors went to die (such as Charlton Heston).
Now I will discuss ST:TOS. ST:TOS was the first tv show to treat
science fiction with any seriousness. Look at the sci-fi fair
that came before (The Time Tunnel, The Land of the Giants,
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, etc.). They all sucked
a millitorr vacuum. I don't include The Twilight Zone and
The Outer Limits here. They were very good, but they didn't
have continuing characters and they really didn't seem to have
that much impact on television. Though you might not believe me
today, ST:TOS was a very innovative show. Several special effects
techniques were invented or cost reduced by the ST:TOS production
staff (such as the transporter effects).
The ST:TOS full-time cast included minorities, and their characters
were presented in a positive light. ST:TOS was the first show,
of any genre, to do so. It broke racial and gender barriers
in ways hard to imagine today. In addition, there was the infamous
kissing scene (Plato's Stepchildren) between Kirk and Uhura.
The bigots went nuts in 1968.
ST:TOS was also the first sci-fi show to present aliens (ie. extra-terrestrials)
not only in a positive light, but also as just people. One the
triumvirate was an alien, which caused NBC a good deal of heartburn.
Truly, ST:TOS also had cartoonish aliens (such as the Romulans
and the Klingons), but so did ST:TNG with its Ferengi. Before
ST:TOS, aliens were nearly always merely a metaphor for the evil
or wicked or violent side of humanity. ST:TOS made it possible
for aliens to be people who were merely different. I don't mean
to say that metaphors are bad, rather that ST:TOS gave us other
possibilies.
ST:TOS was the first sci-fi show to really present a positive
image of the future. Before, the role of sci-fi seemed to be to
scare society out of the path they were taking, which certainly
had its place. However, the message was so strong and dismal as
to make sci-fi a real drag to watch. Look how impatient viewers
became with season six of BtVS. Imagine if all the sci-fi shows
and movies were such downers. The US and USSR were engaged in
the height of the cold war. The nation was suffering assassinations,
riots, and massacres. The Cuban missile crisis was still fresh
in the minds of many people. By 1968, there was serious doubt
that humanity would see another generation. The nation, and the
world, needed something to suggest that the future could be better
or even exist. ST:TOS and 2001: A Space Odyssey provided
that something.
ST:TOS also served to inspire a generation of scientists, astronauts,
and inventors. The sliding supermarket doors arrived shortly after
Star Trek. The military is currently hard at work to develop stand-off
medical sensors for battlefield use. From the Star Trek communicators,
we get the flip-phones and satellite phones. From the Star Trek
data pads, we get PIM's and the latest generation of notebook
computers. I am told that modern nuclear power plant control rooms
are modeled after the bridge of the Enterprise. Many astronauts
claim to have received their inspiration from ST:TOS. A portion
of Roddenberry's cremated remains were even launched into orbit
(www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/21/nasa-rocket-launch.htm).
ST:TOS impacted television in another way. This was the first
tv show to have a vocal cult audience. If you will recall, NBC
attempted to cancel the show after the second season. The viewer
outrage was so strong that they brought the show back for a third
season, though they insisted upon some emasculating changes which
did finally did put it in the grave. This vocal audience frightened
all the networks. Consequently, there wasn't another serious sci-fi
show on till 1979 (Battlestar Galactica). And the answer
is NO, I do not consider The Six Million Dollar Man,
The Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman, or Buck Rogers
to be serious sci-fi. I don't know what they were, mostly they
were just bad. There were a few imports, such as UFO, The
Starlost, and Space 1999, but that was all.
ST:TOS impacted science fiction in a rather interesting way. Before
ST:TOS, it was considered unacceptible for a woman to even read
science fiction. Science fiction was considered trashy and immoral
literature. My wife recalls being punished just for having science
fiction literature. ST:TOS broke helped to break this barrier
down.
In conclusion, when I state that ST:TOS was more influential than
ST:TNG, I do not mean to say that it was a better production.
It certainly was not. However, ST:TOS did affect science fiction,
television, cinema and society far more than any of its spin-offs.
[> [> [> [> Speaking
up for the UK -- KdS, 09:52:57 12/31/02 Tue
While I would never make large claims for the televisual quality
of early Doctor Who, it did precede ST:TOS, feature relatively
optimistic portrayals of the future, portray decent (humanoid)
aliens persecuted by evil humans in 1964 (The Sensorites)
and went on to feature thoroughly good and totally unhumanoid
aliens in 1965 (the Menoptera in The Web Planet and the
Rills in Galaxy Four).
[> [> [> Re: Fantasy
and Science Fiction -- Robert, 00:01:44 12/31/02 Tue
>>> Notice how I'm not even touching on the fact that
"Buffy" is dominating a list devoted to the sci-fi genre,
when it is actually fantasy?!?
I consider it sloppy, but the terms fantasy and science fiction
have almost become interchangable. There is now so much literature
that rides the dividing line between fantasy and science fiction
(for example McCaffrey's dragon rider novels) that I don't think
definitions for the terms could even be written. Whenever I see
the term science fiction used, it is usually a given that fantasy
is also included. Take a look at the Science Fiction Book Club.
Most of what they advertise and sell now is fantasy.
[> [> [> [> Stepping
cautiously into this morass -- KdS, 09:57:27 12/31/02 Tue
Any attempt to draw a hard dividing line between "fantasy"
and "science fiction" on TV is impossible due to the
lack of "hard" science in most TV SF shows (ST features
extraterrestrial sentient beings copulating with humans and producing
viable offspring without external intervention, just about every
show assumes the existence of telepathy and telekinesis). My personal
dividing line is simply that if it explicitly uses the word "magic"
it's fantasy. If it attempts to use scientific vocabulary, no
matter how whacky, it's SF.
[> [> [> [> [>
F & SF definitions -- Robert, 11:16:08 12/31/02 Tue
>>> My personal dividing line is simply that if it
explicitly uses the word "magic" it's fantasy. If it
attempts to use scientific vocabulary, no matter how whacky, it's
SF.
This was my working definition as well for many years. The problem
arises with novels such as McCaffrey's Pern books or Chalker's
Soul Rider books.
McCaffrey set up a scenario where a humanity has established a
colony on a distant planet called Pern. Everything about the stories
is basic science fiction, accept that Pern has intelligent telepathic
teleporting time-traveling fire-breathing dragons. No explanation
is provided for how the dragons can have these abilities, but
these abilities are never called magic. So, is it fantasy
or science fiction? In this case, I don't believe the books can
fit into either catagory very well, without employing unwieldy
definitions.
Chalker wrote a series of novels (the Soul Rider series) where
the last remains of humanity colonized a distant world. The world
is enveloped with a field that allows certain people to manipulate
reality. Chalker is very big with manipulating reality, and
the people within it. This field was created by technology.
Thus, the field and the manipulations performed therein are artifacts
of technology. The commoners (ie. the masses who can't manipulate
anything) describe it as magic. The author casts it in terms of
science and technology. So, are the Soul Rider books science fiction
or fantasy? In this case, I'm inclined to lean toward the fantasy.
However, Chalker has good fun straddling the fence.
My point in this article is that, in the past couple of decades,
the distinction between science fiction and fantasy has become
less useful.
[> [> [> [> [>
ST: DS9 was kind of fantasy too -- Scroll, 12:00:48
12/31/02 Tue
I've always loved ST: TNG and considered it the best of
the 5 Treks for many years, but lately I've started catching up
on DS9 and I have to say, I think I love it even better
than TNG. There's something about the long story arcs,
the epic struggles, the religious and political machinations,
the warm friendships, and the very imperfect and down-to-earth
characters that grab me. It's possibly my Buffy/Angel conditioning...
Anyway, I do consider DS9 to be science fiction -- sometimes.
When they explain things with technobabble and pseudoscience,
it's like any other Trek show. But DS9 also explored mysticism
and magic through the Bajoran Prophets/wormhole aliens, the Celestial
Temple/wormhole, and the Emmisary/Captain Sisko. The show never
definitively told us one way or the other that the Prophets were
really gods or that they were just advanced aliens with an interest
in Bajor. It's vague and open to interpretation. Which is why
I really, really love it.
Also, Julian Bashir is a hottie :)
I do agree that DS9 and even TNG didn't have the
same impact on science fiction that TOS had. TOS
was ground-breaking. TNG was better written, produced,
and acted. And DS9 is (IMHO) a lovely, dark, brooding
saga about a holocaust, a war, and its survivors.
Also, Julian Bashir is a hottie.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> DS9 as unfairly maligned stepchild in the Trek series
(and mmm....Nana Visitor) -- cjl, 12:30:53 12/31/02 Tue
DS9 never gets the attention that TOS and TNG (deservedly) received,
starting off as it did near the end of TNG's fantastic seven-year
run, and never quite running on all cylinders until well into
season three with "Past Imperfect." For some reason,
Avery Brooks decided to sleepwalk through the first few seasons,
and the whole concept of Sisko as Emissary languished.
Fortunately, DS9 had the amazing Nana Visitor to do the heavy
lifting in the early years, and we were introduced to the remarkably
complex political and religious life of Bajor through her eyes.
Later, when AB decided to get off his butt and throw all of his
considerable talents into the series, Rick Berman and Ira Steven
Behr picked up on the Emissary thread, and weaved one of the richest,
darkest, most beautiful tapestries in sci-fi history.
And yes, I suppose Alexander Siddig was a hottie. But he married
Nan Visitor, so I hate him. I mean, look at their scenes together
in "Our Man Bashir."
Yow.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> DS9 goodness -- Shiraz, 13:33:53 12/31/02
Tue
DS9 was my favorite of the Trek series, mostly because it got
into the culture of the Federation, (as well as Cardassian, Bajorian
and Ferengi culture). It also accomplished a number of firsts.
1. The first black sci-fi character (on TV or Film) who was a
convincing authority figure. (the closest anyone had come before
this was Lister from 'Red Dwarf')
2. The first effective 'strong female' characters in Trek, Kira
and Dax (drool). On TNG both Crusher and Troi were rather traditional
mother figures, and Tasha Yar was just a bad joke.
3. Good use of the open-ended story arc structure. Its perennial
rival, Babylon 5 (also a good series), had a much more structured
story arc which left it much more vulnerable to the whims of casting
and network considerations.
Well that's about as off-topic as I should get for now.
-Shiraz (hopeless geek)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Avery Brooks w/o hair - key requirement --
Sara, 13:43:23 12/31/02 Tue
Deep Space Nine didn't wake up until Avery Brooks shaved his head.
I don't understand it, but take away the guys hair and he becomes
a whole other person. I think it must be the opposite of the Samson
effect, hair seems to sap all his power and charisma, but totally
agree with you about how good it got once they built some momentum.
Also, I don't think that a science fiction work becomes fantasy
if it looks at mysticism, spirtuality or religon. If it approaches
these aspects as either religon, or something in the natural world
that may be able to be explained, as DS9 did in both ways, it
still is science fiction. I think when the way the world works
is just explained under the general umbrella of magic that it
goes into the realm of fantasy. Bablyon 5 is another sci-fi show
that handled religon/spirtuality in a very interesting way.
- Sara, whose power to command does not change with her haircuts
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: hair -- Robert, 14:11:23 12/31/02
Tue
>>> I think it must be the opposite of the Samson
effect, hair seems to sap all his power and charisma, ...
I've been told that men have the same amount of hormones. Some
use them for growing hair and the rest of us use them for ...
well ... other things.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> ok, well that explains it... --
Sara, sighing in contemplation of Ed Harris, 16:31:37 12/31/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Mysticism in Sci-Fi -- Scroll, 16:15:58
12/31/02 Tue
Hmm, I stand corrected. You're right, I was grouping mysticism,
religion, and spirituality under "fantasy" and that
really isn't appropriate. In fact, I'd say to call the Bajoran
religion an element of "fantasy" is misleading and quite
inappropriate. Your litmus test of "magic" seems like
a good deciding factor for science fiction vs. fantasy.
OT, I hear Babylon 5 is a very good show, but I'm too busy with
Buffy/Angel/Firefly and now with DS9 to devote any time to another
series! Maybe in a few years...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Just watched "Our Man Bashir" (pretty
OT) -- Scroll, 16:04:28 12/31/02 Tue
The DS9 ep "Our Man Bashir" was on SPACE this
afternoon and I absolutely adored it! It's not the first time
I've seen it, but this time I picked up on the depth and foreshadowing
for Bashir's character development (i.e. his involvement with
Section 31). This episode, something of a pastiche and/or parody
(I'm not really sure which) of James Bond movies, seemed pretty
shallow until you consider Bashir's development over the entire
7 year span of DS9. Dr. Bashir goes from being a very young,
very naive, idealist who wants to go out and practice "frontier
medicine" and have adventures and be a hero, to a seasoned
soldier whose pristine ethics are challenged and become slightly
tarnished. He learns that being a "hero" isn't something
that works in the "real world", that being a spy (either
Obsidian or Section 31) contradicts all the supposed ideals the
Federation embraces. His mentor, Garak, decides that there is
"hope" for him the more distrustful and cynical and
ruthless he becomes.
I guess one thing I love about DS9 in comparison to TNG
(I can't speak for Voyager since I gave up halfway through)
is that the all characters had personalities, personalities
which changed and developed naturally based on external factors
and internal epiphanies (Sisko deciding he could "live with
it" -- assassinating a senator to gain Romulan support in
the Dominion war). Save for Picard and Data, I don't remember
any real character development in TNG.
You may be right about Brooks in the first two seasons of DS9
(I began watching at "The Wire" -- fantastic Bashir/Garak
episode) but AB was simply diabolical in "Our Man Bashir".
And yes, NV is pure seduction as a Russian spy. ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> ^ Spoilers for DS9 above (just in case)
-- Scroll, 16:06:30 12/31/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: character development -- Robert,
17:47:37 12/31/02 Tue
>>> ... is that the all characters had personalities,
This is a good point and one I agree with completely. ST:DS9 differed
from ST:TNG in that it utilized a continuing story arc whereas
TNG did not. My belief is that the networks and tv channels prefer
there to not be a continuing story arc. This allows them to show
episodes in any order the choose -- sort of like what FOX did
to Firefly. However, it is more difficult to map out
the development and maturation of characters in a strictly episodic
series. This is the major reason why I very much prefer shows
like BtVS, AtS, Babylon 5, and to a lesser degree X-Files. This
is also why I don't much like Enterprise.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> TNG is my one alternative, where I
prefer a non story arc-driven series... (small "Nemesis"
spoiler) -- Rob, 18:47:29 12/31/02 Tue
...because I love the characters so much, and there's something
comforting and familiar about the show in that you know everything
will always go back to the way it was, with only a few exceptions,
such as the death of Tasha, Wesley's exit, etc. But the standard
structure remained the same. Data never did become human by the
end, Riker never left to command his own ship. There is a comfort
and familiarity about this show that makes it feel like a family
reunion to me every time I watch any episode. Also, although the
show was episodic, there were many examples of character development
and of later episodes continuing storylines from earlier ones,
or standalone episodes referencing occurences from earlier ones
to provide greater depth and scope. And at times it even surprised
the audience when the characters actually did remember the occurences
of the week before, such as "Family," the episode after
Picard returned from his experience as Locutus of Borg. Although
the story was for all intents and purposes ended the episode before,
a whole episode was spent on Picard's rehabilitation after being
mentally raped. I liked how each character was given their moments
to shine, and on the acting front, the cast was, IMO, uniformly
superb.
And the series also boasts my all-time favorite Star Trek character,
Guinan, which is IMO Whoopi Goldberg's finest role. This character
fits her like a glove. I adore the character to death and was
tickled pink to see her at the wedding scene at the start of "Nemesis."
I was disappointed that she wasn't give a larger role in the movie,
because I love her interactions with all of the characters. "Time's
Arrow," the two-parter where we got to see Picard and Guinan's
first meeting, remains my all-time favorite episode, with the
exception of "All Good Things..." the finale, which
I think is pretty darn near the best series finale ever produced.
While I enjoy all the Trek series, I don't think any had quite
the same level of heart and optimism of TNG. All the casts of
the other shows I have come to enjoy, but the TNG cast truly feels
like my extended television family. "Buffy" is the only
other show with whose cast of characters I have such an enormous
affinity. And "Buffy" I love even more than TNG, and
for a long time, I never thought that would be possible. But I
grew up with both of these shows. My elementary through middle
school years were TNG; my high school through college years are
"Buffy." No other show, nor characters, can ever truly
compare to the ones you grew up with.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> That should be one "exception,"
not alternative. -- Rob, 18:48:36 12/31/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the shows we grew up with
-- Robert, 21:32:57 12/31/02 Tue
>>> No other show, nor characters, can ever truly
compare to the ones you grew up with.
This is so true. I don't mean to say that I didn't like ST:TNG.
I watched every single episode; even those of the really weak
seventh season. But, unlike you, I didn't grow up with this show.
I grew up during the crappy 70's, and I was starved for good sci-fi.
While in junior high school, I watched every wretched episode
of UFO. In high school, the best that we had was Space
1999. And we knew it was crap, because we had Star Trek
to compare it to.
Just before graduating from High School in 1977, I went to this
strange new movie my friends told me about. It was Star Wars.
This was it. This was what I had been looking for since 1968.
Star Wars broke open the damn between sci-fi and television.
The networks couldn't ignore us any longer. There was way too
much money to leave on the table. In 1978, ABC gave us Battlestar
Galactica, a more overwrought drama you would be hard pressed
to find. Regardless, I watched it as it was the only sci-fi available,
and it was a serious effort, if not a very good one.
It wasn't until ST:TNG that the golden age of sci-fi television
really began. I thank God that the golden age continues even today.
We've had our disappointments and tragedies (Witchblade,
Farscape, Firefly, last two seasons of X-Files),
but we also now have drama that is better than anything which
came before. Even after BtVS and AtS are but a sweet memory, even
after Joss Whedon is a corpse in the ground (or ashes in orbit),
the sci-fi shows we are watching now will have a lasting effect
on the nature of television and sci-fi.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> The first Star Wars
-- Sara, 21:41:36 12/31/02 Tue
I can still remember what it was like to see Star Wars when it
first came out, when I was in High School. It blew me away right
from the scrolling preamble, wow... There just had never been
anything like it before. I don't think any movie has ever knocked
my socks off in the same way since then. Sorry, I get really nostalgic
over that movie. It was quite the experience.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was born in '81,
so I didn't get to see it until a few years later, but...
-- Rob, 21:50:10 12/31/02 Tue
...it did have an enormous effect on my childhood. I adore the
whole original trilogy. My childhood was basically Star Wars,
Star Trek, and Back to the Future. That is what I lived for. And
I watched all of those movies/shows over and over and over again.
I'm not too hard on the new "Star Wars" movies. I enjoyed
"Phantom Menace." I REALLY enjoyed "Attack of the
Clones." No, they're not the same as the originals. But they
really can't ever be. I'm not a little kid anymore, and I don't
think you can ever get that same sense of awe out of a movie as
when you're little. And if you do, it's very rare. (The recent
exception to this rule for me was "Moulin Rouge," which
did the near insurmountable task of displacing "The Wizard
of Oz" as my favorite film of all time.) So while I can't
help but say that the new Star Wars films aren't nearly as good
as the old ones, new technology and fancy CGI/digital photography,
etc or not, I'm sure that the generation that is growing up with
these "Star Wars" movies will look much more fondly
on them.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Damn, now I
really feel old! -- Robert, 22:04:57 12/31/02 Tue
>>> I'm not too hard on the new "Star Wars"
movies. I enjoyed "Phantom Menace." I REALLY enjoyed
"Attack of the Clones."
For the first time, my wife and I decided not to go and see the
latest Star Wars movie (Attack of the Clones). We are waiting
for it to come out on pay-per-view. When I think of the long lines
I braved to see Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back,
I realize how depressing this is.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> cjl dates
himself (no, not THAT way, perverts!) -- cjl, 00:28:41
01/01/03 Wed
One of the first movies I ever saw with my impressionable young
eyes was "2001: A Space Odyssey," during its original,
glorious, Cinemascopic run in the movie theaters. Blew my mind,
and sent me scrambling for Clarke, then Asimov, eventually to
Harlan Ellison and Kurt Vonnegut, then into "mainstream"
literature. An indelible cinematic experience.
[But then again, so was the other movie I saw that month--Elvis
Presley in "A Change of Habit," as a doctor who romances
Sister (as in "nun") Mary Tyler Moore. I still have
flashbacks to that movie every time I see Emma Caufield in one
of those high-necked blouses...]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Stepping cautiously into this morass -- ., 21:17:06
01/01/03 Wed
"ST features extraterrestrial sentient beings copulating
with humans and producing viable offspring without external intervention"
Actually, it was established in ST:TNG that the major species
of the alpha quadrant (e.g., Romulans, Vulcans, Humans, Klingons,
Cardassians, Bajorans, etc) are all descendents of a previous
and now-extinct race therefore making copulation possible. Though,
in the Star Trek universe interspecies reproduction is possible,
it does not come without its complications. There have been plenty
of times in the ST-Universe in which medical intervention was
necessary for a healthy child to be born due to "clashing"
genetics (e.g., Jadzia & Worf; B'Ellana & Tom).
Peronally, I believe the difference between science-fiction and
fantasy is that the former provides a scientific principle behind
the aspects of itself that might be deemed as "fantastical"
or "magical" whereas for the latter, these principles
simply exist.
For example, within the ST-Universe psionics (telepathy, telekinesis,
etc) are explained through a more advanced or specially adapted
brain. I believe that Betazeds are capable of telepathy because
of their unique brains possess a special lobe specifically for
telepathic and emphathic senses. An interesting case of telepathic
species were a species encountered by the crew of the Enterprise-D
which were incapable of vocal speech and therefore had developed
telepathic communication through telepathic pictures. Shows like
ST:TNG have a far greater inclination to work and manipulate the
principles of Quantum Mechanics before they delve into the world
of fantasy, but for more detailed information and more reliable
information, you would have to buy one of those ST supported Omnipedias
on CD-Rom.
On the other hand, within the many works that I consider to be
Fantasy, the principles it applies have no explanation as though
its very existence is not to be questioned. A prime example would
be out beloved Buffy: The Vampire Slayer series in which magic
is simply understood by the fans to exist. There has never been
given any plausible explanation as to how or why magic works or
even how or why magic exists. It just does.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Yes, the episode that explains the Star Trek interspecies
mating is the brilliant "The Chase." -- Rob, 23:45:30
01/01/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Yes, the episode that explains the Star Trek
interspecies mating is the brilliant "The Chase."
-- Darby, 06:39:57 01/02/03 Thu
Well, except that it was silly. The premise itself is scientific
nonsense. It was a writer with no understanding of biology trying
to explain a troubling aspect of the ST universe but never bothering
to check whether such an explanation was workable. (I'll self-plug
here - somewhere in the archives is a biologically-plausible explanation
for why ETs would be humanoid that does not require common ancestors
or godlike planners)
And like a few other nonsensical eps (the one about the destructive
effects of warp travel would be another), rather than adding to
the canon, it was effectively ignored from there on.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> See? Again, me and science can't figure each
other out! -- Rob, 08:55:08 01/02/03 Thu
Although I still do love that episode.
Rob
P.S. Apologies for the bad grammar in the subject line. ;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> To the Unknown Poster -- KdS, 08:11:34 01/02/03
Thu
I believe that Betazeds are capable of telepathy because of
their unique brains possess [sic] a special
lobe specifically for telepathic and emphathic senses.
Unfortunately, that's magic not science unless you can come up
with a physical rationale for how the special lobe works - it
uses pseudoscientific vocabulary but it's no more scientific than
saying they can read minds because they own the Sacred Coronet
of Q'Thargaz.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: To the Unknown Poster -- fresne, 10:20:48
01/02/03 Thu
I donít know. I tend to fall in on the side of as long
as there is a techy tech tech explanation given, itís science
fiction. We are after all not talking about science fact.
This stems from a couple of different things.
I spend a great deal of time documenting perfectly real things
that may as well be magic to me. Currently our Wide Area Network
Engineers have a very entertaining whiteboard diagram of our WAN
complete with DNS servers, a rendition of Van Goghís Starry
Night, a witch on a broom stick, T1 lines, and the devil burning
in hell. Actually, given that the NetID root occupies Godís
position in the drawing (center, top) versus Flaming Satan (center,
bottom) with the Starry Night/DNS in the medieval earth position
(center, middle), Iím currently pondering the religious
and mystical significance of our companies network. Insert Gregorian
chant here.
HmmmÖwait, sorry I lost my train of thought there somewhere.
Thank God itís January. Or I suppose, thank NetId root.
Anyway, I also took a science fiction class in college where each
week the professor would give us a piece of writing to identify
as Science Fiction or not. Some of the pieces were from obscure
science journals. So, not fiction. Some were old Science Fiction
with scientific principals since proven to be not so much true
as, not. So, not science now. And yet, well, they were science
once. Some were Golden Age Hard Science Fiction, lots of writers
in love with their tech. Some were New Wave Science Fiction, focusing
more on the interpersonal entangles with the tech existing to
advance the plot. Ah, itís a mutiphasic positronic time
machine operating on several holistic levels and now back to the
meaning of life and empty swimming pools. Not sure we ever defined
anything. I think the conclusion was that Science Fiction is hard
to define. A good lesson for life as well.
So, here I side with the Unknown Poster. Pseudo science is the
grease that makes science fiction grind along. I mean just because
our server network sometimes makes no sense, (You put what where?
What demonic force possessed you to do that?) doesnít make
it any less techy tech tech. Well, at least my documentation formatting
is very pretty. MmmÖGaramond. Ampersands. Leading.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> The importance of pretty documentation is
highly under-rated -- Sara, who never underestimates the power
of a good font, 19:44:10 01/02/03 Thu
[> [> The top 100 characters
in sci fi and fantasy -- Kitkat, 12:04:30 12/30/02 Mon
Having just finished reading this edition of SFX, I have to say
that the article about it is quite misleading.
To celebrate their 100th issue, the magazine asked its readers
to send them their top characters from sci-fi and fantasy, including
books and comics as well as movies and tv shows. The list was
actually a top 100, not a top 10, so many of the characters mentioned
as missing were actually lower down.
Its still a little skewed, though, Buffy/Angel had the most characters
in the poll (12): the Host (87), Wesley (52), Tara (33), Faith
(32), Giles (24), Xander (81), Cordelia (57) and Drusilla (93)
as well as Buffy (3), Angel (9), Willow (7) and Spike (2).
Out of interest, the positions of some other characters:
Kirk - 13
Spock - 11
Batman - 15
Picard - 16
Ellen Ripley - 17
Chiana - 19
Mulder - 20
Frodo - 22
Spider man - 23
Data - 29
Luke Skywalker - 30
Scully - 34
Indiana Jones - 35
Yoda - 37
Dracula - 45
Rick Deckard - 51
Obi Wan Kenobi - 53
Alien - 62
Marty McFly - 66
Neo - 68
Marvin the Paranoid Android - 76
T-1000 - 79
Boba Fett - 100
Farscape had the next highest entry of characters with 7, then
Star Wars, LOTR, and Star Trek with 6 each. 16% women, 84% men,
57% human and 4% vampires.
Analyse this info as you will!
Kitkat
[> [> [> Well, that
makes it much better, but... -- Rob, 12:08:50 12/30/02
Mon
...I still don't agree with the order. I am glad to see that characters
such as Marty McFly, Chiana, Picard, Data, etc were acknowledged.
Rob
[> [> [> sci fi?
-- Flo, 13:24:04 12/30/02 Mon
I can't believe, with all the BtVS and AtS characters here, that
Anya wasn't voted in. The remarkable thing (not to mention all
the fun) about sci-fi is its ability to operate outside the boundaries
of the consensual reality of our world, then look back into it
with a whole bunch 'o questions and concerns. Few represent this
better than Anya. For instance:
In Triangle, Willow asks why she doesn't follow our social rules.
Anya responds, "The rules are stupid."
Her reaction to Joyce's death in The Body. "I don't understand
how this could happen," reveals her struggle with human emotions
and the limitations of mortality. Then she wonders "What
will I be expected to do?" revealing her struggle to understand
and follow social expectations, thereby exposing them as constructions
rather than as something inherent to being human.
Countless social faux pas in which she says what she really means
instead of what is socially-scripted. (Telling a customer to "now
go away" instead of "have a nice day.")
Anya embodies the core function and spirit of sci-fi. If I had
my druthers (what does that mean, anyway?) I would post her on
this particular list before any of the humans, even Buffy.
[> [> [> Is there
anyone in there from a prose work that hasn't been dramatised?
-- KdS, 13:36:58 12/30/02 Mon
It does seem to me that a lot of SFX readers don't actually
read that much (present company excepted of course).
Personally I'd include Gully Foyle (the antihero of Stars My
Destination), Una Persson (the one fantasy character who Buffy
really needs to meet in a crossover) and both Ja(y)ne and
Melanchthon from The Iron Dragon's Daughter.
[> [> [> [> What
about Kimball Kinnison? -- Vickie, 16:37:26 12/30/02 Mon
What? Nobody out there ever read the Lensman series?
[> [> [> Very nice!
So ... -- Robert, 20:20:49 12/30/02 Mon
did the HAL-9000 appear anywhere in the top 100 list?
I see the T-1000 made it on the list. I like the Terminator movies
as much as anyone, but I think I can legitimately claim that the
2001: A Space Odyssey and the HAL-9000 where far more influential
to sci-fi.
[> [> [> Can you supply
the entire list? please, Please, PLEASE -- Robert, 22:42:30
12/30/02 Mon
[> [> [> The entire
list -- Kitkat, 10:01:55 12/31/02 Tue
01 - Dr. Who
02 - Spike
03 - Buffy
04 - John Crichton
05 - Aeryn Sun
06 - Han Solo
07 - Willow
08 - Darth Vader
09 - Angel
10 - Gandalf
11 - Spock
12 - Kerr Avon
13 - Kirk
14 - Daniel Jackson
15 - Batman
16 - Picard
17 - Ellen Ripley
18 - Scorpius
19 - Chiana
20 - Mulder
21 - Jack O'Neill
22 - Frodo
23 - Spider man
24 - Giles
25 - Death (discworld)
26 - Number Six
27 - Superman
28 - Wolverine
29 - Data
30 - Luke Skywalker
31 - Bender
32 - Faith
33 - Tara
34 - Scully
35 - Indiana Jones
36 - Dale Cooper
37 - Yoda
38 - James Bond
39 - Arnold Rimmer
40 - Pilot
41 - Emma Peel
42 - Londo Mollari
43 - Aragorn
44 - Sam Vimes
45 - Dracula
46 - G'kar
47 - Kryten
48 - Miles Vorkosigan
49 - Dan Dare
50 - John Constantine
51 - Rick Deckard
52 - Wesley
53 - Obi Wan Kenobi
54 - Elric
55 - Legolas
56 - Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan
57 - Cordelia
58 - Susan Ivanova
59 - Judge Dredd
60 - John Doggett
61 - Paul Atriedes
62 - Alien
63 - The Terminator
64 - John Steed
65 - Sandman
66 - Marty McFly
67 - Ash
68 - Neo
69 - Servalan
70 - Optimus Prime
71 - John Sheridan
72 - Dominar Rygel
73 - Lex Luthor
74 - Sanwise Gamgee
75 - Rincewind
76 - Marvin the Paranoid Android
77 - Steel
78 - Susan Sto-helit
79 - T-100
80 - Dave Lister
81 - Xander
82 - Gully Foyle
83 - Druss
84 - Bora Hora Gobuchul
85 - Bester
86 - Dr McCoy
87 - The Host
88 - Harry Potter
89 - Ford Prefect
90 - Flash Gordon
91 - Gollum
92 - Ka D'Argo
93 - Drusilla
94 - Lara Croft
95 - Charles Tucker III
96 - Gul Dukat
97 - Davros
98 - The Goblin King
99 - Bialar Crais
100 - Boba Fett
On my way to a new years party so don't have time to say where
they are all from!
Kitkat
[> [> [> [> Re:
The (screwed up) entire list -- Shiraz, 12:54:49 12/31/02
Tue
This is seriously messed up!
Smeghead made the to 50 but Lister is nowhere to be found?
Gul Dukat the only DS9 character to make the list? What about
Ben Sisko, Garak, and O'Brien?
Proof Positive that Sci-Fi fans are crackheads.
(wait a minute)
-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [>
Lister's on the list, Shiraz. He's #80! -- Rob, 21:51:23
12/31/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re:
The entire list -- Arya_Stark, 20:48:18 12/31/02 Tue
Well, I'm happy... Kerr Avon is #12! Now there's a truly complex
and grey character for you.
Blake's 7 is one of my favorite shows ever.
And several other "smaller" characters are there.
But unless I'm missing something, I don't see any Asimov characters...
Data's there, but no R. Daneel Olivaw? Or Andrew Martin? Those
are the characters that Data is based on. Oh well, I guess I get
to keep Asimov's characters to myself (I prefer Giskard)!
Writing formulas
-- Tyreseus, 22:05:47 12/29/02 Sun
I was getting hung up on my novel earlier this week and went looking
for a little inspiration. In a website titled "How to Write
a Novel in 100 days" I found the following passage, which
I couldn't help but noticing some simalarities to BtVS and AtS.
What do you guys think? Aside from the gender-bias of the formula
itself.
Most novels are written to a formula, especially big best sellers.
For example, John Baldwin, co-author of The Eleventh Plague: A
Novel of Medical Terror, developed a simple formula that he used
to structure his novel.
ÝÝÝÝÝHis ten-step formula is:
1. The hero is an expert.
2. The villain is an expert.
3. You must watch all of the villainy over the shoulder of the
villain.
4. The hero has a team of experts in various fields behind him.
5. Two or more on the team must fall in love.
6. Two or more on the team must die.
7. The villain must turn his attention from his initial goal to
the team.
8. The villain and the hero must live to do battle again in the
sequel.
9. All deaths must proceed from the individual to the group: i.e.,
never say that the bomb exploded and 15,000 people were killed.
Start with ìJamie and Suzy were walking in the park with
their grandmother when the earth opened up.î
10. If you get bogged down, just kill somebody.
[> Re: Writing formulas
-- slain, 15:40:17 12/30/02 Mon
Baldwin does seem very keen on the death, and I'm innately deeply
suspicious of anyone who 'co-authors' fiction, but I think what
he's describing, as is evident from the terms he unwittingly uses,
is the heroic mode; particularly in terms of its scale, with the
multitude of characters and the love and death and momentous events.
BtVS works on that level, some of the time, with these kind of
all-encompassing stories, which is one of the reasons why I like
it, most of the thing I like not really straying to near to this
popular idea. Balwin seems to think that this kind of writing
is hackish and formuliaic - but it's not, not necessairily, not
when narrative has meaning beyond this (which BtVS does). I doesn't
transcend its form, it brings meaning to some ideas thought pretty
stale, such as a genuine, non-cynical old-fashioned hero, and
revitalises it in a way which other US TV series don't do; most
good TV nowadays steers clear of goodies and baddies, but BtVS
works within this.
I don't see that the oft-quoted last point has relevance to BtVS;
the deaths we've seen on the show (Buffy, Jenny, Kendra, Angel,
Doyle, Joyce, Tara, Buffy) have had meaning, and have served to
move specific characters on in some significant way (in order:
Buffy, Giles, Buffy, Buffy, Cordy, Buffy, Willow, Buffy - well,
more or less). But I don't think we should take Baldwin too seriously
- Joss, of course, doesn't like to be taken seriously all the
time, either; the difference is, Joss clearly does consider his
show as something bigger than any formulae he might use in it,
whereas Balwin seems to glorify in his ability to understand writing;
while, I think, missing the point of it entirely.
As for writer's block - personally I plan most of my writing ahead
of me, which is why I only ever have time to write short stories!
What's always helped me is reading back what I've already written;
but, seeing as I've been unable to write anything fictional for
what must be nearly a year now, clearly that isn't working!
[> [> write what you
know, in your own voice. -- Briar Rose, 22:44:29 12/30/02
Mon
As an avid fiction reader, I can always tell when a book is formulaic
and I won't bother to read that author again.
Even in the most bizarre circumstances, the best writers dig deep
within themselves and find the part of them that connects to the
character they are writing for.
This is true of almost every best selling, long standing and well
received writer. A good case in point is Anne Rice writing Lestat
from her own inner deamons and Luis from her own issues after
the death of her child. Whereas even though her Sleeping Beauty...
series was popular for a time because of sheer fantasy sex and
the illusion of naughtiness it gives to the Vanilla Lifestyle
people - it doesn't ring true to anyone who has lived an SM/BD
lifestyle, because she's so obviously faking her way through it
all in an uncomfortably false voice.
Let's face it - there are only so many stories when you are reaching
into the great void of true fiction. However, there is only one
unique life story for each actual person in the Universe. Sure,
there may be correlations between other's lives, but there is
no such thing as an entirely DUPLICATE life lived by anyone but
one's self.
[> [> [> Thanks for
the thoughts -- Tyreseus, 01:39:17 12/31/02 Tue
Hey, some encouraging thoughts from both of you. I, too, try to
avoid overly formulaic books (and TV shows), and wouldn't ever
subscribe to a formula plot. My writer's block cleared up pretty
quickly - I think it was unwillingness to take a character where
he was destined to go, but I got past it.
Anyway, thanks. This board always manages to shake some cobwebs
loose on the bad days, ya know?
[> Re: Writing formulas
-- luna, 08:10:28 12/31/02 Tue
While travelling, I met another would-be writer (maybe that's
"would-be-published writer") who had some other formula
ideas, more for style:
1. First five pages are critical
2. No back-story in dialogue--all conversation should be meaningful
to the characters
3. Avoid metaphors
And that's all I remember--but when I look at some writers I like,
they break all these rules. I think formulas can help when you're
stuck, but rules are made to be broken.
What helps me as a writer is to have someone else who helps me
keep to deadlines and serves as a real "ear" so that
I have a sense of writing for real readers, not into a vacuum.
That might not mean as much to you, though. And I definitely agree
that blocking out the story before writing can keep you going,
even if you don't follow your initial plans.
Happy New
Year -- Tchaikovsky, 10:09:39 12/30/02 Mon
"And I said to the man at the gate of the year;
'Give me a light, that I may tread safely
into the unknown.' And he replied,
'Go out into the darkness and put thine hand
into the Hand of God. This shall be to thee
better than light and safer than a known way'."
-Written by M Louise Haskins. Quoted by George VI in his New Year's
speech at the end of 1939, as Britain stood against the Nazis,
bereft of American support. Inscribed at the grave of the Queen
Mother, who died earlier this year.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne.
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
-Robert Burns, with the traditional New Year's verse.
The Darkling Thrush
I leant upon a coppice gate
When Frost was spectre-gray,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
Had sought their household fires.
The land's sharp features seemed to be
The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
Seemed fervourless as I.
At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.
So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
And I was unaware.
Thomas Hardy, written, he claims, on 31st December 1900, which
he considered the final day of the 19th Century, (there was no
Year 0).
--------------------------------
What makes us so interested about the New Year, and why so many
celebrations at the Millennium? What is is that makes people so
desperately excited by these arbitrary dates? The Chinese New
Year takes place at an entirely different time to our New Year,
and yet is celebrated as fervently. The Year 2000, (whether the
beginning or the end), does not mark 2000 years since Jesus' birth,
(as he was probably actually born in 5 BC), and for most of the
people celebrating, that's pretty irrelevant anyway. If we had
one fewer finger on each hand, (like The Simpsons), we would probably
be using base 8, in which case the figure '2000' would be achieved
after what we would consider to be 1024 years, and the nearest
equivalent celebration for us would be Base 8 3000, which would
occur at the equivalent of our 2048. So the Millennium is all
a bit silly, and New Year could be seen as the same.
After some thought, I would beg to differ. New Year is an annual
celebration, and, due to the refinement of the Julian to the Gregorian
Calendar, it is annual. It represents the cycle that Hardy calls
'The ancient pulse of germ and birth.' It is in repetition, claimed
Kierkegaard, that we are the happiest, neither yearning for the
different, (and therefore almost automatically better) time of
the past, or for the hope of the future. No matter how much our
lives change- no matter how many traumas, tragedies, triumphs
and troubles we negotiate, there is always the new year. A tabula
rasa. A chance for something better. We claim that our lives can
be different, and take on resolutions, challenges which few of
us will fulfill for any length of time. But it's an effort worth
making. Who could argue that taking 'a cup o'kindness', stopping
a moment to think of acquaintances, isn't right. New Year challenges
us to improve ourselves, or at least to consider what we have
done well in the previous 365 days or so.
But, cry the knowledgable cynics, Tchaikovsky's lengthy preamble
once again precludes any mention of that funny little show Buffy
the Vampire Slayer, which this board is supposed to be about.
And, furthermore, there's no suggestion that New Year is an important
part of the Buffyverse. When do the gand stop for their annual
bout of consideration and reflection. Maybe never. Maybe at New
Year's parties we never see. But, through the (sometimes unreliable)
perspective lens that we are given, so valuably, the time for
slow down and wind up occurs between seasons. Buffy's New Years
happen somewhere in the void between late May and early September.
The rest of this post examines some trends and differences in
our heroes, (yes, it's plural, so sue me), Janus moments.
--------------------
Season One to Two- stasis and disillusionment.
I've always feared a cutting down to size on anything to do with
Season One, due to my relative lack of knowledge, and having once
balanced a tenuous argument on faulty assertions upon 'Welcome
to the Hellmouth'. So I will attempt to tread carefully here.
The first scene of the second Season's premiere 'When She Was
Bad', is Willow and Xander, sounding a trifle bored and nonplussed.
In their lives, very little has happenned, and for them, it might
be fair to say that the Summer has had no effect whatsoever. Certainly
for Giles nothing has changed. But for Buffy, everything is different.
Hank admits that Buffy seemed distant and difficult to communicate
with. As well as her hurt over the divorce, and awkward re-establishment
of a relationship with her Dad, (particularly with the fears shown
in 'Nightmares), it becomes clear that Buffy's death, and the
Master's influence, is still very powerful, and is affecting her
relationships and even judgement. Of course in Buffy, emotion
becomes reality, and the Master's undestroyed bones are the symbols
by which her lack of resolution of the issue reappears in reality.
Here at the beginning of Season Two, we see a pattern that Joss
Whedon uses every year. He has always claimed that every Season
is a natural end point, an argument which has not been always
believed. I would say that there is a degree of truth in this,
until the next Season's premiere. In the premiere of Season Two
it becomes painfully clear that Buffy has not, mentally and emotionally,
laid the Master to rest. Her death has had profound effects on
her, and it takes her an entire episode for an epiphany that the
world is still to be enjoyed.
For Willow, Xander and Giles, the first hiatus is about stasis.
They may as well have been frozen until we return to them, and
there boredom both encapsulates the real boredom of the high schools
students with the long summer, and serves as a neat joke that
we [the audience] have not missed much despite our protracted
absence. For Buffy, the hiatus has had another effect that will
become familiar. While there is no large plot development, the
summer has had an effect of time amplifying the smallest emotion.
The great healer can also be the best way of realising that an
original way of overcoming something may not be wholly sufficient.
Season Two to Three- growth and return.
Buffy's Campbellian journey has been highlighted on this board
to such a great length that I feel almost like a member of the
Second Generation of this Board. While many of the original posters
canonised the Universal Journey, there has recently been a kind
of rebellious swing against old Joe, claiming that he is given
too much time here and elsewhere. While my almost first opportunity
to be a board rebel shouldn't be surrenderred so easily, I do
feel that there is an interesting parallel between the Season
2-3 hiatus, and a later happening, as suggested by Campbell.
The Soup Man suggests that the Hero in literature has a universal
journey. One section of this involves a death, (literal or metaphorical),
followed by a resurrection, which is never entirely simple, and
a slow and tricky re-integration to the world and the Quest, at
the end of which He (usually) is more well-equipped to deal with
the problems of the world. This trend has been argued to be Buffy's
at the end of 'The Gift', ad certainly through to Season Six.
I would, hesitantly agree. But it is also worth pointing out how
many of these criteria are met in the Season Two-Three hiatus.
Here, the Season is once again tied up as a quite possible ending.
Angelus is banished, Spike and Dru expel themselves, and Acathla
is thwarted. Once again, for the bedrock of Buffyís life,
Xander, Willow and Giles, little changes, as shown by their largely
cheery conversation at the end of ëBecomingí. But
for Buffy, the winning of the victory is a petit mort. She loses
all the foundations of her life. Barred from school, shunned in
Joyceís weakest moment by her family, feeling unable to
count her friends, and sacrificing her boyfriend so that a world
she no longer fully comprehends can continue. Buffyís exile
is a kind of death, in the way that her Death in ëThe Giftí
is a real death. Her resurrection is self-inflicted, out of an
understanding that she is not worthless, and most definitely not
ëAnneí.
But it takes several episodes to re-establish Buffyís equilibrium.
ëDead Manís Partyí certainly doesnít
achieve it, with relationships strained, and our Hero within a
hairís breadth of giving up again. ëFaith, Hope and
Trickí provides her with no confirmation of her value,
with Faith seemingly effortlessly fillng her shoes. Ironicait
is only when the nature of her death is changed somewhat, with
the resurrection of Angel having nascent consequences in ëBeauty
and the Beastí, that Buffy starts to re-integrate. It is
arguable that Angelís return for Buffy, is entirely analogous
to the Snow for Angel, in providing a symbol of something worth
living for. But thatís for another essay. Buffyís
exile and return makes the hiatus a great, largely untold story
in itself.
For the other members of the Scooby Gang, the hiatus is a slightly
more eventful one than the previous, but still with little to
comment upon. Giles has little growth, but is entirely reactionary,
almost like a character without the lead who makes sense of the
plot arc, (of course, thatís exactly what he is, and at
this stage, heís not really well-formed enough to have
independent human motivations. He doesnít fully breathe
for me until Season Four, or at leat ëHelplessí).
Willow, Xander, Cordelia and Oz have a more interesting little
development, becoming an attempt at a force to replace the Slayer.
This development is shown in Season Three, as their unit becomes
more and more important, until culminating in Buffyís hearywrenching
anf feelgood speech at the end of ëCheckpointí. So
here, the hiatus is a little death and resurrection for Buffy,
with more linear development for the other characters.
Season Three to Four- Failure and Reinvention
The end of Season Three is perhaps the most natural end that the
show ever came to. The philosophy central to the show, ëHigh
School is Hellí, was no longer relevant. The most important
set was blown up, the characters grown-up, (hmmm, the rest of
ths essay is brought to you in rhyming couplets. Only joking).
Season Four once again, and, as weíll see, with every season,
represents a crisis of faith for Buffy. For the Hand of the group,
there is perhaps little to be gained from compulsory pit-stops.
Whatever the deep psychological reason, Buffy once again needs
to re-negotiate the role of Slayer with herself. This time the
re-invention mirrors a really big, real-life experience- living
away from home, going to College. ëThe Freshmaní is
one of my very favourite episodes of ëBuffyí, maybe
exaggerated compared to many of you others because I started college
less than eighteen months ago. And it hits the nail right on the
head. You feel like youíre a different person, and the
cosily simple cariacature you develop for yourself through High
School will no longer serve. Youíre actually the same person,
and the discovery of that, and the ability to grow, means that
often thereís a chrysalis/butterfly experience just waiting
to happen. But the feeling of disorientation to start with can
be horrible, and ëThe Freshmaní captures that perfectly.
So here Buffy must re-invent herself again. In fact, much of the
cast re-invent, and it should be mentioned that Cordeliaís
re-invention involves changing scene and show completely. For
Giles, the re-invention never happens, and so the season long
lack of adjustment leads to a beautiful personal arc for the ex-librarian.
The real wildcard of the Seasonís hiatus is Xander, who
appears not to fit the bill at all. In fact, that genius Whedon
uses his apparent growing-up as the stasis to contrast with Buffy
and Willow. Xanderís ëYouíre my heroí
speech justifies his entire road trip to me, but actually Joss
is doing something on a deeper level. While at the end of Season
Three, it appears that Buffy and Willow are staying in the same
place, Xander is moving on, becoming Jack Kerouacís ëtypedí
prose. We see Xander as the character who will have to grow up,
while the others can stay much as they are. However, Whedon has
patented subversion. Willow and Buffy really do move on with life,
finding new spheres of learning, and new relationships. Meanwhile,
Xanderís ambitious and romantic road-trip fails entirely,
and the apparently grown-up one has no development at all. For
his journey, read stasis. For the othersí staying-put,
read growth.
Season Four to Five- Examination and Reapplication.
ëRestlessí is the best episode of Buffy ever, and
donít even try to argue. Fears, hopes, aspirations, ambitions,
thoughts, memories, failings. And so much humour, and so much
pathos. The hiatus between the Seasons Four and Five appears not
to do much. It is the hiatus which is most suggestive of a holiday
of all of them. We finish ëRestlessí with a watching
of videos, and begin ëBuffy vs Draculaí with a beach
picnic. It seems like a relaxing summer of consolidation, particularly
with the still-not-entirely-matured relationships between Buffy
and Riley, (which never really takes off), Willow and Tara, (best
relationship ever portrayed on Buffy, and we know how that ends),
and Xander and Anya, (which is at this stage the ëfunnyí
relationship, and little more. So in this time where little happens,
we are again given to that exaggeration of small issues. What
exactly is the Slayer, asks Buffy to Giles. The repeated words
of Tara and Dracula, (even if one line is inverted), encapsulate
what Buffy learns from this hiatus- the need for examination.
The examination never quite admits clarity until the end of Season
Five, as the logical, Mind-controlled Examination fails anyway
in a great display of spirit.
Otherwise, the hiatus is all about a renewed application to old
tasks, with Giles renewing Watcher duties, Xander beginning to
settle his life down, (with the extra jump-start of ëThe
Replacementí), and Willow trying to understand and expand
her (thusfar innocent) interest in magic, as well as her relationship
with Tara.
Season Five to Six- Rebirth and Redesignation.
Buffyís death at the end of ëThe Giftí was
the most dramatic emotional resolution since ëThe Giftí,
and the already documented Campbellian rebirth and re-integration
was important throughout Season Six., But through the hiatus itself,
Buffy the character was doing little, (being, as she would later
say, ëall dead and frugal.) So the rebirth which appears
to be the most obvious facet of our penultimate hiatus is actually
a subsequent footnote, and we should really be looking at the
other characters of the show. Willow, told by Buffy that she is
the strongest of her group in ëThe Giftí, has been
exalted to the sparkly ëBoss of Usí role by ëBargainingí.
This redesignation is part of the reason that talk between Willow
and Buffy is tricky after her resurrection. Willow is made to
relinquish the role. Simultaneously, Giles is redesignated as
surplus to requirements, mistakenly considering the show all over,
and the BBC theme tune for ëRipperí just around the
corner. These redesignations end up being harmful. They show what
the characters would like to do, but are quickly taken from them
as Buffy is re-born. This leads Giles to reconsider his decision
to leave, which he ultimately, (and I would argue correctly) decides
is still the best option for him and, by inference, everyone.
Willow now feels stuck by Buffyís retaking of the leadership
role, a typically (for Season Six) never-addressed grievance which
builds towards the fun of the dual in ëTwo to Goí.
Season Six to Seven- Smile-infusion and rehabilitation
This hiatus seems to be the first one in which one of the major
developments has been in the writers themselves. Despite the lack
of the feared Fun Fun Fun, of ëBack to School; Back to Coolí,
there has been a different, somewhat less defeatist tone to the
series this year, which has come from a conscious decision on
the part of the writers to reconsider the trajectory of the stories.
They gave many of the characters a smile infusion, which, while
not as organic as many of the other hiatus developments have been,
has been almost universally welcomed. Meanwhile, Buffy again renegotiates
her role as Slayer, this time in the guise of Counsellor, and,
in parallel, remembers to renegotiate her role as surrogate mother
with Dawn, so that she is ëshowingí her the world
rather than ëprotecting her from ití. This acts as
the conclusion to her long rehabilitation into the world, just
as Willowís somewhat quicker rehabilitation from world-destroyer
to witch-but-still-Willow begins in ëLessonsí.
-----------------
Overall there appear to be several consistent trends in Buffy
the Vampire Slayerís hiatuses. Renegotiation of character,
or more extremely, death and rebirth. Slow, non-epiphanic development,
or failure of that development. Slow exaggeration of small feelings
of insecurity by time. And always, for us the viewer, a sense
of anticipation for a New Season.
Can we learn from what our Scooby Gang do at their New Years?
Of course. We can always learn from them. Sometimes we learn something
is harder than it looks. At other times, we realise their example
is exemplary. But their breaks lead to a new life consistent but
somehow different, and often better.
May 2003 bring us all that feeling of growth and development.
Happy New Year.
TCH
[> Another super post!
-- Rahael, 12:27:16 12/30/02 Mon
[> Disagree on all points.
-- cjl, 13:02:53 12/30/02 Mon
Nah, just kidding. But it got your attention, right?
On the other hand, I think you overlook a few points in the season-to-season
transitions:
S1 to S2 - You're right--Buffy undergoes a disturbing transformation
in the off-season, as the experience of dying at the hands of
the Master and her subsequent rebirth alters the relationships
with her family, her friends, even her would-be boyfriend. But
I think you're underestimating the effects of S1 on Willow, Xander,
and Giles.
Even though our subsidiary Scoobs are bored, bored, bored at the
start of WSWB, the characters themselves have changed over the
past year. He may have been shot down, but Xander finally got
up the nerve to ask Buffy to the dance and wound up saving her
(PG), while Willow told him to blow it out his ear when she was
recruited for backup dating duty. Judging from the "near
miss kiss" in the teaser, Xander obviously looks at Willow
with new eyes, and Willow just as obviously got a confidence booster.
These changes would eventually move Xander off his Buffy obsession
and straight into the arms of Cordelia, and put Willow in the
right frame of mind to be receptive to Oz' considerable charm.
As for Giles--well, the G-man has moved away from solitary Watcher
mode and has been in California long enough to relax and decide
pursue the nummy treat that is Jenny Calendar.
S2 to S3 - "Still little to comment on?" What, are you
kidding me? With Buffy hiding from her demons and memories of
Angel, the gang is desperately trying to keep vampires from overrunning
Sunnydale, while almost everybody in the cast is going insane
with worry. You'll note, though, that the gang actually does a
very good job of battling vamps. No, they're not going to win
on style points (especially not from what we see in "Anne"),
but they've got a system, and they discover they're capable of
surviving without Buffy. Barely. (When Buffy is gone again, in
the gap between S5 and S6, they've already had practice and do
much better.) Willow and Cordelia are working together. Oz is
coolness personified. Xander is "Nighthawk." (Excuse
me--I need a few seconds for a laughing fit...ah, that's better.)
When Buffy eventually returns, it's hardly return of the hero.
She doesn't even feel needed, and when her friends and family
lay out the Major Guilt Trip, she's a moment away from bolting
all over again. This boldly exemplifies the ever-shifting dynamic
between Buffy and her friends, a dyanmic that continues to evolve
in S7.
That's all for now. Boss is looking at me funny.
Happy new year!
[> [> Agree, mostly
-- Tchaikovsky, 15:27:17 12/30/02 Mon
Well, as I said at the time, I don't consider myself particularly
offay with the first Season, although I do now have the DVD, so
one of these days I'll start to understand it. For what it's worth,
I agree entirely that Willow and Xander develop a lot through
Season One, although I don't think that when we are introduced
back to them AFTER 'Prophecy Girl' much has changed over the summer.
Xander and Willow have that hint of attraction going on in the
first scene, and I suppose I could note that down as one of those
niggling tiny emotions exaggerated over the tedious summer for
Xander. But largely we're introduced to the same old people. I
don't think that there's any significant transformation in Giles.
He's horrifically embarassed throughout his scenes with Jenny
Calendar in 'Some Assembly Required', for example.
For Hiatus 2, most of the gang's changes revolve around their
anxiety about Buffy, which I acknowledge, although that's not
really what I would consider personal development. I note that
it is the start of them working as a team, and I entirely agree
that Buffy's reintegration is painful, and not that of a 'Hero',
although it IS heroic in a rather more powerful sense.
So 'Agree on all points'.
Nah, but certainly most of them.
Happy New Year again, and hope everyone has a great Board Anniversary.
Will there be fireworks?
TCH
[> [> [> Seriously,
now: niggling little emotions vs. superhero angst -- cjl,
06:37:25 12/31/02 Tue
TCH, didn't mean to be so flippant. (Should think before I write.)
You worked hard on a solid essay, and deserve a more measured
response. So, as a gesture of goodwill, I'll get out of the way
here, and leave you with one thought: Joss and the ME writing
staff have always used the disparity between Buffy's larger-than-three-lives
crises and the Scoobies' (generally) incremental-to-non-existent
character change during the breaks as grist for the mill. At various
points during the series, the Scoobs (especially Xander) feel
that Buffy doesn't take them seriously, that she's alone on top
of Angst Mountain and their petty problems and tiny "special"
moments are nothing compared to the dramatic life of a Slayer.
And you know what? They have a point. We see the near kiss between
Xander and Willow in WSWB, and it's a significant moment for us
W/X fans. But we're the audience. When Buffy comes back, the Sunnydalers
practically get whiplash pulling away from their personal lives
and throwing themselves into Buffy's. It's all "she was killed
by the Master and she's traumatized!" The new feelings and
reflections prompted by the events of PG and S1 for Giles, Willow
and Xander get pushed into the background. From S2-6, every time
we come back It's All About Buffy; and in TTG/Grave, even though
she's whacked out on magic crack and has a lot more on her mind,
Willow still has enough presence of mind to be damn well sick
of it. In S7, Willow's summertime status is one of the big, angsty
question marks.
I suppose what I'm saying is: compared to Buffy's traumatic life,
the tiny moments of summertime character growth from the Scoobs
don't look like much. But those moments come closer to resembling
the patterns of real life, where the little things usually mean
so much, and are so much more precious. They deserve the same
level of consideration.
[> [> [> [> Good
point -- Tchaikovsky, 10:28:14 12/31/02 Tue
And hope I didn't come across as too narky- I thought your post
title was funny, and agreed with most of the stuff you said.
TCH
Another wacky
speculative theory (Spoilers to date) -- Darby, 11:22:20
12/30/02 Mon
Okay, here's another way things could go...
Battle, fight fight fighty fight, realization that maturity is
more needed than a punch in the chops, and the Evil is accepted
and suppressed.
Denoument. The main Watcher's Council is gone, but there is still
a Slayer, and a few potentials, and maybe a couple of Watchers.
How do they continue?
Well, we're getting a bit of foreshadowing - it'll turn out (this
is total guesswork, as usual) that Robin Woods is a Council agent
and the highest-ranking remainder of the group. It will be up
to him to reconstitute (maybe in a back-up Watcher locale: Buffy
and Robin in New York!), but in a new, more effective form.
So Buffy will go from school counselor to Councillor, with some
input from Giles. This would complete her arc from reluctant Chosen
One, through rebel / outsider, through partner, through central
figure, to authority figure, and how ironic would it be if Buffy
effectively became the Council?
This sets up a new show based upon the old show, but gives a way
to shift SMG to an occasional role. It could involve the training
of a group of young proto-Slayers, or the new Slayer (wouldn't
work too well with Faith), or the old Scoobies with one or more
trainees.
And there could be more road trips...
[> interesting... and what
if.. -- neaux, 11:43:14 12/30/02 Mon
what if the Scoobies become the new Council? They have how many
years of experience now? 1,2 ,3, 4, 5, 6 + years of demons and
ghoulie knowledge under their belt.
Assuming ME doesnt kill anyone else, I think the scooby gang SHOULD
take over the council. If Robin Wood is EbeneezerGood (sorry for
the throwback song reference), I would love to see Robin and Buffy
as supervisory studs of the council of scoobies. Then the slayer
story could continue under Faith or Dawn or the other potential
whoevers.
[> A little more wackiness
(Spoilers to date) -- Arethusa, 14:35:21 12/30/02 Mon
I don't think Wood is CoW; he said something to Buffy about seeing
real evil up close. I think he became principal of Hellmouth High
and became interested in Buffy because either in LA, which is
as we all know overrun with demons and vampires, or in Sunnydale
he saw something that he couldn't or wouldn't turn away from.
The more interesting aspect: how will they continue? I'd like
to see the Scoobies train other demon fighters, either formally
(Hogwarts!) or informally. Any new show, though, would have to
be very different form BtVS to work, either in tone, like AtS,
or in style. ME's done suburban horror and noir-what kind of show
should a sequel or spin-off be?
[> [> Re: A little more
wackiness (Spoilers to date) -- Juliet, 19:47:47 12/30/02
Mon
They've also done western - don't forget that.
[> [> [> Re: A little
more wackiness (Spoilers to date) -- Arethusa, 09:50:21
12/31/02 Tue
Hee. How could I? An existential western, no less, which
is quite appropriate, now that I think of it, since cowboys existed
on the fringes of "civilised" society, and were often
fringe members of society themselves-Black, Mexican, Southern,
or just not city folk. All of ME's heroes are fringe dwellers;
they're not part of the establishment at all. Maybe the question
is: what kind of relationships would ME like to explore with a
new show, and how would Whedon explore his themes of people finding
their place in the world? BtVS showed young people growing up
and finding out who they were, AtS shows adults banding together
(well, sometimes) to create their own family, and Firefly was
about those society left behind, trying to exist in a world not
of their making. I really hope "Ripper" gets made, because
I'd be very interested to see ME's take of middle age and its
ghosts.
[> I'm liking this for the
perp... (Future casting spoiler that everyone already knows)
-- OnM, 20:26:26 12/30/02 Mon
*** So Buffy will go from school counselor to Councillor, with
some input from Giles. This would complete her arc from reluctant
Chosen One, through rebel / outsider, through partner, through
central figure, to authority figure, and how ironic would it be
if Buffy effectively became the Council? ***
As many have probably realized (as I did when reading this), this
action mirrors what happened to ('La Femme') Nikita and Section
One.
Also, it fits with what we've seen foreshadowed in Restless
and Counterpoint. Then, there is the climactic scene of
Lessons. It would be highly ironic if the First Evil, impersonating
Buffy as we saw her in Checkpoint, destroys the Council
and the Watchers only to have Buffy take over Travers' position
as head of the new Council.
Plus, as Darby points out, this ending would meet Joss' previously
stated criteria that the ending of Season 7 is not dependent on
whether SMG returns for an 8th season or not. A role as head of
the 'New Council' could offer either a steady or occasional role
for her to play interms of visibility and involvement.
Now, for the fun part: Guessing how it will end up:
1. The plots thickens. Fighty fight fight etc.
2. Dawn finds she still has her key powers, and envisions a plot
to create a new universe to send the vamps and/or other demons
into. (She opens a portal, and then Willow will do an incredibly
powerful spell that casts the baddies into the new dimension).
But it's obviously very dangerous, and will kill her or at best
return her to her original Key energy state. Buffy objects, and
refuses to allow her to take the risk. ( Buffy won't choose
you, Dawn -- Joyce. )
3. Things get worse. Buffy is about to sacrifice her life (yet
a third time) to save the world and finally close the Hellmouth
when Dawn defies her sister and attempts her new universe/dimension
thing. A giant portal into the new world begins to open, looking
much like the one that Buffy died in at the end of S5.
4. Like the first portal, this one can only be opened or closed
by Dawn's blood. Dawn understands this. Buffy freaks, and now
is faced with the choice of closing the Hellmouth, or hoping that
Dawn's gambit works. She decides to grant Dawn the courage and
dignity to do her thing, and goes on to close the Hellmouth.
5. The new dimension thing works also, but as feared, Dawn's blood
will have to 'stop flowing' to seal the connection between the
worlds. Buffy is about to repeat her sacrifice of S5 when Faith
pushes her aside and jumps intot he energy field and closes it,
which of course works because Dawn's blood is also Faith's
blood.
6. Faith, unfortunately, is dead, but dies gloriously and honorably
and also leaves a pretty corpse. Buffy weeps like Spike did when
Buffy died.
7. Buffy becomes the new Council of Watchers leader. Spike and
Giles and Wood are her 'seconds in command' or whatever. Xander
and Anya get married. Willow gets a new girlfriend. Clem moves
to England. And the new Slayer is called, and she is...
8. Fade to black.
Current board
| More December 2002