December 2004 posts


Previous December 2004  

January 2005

BUFFY Season 7 DVDs -- Roy, 13:19:23 12/28/04 Tue

I've got some questions regarding the DVD box set for BUFFY's Season 7.

1. Why is there a photo of Buffy kissing Angel from "End of Days", with Spike's picture in the background on one side of the box? I don't recall Angel having much of an influence during Season 7, except for delivering the amulet to Buffy in the end.

2. Each disk features a picture of the main cast members except for one. Why does one disk feature a picture of Tony Steward Head, since he was only a recurring cast member that season? And why isn't there a disk with Emma Caufield's picture, since she WAS a regular?

Replies:

[> Re: BUFFY Season 7 DVDs -- Antigone, 16:09:26 12/28/04 Tue

Pure speculation here, but I can only assume it was simply a marketing choice by Fox. Not a very informed or clever one but Angel, Buffy and Giles may be seen as more popular/well-known characters in the overall public ... Anya was technically a "quasi-supportive role" after Selfless (by the writers' own aknowledgment...lots written about that!)
There's always controversy about who gets their picture on the DVDs... But really, at the end of the day it seems to me what matters is the treatment and recognition the characters and actors get from Joss, the team of writers and the fans, not by some advertising exec in their comfortable office at Fox.

[> [> Re: BUFFY Season 7 DVDs -- Ames, 17:10:28 12/28/04 Tue

I'm not sure how they chose which character to feature on each of the DVD covers, but here's an overview image showing all 39 of the discs so you can see the pattern yourself: http://tinyurl.com/3hy5b

[> Re: BUFFY Season 7 DVDs -- Dlgood, 08:35:52 12/29/04 Wed

2. Each disk features a picture of the main cast members except for one. Why does one disk feature a picture of Tony Steward Head, since he was only a recurring cast member that season? And why isn't there a disk with Emma Caufield's picture, since she WAS a regular?

Who knows? They put James Marsters on a disk in the S3 set, even though he was only in one episode. Instead of, for example, ASH, who was in all 22. I don't know that there's any rhyme or reason beyond "This Picture Looks Cool"...

[> [> Re: BUFFY Season 7 DVDs -- Roy, 13:12:47 12/29/04 Wed

"Who knows? They put James Marsters on a disk in the S3 set, even though he was only in one episode. Instead of, for example, ASH, who was in all 22. I don't know that there's any rhyme or reason beyond "This Picture Looks Cool"..."

James Marsters on the Season 3 box cover? Man, that doesn't make any sense! Even though Spike is my favorite character.

[> I dont mind ASH because... -- Giles, 17:11:11 12/29/04 Wed

Because he was one of the most important characters in the series and until S7 he had no box cover.
SMG should stop doing these silly movies and start... -- ghady, 09:37:56 12/29/04 Wed

choosing roles that showcase her talent!!
shes NEVER gonna be taken seriously if she keeps on doing very (imo) mediocre movies like scooby doo.
she has SO much talent, and it's a shame that she's wasting it. i heard a rumor that she's been offered the role of sabrina in the next teenage witch flick, which she should NOT accept!
DRAMA. thats what she should do. the BIG dramatic roles. the *real life* darkness.

dammit!

Replies:

[> "The Grudge" was pretty good. -- Vegeta, 11:26:19 12/29/04 Wed


[> [> Re: "The Grudge" was pretty good. -- Bob, 11:47:48 12/29/04 Wed

Yes, I do agree, "The Grudge" was a hilarious Comedey.

[> [> [> i haven't seen it yet, but -- ghady, 12:05:45 12/29/04 Wed

it's not a respectable role!
it's a silly horror flick, no matter how good it is.
i want her to start taking serious, real-life roles.
just MO.

[> [> [> [> What makes a "real life" role preferable to a horror or comedy role? -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:19:48 12/29/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> Re: What makes a "real life" role preferable to a horror or comedy role? -- ghady, 02:25:43 12/30/04 Thu

this is just MO, but i'm personally more impressed when actors can capture real emotion in real life situations than when given some monster to act scared in front of.
take kate winslet for eg. shes not that much older than sarah, is she? and already shes had an oscar nomination. and from what i can tell from the previews, her perfomance in finding neverland is OUTSTANDING. THATS what earns you respect. THATS what sarah should be doing because OBVIOUSLY she can.

ok ok for eg, which of her performances is more impressive, that in the body or IOHEFY or Him for eg?

and theres nothing wrong with comedy, as long as it's GOOD comedy, and i frankly don't consider Sabrina the Teenage Witch as "good."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Its more about who she's competing with -- manwitch, 04:51:43 12/30/04 Thu

Fantasy is fine. Spielberg, Lucas, and my favorite Terry Gilliam can do fantasy that is well worth the time of any actor or actress. SMG's problem is that she seems to want to remain a leading lady. She is accepting roles based on size and possibly paycheck rather than critically evaluating the project and the role within it.

But she's a TV actress from a show on fringe network. She has a core following, but she's simply not gonna pull in the audience for a major leading serious role in a film. So why cast her? I mean, she'd be up against some serious film stars who are the same type and have proven draw.

If she wants to be a critically successful actress, she needs to be patient and only accept good projects with good people. She needs to work in bit roles, cameos, supporting roles across from major film talent working under major directors. Show her acting chops in a critically successful movie while working with the people that will, if she is good, land her in other successful projects.

She doesn't seem willing to do this by and large. Which is her prerogative. She wants leads. But as long as that's what she wants, she's going to be cast either in horror flicks, which she has a strong association with, or in movies that are going to suck and her name might at least bring in that core audience. She's simply not going to beat out Zellweger or Witherspoon or even Silverstone for a role until she really shows she can deliver a role in a movie. If that's what she wants, she would need to start small and earn some respect, as ghady suggests.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What about Southland Tales? -- shambleau, 11:12:12 12/30/04 Thu

That's a movie about to start production from the director of Donnie Darko. She's a lead in that and if the movie sucks, it'll be from artistic overreaching, not because it's bad in the crap-from-the-beginning sense. Admittedly, the beginning production date for that movie keeps being moved further ahead due to financing problems, so it might not go through, but I think she made a good choice in trying to be involved there.

Also, her last three movies have averaged a gross of close to one hundred and twenty thousand each. Even though she wasn't the focus of those pictures, I read that she will likely be offered more substantial roles in the future because of that success, regardless of their artistic merit. I think we'll see her in some better movies soon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops,! That's 120 million, not thousand. -- shambleau, 12:05:23 12/30/04 Thu


[> How about Wonder Woman? -- genivive, 12:23:55 12/29/04 Wed


[> Re: SMG should stop doing these silly movies and start... -- Roy, 13:10:34 12/29/04 Wed

I think that SMG should do movies that interest her . . . for whatever reasons.

[> [> Re: SMG should stop doing these silly movies and start... -- auroramama, 14:00:08 12/29/04 Wed

Hollywood isn't exactly rife with serious dramatic roles for actresses. The theory is that young males won't pay to watch a female lead unless they know she's going to be bouncing around a bit, preferably with minimal clothing. And that any movie with more than one prominent female character is a chick flick.

[> [> [> And yet... -- manwitch, 04:32:56 12/30/04 Thu

Sigourney Weaver, Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Renee Zelwegger, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Frances McDormand, Natalie Portman and even Meg Ryan can all bring me to the theatre pretty much regardless of what they're doing. Well, Kidman has a tendency to do projects that don't interest me.

But, while they may do the occasional nude scene and while they are all reasonably beautiful, I wouldn't say their draw is predicated on bouncing around in minimal clothing.

Actresses need to play the role, not go into it with a set of rules. The set of rules might be valid for structuring the contract, but actresses should not reject bouncing around in skimpy clothes (aka nude scenes) out of hand any more than they should claim a role solely because they are willing to strip down. They should read the project, evaluate it, and if they accept it as a worthwhile project, play the role without the modesty. There's no need for gratuitous nudity (can't believe I'm saying that!), but not all of that is gratuitous. The important part is the project and the role. The other crap is superfluous. If the role and project suck, why get skimpy for it? If the role and project are spectacular, why be modest?

Gellar's issue is that she has rules about what she will and won't do and that she lacks the education to evaluate scripts. I agree with Roy that she is free to do what she wants to to make her happy. If at the end of her carreer her only part of significance was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I would still say she made one helluva contribution to the culture and the art. But as far as her continuing as an actress, she just doesn't know when she's reading something what's going on in the script. That's certainly the impression I get when I see her stuff or listen to her interviews. Just as Bill Shatner didn't understand why Star Trek was good, I'm not convinced SMG understands why Buffy is good. So she's just taking roles that for whatever reason she wants. She doesn't have the eye for it to make a really critically successful career as a film actress. My ignorant opinion, obviously.

But, like I said, she's already done enough to satisfy me.

[> She was brilliant in "Cruel Intentions," and was also excellent in the indie flick, "Harvard Man." -- Rob, 08:59:31 12/30/04 Thu


[> [> YES! cruel intentions showcased her talents!!! Scooby Doo (BOTH!!!) did NOT. -- ghady, 09:19:44 12/30/04 Thu


[> [> Harvard Man? Really? -- Ames, 21:00:11 12/30/04 Thu

Apart from SMG's steamy sex scenes, what did it have? The plot and the characters were both unconvincing (mob daughter's boss is told that the FBI is watching her, so the first thing she does is call her boyfriend on her own phone and ask if he's told anyone about their illegal activities - groan!). If you haven't seen it, I'd give it a miss.

Cruel Intentions was better as a teen remake of Dangerous Liaisons, but not exactly memorable either - even if SMG and Selma Hyack kissing made the top 50 list of sexiest scenes in the movies.

[> [> [> I agree with both of you -- CW, 05:16:10 12/31/04 Fri

Both movies were dreck. But, SMG's work in both was actually pretty good. Wish I could say the same about what she did in Scooby Doo.

[> [> [> [> I second CW -- shambleau, 13:00:30 12/31/04 Fri

question abt opening credits and cast members' names -- ghady, 16:42:18 12/29/04 Wed

are the cast members' names written in any particular order or is it just arbitrary?
obviously, SMG has to be first, but what about the rest?
it NEVER made sense to me that willow was the last one to be credited (S5,6,7 i think). and whats w/ "and alyson hannigan as willow".. why does SHE get to have that and not the others? what does it mean/?

speaking of, why do the ppl not mention the characters' names in the credits? my theory is that that is one of the simplest ways to get a viewer to watch the show. for eg, the reason i started liking Friends was bcs a LONG time ago, i decided to memorize the characters' names, and only after several viewings did i fully know who was whom..

end of ramble..

Replies:

[> Re: question abt opening credits and cast members' names -- Kana, 02:33:50 12/31/04 Fri

Interestingly Alexis Denisof (Wesley) was the last to be credited on the Angel bill. Now does this have anything to do with the characters respective descent into darkness? There was even a comparison of how dark both of them had become when Willow came onto 'Angel' so that Angelus could be re-ensouled (Wesley never flayed though!!!!!!). Is this a coincidence that the dramatic change in character determined their position in the credits? I doubt it. I could be wrong about this but i think in certain shows they would bill the villain last of all if he was a series regular. Maybe they were trying to set them up to appear like villains.

Just a theory, a flawed one at that.

[> Re: question abt opening credits and cast members' names -- LittleBit, 08:10:35 12/31/04 Fri

It has to do with the contracts. Top billing in the opening credits, of course, goes to the star of the show. The next most prestigious position on the credits is the final "and...as" position. When ASH left BtVS as a series regular, the final position went to AH through contract negotiations.
happy new year -- boke, 05:01:43 12/31/04 Fri

happy new year!!! A friend googled me, and found multiple entries in your archives, some dating 2, even 3 years after the last we saw of each other.... I knew you loved me! Had I known how much I meant to you, I would have come back sooner.....

Replies:

[> Re: happy new year -- dub, 10:32:05 12/31/04 Fri

Yes, we often refer to you fondly as an object lesson to others, lol.

Nice to hear from you. Happy New Year.

dub ;o)

[> Happy new year! -- CW, 12:28:53 12/31/04 Fri


[> [> Happy New Year everyone! -- Jane, 15:48:53 12/31/04 Fri


[> Happy (almost) '05, everybody! -- Rob, 12:37:28 12/31/04 Fri


[> [> happy new year! -- anom, 13:34:26 12/31/04 Fri


[> Happy New Year Everyone! -- fidhle, 14:48:02 12/31/04 Fri


[> Have a wonderful new year!! -- Ann, 16:21:55 12/31/04 Fri


[> Happy New Year to all! -- LittleBit, 16:57:30 12/31/04 Fri


[> Have a good one! -- Pony, 17:27:46 12/31/04 Fri


[> Happy New Year, Everyone! -- Angela, 19:08:59 12/31/04 Fri


[> Happy New Year!!!! -- LadyStarlight, 19:14:24 12/31/04 Fri


[> [> Re: Happy New Year to All -- Brian, 19:24:42 12/31/04 Fri


[> Re:ally, I mean it...past is past, and I... -- boke - actually James, 07:23:32 01/01/05 Sat

sincerely wish all of you, even and espacially those who I may have once upset, a very happy and joyful New Year.

...If you're waiting for the stinger, sorry to disappoint, but I do not have and never had any wish to upset anyone. I sincerely wish we all could have found as much humor in our interaction as I did. Had this been so, we could have all laughed together with much more of the same joy which I , unfortunately, felt alone while laughing alone (and yes, I know that the lone laugher is more often than not simply the only one who finds his own jokes funny...)

Perhaps in a less verbal, less concept-driven context, you would have been rather amused. You may even have felt a bit of the fondness I felt, and feel , for you.

JT

[> Happy New Year, everybody! New Year's wishes.... -- cjl, 10:25:25 01/01/05 Sat

First, and most importantly, to the people of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India: no further loss of life, and a quick recovery from this disaster.

To our troops in Iraq: a happy New Year 2006 at home.

To Joss and Mutant Enemy: a $75 million opening weekend for SERENITY and loud, insistent calls for "sequel" in the halls of Universal studios.

To FOX executives: I wish you the intelligence to look at that $75 million opening weekend, and greenlight both Buffy: Animated and a mega-budget BtVS movie.

To shadowkat: James Marsters starring in his own major motion picture.

To Masq: A successful run for both the Destroyer and Angel S6, without the usual showrunner nervous collapse.

And to all at ATPo: a happy, healthy New Year and a party-licious gathering in July!

Happy New Year, everybody!

[> [> My new year wish: Faith, the series....:) -- SS, 16:06:31 01/01/05 Sat

Hank Summers, bad Dad - not that much of a retcon -- shambleau, 13:57:37 12/31/04 Fri

Since the threads here have slowed down massively, I've started reading the Archives. It's great fun and there's tons of stuff there.

One subject that I've seen brought up several times is Hank Summers. Some poster will say that the Hank of the first two years is incompatible with the later portrait of him. They usually base this analysis on the last minute of Nightmares and the first minute of When She Was Bad, stating that since he's nice in those two scenes and since Buffy had spent the summer with him, he seemed to be an okay guy. But there's enough ambiguity there and in the scene of the parents arguing off-screen while Buffy cries in Becoming (a scene that's never mentioned) to build the darker portrait we see later.

In Nightmare, Joyce has to assure Buffy that Hank will be coming and that he loves her. Buffy also tells Willow that she sees her Dad "sometimes" on the weekend and there's a slightly troubled air about her when talking to Willow about the divorce. Now, certainly, the main focus of the episode is on Buffy's fear being unreasonable. She's blaming herself for the break-up, at least on some level and that's where the focus should be, on dispelling that. But the uneasiness about whether Hank's going to actually come and see her could be because he hasn't come that often anyway. In Help, he blows off not just a weeek-end, but their most important daughter/dad ritual, the Ice Capades.

So, even though Buffy's worry about whether he'd show in Nightmares can easily be dismissed as Buffy looking for any sign of lack of love as a proof that SHE was the cause of the break-up, it doesn't rule out her father has drifted away from her emotionally also. The scene in Becooming is relevant here. We hear his off-screen voice yelling and saying something like he's not going to be made the villain here and that Joyce has to talk to Buffy about the boy she's seeing. Although this is standard stuff in an argument, especially in one between people headed for a divorce, we're seeing a slightly more somber side to Hank here.

Then, in WSWB,there's Hank's admission that he couldn't connect with Buffy at all during the summer. She was distant, he couldn't figure a way to connect, so he bought her massive amounts of shoes. Not his fault, but a reinforcement of the estrangement

At the end of S2, Buffy ran away and was gone for a whole summer. We don't know what reaction Hank had to that, but his distant daughter, who'd been a delinquent at another school, had now run away from home. It's perfectly conceivable that this reinforced the distance between them in his eyes. Certainly, we never saw him again (except in visions and delusions). While I know there were reasons why ME didn't want him to play a prominent role, and that's why they turned him into a neglectful father, they had put in enough ambiguity with him to justify the retcon easily for me.

Replies:

[> Re: Hank Summers, bad Dad - not that much of a retcon -- ladyhelix, 17:11:02 12/31/04 Fri

I don't see incompatibility here. I see apples and oranges.

Hank is a nice guy - who left his wife and kid(s). He removed himself from their lives, and that simple fact changed Buffy s world. This is traumatic for a child of any age. And of course Buffy feels responsible, children always do, even when parents haven t been actively fighting about the child s behavior or problems. That s just how it works. Whether Hank is a "nice/good" guy has NO relevance on the pain that Buffy feels. That s why I believe Hank is so often portrayed as a nice guy . Because it simply doesn t matter. He has a separate life now - and that fact has irreversibly changed Buffy s whole world.

I disagree with your statement Buffy's worry about whether he'd show in Nightmares can easily be dismissed as Buffy looking for any sign of lack of love as a proof that SHE was the cause of the break-up . Buffy is NOT looking for signs of lack of love - she is frantically searching for any scrap of evidence to the contrary. Buffy is trying to find a reason to believe that she DOES matter to him, and the sad truth is that even if she does find evidence, it will probably never be enough to truly convince her.

It is true that in WSWB: Hank said "he couldn't connect with Buffy at all during the summer. She was distant, he couldn't figure a way to connect". However in my opinion this conversation is of NO consequence. . .. and to support this - Joyce says simply in response - 'welcome to my world'. Buffy may be the Slayer.. but she's also a teenager. This disconnect comes with the territory and has no bearing on
* Hank being nice or not,
* Buffy's relationship with him, or
* whether or not his absence from her life is painful.
It's teenager stuff (and in this case probably more her "issues" with the Master killing her).

I must also disagree with your statement The main focus of the episode is on Buffy's fear being unreasonable. She's blaming herself for the break-up, at least on some level and that's where the focus should be, on dispelling that . Buffy's fear is NOT unreasonable - it s very very real, and nothing ME could do in a single episode (or in 7 seasons for that matter) could change how this FEELS to a child. There is nothing to DISPEL - because Buffy has a huge hole in her life, and in her heart. The only way this would be LESS painful for Buffy - was if Hank was dead (which would eliminate his being gone from her life - by HIS CHOICE).

Buffy s pain - and the impact of Hanks absence from her life is significant regardless of whether or not:
* he's nice in those two scenes
* Buffy spent the summer with him, or
* he seemed to be an okay guy.

Apples and Oranges my friend. Nice guys do this all the time - so do nice gals.. Parents may not mean to hurt their children, but that doesn't change the fact that most people (even as adults) never fully get over parents splitting up, or blaming themselves in some way for it. Hank has a separate life now - and that fact has irreversibly changed Buffy s life, like it or not. And Buffy will probably never stop doubting, feeling like she was somehow responsible, or looking for re-assurance.

That s the whole point, and the nicer Hank is - the more crystal clear ME's presentation of this point becomes.

[> [> Re: Hank Summers, bad Dad - not that much of a retcon -- bob, 11:33:10 01/02/05 Sun

ME rarely writes stories like "apples and Oranges" or "Black and White". Both posts were good explanations, but I tend to go with the first one. I'm not saying Hank WAS a bad guy, he just didn't have enough screen time to get a better picture of him. Nothing is ever just apples and oranges, not even in the Buffyverse.

As for the "seperate life" statement, that would imply that he doesn't care for Buffy anymore. In the show, Blood had a lot of signifigance to most things, whether it be the explanation Spike gave about blood when Xander said, "Why does it always have to be Blood?" in the end of season 5, or Buffys Speech with Dawn about Blood ties. Hank is apart of Buffy, and Buffy is apart of Hank, he can't just make a seperate life and forget about his blood kin.

[> [> [> Whoa - feel free to state your position.... -- Ladyhelix, 20:40:06 01/03/05 Mon

Whoa - feel free to state your position, but please don t distort what I have said, OK? Perhaps I wasn t clear, since it appears you misunderstood. Please allow me to clarify:

* Apples and Oranges does NOT mean black & white it means that they were separate issues, separate variables (i.e. a much more complicated situation than black & white, or any points on a single continuum).

* Hank had a separate life, in a separate city, hundreds of miles away - that is a FACT. But I by NO means implied or suggested that Hank did not CARE for Buffy. I believe he cared for her very much - probably right trough Season 7. But Hank was not where Buffy was when she needed him. The breakup changed her life, and his absence left a HUGE hole in her support structure. That does not mean he didn't care - he just wasn't available for her for the day to day stuff - which is VERY important when you're a 16-19 year old girl.

* Hank was a significant (plot) catalyst for one of the series primary themes: chosen families (or non-biological families). Hank s exit and the changes that forced resulted in Buffy s biological family not being THERE for her - and provided the opportunity for the bonds between these un-related characters to become 'familial'. None of the parents were ever meant to even appear on the show initially, but Joss fell in love with K.S.

* The blood connection between Buffy and Hank was extremely significant. It was the fact that Hank WAS Buffy's immediate family that caused his leaving to be as devastating as it was to her. And if you're interested in Whedons take on families, you might check out S4's FAMILY, and S7's Buffy/Holden scenes in CONVERSASTIONA with DEAD PEOPLE, both of which were written by Joss.

Thanks!

[> [> [> I do agree with the original post.... -- Ladyhelix, 21:04:35 01/03/05 Mon

I agree with this original post from the standpoint that ME did take more time with Hank and his relationship with Buffy in the first few seasons. But I am inclined to believe that was intentional.

When a parent leaves a child and goes "elsewhere" at some point (usually around the time the child starts college) the child becomes exasperated/exhausted from trying to figure out who's to blame and what happened, and they simply just cut their losses. They STOP worrying and they resolve it within themselves as "IT JUST SUCKS". Nothing more needs to be explored or explained. (But don't take my word for it - ask your friends who were in these types of situations - and see what they say).

If you find this to be true among your friends (as it is among mine), then in that sense, ME was very true to what a child Buffy's age MIGHT be feeling about the situation - at different points in her life (in different seasons). Because beyond a certain point - they simply can't bear wasting any more time & energy on it; it sucked - let's move on.

And, since we are meant to experience the "Buffy-verse" through Buffy's eyes, not our own - this would explain the difference in both the agony and explanation of the early years, and the terse shorthand of the later years.

Just one possible explanation - for what it's worth!
Slayer Strength -- Sebastian, 14:33:33 12/31/04 Fri

Hi folks.

Have only posted on here sporadically in the past few years. Hope everyone has a restful NY 2005.

Since the airing of 'Chosen' - I have a question that has been bothering me for awhile. My apologies if it's been asked before.

But do all the Slayers start with the same strength level - or is Slayer strength also augmented by size/pre-activation physical strength/practice (working out, etc.)?

It's been inferred in several Buffy episodes that Buffy's strength has increased due to practice, exercise, and her diligence in patrolling/training.

And as we know, once a Slayer is activated - increased strength is part of the heritage they come into. We also know that mental/psychological fortitude also plays a role (Faith was never one for practice/training, but it was shown that she is a formidable Slayer almost to Buffy's level).

But for those girls/young women who were a part of the simul-activation - did they all start @ the same strength levels? Or does it vary from Slayer to Slayer based upon circumstances?

Thoughts?

Replies:

[> Re: Slayer Strength -- Wizard, 16:36:21 12/31/04 Fri

Good question.

It's difficult to say whether or not pre-activation physicality is involved in Slayer strength. Look at all the Slayers we've met. There hasn't been much difference in size or build in them. Slayer strength could be done by a baseline or by a factor, but we simply don't know enough about them to judge.

One thing we could do is look at the vampires. Some vampires are stronger than others, but in all of those cases, we are dealing with old(er) vampires. However, even this can be inconsistent. Take Harmony, for example: in Season Four, she catfought Xander to a draw. In Season Five, she was capable of smacking Spike around.

[> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:42:54 12/31/04 Fri

Harmony was only able to tussle around with Spike for a while after shooting him with a crossbow from behind, though. I wouldn't say she "smacked Spike around".

[> [> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- Sebastian, 00:39:53 01/01/05 Sat

True. Harmony did nail Spike with a crossbow before getting some licks in - but its not like he was grievously injured. He took worse licks fighting both the Chinese Slayer and Nikki Wood and was still able to kill them both.

However, Harmony did seem a little more adept @ hand to hand combat in that instance. And it has been implied (most clearly in "Lessons", that most vampires tend to naturally develop fighting skills as time goes by).

I guess the second part of my question is this: What if a Potential was already @ a heightened skill level before she was activated?

For example, a Potential that trained @ Track & Field and was really good @ it; post Activation would she run *that* much faster? Etc, yadda....

Sorry for the questions. To be honest I've wondered about this since the beginning of "Two to Go" when Buffy had to tear off @ top speed to stop Willow. I had always wondered if a newly activated Slayer who was good @ running would run that much faster.....

I know I'm a geek - I can't help it. It s a 'thing'. ;-)

[> Its the Superman/Supergirl scale -- Ray, 08:12:33 01/01/05 Sat

The difference between Superman and Supergirl's strength is the same difference between a grown man and teenaged girl.
So I think with Slayers its the same. It depends on how often they keep in shape.

[> Re: Slayer Strength -- Dlgood, 19:42:51 01/01/05 Sat

As far as I can tell, there's no real measurable benchmark for slayer ability, though slayers are generally shown as stronger than most vampires.

Otherwise, though, a Slayer's strength seems to have varied based upon the demand of the plot of any one particular episode. I don't think there's really a metric.

Presumably, diet and exercise could improve strength, but that power is clearly mystical in origin rather than physical. Buffy's bone structure, for example, cannot support the various feats she performs. I don't think the laws of science can really be applied in any particular way.

[> Re: Slayer Strength -- skeeve, 08:42:24 01/03/05 Mon

Presumably differences due to skill would allow some Slayers to run faster than others.
Whether there would be differences due to the physical effects is another issue.

Some might remember my idea of why Buffy felt strong after her first resurrection.
Buffy was a Slayer. She had Slayer power to make her strong.
Kendra was a Slayer. She has Slayer power to make her strong.
Kendra wasn't using her Slayer power at the moment, so Buffy had access to Kendra's power as well as her own.

About the time Willow said "That was nifty", a lot of former potentials should have been feeling really good.
Of course the ones in Sunnydale wouldn't be feeling as good as the ones blissfully unaware of the goings-on in Sunnydale.

[> [> It's as valid as any -- Wizard, 16:35:27 01/03/05 Mon

We never do find out why Buffy felt strong after Xander revived her. I wouldn't call Xander's CPR a resurrection, though. It was entirely natural. Her second revival was definitely a resurrection, but I don't think that the first was.

As for how the other Potentials felt, esp. the ones outside Sunnydale: as we saw, most of them were initially very freaked out by what they felt, but some of them soon got over it, and were very pleased. The little girl at bat, for example. As for Willow's feeling of niftyness, that was from the amount of pure magic that she channeled- sort of a 'positive image' of the high that Rack's dark magic gave her.

[> [> [> Re: It's as valid as any -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:09:17 01/03/05 Mon

Also, for all we know, that's the feeling all Slayers get when they're called. "Chosen" was the first time we actually get to see Slayers at the moment they recieve their powers. Kendra and Faith were both called off screen, and, while we saw Buffy being approached by the Watchers for the first time, but we never saw before that when she actually became a Slayer. As such there's no frame for comparison.

[> [> [> [> Buffy is the Strongest -- Can I Be Anne?, 12:06:50 01/07/05 Fri


I have always felt that Buffy was the strongest Slayer in history. Not that I have any proof, its just that she had "family and friends" that brought her increased strength, and not just physical strength either. The fact that she was surrounded by people who loved her played a huge part in her uniqueness as The Chosen One.

I also felt that in Prophecy Girl, Buffy did become stronger after her "death". For two reasons, one being that prior to that moment in the episode, she had fully embraced her "slayerness", by willingly going to fight the Master, whereas, before that, she was very uncomfortable with her calling - so she was definitely mentally stronger, but I also feel after this first resurrection, she did come back physically stronger, as well. No other Slayer, that we know of, ever died and was brought back to life. I think it was specifically implied in that eppy that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was meant to have been stronger after that. I also feel the same about her coming back from the dead the second time, and after she shared her power with the Potentials in Chosen. She actually rises up after being dealt a sure mortal blow! I think if Joss ever decides to give us some more Buffy in the future, we may see a almost indestructible Buffy! As I said, this is just my interpretation!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy is the Strongest -- Roy, 12:03:56 01/08/05 Sat

I don't know if I agree with that theory. I suspect that all Slayers have the same basic strength that comes with their power. To determine who is stronger, one would have to see which Slayer was stronger before being called.

[> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- Vickie, 09:35:02 01/04/05 Tue

Some might remember my idea of why Buffy felt strong after her first resurrection.
Buffy was a Slayer. She had Slayer power to make her strong.
Kendra was a Slayer. She has Slayer power to make her strong.
Kendra wasn't using her Slayer power at the moment, so Buffy had access to Kendra's power as well as her own.

Wouldn't that mean that there is a specific amount of slayer power available? One slayer==all the power. 2 slayers == 1/2 the power each.

All the potentials as slayers == teeny tiny fraction of the power each?

I don't think it works this way. Thematically, it really doesn't work, since empowering the potentials is not shown as dis-empowering Buffy.

[> [> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- skeeve, 08:31:04 01/05/05 Wed

Wouldn't that mean that there is a specific amount of slayer power available? One slayer==all the power. 2 slayers == 1/2 the power each.

No.
The point was that there wasn't necessarily a bounded amount of Slayer power.
They would all get about the same amount.
Power not being used by its Slayer would be available to other Slayers.
If there are a few thousand Slayers and only one is exercising,
Xander would need more than a padded suit.

[> [> [> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- Vickie, 09:24:41 01/05/05 Wed

So you see slayer power something like a computer connection pool? There's a certain amount of power and all it available to be used. If there's one slayer, she can use it all. If there's a second slayer, we get PowN added to the pool, but whoever grabs it first can use it.

Interesting.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- skeeve, 07:57:28 01/06/05 Thu

Something like that, though I wasn't thinking in terms of preemption.
Should she try to use it, she would succeed,
a Slayer's power would always come back to her.
Remember the "Two Slayers, no waiting" line?
With preemption, only one Slayer at a time would have Slayer power available.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Slayer Strength -- Ann, 06:04:24 01/08/05 Sat

If we see the slayer power as a metaphor for the power within each of us, waiting for us to use it, for us to choose ourselves, then all that Joss writes fits. The potentials and others made the choice to join Buffy in the last battle, therefore they received what they already had by birthright both as slayer and as human. Joss didn't write it that any of them were diminished by the other's choice to join. "That" power is unlimited for those that choose it. We all have potential within us, we just need to make that most difficult choice.

[> Not according to the RPG or my research -- Majin Gojira, 06:01:02 01/04/05 Tue

Sure, the bonus to strength for being a slayer is the same, but the stats can vary. I'm still in the midst of the Quantified Buffy Project, and I must say that Kendra never displayed acts that match Buffy or Faith in later seasons, The best she has is kicking Angel into th cage (about 15ft distance change for the Broody one before the wall stops him).

Buffy's done some amazing stuff, but I can't get into it now...to big to post here (currently).

And I still need to do season's 6 and 7 of Buffy and 2-5 of Angel.

[> [> Re: Not according to the RPG or my research -- Rich, 06:37:09 01/04/05 Tue

I think part of the difference may be "in later seasons". It seemed to me that Buffy got significantly stronger over time, & the same could have happened to Faith. Kendra was killed about a year after being called, before her full strength had developed.

[> [> [> Also it's important to remember Kendra only had a few appearances -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:02:43 01/04/05 Tue

She was only in "What's My Line? I & II" and "Becoming I". With only three episodes to her credit (and only being a big focus in one of them), it's entirely possible that Kendra was capable of just as many impressive feats, but never got the opportunity to show them off.

[> [> [> Sadly, no, actually -- Majin Gojira, 07:13:07 01/06/05 Thu

Once I finish the "Quantified Buffy Project", I'll share more information...because right now, I don't have the time to go through and post it all here...sorry.

Current board | January 2005