February 2003 posts
Do you do Shanshu? (question for Angel viewers) -- dream, 11:17:03 02/14/03 Fri
Would one of you be so kind as to put together a prophecy primer for the exclusively Buffy-watching members of the board? I have gathered that there is a prophecy about a vampire with a soul, that this was traditionally assumed to be Angel, but now might be Spike (instead?aswell?), and that the reward for his fighting on the side of good is humanity? I remained unspoiled, but love to speculate (wrongly, generally) and I do understand that there is a possibility that this prophecy could be relevant to Buffy this year. Anyone up for filling in the details?
And while I'm asking questions, what the heck did Giles call Spike in the last episode? It sounded something like "you berk?" Some sort of Britishism, I guess.
[>
Re: Do you do Shanshu? (question for Angel viewers) Spoilers for Angel's destiny. -- Arethusa, 11:52:07 02/14/03 Fri
(Very quickly because I'm supposed to be working.)
In To Shanshu in LA, Angel was drawn to the Azerbijan Scroll while raiding a safe at W&H. He took the scroll and gave it to Wes to translate.
Wesley: "Ah, the vampire with a soul, once he fulfills his destiny, will Shanshu. Become human. - It's his reward."
Wesley: "Well, it's saying that it won't happen tomorrow or the next day. He has to survive the coming darkness, the apocalyptic battles, a few plagues, and some - uh, several, - not that many - fiends that will be unleashed."
How do we know Angel is this vampire, and not Spike or someone else? Lorne, the Oracles (the official voice of TPTB, now deceased) the Vegas mojo, and I think a few other supernatural creatures identified Angel as someone with a very important destiny, who will help save the world from ending. There is no direct evidence, either for or against, that Angel is the one in the prophecy, just hearsay and Angel's mysterious attraction to the scroll.
There is another prophecy about Connor killing Sahjhan, but it isn't connected to the shanshu.
quotes by psyche
[> [>
Re: Do you do Shanshu? (question for Angel viewers) Spoilers for Angel's destiny. -- Peggin, 12:44:38 02/14/03 Fri
There have been other references to the prophecy which have indicated that it was unclear which side of the apocalypse the vampire with a soul is going to be fighting on. It could be that the reason for this is that there is going to be one fighting on each side of the battle.
I have a theory on this, which I hope won't offend anyone's religious beliefs.
My theory on this is that, when you've got a war going on, each side is usually at least partially in the wrong. An apocalypse, by definition, is a battle to end the world. Even if you assume that TPTB in the Buffyverse are strictly aligned with the God of the Bible, well, stuff like the Great Flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah might have been the work of "good", but I still think that they were completely wrong and evil events. I agree 100% with Buffy's sentiment that you don't fight evil by doing evil.
Now we have a Beast on Angel, one that seems to be primarily focused on wiping out "evildoers" (so far, all the patrons of a "temple of the flesh" and all the employees of W&H). How do we know he's working for the Forces of Darkness? Just because he's killing lots of people? Again, I point you to Sodom & Gomorrah.
This is a war, and both sides are trying to "win" a war of mutual annihilation. Both sides need to be stopped. So, one of the two souled vampires might be destined to help stop the "Forces of Evil" from destroying the earth, and the other might be destined to help stop the "Forces of Good" from doing the same. I am *not* saying that whichever vampire is fighting against the side of "Good" is in any way evil or in the wrong -- I'm saying that the so-called "Good" guys may not be all that good after all.
It's all about maintaining the balance. Both sides must be stopped. It doesn't matter if one of the sides is wearing jerseys with the "Good" team name on them, they're still just as dangerous to mankind as the "Evil" team is.
[> [> [>
Not quite how the Apocalypse works, at least in my view -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:58:58 02/14/03 Fri
For one thing, in most theologies (and this seems to be true in the Buffyverse as well), Evil is the aggressor. They're the ones who first try to destroy the world, and Good must try to stop them.
Second, while the phrase "end of the world" is used a lot, it's not technically correct. The more appropriate phrase is "the end of the world as we know it". After all, if the Hellmouth was opened and ancient demons took over the earth, subsequently killing all non-demon life, the actual, physical world would still exist, but in a supremely different form. Likewise, if the forces of Evil were banished or destroyed, the world would still actually exist, but its state of being would be radically changed.
Now, I do agree that wars, especially Apocalyptic wars, often cause a lot of destruction, and as such seeing a war between Good and Evil as undesirable is perfectly understandable. However, the Evil side of the Apocalypse doesn't care about the destruction caused, and thus will continue to attack, whether the Good side fights against it or just tries to maintain status quo. And if someone's trying to kill you, but you're unwilling to kill them, the attacker has a distinct advantage.
[> [> [> [>
Read the Book of Revelation -- Peggin, 14:21:04 02/14/03 Fri
It is the angels of God who bring on the Apocalypse. In fact, that's what got me started thinking along these lines. In particular, read Revelation, chapter 8. The first blow in the Apocalypse is struck by the angels of God, and it is done by blowing a trumpet and causing fire to rain down upon the earth:
(8:6) "And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them." (8:7) "The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up." (emphasis mine)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Read the Book of Revelation -- Angela, 16:51:56 02/14/03 Fri
Peggin do you have any thoughts about any further correlations between Revelations and what we're seeing now? It's in my mind because we're told that the Beast has a Boss? And I know that this is similar to the Beast as described there.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Read the Book of Revelation -- Peggin, 17:13:29 02/14/03 Fri
I hadn't really thought about it much beyond the fact that the rain of fire was right out of Revelations, which made me start wondering if this might be the work of the "Forces of Good". I'd have to go back and read Revelations before I could say if I see any other specific relationships to what's happening on the show. If I come up with anything, I'll post about it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Here is the thing, though: -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:26:15 02/14/03 Fri
A central edict of the Buffyverse is that killing people is evil. Even if they're murderers, it still isn't quite kosher to kill them in anything except self-defense. Not to mention indirectly causing the deaths of many innocents by giving vampires free reign of LA. As such, if the forces for Good are behind the Beast, they aren't actually the forces for Good, since they are doing something profoundly evil. God gets away with it in the Bible because he is looked to as the standard for morality. Anything he does is automatically good. However, there has been no sign on Buffy or Angel that the PTB or any other entities get to determine right and wrong (plus, while Joss may explore predominantly Christian themes, he is an Atheist, and a higher power's ability to govern the standards of morality is something he is likely to disagree with). Thus, if a force for Good does something evil like setting the Beast loose upon LA, it is no longer a force for Good.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Here is the thing, though: -- Angela, 17:54:30 02/14/03 Fri
I definitely think there's a link here between Joss's references on both these shows and where he's going this year. But don't forget (as if you could) he has a long history of subverting our expectations. And although we've had seven years (there's a biblical #) to get to know him the reverse applies also. Marti's recent interview comes to mind now.
Peggin: please don't do any reading on my account. I think the Beast was drawn from there at least in part not so much because of the costume which is fairly general but the sword/head reference which wasn't. I was just curious. It very likely won't matter from here on out; but thanks for the offer. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Here is the thing, though: -- Peggin, 04:22:49 02/15/03 Sat
As such, if the forces for Good are behind the Beast, they aren't actually the forces for Good, since they are doing something profoundly evil. God gets away with it in the Bible because he is looked to as the standard for morality. Anything he does is automatically good.
Yes, and? That was kind of my point. Go back and reread my first post in this thread. In particular, the part where I said, "Both sides need to be stopped" and "I am *not* saying that whichever vampire is fighting against the side of "Good" is in any way evil or in the wrong -- I'm saying that the so-called "Good" guys may not be all that good after all."
TPTB get to call anything they do "good" because they are fighting against an opposing army that has labeled itself "evil", but what do those terms really mean? I look at the Great Flood or Sodom & Gomorrah, and, if these events actually happened, I consider them two of the most truly horrifically *evil* events that have ever taken place. I don't care who was behind it. If the slaughter of all the first born babies of all the families in Egypt was a "good" act, then I have no idea what that term means.
TPTB are defined as "good", and therefore everything they do is "good" by definition. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept those definitions. And, considering Joss Whedon's fairly well known opinion about the "sky bully" (his term), I can see him telling a story where the so-called "Forces for Good" aren't all that good after all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
OK, when I first read your post. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:54:02 02/15/03 Sat
I didn't quite gather your thing about "the Forces for Good not being so good". To me, it sounded like you were still acknowledging them as Forces for Good while still speaking against them. It was my bad. Didn't quite understand what you were saying, though on a second read through it now seems kinda "duh" obvious.
As for the stuff you mentioned in the Bible, the traditional argument is that either a) everyone that God killed in those situations was hopelessly sinful, and thus deserved the death penalty, or b) killing them helped change future events which would otherwise be far worse. I don't by into those, but that's how they're commonly viewed.
But here's what I gotta wonder: if the PTB are behind the Beast and the destruction of many human lives, what is their ultimate goal? Sure, destroy the forces for evil, but why? I mean, can the Senior Partners or anyone like them actually hurt the Powers That Be? If they're not fighting to help people, what is their motivation?
P.S. While the Beast has only killed evil people (except for Manny and the Svea Priestess and kin, but those might be viewed as "ends justify the means"), he blotted out the sun, allowing vampires and demons to wreak random havoc in LA, killing good and wicked alike. I have a hard time seeing anyone who's anti-evil thinking this was a good idea (unless the plan is to suddenly let the sun shine again, thus killing a lot of vampires in one blow).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Ultimate Goal -- Rhys, 10:18:51 02/15/03 Sat
"But here's what I gotta wonder: if the PTB are behind the Beast and the destruction of many human lives, what is their ultimate goal?"
My guess is that the Powers That Be and the Home Office of Wolfram and Hart are just opposite sides in a cosmic chess match. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a pawn (and sometimes a more important piece) to get the upper hand on your opponent, but the point, for both sides, is WINNING THE GAME. That the pawns and other pieces are alive and able to act for or against the side that they were originally slated to be on only makes the game more interesting for both sides.
As for what will happen when the game is finally over, that's hard to say. I have a mental image of worlds ending and millions of people dying in hopeless agony, souls going every which way...and then the Powers That Be saying politely to the Home Office, "Great game! That was fun. Shall we make it best two out of three?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That's exactly what I was going for... -- Peggin, 10:45:30 02/15/03 Sat
IMO, TPTB aren't there to help mankind. They're there to win the game, and they don't care who gets stepped on along the way.
It's kind of like the Vorlons and the Shadows from Babylon 5, only with even higher stakes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
But what do they get if they win the game? What's in it for them? -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:14:19 02/15/03 Sat
The assumption before was that the PTB want to help people, and the Senior Partners want to destroy them. However, if you remove virtue and evil for their own sake, then both must have some self-interest in winning. But what do they stand to gain?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Where did you get that from? -- Peggin, 11:50:03 02/15/03 Sat
I haven't seen any indication that W&H are all about destroying people. A lot of their clients and all of their lawyers are people. IMO, they are more about trying to convince people that they should only care about themselves, and screw anyone who gets in their way. They aren't about destruction, they are about complete and utter selfishness as the preferred way people can live their lives.
I also haven't seen any indication that TPTB are all about saving lives. They were the ones who came up with the idea that it was okay to take a never ending stream of teenage girls and turn them into warriors destined to die young without giving them any choice in the matter. The Knights of Byzantium were 100% convinced that they were right. They were on the side of Good, and they were willing to do anything it took to prevent Evil from winning, even if it meant killing an innocent 14 year old girl and all of her friends.
IMO, TPTB only care about the interests of the collective, with no concern for how many individuals have to die in order to make the world the way they want it to be. They aren't about protecting anything -- in fact, I might even say that W&H has more concern for the lives of the individuals than TPTB do, because TPTB are the ones who have been shown to be perfectly willing to sacrifice one of their own people when it suits their needs to do so, whereas W&H seems to kill only the people who get in their way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, for starters. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:03:08 02/15/03 Sat
There's the fact that the PTB send visions of people in danger to the AI gang, thus allowing them to save the lives of said people.
Second, there has been no direct evidence that the PTB are behind Slayers being chosen. And, even if they were, all they do is give the girl the powers; they can't actually force her to fight vampires. If a Slayer refused to use her powers to fight vampires and demons, she wouldn't face any of the consequences you mentioned.
Third, the Powers That Be have been the sponsors behind Angel for several years now, and have sent various messages urging him to do his mission of "help the helpless". From what I've read on Masq's site, it seems as though Angel fell out of favor with the PTB when he went on his noir trip during Season 2, but came back into their good graces when he had his epiphany, which was very specifically about doing good rather than fighting evil.
Fourth, all the Wolfram & Hart clients we've seen have either been murderers, or at the very least have been engaged in very unethical practices against other people. This seems much like a case of using humanity to destroy humanity.
Fifth, W&H kidnapped large numbers of people and harvested their organs and other body parts, while still keeping them alive for later harvesting. These people weren't getting in Wolfram & Hart's way; they were killed purely out of selfish motivation.
Sixth, W&H has said time and again that they are planning an apocalypse (which, in the Buffyverse lexicon, refers to the attempted destruction of all human life on earth). This is very much "trying to destroy people".
I'm not saying the PTB couldn't be behind the Beast. I do think it is a possibility they have no regard for human life at all, and that Wolfram & Hart might not really be into the destroying humanity thing. However, ME would need to do some serious work explaining previous actions of the two sides so that they would fit this new paradigm.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Mmmm -- KdS, 11:58:39 02/15/03 Sat
In Revelation (singular) the Beast is accompanied by the False Prophet.
Who could that be?
;->
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL -- Angela, 12:35:34 02/15/03 Sat
[> [>
The Irony of To Shanshu in La and other views (Spoilers on the episode) -- shadowkat, 14:29:51 02/14/03 Fri
When I watch To Shanshu in LA I was struck by the complete irony of the episode. At the start of the episode, Angel is attempting to figure out what W&H are up and why he's so important and steals this scroll that another demon wants.
The demon blows up AI's headquarters to grab the scroll when he does so...he critically injures Wes. The demon also kills the oracles and incapacitates Cordelia with horrible visions. Finally getting the scroll - which Wes, who we all know is not the best translator in the world - transcribes as meaning Angel, or the "vampire with a soul" (never says the person by name or how many or limits it but Wes is also a bit of a literalist) will become human someday - but has to first give up what he wants to get there, plus fight all sorts of battles - a la Hercules. Cordy comments that there's one huge dilemma: Angel doesn't want anything but to be human. So there's a nifty Catch-22. To become human he has to give up wanting to be human yet when he became human way back in I Will Always Remember You he gave it up because he couldn't be the hero and was told Buffy may die.
At any rate - we discover towards the end of this episode that the demon is using the Scroll to bring forth something in a box. What? We don't find out until the very last scene. And it is voila Darla - a human Darla with a soul and all her memories of being a vampire intact. That's right Darla was the one to die as a vampire (killed by Angel way back in Angel S1), and become resurrected as a human. Just as it is Darla two years later - turned into a vampire who redeems herself somewhat by killing herself to save her son. (Lullaby)
I've always found the prophecy and what happens incredibly ironic. I don't believe Angel will ever become human - I don't think it's what he really wants - as we see in Awakenings. Nor do I think it's part of his destiny. I think it was a mislead and shown for purposes of irony.
If Angel became human? I think he'd be miserable for the same reasons he's miserable in I Will Always Remember You.
The irony of To Shanshu in LA and the arc that follows is Darla is miserable being human. It's once again thrusting the carrot in front of Angel's face and watching him run after it only to discover it's not what he wants.
In short? I've never taken the prophecy seriously. I've always considered it ME's big joke. Their way of making fun of prophecies. Just like they make fun of "the father will the son" prophecy for Wes. In keeping with the joke context? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they shanshued Spike - he makes this huge sacrifice, thinks he will die, that he's given up all chance to be with anyone, that he's the martyr, yadda yadda yadda and whammo - he's not dead, he's become human. So much for that idea. What you thought you could be Buffy? Pleease! LOL! Meanwhile Angel is annoyed.
[> [> [>
Re: The Irony of To Shanshu in La and other views (Spoilers on the episode) -- Angela, 16:59:18 02/14/03 Fri
What do you think will come to pass this season for Angel? (I am going to assume for the purpose of the question that he does come back before season end and that he/the gang do find a way to defeat the Big Bad.)
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Irony of To Shanshu in La and other views (Spoilers on the episode) -- s'kat, 18:55:35 02/14/03 Fri
Considering how I was completely off on my spec for Calvary? I'm not sure I'm a good judge.
My guess? He defeats the Big Bad and continues to do what he's done since the story began. No major changes. Can't see him shanshuing, just because I think that would sort of
counter the whole Epiphany episode. Besides I don't think he wants that any more. Outside of that, no clue.
[> [> [> [> [>
If Angel doesn't want to Shansu -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:49:37 02/14/03 Fri
Then it's likely he will. After all, since whenever have things gone Angel's way? As soon as he very firmly doesn't want to shanshu, that's when ME is most likely to do it to him.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes, I can see that. -- Arethusa, 19:53:49 02/14/03 Fri
He could reach the point where he is surrounded by happy family members and successfully fighting evil, then shanshu and lose all his vampire strength, lol.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: If Angel doesn't want to Shansu -- lunasea, 12:54:22 02/15/03 Sat
Then it's likely he will. After all, since whenever have things gone Angel's way? As soon as he very firmly doesn't want to shanshu, that's when ME is most likely to do it to him.
Actually, when he neither craves it or has an aversion towards it, he will get it.
Shanshu has two parts to it. The first is him becoming human, with all the attendant emotions. That is what the show is about. He will physically become human when his mental state already is.
The other part is the death of his demon. That seems to be what ME is working on this season.
S1 brought back Darla. S2 Darla was the reason Angel had his epiphany and he really started becoming human. S3 Darla gave him Connor, allowing him to experience being a father and being even more human. This season is dealing with the vampire that Darla created, not so much in vamping Liam, but with her words at the end of The Prodigal.
Evil Cordy keeps referring to Angelus and Angel as separate creatures. She keeps fostering this view. Possibly good Cordy didn't see them as separate and couldn't handle what she saw. Angel needs to understand where Angelus comes from and his role in creating him, that they really aren't separate. Then he won't need to kill the demon in him. He will just deal with things and not feed him.
That is when Angel will Shanshu. Even before we got a major apocalypse going on, way back at the beginning of the season when it was known that Angelus would be back, I thought that he might Shanshu this season. Why else bring back Angelus except to make Angel deal with his demon and be able to truly understand and thus transcend him. In Pylea he proved stronger than the demon. Now he can go beyond that.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Irony of Shushan and other things -- Angela, 11:12:37 02/15/03 Sat
Well...people who were spoiled were off their spec for Calvary so....
Sorry didn't mean to put you on the spot just curious if anyone had changed their POV after the most recent ep and it's goin' to be a lonnnng couple of weeks. Me, I think Angel's going to lose the curse at some point. I think things will change for him...I think that's why Connor; Conner ties him to the world, he's started to want things (this goes back to Wesley's remarks about Angel to Cordelia and what it meant to be Angel, that changed and I think it changed everything)...I don't know any better than any one else SK. Nor do spoiled folks at this point. So it's still fun. ;-)
PS Hope you find something you like soon, jobwise. I'm still in the hated one. Overtime today and tomorrow and...well we'll just stop there shall we? But I have my fingers crossed that you find not just something but something really really good.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thoughts on Angel's curse (spoilers for BtVS ep. "The Killer in Me") -- Peggin, 12:15:30 02/15/03 Sat
Me, I think Angel's going to lose the curse at some point.
For the last couple of weeks, I've had this idea in the back of my head that maybe Angel's curse works the same way as the hex that Amy put on Willow. Maybe it only works as long as the person in question believes they deserve that punishment. Maybe Angel's curse didn't kick in specifically because he was happy, but because he felt guilty about being happy. The thing that makes me think this is that, after Epiphany, Angel seemed to completely integrate the two sides of his personality. Standing in the sunshine in Pylea, or in some of the scenes with his infant son in season 3, Angel seemed to be just about as perfectly happy as any person could ever be. Maybe Epiphany made him start to believe that he was allowed to be happy, so the curse had no hold over him, but losing his son made him think that if something that horrible could happen to him, then he must not deserve to be happy.
Willow's hex only worked as long as Willow herself believed she deserved to be punished. Her mind chose the form of her punishment -- something like, "What right do I have to be happy now that Tara is gone? I might as well be the one who killed her" and *poof* she became Tara's killer.
What if it works the same for Angel -- something like, "After everything I've done, what right do I have to be happy? Only someone evil could be happy while so many others are suffering" and *poof* he becomes evil.
It could be really cool if the only way Angel could end the curse is if he stopped punishing himself for things he cannot change.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thoughts on Angel's curse (spoilers for BtVS ep. "The Killer in Me") -- Angela, 17:00:50 02/15/03 Sat
"Maybe Angel's curse didn't kick in specifically because he was happy, but because he felt guilty about being happy."
Yeah, I know. There's that old RC flavor coming out. Seriously, I've had thoughts like that too but I think that's because life experience aside I'd like to purchase a piece of the self-determination myth. With Angel, as with us, the journey is impelled by the self. In that sense, he is a primary focus of the curse, in large part defined by it and has an investment in it's maintenance, in the sense that it protects him from risking perfect happiness. His great fear: all that he touches turns to dust.
On a different front, without a ret-con (always possible history being of the great fluidness) the Gypsy curse was a vengeance curse. To me this differentiates from a justice type of curse which would better lend itself to the scenario you've suggested, a very attractive one. If it's consistent it would have to be earned and I suspect there would then be a type of divine/magickal intervention plus/minus The Jossian Catch. It would all depend where we are in the timeline, and here it's the pragmatist speaking, happy ending occurring only at The End. The pit in my stomach always occurs at this point, as I remember Joss's supposed thoughts about a potential end for Buffy with all sucked into the Hellmouth. One of the joys (and I really do enjoy these series) of watching with bated breath as it all unfolds before us.
I tend to view things spiralistically, both AtS and RL, that we revisit touch base with those issues that are at the heart of things. Thus we have Angel's integration as not a linear end but more of a level change opening the door again to desire for family for love something related but uplevel from his realization about shanshu.
But it's such a busy static-filled arc. Connor is taken from him. His brother/friend betrays him. Connor returns and throws him a fisher king curve. He dreams of hopes that turn to dust in his hands. He returns and tells us that being a (insert dreaded C word here) means doing good without reward. Was this the 'gift' that the hero brings back? Exiles the prince. He then has his heart restarted and contrariwise gives up Cordy to a better place. Naturally she then returns with a caveat, several as it turns out. She leaves him for the protection of his son. She returns to remind him of his alter-darkness. A nice distracting better Beast arrives. But wait, it's connected to the family plus, bonus, a different type of family love ensues. Who can focus on the nice Apocalypse now? And wait! It's among you. It's You! And we don't need you silly; we need the smarter Angelus now. Out of the closet please that thing you're hiding. Sorry, I got off track; but there's such a lot going on here. Yum. And that's just with Angel. Lots of other factors in the mix too.
So the curse will I think eventually go but it won't be simple. And I don't know if it will be now. I think Angel will quite have his hands full when he returns (and I feel sure that he will, that Angelus is just a catalyst) the thing is will he draw the gyre back in? And where will he be then? Lunasea mentions elsewhere about what he might have cleanup from his shadow self. I'd be more worried what would happen if his alterego is more successful than him. He's certainly more successful with the audience and hey, no curse issues. That would be another blow. I do agree with what someone else said about the "C" word also.
I think I disagree on the Hex. I suspect only a Saint would have nothing to affect. Willow had a lot more than nothing so it was a nifty if somewhat odd (Amy's motivation) curse. Three's the magic number again, so we should see this become a factor again before season's end.
" It could be really cool if the only way Angel could end the curse is if he stopped punishing himself for things he cannot change."
I'm wondering after your post if he's not going to have to choose to really "live" this year. Not just go through the motions. See the shadows in himself and family and accept them, perhaps even draw on the strength of them. Really become a champion. And choose to live and love again.
[> [>
Re: Do you do Shanshu? (question for Angel viewers) Spoilers for Angel's destiny. -- Tess, 18:56:12 02/14/03 Fri
""Wesley: "Well, it's saying that it won't happen tomorrow or the next day. He has to survive the coming darkness, the apocalyptic battles, a few plagues, and some - uh, several, - not that many - fiends that will be unleashed." ""
Hmmm, the coming darkness could refer to what is happening now, and the apocalyptic battles could be what we're headed for.
The other prophecy I remember hearing about was the Tro-Clan (not sure about the spelling). That had to do with Holtz rising and Conner's birth, and I'm not sure what else. Does anyone know if all the events of that prophecy have been realized?
[> [> [>
Going back through season 3 eps... -- Masq, 22:03:40 02/14/03 Fri
I was amazed to hear a lot of off-hand comments made by characters about the Nyazian prophecies. They refer to the "coming darkness", and other things that resonate with season 4 events.
The Tro-clon was a whole confluence of events that would lead to the ruination of mankind. I think we're watching those events play out right now.
Holtz coming to the 21st century and Connor's birth were part of the prophecies, but they are not necessarily part of the chain of events that leads to disaster. Connor's birth and his subsequent years in Quortoth put him in a position to be a major player in the apocalypse just like daddy, but it is unclear right now if that's for good or ill.
[> [> [>
Re: Do you do Shanshu? I do I do...and you? -- Angela, 11:19:50 02/15/03 Sat
This is going to sound really weird Tess...but I thought it had a flip side like EITHER the salvation/redemption of mankind OR the destruction...but, maybe that was just my ever active RBtL (reading between the lines.)
[> [> [> [>
No, you've got it right... -- Peggin, 11:56:41 02/15/03 Sat
From psyche's transcript for Offspring:
Wes: "It's not clear on that. It predicts the arrival or arising of the Tro-clan, the person or being that brings about the ruination of mankind."
Gunn: "So it's a two for one. Isn't that nice."
Wes: "And I'm not sure on the translation. Ruination may in fact mean purification."
Gunn: "Purification? So this Tro-clan is a good thing?"
Wes: "I doubt that. But it's purification in Aramaic, ruination in ancient Greek and in the lost Ga-shundi language it means both."
Actually, now that I think of it, this ties back into my theory that The Beast may be working for TPTB. Just like Sodom & Gomorrah, it could be about both destroying all of the "evildoers" (however TPTB define that word), and about "purifying" mankind by removing all the people TPTB consider undesirable.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: No, you've got it right...and yet wrong... -- Angela, 12:45:27 02/15/03 Sat
Exactly...purified as in dead. That figures. Course Angel's already dead. And Buffy's died twice. So I'm feeling encouraged again. Thanks for the quotes! Ga-shundi huh? wonder what it means in proto-Bantu ;-)
[>
Berk: English for "idiot" -- KdS, 12:05:52 02/14/03 Fri
[>
Berk - rhyming slang -- Caroline, 12:16:38 02/14/03 Fri
The origin is Berkeley hunt = c*nt. From the Oxford English Dictionary.
[> [>
Thanks, everyone -- dream, 12:32:55 02/14/03 Fri
[> [>
Eeep -- KdS, 12:41:21 02/14/03 Fri
That sounds convincing about the etymology, but it's many, many times milder than c*nt!
[> [> [>
Re: Eeep -- Caroline, 14:39:59 02/14/03 Fri
I thought so too - imagine my surprise to find c*nt in the OED!
[>
Make sure this gets in the archives -- lunasea, 15:36:15 02/14/03 Fri
The prophecy in question actually has a name. It is called the Prophecy (or Scroll) of Aberjian. There is more in it than just that the vampire with a soul will Shanshu.
First what Shanshu means, per "To Shanshu in LA"
Wesley: "Shanshu has roots in so many different languages. The most ancient source is the Proto-Bantu and they consider life and death the same thing, part of a cycle, only a thing that's not alive never dies. It's- it's saying - that you get to live until you die. - It's saying - it's saying you become human."
Cordy: "That's the prophecy?"
Wesley: "Ah, the vampire with a soul, once he fulfills his destiny, will Shanshu. Become human. - It's his reward."
Cordy: "Wow. Angel, human."
Angel: "That'd be nice."
Cordy: "Wait. What's that thing about him having to fulfill his destiny first?"
Wesley: "Well, it's saying that it won't happen tomorrow or the next day. He has to survive the coming darkness, the apocalyptic battles, a few plagues, and some - uh, several, - not that many - fiends that will be unleashed."
The prophecy first appears in "Blind Date." Angel breaks into the vaults at WR&H to steal some documents and is drawn to it.
Wesley: "Angel, what's this?"
Angel: "I'm not sure."
Wesley pulls a roll of parchment out of the tube and unrolls it part way.
Wesley: "Ancient Aramaic, if I'm not mistaken."
Cordy puts a disk into the zip drive.
Angel: "Yeah?"
Wesley: "Was there a reason you took this?"
Angel: "Yeah."
Wesley: "And that would be..."
Angel: "I - I don't really know."
Wesley: "Well - I'll get to work translating them."
At the end of the episode, Wesley again talks to Angel about the scroll.
Angel picks up the parchment: "You know what it is?"
Wesley: "If I'm right, the Prophecies of Aberjian - for centuries thought lost. I translated some of the text. As I said, it mentions the children you saved today. - But that's not all. I - I also believe I know why you were drawn to it. - There is an entire passage - about you. - It doesn't call you by name - but it tells of a vampire with a soul. - This doesn't surprise you?"
Angel: "No."
Wesley: "But you said you didn't know what it was."
Angel: "I didn't, but - "
Wesley: "Somehow you did?"
Angel: "Yeah."
Wesley: "There is a design, Angel. Hidden in the chaos as it may be, but - it's there - and you have your place in it."
The parchment also mentions the blind children that Angel saves in the episode.
Wesley: "They have an important role to play. (Lays the parchment on the desk and sits down) I believe this is how Wolfram and Hart knew of their coming."
That is one thing that appears in the prophecy. Next we have to go to the next episode "To Shanshu in LA."
We find out some other stuff about the prophecy. Vocah is rather vocal about how it ties to Angel.
Cut to Wolfram and Hart.
Vocah: "You lost the scroll of Aberjian?"
Holland: "The scroll was stolen from our vault."
Vocah: "The raising can not be performed without the scroll."
Lilah: "We understand."
Lindsey steps forward: "It was my mistake. I'll rectify it."
Vocah: "You will do nothing. I will retrieve the scroll myself. Who stole it?"
Holland: "Angel."
Vocah: "Angel! I am summoned for the raising - the very thing that was to bring this creature down to us -tear him from the Powers That Be - and he - has the scroll."
Lilah: "We're not unaware of the irony."
Vocah: "He is in the possession of the scroll. His connection to the Powers That Be is complete."
Lilah: "He hasn't had time to make a full study of the text."
Vocah: "No, and he won't. All avenues to the Powers shall be cut off from him and the scroll returned to us."
Lindsey: "What can we do to help?"
Vocah: "You can leave it to me."
Vocah and the two monks leave the room.
Holland: "Well - end of discussion?"
The raising is the raising of Darla. The scroll is needed for that.
It is also needed for something else, to cure Cordy when Vocah curses her. (what happens to her is like what happens to Buffy in "Earshot" but even bigger)
Angel: "My friend who gets the visions..."
Woman: "Is in trouble. It's his mark, the one who did this."
Angel: "Who? Who did this?"
Woman: "Vocah. Warrior of the underworld. He wants you weak. So he opened her mind to all the ones who cry out in pain and need. She doesn't have long either."
Angel: "How can I stop it?"
Woman: "The sacred scroll of Aberjian is now in Vocah's possession. The scroll is what you need."
Angel as she fades: "Wait."
Woman: "Find the scroll. The words of Anatole, only they can remove the mark and save your friend."
Angel: "Tell me where to find him. I'll repay him for what he did here."
Woman: "He is here for the raising."
Angel: "The raising?"
Woman: "Like so many of them he hides behind man's law. Stop him."
She fades.
Angel: "I will."
Angel grabs the scythe and leaves.
This scroll is the only one that mentions a vampire with a soul becoming human. All other talk is just about being a major player in the apocalypse.
The scroll is clearly about Angel. Spike could become human, but not off of the Prophecy of Aberjian. Not everything is written down.
I guess Darla just got lost. She was really brought back to torment Spike. After he screwed up getting the curse lifted, she hasn't been too thrilled with him. The prophecy is clearly about Angel, not Spike. It is much more than Shanshuing.
Angel will actually get beyond wanting anything one day. He will kill the demon in him and will Shanshu. They are setting it up this season. Whether they go through it is another thing. At least by the end of this season, Angel won't need to be a Champion any more.
[> [>
Re: Make sure this gets in the archives -- Peggin, 16:47:05 02/14/03 Fri
The scroll is clearly about Angel. Spike could become human, but not off of the Prophecy of Aberjian.
You're making an awful lot of leaps of logic here. I'm not saying that you are wrong, because your interpretation of things could be the way things play out. But you could also be 100% wrong without contradicting anything we already know.
The scroll may be partially about Angel. But, as you yourself went to great lengths to point out in your post, the scroll is also about a lot of other things. You pull out all sorts of evidence to support your argument that it's about Angel, then completely disregard your own evidence when you suggest that it's impossible that Spike may be one of the things that are spoken of in the scroll.
I agree that the scroll mentions both the blind children and the vampire with the soul, but they never said that it was going to be the vampire of the prophecy that rescued the children.
The scroll is how W&H knew of the children coming, and it was also how they knew about the vampire with a soul. But all the W&H lawyers knew about the prophecy is that it's about "the vampire with a soul". It does not mention Angel by name. It's entirely possible that they made a leap of logic -- "hey, the scroll mentions a vampire with a soul, we know a vampire with a soul, he's the one." But, that doesn't prove that the vampire in question was Angel.
The raising of Darla -- again, nothing we know about the scroll mentions Darla by name. It could have been a generic raising ritual that W&H customized to raise Darla because of their assumption that Angel was the vampire of the prophecy.
The words of Anatole -- again, they needed the scroll to remove the mark, but Cordelia was specifically chosen to receive that mark because of her connection to Angel.
Angel's compulsion to take the scroll -- maybe the reason Angel was drawn to the scroll was because of his family connection with Spike. Wesley's translation was shaky at best -- last year, he was suggesting that maybe he had read it wrong and the birth of Connor might be Angel's Shanshu, and it might not have been about Angel himself becoming human. The prophecy mentions a vampire with a soul, but because Wesley wasn't clear on what it meant, we can't be sure whether the prophecy might have been about more than one vampire. Maybe the scroll isn't about any vampire in particular, but more of a promise to *any* vampire with a soul who does all of the things laid out in the prophecy.
Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong. You could be right about everything. I just don't think it's a good idea to get yourself all invested in any particular outcome. Joss is at the helm, and he loves to screw with out minds. There is an awful lot of ambiguity in the little we know about what was contained in the prophecy. If you get too invested in needing the story to play out any particular way, rather than just hoping for a good story, you may very well wind up being disappointed. Me, I won't be disappointed, because I don't care *how* it ends, I just want a good story, and Joss hasn't failed me yet in giving me one. (He may have failed others, but not me. I have *loved* about 95% of what he's given us, and haven't outright hated any of it.)
[> [> [>
Re: Make sure this gets in the archives -- imp, 16:56:56 02/14/03 Fri
I feel the same way. I have enjoyed just about everything from ME.
BTW, I've very much liked a number of your recent posts. I was wondering if you had read the one I've got towards the top of the board--unless it has already been archived! I would appreciate your thoughts on it.
[> [> [>
Re: Make sure this gets in the archives -- lunasea, 10:47:01 02/15/03 Sat
But, as you yourself went to great lengths to point out in your post, the scroll is also about a lot of other things.
EVERYTHING that relates to Angel still. It is basically HIS story. I am just waiting for the kids to come back. Their roll isn't done yet.
Angel Shanshuing fits *his* story. He is the one who wants to become human (DB even says so). In IWRY he wasn't ready for it. They even set that up with In The Dark. The arc of S1 is defining what Angel's redemption and path to it are. I love how it ended with Darla, who so far has been the most important figure to that on AtS, both the reason for his epiphany (S2) and his son(s3). This season he will have to deal with the vampire she created by her words at the end of The Prodigal.
Angel has been learning what it means to be human and battling his demon. When has Spike been working on this? When has Spike been working on anything? I am not sure what symbol Spike will get for his redemption, but being human doesn't fit.
Why do people want Spike to have Angel's reward? Because it is the only way he can be with Buffy? Don't really think the PTB care about that. Actually, I know the PTB don't care about that. The PTB have been screwing with Angel for more than 8 years. I would think they would know whom they are referring to. The way the Oracles talked to him in IWRY, even before this prophecy was aired, says that this is part of Angel's destiny.
If they give Spike this reward they might as well vamp Buffy at the end of the season. Nice way to say f-you to their two heroes.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Make sure this gets in the archives -- Peggin, 11:33:25 02/15/03 Sat
Angel has been learning what it means to be human and battling his demon. When has Spike been working on this? When has Spike been working on anything?
You mean besides trying to be good (but failing, because he was doing it for the wrong reasons), even before he got a soul? You mean besides looking at himself, at a time when he was still evil, and realizing that he was a monster and that that was no longer the person he wanted to be? You mean besides risking his existence to get a soul so he'd have a chance to become a better man? You mean besides living in the human world and helping people just because he can without any expectation of a reward? To me, someone who helps just because he wants to help is every bit as deserving of a reward as someone who is helping because TPTB told him he had some kind of grand destiny.
I am not saying this to detract from Angel. I *love* Angel. But I think you are going to great lengths to paint Angel as somehow "better" than Spike, to an extent that I think is ridiculous. A year ago, two years ago, before Spike got his soul, Angel was the better man. But that's not true anymore. If you compare Angel six months after he got his soul to Spike six months after he got his soul, I'd say Spike comes across as the better man by a long shot. But that's not what matters. What matters is who Angel is *now* and who Spike is *now*.
There's a story in one of the Gospels about a man who paid all of his workers the same amount at the end of the day, regardless of whether they had showed up first thing in the morning, at lunchtime, or late in the afternoon. This is really about the reward people receive at the end of their lives, and how if you turn your life around at the end of the day and dedicate your life to being a good person, you are entitled to the same reward as someone who was always good. I know Joss is an atheist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything he believes is the exact opposite of what is written in the Bible, and it could very well be that this is what he is going for. So what if Angel has had a soul for 100 years and Spike has only had a soul for one year? Right now, they both have souls, they are both doing good things, and it could very well be Joss's opinion that they are both entitled to the same reward.
I'm not saying I want Angel to never Shanshu -- I'm just saying that it is one way that Joss could realistically take the story. Joss loves tragedies, and either one of these shows could end up with a tragic ending. That's why I'm saying that, if you get too invested in wanting any particular outcome, you may very well end up extremely disappointed. Those of us who just want a cool story won't be disappointed. Some of my favorite stories are tragedies, and if Joss does it well, I would not be upset with a tragic ending for either series.
If they give Spike this reward they might as well vamp Buffy at the end of the season. Nice way to say f-you to their two heroes.
You know, I could absolutely see this as one way the series might end. Every single one of Buffy's worst fears the first season episode Nightmares has come true, except for becoming a vampire. Her father has abandoned her, the Master did kill her, and she has been buried alive. The only thing left is becoming a vampire. And I don't think this would necessarily be a bad ending for the show, if it is done well. And I don't think it's saying "f-you" to anyone. You are so invested in wanting happy endings for these characters that you seem to forget that they are just characters. Buffy getting turned into a vampire means nothing to me, because Buffy doesn't exist. If they make her a vampire and tell a good story around it, I will eat it up with a spoon. If they give her a happy ending, but make it completely unbelievable and contrived I'll be disgusted (for example, if Buffy ends up with Angel, I want a story building up to it, not five minutes tacked on at the end of the finale where he shows up out of thin air and they walk off together). I don't want a "happy ending", I want a good story regardless of whether that leads to a happy ending or a tragic ending.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Make sure this gets in the archives -- lunasea, 12:32:09 02/15/03 Sat
You mean besides trying to be good (but failing, because he was doing it for the wrong reasons), even before he got a soul? You mean besides looking at himself, at a time when he was still evil, and realizing that he was a monster and that that was no longer the person he wanted to be? You mean besides risking his existence to get a soul so he'd have a chance to become a better man? You mean besides living in the human world and helping people just because he can without any expectation of a reward? To me, someone who helps just because he wants to help is every bit as deserving of a reward as someone who is helping because TPTB told him he had some kind of grand destiny.
But none of that is about being human. Being good isn't what being human is about. That isn't remotely what AtS has been about. It is about learning to feel and care and what that means. It is fun to watch the cycle Angel has gone through. At the beginning he spends most of his time brooding in the dark, shutting himself off from the people he helps. The entire premise of the series is that his redemption lies in not doing this. He was back to doing this before he had to loose his soul.
People look at IWRY and say that Angel doesn't want to be human. He wasn't ready for it then because he didn't know what it meant. He only saw it in terms of being able to be with Buffy and not being able to be a superhero any more. Angel will get his reward when he no longer needs it. It will be a physical change that symbolizes his internal one. It completely fits his story.
Spike's story isn't about being human, but a man. A man can be any creature, even a vampire. He has been doing everything that others want him to. He is love's bitch. His path lies in doing what *he* wants and not to prove himself to anyone. Getting the soul is just to make him into Buffy's image of a man (why does any man do what he does, for the girl). He needs to find his own image and be that because that is who he is. Like I said, I don't know how they will symbolize this, but I don't think being human symbolizes this.
I am not saying this to detract from Angel. I *love* Angel. But I think you are going to great lengths to paint Angel as somehow "better" than Spike, to an extent that I think is ridiculous. A year ago, two years ago, before Spike got his soul, Angel was the better man. But that's not true anymore. If you compare Angel six months after he got his soul to Spike six months after he got his soul, I'd say Spike comes across as the better man by a long shot. But that's not what matters. What matters is who Angel is *now* and who Spike is *now*.
It isn't about who is better or comparing them. It is they have different stories. Spike is not a mini-Angel. Actually, at this point, Spike doesn't even have a personality. Angel's story fits Shanshu. Spike's doesn't.
We really can't compare them because 6 months after his soul, Angel had no one and no role model. Spike has Buffy and has seen Angel go through this. They are different stories.
I know Joss is an atheist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything he believes is the exact opposite of what is written in the Bible, and it could very well be that this is what he is going for. So what if Angel has had a soul for 100 years and Spike has only had a soul for one year? Right now, they both have souls, they are both doing good things, and it could very well be Joss's opinion that they are both entitled to the same reward.
Per the Oracles: "The Powers-That-Be? Did you save humanity? Avert the Apocalypse?"
Who do you think will save humanity and avert the apocalypse this time as Buffy goes out in a blaze of glory? Buffy or Spike? If AtS is going out, he will probably figure pretty heavily into it with Buffy. The reward comes from the PTB if you save humanity and avert the apocalypse. I think it comes because what it takes to save humanity will be that internal change (and who better than the First to be the Bad for this) that the external one symbolizes.
I'm just saying that it is one way that Joss could realistically take the story.
Then please explain the symbolism of Spike Shanshuing. Angel wasn't ready for it in IWRY and it has taken him years to learn what he has so that he "might" be ready for it. Who says he will get it this season? He may even have more to learn.
Spike wasn't ready for it last year. We are on episode 14, which means in 8 episodes you are saying that Spike will learn something that will change his mind about being human. Spike right now is pretty much a non-character. He is moving beyond Buffy. What reason would he have for wanting to be human, other than to be with her?
8 episodes on a show that isn't devoted to him isn't enough for a real story to be set up. We still have to get back to Buffy getting back to her nature and what the First wants. How much screen time does Spike have to develop a good story that would culminate this way? Spike isn't the lead. Angel and Buffy are.
And I don't think this would necessarily be a bad ending for the show, if it is done well. And I don't think it's saying "f-you" to anyone. You are so invested in wanting happy endings for these characters that you seem to forget that they are just characters.
There isn't a bigger crap ending they could come up with. It has nothing to do with a happy ending (and thank you for repeatedly telling me what I am invested in). If anything, I see a bitter sweet ending, where Angel and Buffy get together temporarily only for her to be called up to the higher realms because it is too dangerous for her to be left in this dimension.
This season Joss has to somehow symbolize enlightenment, formlessness, 7th Chakra, whatever you want to call it. Vamping Buffy doesn't do that. Buffy is about the extraordinary finding her way in this world. To vamp her says what?
I look for more than ME than entertainment. Their stories are mythic. Vamp Buffy trounces all over that myth. So does Spike shanshuing.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Wow, do I disagree with every single word of your post. -- Peggin, 13:38:48 02/15/03 Sat
I want to start out by saying that I am not saying that I think Spike will Shanshu. I'm not even saying that I want it to happen. I'm saying I have no idea what Joss intends to do with the characters -- any of them -- and that there are a lot of possibilities, none of which are inconsistent with what we already know.
Being good isn't what being human is about. That isn't remotely what AtS has been about. It is about learning to feel and care and what that means.
Being good is a major part of what being human is about. Learning to feel and care about others is part of it, but Spike started doing those things before he even got his soul.
Actually, at this point, Spike doesn't even have a personality.
Actually, at this point, Spike has more personality than he has ever had at any time in the series.
Who do you think will save humanity and avert the apocalypse this time as Buffy goes out in a blaze of glory? Buffy or Spike?
How about both, working together, along with the rest of the gang, and possibly some or all of the characters from AtS as well? Spike has already helped Buffy save humanity and avert the apocalypse several times (Becoming, Part II, Doomed, The Gift). Just because Buffy is the general does not make Spike's contribution worthless.
Then please explain the symbolism of Spike Shanshuing.
The exact same as Angel's.
Spike right now is pretty much a non-character.
He's every bit as much of a character as every other person on that show, except for Buffy herself.
He is moving beyond Buffy. What reason would he have for wanting to be human, other than to be with her?
What reason would he have to not want it? Maybe he's never mentioned it because he doesn't know it's possible. I don't remember Angel talking about it before he knew it was a possibility.
Or, maybe it's not a "reward". Maybe it's a punishment. Darla certainly seemed to think so when she was first brought back as human. I could see this actually applying to Angel -- he wants to be a "Champion", so much so that he once gave up the chance to be human and have a life with Buffy. He seemed to think that his remaining a vampire would prevent Buffy's death, but I don't know where he got that idea. The Oracles never said anything like that, and, well, Buffy died. So much for saving her life. What if Shanshu is a punishment for hubris -- for believing that you are so important that the world can't go on without you? The punishment part would be in having to live in a world that continues on without him as the Champion.
(And, again, I'm not saying that this is what I want. If I was writing it, it's certainly not the way I would write things. I would almost certainly write a happy ending. I'm saying that. based on everything we've seen so far, this is one possible way I could see the story going, and that I might actually enjoy it if they go this way and tell a good story doing it. If you had asked me prior to Surprise & Innocence how I would feel about a story where Buffy and Angel make love and Angel goes evil as a result, I would have told you that I couldn't imagine a story that would have sucked more. I could not have been more wrong. If you had told me that Buffy was going to die to save the world, I would have hated that idea, but The Gift turned out to be my all time favorite episode of any television show ever. And it wasn't just these two times; Joss has made me love things I thought I would hate quite a few times. So, I stopped trying to think about what I might or might not like, because every time I think I would hate something, I've been wrong.)
If anything, I see a bitter sweet ending, where Angel and Buffy get together temporarily only for her to be called up to the higher realms because it is too dangerous for her to be left in this dimension.
I suppose that is one way it could go, but I highly doubt it. In fact, if ME has another of their characters go the "higher being" route, I will be extremely disappointed. I thought it was kind of on the lame side when it happened to Cordelia, and I expect my reaction will be ten times worse if they do it again with Buffy (I say "I expect", because I can't be sure -- as I said, I'm always willing to allow for the possibility that Joss may take a story I think I'll hate and do something amazing with it).
Buffy had always held on to the idea that she wants a normal life, and I think part of her journey might be giving that up. Realizing that, while that life may be everything she always thought she wanted, she doesn't really want it after all. That what she wants is to help people and to totally devote herself to a life of service. She could become a vampire with a soul, and spend the rest of time helping to protect humanity. Maybe she and Angel could be two vampires with souls, doing this together forever. It's probably not the way I would write it, but it is certainly within the realm of possibilities.
I look for more than ME than entertainment. Their stories are mythic.
This I'll agree with.
Vamp Buffy trounces all over that myth. So does Spike shanshuing.
Could not disagree more. It all depends on how the story is told.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Wow, do I disagree with every single word of your post. -- lunasea, 15:21:17 02/15/03 Sat
Being good is a major part of what being human is about. Learning to feel and care about others is part of it, but Spike started doing those things before he even got his soul.
I like the spin ME put on Pinocchio. In To Shanshu in LA, Cordy even calls Angel Pinocchio. To become human, Pinocchio needed to "Prove yourself brave, truthful and unselfish and someday you will be a real boy!" As usual, ME focused on the emotions of the story, rather than the being good part. It wasn't being good that made Pinocchio real. It was genuinely carrying about Geppetto. Pinocchio saved Geppetto because he loved him.
Our humanity lies in our ability to love each other. We have to be good when this happens, but it is a side effect, not the cause. It is Buffy in a nutshell. Angel is getting there. When he is there, he will become human.
Angel's heart made him save a tiny baby in China from Darla and wouldn't allow him to do whatever it took to get her back. It made him want to protect and warm Buffy's heart. It made him open a portal to bring back his son. He does have Buffy's heart. He just has to open it more. He is in the same boat Buffy is, he shies away from love because of how intense and painful it is.
The most amazing thing about Angel is how incredibly guilty he feels. He has done some horrific things, but he could very easily blame that on the demon. He feels so horrible because he cares so much. Buffy recognized that and that is why she fell in love with him in Angel. In his conflict, his heart is revealed. They see their own hearts mirrored in each other. No other characters can see these two like they do.
But what about Spike? What is his story? Spike's "love" is based on his interpretation of a dream at the end of Out of My Mind. Spuffy flows from that dream. Does he care about Buffy? He cannot. He cannot see her. "You always treated me like a man." When? When she was saying he was beneath her? Love not only is blind in his case, but it rewrites things.
Spike doesn't need to learn how to feel or to care. He needs to learn what love is. He needs to learn how to be his own man. He got his soul for Buffy. Big deal. He needs to do these things for himself. He needs to learn that love doesn't want bitches and he doesn't have to be one.
Big difference from Angel.
Actually, at this point, Spike has more personality than he has ever had at any time in the series.
Stake me. I should leave. Lot of personality there. Where is the wit? Where is anything that makes him remotely worth watching? When Spike shippers are calling for him to be dusted (and I know several that are), he is severely lacking in personality. I don't want him to be dusted. I want him to go evil again. I want him to see Buffy and Angel together after she gives him the "I love you, but we can't be together because you are a vampire speech" and flip out. Then the First can pull his strings for whatever It is saving him for.
He's every bit as much of a character as every other person on that show, except for Buffy herself.
He's in the same boat as Anya. Neither really know themselves. They are selfless. Until they have faces, how can the gods forgive them (CS Lewis' "Till We Have Faces," not sure if it has be discussed here. It has a lot of relevance to Spike)
The exact same as Angel's.
Angel's symbolized earlier by his heart beating would make his outside match his heart that was now open and beating. It would show that he was feeling and not cutting himself off from humanity. It isn't just about redemption, but what that redemption entails.
What reason would he have to not want it? Maybe he's never mentioned it because he doesn't know it's possible.
Because Spike thinks it has drawbacks. He thinks he already had all the stuff worth having as a human when he was a soulless vampire. What benefits would he think he would obtain by being human?
Or, maybe it's not a "reward". Maybe it's a punishment.
Angel won't get it until it would be a reward.
. I could see this actually applying to Angel -- he wants to be a "Champion"
The way the seasons work--Angel has craving (this season it is that champion crap), he fails at attaining it, he rises above not wanting it, he gets it fulfilled in another way. By the end of this season, Angel won't have to be a champion. He will actually be one. Maybe even a hero instead.
What if Shanshu is a punishment for hubris -- for believing that you are so important that the world can't go on without you? The punishment part would be in having to live in a world that continues on without him as the Champion.
The PTB rarely intervene. I have seen nothing to say that they would do this for this reason. They let him turn back time because he is not a lower being. He didn't start calling himself a Champion. Everyone else did, especially things that know things.
If you had asked me prior to Surprise & Innocence how I would feel about a story where Buffy and Angel make love and Angel goes evil as a result, I would have told you that I couldn't imagine a story that would have sucked more. I could not have been more wrong. If you had told me that Buffy was going to die to save the world, I would have hated that idea, but The Gift turned out to be my all time favorite episode of any television show ever. And it wasn't just these two times; Joss has made me love things I thought I would hate quite a few times. So, I stopped trying to think about what I might or might not like, because every time I think I would hate something, I've been wrong.
Not me :-) They don't pull these things out of thin air. There are plenty of augeries in the show that foretell where they are going. That is why it is so fun to watch episodes multiple times. The season premier really does contain the complete arc in it, with the last thing being a misdirect. They have followed that pattern for 6 seasons on BtVS and so far it looks like they are continuing. AtS is a bit more open.
In fact, if ME has another of their characters go the "higher being" route,
but you assume that St. Cordy is up there still. If she gets kicked out and Buffy sticks, what does that say about what it takes?
I thought it was kind of on the lame side when it happened to Cordelia,
It was beyond lame, if that is what happened. We haven't found out exactly what is going on yet. We saw Cordy bitching up there and Angel saw her as belonging. We will have to see what they do with that. Typically what I find lame or wrong is really what is so right when it is revealed.
Buffy had always held on to the idea that she wants a normal life, and I think part of her journey might be giving that up.
What better way to do that then getting back together with Angel? They aren't together so she can have a normal life. If she realizes that being with him is more important to her than normalcy, what can keep them apart?
Same thing with him. He wants above all else for her to have a normal life. What if he realizes what is really important and normalcy isn't it? The Mohra Demon said "Together you were powerful. Alone, you are dead." Lines tend to have multiple meanings. Alone they are somewhat dead, inside. They are each the brightest fires they are shying away from.
Make the statement that they get together, and then in classic ME undercutting, rip them apart yet again.
That what she wants is to help people and to totally devote herself to a life of service.
Already realized it. It is in the Prayer of St. Francis at the end of Grave. She realized what you said in The Gift. She came back and had no idea how to do it. Everywhere she looked she saw people in need. She went numb to avoid the pain. In Grave she learned how to turn that pain into strength, the message of the Spirit Guide in Intervention.
We will have to have something more than that this season.
She could become a vampire with a soul, and spend the rest of time helping to protect humanity. Maybe she and Angel could be two vampires with souls, doing this together forever. It's probably not the way I would write it, but it is certainly within the realm of possibilities.
Not really a good symbol for enlightenment or the world of formlessness. Just like Angel needs to transcend his need to be a champion, Buffy needs to learn that there are more ways to help besides slaying.
This season is the FIRST season premier where Buffy didn't reassert her identity as Slayer. Why do you think that is? Isn't that departure significant?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
To Shanshu in L.A. or Sunnydale? -- Valheru, 16:28:52 02/15/03 Sat
To quote shadowkat, "Spike does not negate Angel and Angel does not negate Spike." Upon their long journeys, both vampires have stopped at some of the same landmarks, but they are taking different routes. Comparing them to find out who is "better" or who is on the "purest" journey is subjective and gives no hints as to the possibility of Shanshu.
Liam of Galway was a jerk. He was sired by Darla and turned into an even worse jerk. After 150 years of mayhem, the Romany force a soul upon Angelus as a curse. Over the next 100 years, Angel collapses under the weight of his grief. He is saved by Whistler, who takes him to the Slayer. Angel meets Buffy, who shows him the worth in helping people and the power of love. Angel moves to Los Angeles, where Cordelia, Doyle, Wesley, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne show him friendship and how to live in the world. Darla then gives him a son, Connor, who shows him the importance of family.
William of London was a kind, trouble-less man scorned by those around him and rejected in love. He was sired by Drusilla and turned into an evil, trouble-making thrill-seeker with a twisted passion for romance. After 100 years of mayhem and Slayer-killing, he helps the Slayer in order to keep Drusilla. In the process, Spike is tainted by lust for Buffy. Drusilla breaks up with him. Spike rages, hoping to kill the object of his lust. The Initiative gets to him first, putting a chip in his head that forces him to not do bad. Spike mellows out and comes to terms with his desire for Buffy. He courts her, yet she denies him. He stops courting her, yet she desires him. In a fit of confusion, he tries to rape her. In a fit of disgust, he seeks a soul. Then he returns to Sunnydale, thinking that the soul will be enough to prove himself to the woman he loves.
Angel and Spike aren't exactly carbon-copies of each other. Angelus had a soul forced on him, Spike willingly asked for one. Angel turned into a man that he never was in life or unlife, Spike is turning into a man who is composite of who he was in life and unlife. Spike is seeking love, but is finding redemption; Angel sought redemption, but found love. Angel wandered the world for 100 years before anyone helped him, Spike only had to return to Sunnydale. And unless something wacky happens, Spike doesn't have to worry about turning into Spikelus.
Did Angel have the harder road? Getting a soul hit him harder and longer, and his relationship with Buffy was at the same time more fulfilling and destructive. But Spike spent years fighting his demon to get to the point where he could seek a soul, so at least the acquisition was harder for him, and his relationship with Buffy is far more confusing. How can one judge the "harder" road? How can we decide who is more worthy?
IMO, Angel should get Shanshu because it was promised to him. If Spike never gets Shanshued, he won't care because he doesn't know it's possible. It would be the ultimate cruelty, however, should TPTB deny it to Angel who is aware of it. But it has nothing to do with who earned it. 'Sides, if I knew who deserved Shanshuing, I'd be a Power That Be (or Joss). And becoming Joss is my own personal Shanshu.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To Shanshu in L.A. or Sunnydale? -- lunasea, 16:52:04 02/15/03 Sat
Angel moves to Los Angeles, where Cordelia, Doyle, Wesley, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne show him friendship and how to live in the world.
That was funny. Angel learned friendship by being a friend, not by people showing it to him. He learns how to live in the world, not from watching his dysfunctional family, but by doing it. That is why I love Angel. He learns through his failures more than his success or by example.
I want to know why when people recount Angel's life, they leave out China? Also his grief is taken for granted. Only a truly righteous man would be so upset by what he did.
Spike willingly asked for one.
If I hear this comparison made one more time, I will scream. You cannot ask willingly for anything you don't understand. Spike didn't understand what getting his soul meant. He admits as much in "Beneath You." He was the kid who wanted to play with his daddy's gun because it sure looked neat. It was loaded and he shot himself in the foot with it. Now he has to learn proper fire arm safety.
But Spike spent years fighting his demon to get to the point where he could seek a soul
When? He was chipped. He wasn't fighting anything, but the blinding headaches he got shocked with.
They are still different themes though. Angel is about not shutting yourself of and being willing to risk the pain of love (a lot like Buffy). Spike is about being your own man and being willing to risk the pain of rejection.
My point isn't who is better or more worthy. It is they are different redemptions and as such require different symbols to signify this. Angel's fits with Shanshu. Spike's does not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To Shanshu in L.A. or Sunnydale? -- Valheru, 17:50:11 02/15/03 Sat
That was funny. Angel learned friendship by being a friend, not by people showing it to him. He learns how to live in the world, not from watching his dysfunctional family, but by doing it. That is why I love Angel. He learns through his failures more than his success or by example.
Not to take away from Angel's brave accomplishment of the matter, but it takes two people to form a friendship. Angel befriended Doyle and Cordy (and to a lesser extent, Wesley) because they forced themselves on him, he didn't actively seek out their friendship. It is a remarkable step in his evolution that Angel accepted their friendship and returned it, but they made the first moves, not Angel.
And the reason I left out China is because it was a lesson he learned, but did not fully understand or implement, until he met Whistler and went to Sunnydale. I could just as easily have included Spike's compassion for Dawn and Joyce, his quasi-friendship with Clem and Willow, and the evil influence of Angelus, but I was trying to give a brief rundown of his journey, not a detailed travelogue. Same with Angel.
If I hear this comparison made one more time, I will scream. You cannot ask willingly for anything you don't understand. Spike didn't understand what getting his soul meant. He admits as much in "Beneath You." He was the kid who wanted to play with his daddy's gun because it sure looked neat. It was loaded and he shot himself in the foot with it. Now he has to learn proper fire arm safety.
First of all, it is an apt comparison. It's not like Spike and Angel had no idea what a soul was--they both had one before becoming vampires. They simply didn't know the intensity it would have upon them after centuries of evil. Spike knew full well that the gun was loaded, he just thought it was a beebee gun instead of shotgun.
Secondly, your analogy is flawed. The soul has already been given to him, so he's not going to be using a gun anymore. Spike already made the mistake of playing with the gun, but it's the only shot he'll ever get. Angelus, rather than shooting himself with a soul, was shot by someone else. Still, it's the only shot he gets (the curse is a different matter). The lesson they must now learn is how to live with the wound.
When? He was chipped. He wasn't fighting anything, but the blinding headaches he got shocked with.
The man in him had to fight the demon in him to decide to get the soul. Unless the demon William got was the stupidest one in the world, it had to know that a soul would suppress its control. Sure, Spike had a selfish motivation for obtaining a soul, but that's not the point. To a vampire, asking for a soul is like committing suicide. Nonetheless, the humanity within Spike, however twisted it was by evil and selfishness, still overcame the demonic need of self-preservation. That's quite a struggle.
But I agree with you about the rest. Angel should get Shanshu because it fits his journey. Spike...I'm not sure what fits with Spike's journey. To me, Spike's ultimate triumph would to be made human again and be presented with the choice to become a vampire once more, only to have him reject the offer in favor of his own belief in himself. But that doesn't mean Spike wouldn't also deserve Shanshu.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Wow, do I disagree with every single word of your post. -- Peggin, 18:11:36 02/15/03 Sat
Stake me. I should leave. Lot of personality there. Where is the wit?
Oh, yeah, because the only thing that gives someone personality is making lame jokes at the expense of other people. Very interesting character trait.
Where is anything that makes him remotely worth watching?
Inner strength. The desire to become a better person. Sure, part of the reason he got a soul was out of the hope that it might change Buffy's feelings for him. But if that was all there was to his decision, he would have done it the first time she threw his lack of soul in his face. He also got the soul because he was horrified at the evil in himself. He also did it "To be the kind of man who would nev-... To be a kind of man."
Maybe he didn't fully understand what getting a soul meant, but who ever really does understand all the implications of a major life choice? So what if he didn't fully understand what he was getting himself into before he did it? Using your argument from another post -- "You cannot ask willingly for anything you don't understand" -- I could say the same about someone adopting a handicapped child. I mean, really, how can someone who makes that decision have any idea of just how hard it is going to make their life? No matter how much they read, or how many other parents of handicapped children they talk to, they can't possibly understand how hard it will be until they actually live it. Based on your argument, their lack of understanding somehow negates just how noble their decision to adopt that child is. But you know what? Your argument is wrong. None of that matters. I don't give a crap if they fully "understand" the decision they are making. It's still an incredible thing to do.
The same goes with Spike's soul. What matters is what he did know about his choice, not what he didn't. Maybe he didn't understand all the guilt and pain that would come attached, but he did know it was about having a chance to become a better person -- a person he could never be without the soul. He did know that he was putting his existence on the line to have that chance. He knew he couldn't live with being a monster any longer.
It takes tremendous strength of character for a person to look inside of himself and recognize the need to change. It takes even more strength to actually act on that personal insight and take steps to make that change a reality. In my experience it's something that few people ever do. Most people, change because the conditions around them change ( if they change at all), not out of a conscious choice to do so.
Watching someone (even if it is just a character on a television show) make an actual decision to change and become a better person, seeing him taking steps to make that happen, is a lot more interesting than watching a two dimensional evil guy sitting around making quips at the expense of others and not really contributing much of anything to the story.
[>
The Prophecies of Aberjian, Darla, Connor, and Season 4 (AtS S1-4 spoilers w/spec) -- Valheru, 02:24:10 02/15/03 Sat
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but the subjects are similar so I hope no one minds.
Just finished my AtS: S1 DVD marathon, so I finally got to see "To Shanshu in L.A." One thing that I was interested in beforehand were the non-Shanshu Prophecies of Aberjian, so I paid close attention. And looking at it in the retrospect of Season 4, I think I might have some sort of quasi-theory about the Beast.
[DISCLAIMER: If someone else thought this up months ago and it has been discussed at length, forgive me for unwittingly bringing it up again. Just ignore it, or you can look at me pityingly and whisper, "Poor, poor thing."]
Some pertinent quotes, from "To Shanshu in L.A." (from Psyche). The first one is as Vocah begins the ritual to bring back Darla:
VOCAH: "As it was written they shall prepare the way and the very gate of hell shall open. That which is above shall tremble (earth trembles) for that which is below shall arise. And the world shall know the beast shall know the world."
Then later, as Angel and Vocah battle, Lindsey continues the ritual (he speaks in Latin, but here's the translation):
LINDSEY: "And the five shall be a sacrifice... and the one who is dead shall live..."
HOLLAND (to Lilah): "Get the movers in here."
LILAH: "Yes, sir."
LINDSEY: "Even as life and death are not two things but one... in darkness is the light, in light is the darkness. Arise! Arise! Arise! Arise! Arise! Arise!"
Finally, Wesley speaks these words to break Cordy's multitude of visions. According to Psyche's site, the spoken version is different than the close-captioned version. I'll give both, though I think only the spoken version should be considered cannon:
Spoken
WESLEY: "And if the beast shalt find thee, and touch thee, thou shalt be wounded in thy soul - and thou shalt know madness. - The beast shalt attack and cripple thee and thou shalt know neither friend nor family. - But thou shalt undo the beast. Thou shalt find the sacred words of Anatole and thou shalt be restored. - Three times shalt thou say these words: unbind - unbind - unbind."
Close-Captioned
WESLEY: "The sins of man shall inflame the earth and bring a great scourge. A fighting beast from hell will arise. The beast shalt attack and cripple thee and shalt poison thee, mind and body, with its mark. But thou shalt undo the beast. Thou shalt take refuge in the holy words of Anatole as handed down to him by the elders. And thou shalt be restored whole. Three times shalt thou say these words: Unbind. Unbind. Unbind."
Okay, there's lots of "big bad beasty-thing coming to be all 'grr' to the world" going on here. All this hellish Miltonian language to describe who we are later led to believe is Darla. She comes, she gets a soul, is turned again by Dru, wreaks some havoc, and in the middle of all this, she sleeps with Angel. Sounds like Vocah and Lindsey got what they summoned, right?
Here's the thing: what if, instead of Darla, the "beast" referred to in the Aberjian Prophecies actually was "The Beast?" Suppose that wherever it is where dead-vampire demon essences go, that's where the Svear sent the Beast after Angelus turned down his offer (assuming Angelus told the truth at all to Wesley). 200 or so years later, Angel kills Darla in "Angel," sending her demon essence to the Vampire Afterlife. A few years later, Vocah and Lindsey perform the spell, not only pulling Darla back to the human world, but also the Beast's essence hitching a ride inside her.
But while Darla comes back with a body, the Beast doesn't. The Beast must reside, trapped, within Darla. Then Darla gets pregnant. Unfortunately for the Beast, the child has a soul so he can't take the body. Darla comes to term. In a fit of...something, Darla stakes herself to give birth.
Ahh...but remember the words Lindsey spoke in the ritual to bring Darla back: "Even as life and death are not two things but one... in darkness is the light, in light is the darkness." Connor's life is also Darla's death, one and the same. Lightness is dark and darkness is light. There cannot be one birth, a souled child of power, without another to balance. And so the Beast is reborn.
But why now? Why is the Beast reborn a year later than Connor? Well, he probably has to gestate a while longer (he's a big fella, after all). And then there's Cordelia, for in the words of the ritual, "That which is above shall tremble for that which is below shall arise. And the world shall know the beast shall know the world." She comes down from above and the Beast rises up from below.
So where Darla and Connor were tied to the Beast in birth, in life it is tied to Cordelia. She is the one who was saved by the words of Anatole, so she's linked to the words of the Aberjian Prophecy: "And if the beast shalt find thee, and touch thee, thou shalt be wounded in thy soul - and thou shalt know madness. - The beast shalt attack and cripple thee and thou shalt know neither friend nor family." Well, Cordy's certainly getting with the madness and unknowing her friends and family now. Of course, it also says that she'll stop the Beast, too, by speaking the words of Anatole.
If this is the case (and while I may entertain the whim, I do not necessarily abide by it), we might be well on our way to Shanshuing this year. Or Shoe-shining. Cordy could be right. The destiny of the vampire with a soul is to shine shoes. And the Beast could work horseshoes. I just knew it. Joss's grand plan is a sprawling, multi-faceted study into the birth, life, love, redemption, and death of Mister Ed.
[> [>
Wow, interesting parallels! -- Masq, 10:41:32 02/15/03 Sat
[> [>
The Mandelbroit series continues -- lunasea, 11:41:13 02/15/03 Sat
"And if the beast shalt find thee, and touch thee, thou shalt be wounded in thy soul - and thou shalt know madness. - The beast shalt attack and cripple thee and thou shalt know neither friend nor family."
I think we are looking for Evil Cordy to be from her return on. What if it isn't until the Beast touches her? The Beast lifts her in the air and looks in her eyes. Was he looking for something, some sort of transformation to take place? Was he wounding her soul (the eyes being the mirror of the soul) so that his boss could take her over? The only thing she does before this is hurt Angel, but that was completely in character. It is the actions after this that need explaining.
Because she has slept with Connor, she pretty much has alienated her family/friends.
I like this theory better than Doppleganger Cordy.
Another piece to the puzzle is Wolfram and Hart. Why does The Big Evil want them gone? Could it have to do with this ritual they performed? With Eygon, the demon had to kill all the people present at the ritual to be able to stay around. Are we looking at something similar? Is Lindsey in trouble?
Still doesn't mean jack for Spike though :-D
[> [> [>
Re: The Mandelbrot series continues -- Angela, 11:56:14 02/15/03 Sat
"Another piece to the puzzle is Wolfram and Hart. Why does The Big Evil want them gone? Could it have to do with this ritual they performed?"
This is one of my fifty gazillion big questions now. The particular attention paid to Wolfram and Hart is very odd. And the last, Lilah, wasn't killed by the Beast but by Cordy.
I don't know about the other stuff with Cordy. I frankly thought she was weird from her return on. The other thing that your post brought to mind is that Cordy chose alienation from AI unlike Conner or Wes.
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Mandelbrot series continues (spoiler Calvary) -- lunasea, 13:06:08 02/15/03 Sat
And the last, Lilah, wasn't killed by the Beast but by Cordy.
And why did Cordy kill her? Surely Angelus could have done it.
When Angel gets his memory back and talks to the various surviving members of AI about what happened, this will be significant. Angel will remember he didn't kill her. Then he will ask who did and why. That may trigger a lot of questions, like Cordy's spell and other stuff that is sure to happen and be blamed on Angelus that he didn't do.
faith the vampire slayer -- nite walker, 11:30:16 02/14/03 Fri
imdb reports that faith is set to take over the franchise, ive heard there were concerns, but i guess they worked them out.
imdb.com
[>
Is this a done deal? (potentially spoilery above and here if you're living in outer Siberia) -- Masq, 12:28:07 02/14/03 Fri
I just read an article over at slayage.com that said something similar. It was a British TV article, granted, but it talked like all the Powers that Be were definitely going to do this spin-off.
If it's true, I couldn't be happier. But has Joss, ME, Kazui Enterpises, Fox, or anyone like that said "It's a go!" ?
[> [>
I read that... -- Rob, 13:08:47 02/14/03 Fri
Eliza signed the contract (YAY!!!) but the network still hasn't given their answer yet.
Rob
[> [>
No -- Rufus, 22:18:15 02/14/03 Fri
[>
What? -- M, 12:37:18 02/14/03 Fri
It could be that I'm just stupid but I could not find anything specific about Faith taking over. Could you give us a more specific link. Please!
[> [>
Re: What? -- zantique, 13:31:41 02/14/03 Fri
It's a brief entry at the end of the News section
[> [> [>
Will it still be called... -- Masq, 13:39:17 02/14/03 Fri
"BtVS", with all the other characters in tact? or is this a new show, a spin-off?
Loving that the mantle of Buffy gets handed to Faith, on the show and in real life. That's her legitimate successor.
[> [> [>
Re: I found it by searching on "Dushku" -- pr10n, 13:39:27 02/14/03 Fri
I swear, the first time I have ever done that. :)
[> [> [>
thank you zantique - I appreciate it. -- M, 13:46:00 02/14/03 Fri
[> [>
A Caution -- luna, 19:08:45 02/14/03 Fri
Trying the same technique, I found the same news with this caveat:
The UK Daily Express ran an 'exclusive' story today that confirms Eliza has agreed to star in a Buffy spinoff. (The BBC and a few other news sites have also picked up on the story.) However, there are some mistakes in their report - for instance, Eliza will be appearing in the final five episodes, not the final three - so I'd hold off on believing the news until it comes from the mouths of Mutant Enemy, Fox/UPN or Eliza herself.
[>
Re: faith the vampire slayer -- Dochawk, 13:51:38 02/14/03 Fri
This is still a rumor guys. The guy who runs ME, as recently as yesterday said there have been discussions with alot of possibilities and Faith is one of them, but to his knowledge nothing has been signed yet. And before you sign an actress, you have a contract for a show, so first Fox has to have some place to sell it. So its extremely unlikely that this is a fact yet. (I think its probable, lotsa rumors that it could be Faith and Wood)
[> [>
Re: faith the vampire slayer -- Peggin, 14:02:32 02/14/03 Fri
And before you sign an actress, you have a contract for a show, so first Fox has to have some place to sell it.
I'm not sure if this is correct -- it might be true for the acting profession, but it doesn't work that way for contracts in general. Just going on my knowledge of general contract law, there could potentially be a contract right now. Even if they don't currently have a guarantee from any network, there could be a contract that binds ED to a certain number of years and that binds ME to not hire anyone else for the lead, all of which would be contingent on the show getting picked up by one of the networks. The contract would be binding on both parties if the show is picked up, both parties would be released from obligation if it isn't.
[> [> [>
Hmmmm -- Dochawk, 14:27:49 02/14/03 Fri
I am certainly not a lawyer, but that is not the typical way things happen on tv (It does happen in movies alot, an actor will attach him/herself to a property for a period of time while producers get a chance to raise financing for the movie). TV works the opposite most of the time, you have a series idea and someone finances the pilot, usually a network then the actors are hired (in the case of Buffy, Fox financed the pilot, shot the rough pilot then sold it to the WB). So you may be right in this case, ME may have needed ED to commit before Fox could start shopping. I think its all academic because if there is a UPN next year, they'll want this show (though UPN taking the show increases the chance Wood is on it, I think given UPNs target demographic). This is a special situation because noone would buy Faith the Vampire Slayer without ED, so i could easily be wrong. I'll add though that the person who I talked to last night (and has reason to know) said nothing had been signed to the best of his knowledge.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Hmmmm -- Peggin, 14:53:03 02/14/03 Fri
I wasn't saying that anything had been signed -- I have no inside information one way or the other. I was just saying that, unless there is some loophole in contract law relating to contracts for television programs, it is possible for there to be a contingent contract even if they're not certain there is going to be a show.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Hmmmm -- Dochawk, 15:04:12 02/14/03 Fri
Hmmmmm. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear. I don't doubt your right, wasn't questioning you at all, sorry if it came off that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Or it could be an elaborate plan to get SMG to.... -- Briar Rose, 15:29:19 02/14/03 Fri
make a decision on what she wants to do.
It wouldn't be the first time a production company floats a viable option to see if it can make a disgruntled/coy/bargaining actor change their mind.
ED and SMG are both wonderful actresses. They both have been working in movies beneath them. They both bring different strengths to their characters.
But ME might be banking on SMG wanting to make the most of her claim to the Buffy franchise and not wanting to turn it all over to "Faith the Vampire Slayer" just yet. If nothing else, she might want the chance to come back if her goals at big screen stardom don't come through.
The bottom line? ED thought she was gonna make a killing in film. So does SMG. Maybe this was sort of a wakeup call to get SMG to think a little harder about what waits for her beyond BtVS. If ED is willing to sign on and she's actually had more time to try and make it in film lately, maybe SMG will see that a regular check ain't such a bad deal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Or it could be an elaborate plan to get SMG to.... -- Dochawk, 16:04:49 02/14/03 Fri
The difference is a little thing called "Scoobie Two" where SMG is in fact going to make a killing. And the rumor I hear is that she would appear at least in five episodes then leave the slaying to Faith. But that's all it is is a rumor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Or it could be an elaborate plan to get SMG to.... -- Rhys, 05:05:10 02/15/03 Sat
Well, for what it's worth, here's the February 7th article from http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-tv.html?2003-02/07/12.00.tv:
Buffy Faith Spinoff Mulled
Christopher Buchanan-president of Mutant Enemy, the production company behind UPN's Buffy the Vampire Slayer-told SCI FI Wire that producers are considering a spinoff starring Eliza Dushku as the renegade Slayer Faith, but that no deals have been signed yet. "I believe that's something that's being bounced around, along with other things, too," Buchanan said in an interview.
Dushku is currently shooting guest spots on Buffy and its spinoff series, The WB's Angel. Fan Web sites have carried rumors recently that Dushku had signed to star in a spinoff, with some rumors suggesting the contract was for two years. Buchanan said that he was unaware of any such deal. "Certainly, because she's around doing Buffy and Angel, I know there've been discussions," Buchanan said. But, he added, "We're kind of sitting on our hands until UPN and Fox figure out what they want to do."
Though Buffy star Sarah Michelle Gellar has made no official announcements yet, it's expected that she won't sign up for more Buffy once her contract expires at the end of the current seventh season. Speculation has centered on whether UPN will renew the series without Gellar or seek a spinoff.
The BBC article listing ED as having signed was dated February 13th. So that would fit.
At this point, though, even the Eliza Dushku News Channel (http://news.eliza-dushku.com/) is saying that it's all still a rumor.
In addition to the five episodes of Buffy, ED will be on three episodes of Angel--March 5th's "Salvage," March 12th's "Release," and March 19th's "Orpheus." Alyson Hannigan (Willow) will also be in "Orpheus."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ooh! March 19th is my 22nd birthday! What an awesome present! -- Rob, 12:47:01 02/15/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not-so-well-known AtS casting spoiler above! -- Masq, 22:12:29 02/15/03 Sat
[>
Re: faith the vampire slayer - can you say Raven -- wiscoboy, 14:48:00 02/14/03 Fri
Not to burst all your bubbles, but generally speaking when a producer wishes a franchise to continue after its star vacates the premises, it usually leads to a short and uninspired series. The Highlander series comes quickly to mind...The Raven died before it knew what hit it.
If M.E does want to continue this in some way, I think it would have a better chance if they do a "The Slayer Chronicles" kind of series. They could start by using the current slayer potentials.
[> [>
Re: faith the vampire slayer - can you say Raven -- Dan The Man, 15:45:49 02/14/03 Fri
Typically spin-offs shows (Angel) do very poorly. On the other hand, Angel is going strong in its fourth season creatively and while it was on Sunday, it was setting records for Sunday night WB ratings despite being up against Alias and The Sopranos. (I haven't seen any rating charts since the move to Wednesdays, so not sure about current status.)
ED is a good enough actress to carry a series and will be surround by one of the better supporting casts on TV if Faith the Vampire Slayer happens. I see no reason to doubt its potential quality. It may have ratings trouble(SMG fallout), but as long as Joss is at the helm, then I think it will definitely be worth watching.
Dan The Man
[> [> [>
Spin-offs do poorly? -- Cleanthes, 20:16:15 02/14/03 Fri
Since when? It's at least a 50-50 proposition. Some of these shows have done MUCH better than their original series. (The Simpsons is up to 300 episodes but almost no one remembers it's a spinoff)
Green Acres
The Jeffersons
Maude
Frasier
Xena
The Andy Griffith Show
The Bionic Woman
Frasier
Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.
GoodTimes Laverne & Shirley
Melrose Place
Mork & Mindy
Rhoda
The Simpsons
Star Trek: The Next Generation
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Star Trek: Voyager
Star Trek: Enterprise
[> [> [> [>
What was the Simpsons a spinoff of? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:34:08 02/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
The Tracy Ullman Show. Other successful spin-offs are... -- Rob, 20:44:22 02/14/03 Fri
Benson
Family Matters
Perfect Strangers
A Different World
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What was the Simpsons a spinoff of? -- ahira, 20:47:38 02/14/03 Fri
Well, I went and looked on IMDB. The Simpsons were done as shorts on the Tracey Ullman show. I remember catching it a couple of times. They were something like a minute or two long in between skits on the show. I had to look, just couldn't actually remember what show it had been on, just know I saw it.
[> [> [> [> [>
but, does the Simpson's really count as a spinoff -- ahira, 20:57:21 02/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Technically, yes, because characters from one show were expanded into their own series. -- Rob, 21:36:51 02/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Speaking of the Simpsons ... -- WickedBuffy, 11:45:11 02/15/03 Sat
Right now on ET on MTV - the people who do the voices for all the different Simpson characters are being interviewed at a gala party celebrating the upcoming 300th episode. Right under the actor talking is a headshot of the character they speak for. Hilarious!
umm, just wanted to share.... going away now.... the animation sure has changed since their Tracey Ullman days.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Spin-offs do poorly? -- ahira, 20:55:01 02/14/03 Fri
And in the bad column, you have to add the Dukes of Hazzard spin off....can't even remember the name, just know it was about the deputy going to LA or something.
[> [> [> [>
Let's not forget a couple franchises doing pretty well as we speak . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:17:56 02/15/03 Sat
CSI: Miami and the various Laws & Orders. Ok, these are more technically (like the Star Trek franchises) clones of the formatting of a successful show, rather than a spinning off a favorite character, but they still demonstrate the risk-averse nature of the networks which should work in Faith's favor.
(I'm waiting for NBC to roll out Aaron Sorkin's The East Wing, in which the staff of First Lady Bartlett prolixly expresses its moral quandaries over whom to seat where at the Lyme Disease Awareness banquet.)
[> [>
Come on! -- M, 20:40:34 02/14/03 Fri
Highlander was an interesting show and I watched it from time to time but it was never really what you would call an inspired show, and the spin off even less so. I have a little more faith in ME, (no pun intended).
I think it will work just fine as long as Eliza doesn't bleach her hair. Elisabeth Gracen looked so much better with dark hair. ;)
[> [> [>
I agree about Elizabeth Gracen -- Scroll, 21:18:45 02/14/03 Fri
I loved "Highlander" the TV show more than the movies, and kind of liked "The Raven". I too prefer Elizabeth Gracen (who is absolutely stunning with any coloured hair) as a brunette versus her Spike-ish bleach blonde. True, I would never hold "Highlander" in its entirety as equal quality as "Buffy" or "Angel", but there were some excellent episodes that I think could've matched some "Buffy" and "Angel" episodes. Anything with Methos, IMHO ; )
And I do trust ME to create a wonderful show with ED... but I am still going to cross my fingers. We all know "Firefly" was brilliant and a true ME product, but clearly TV networks don't always have the same enlightened attitude we fans have.
[> [> [> [>
Re: TV networks don't always have the same enlightened attitude we fans have. -- wiscoboy, 14:21:48 02/15/03 Sat
It's not that the networks aren't enlightened as the fans, it's the fact there weren't enough fans to feel enlightened by the show. The networks have to deal in money, and if a show is not polling enough viewers, then the networks don't make enough advertising dollars to support the effort to make the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: TV networks vs. enlightenment -- Robert, 18:54:01 02/15/03 Sat
While I can't be sure, it appears that you are answering Scroll's message where Scroll writes;
>>> We all know "Firefly" was brilliant and a true ME product, but clearly TV networks don't always have the same enlightened attitude we fans have.
and you write;
>>> It's not that the networks aren't enlightened as the fans, it's the fact there weren't enough fans to feel enlightened by the show. The networks have to deal in money, and if a show is not polling enough viewers, then the networks don't make enough advertising dollars to support the effort to make the show.
If Firefly died merely because people weren't watching it, then I would understand the network's (FOX) action. However, I contend that the actions of FOX network were largely responsible for the failure of Firefly. FOX network showed zero respect for the producers, writers, and the viewing public when they shuffled the order of the episodes. The show was written with an extended story arc in the background. The characters were introduced and explained in the pilot episode. However, FOX showed the pilot last, after they had already announced the cancellation of Firefly.
Think back to the opening episode The Train Job, which was not intended to be the opening episode. I read numerous complaints that people didn't know who all the characters were and didn't understand their motivations and backgrounds. I read professional reviews that lambasted Joss for created such an absurd story; all based upon The Train Job. FOX didn't trust the viewers to like a show based upon story and characters. FOX demanded action and nothing else.
If I remember correctly, FOX went on to preempt the fourth episode from many markets due to a baseball game. They did not announce that they were doing this and they did not announce when or if the episode would be rescheduled. Consequently, many viewers missed the episode entirely.
FOX farther went on to preempt the next two episodes. At least this time they announced it and scheduled the episodes to be shown at a later date.
I request that you not blame the fans for the destruction of Firefly. FOX betrayed Mutant Enemy, the actors and the fans when the executives decided that the characters and story be damned. FOX also betrayed the fans by preempting the fourth episode without rescheduling it, thus causing fans in many markets to miss it. If FOX had had a real interest in the success of Firefly, it would have succeeded.
Finally, FOX has two more episodes which they paid for but never showed. I would sure like to see them. I certainly can't think of any good reasons why FOX has chosen to not give us at least that as consolation. It is almost as if FOX hates the viewers and is going to continue to punish us in any way they can.
A quick "what was Willow thinking" question (spoil/First Date) -- WickedBuffy, 12:05:31 02/14/03 Fri
For some reason, I had a difficult time interpreting the looks on Willows face while Xander was going on about becoming gay.
Without projecting what I would be thinking if I were Willow, it seemed she ping-ponged thru several feelings about Xander (and maybe the others chiming in) as the camera panned back and forth to her face. And the scene went on longer than I expected.
How did she appear to you? Angry? Amused? Concerned? Insulted? Surprised? what?
... and thanks ahead of time!
[>
Re: A quick "what was Willow thinking" question (spoil/First Date) -- Utopia, 13:32:24 02/14/03 Fri
I couldn't really tell, either. It seemed to me somewhere in between shocked/confused and a little bit defensive. Like she wasn't sure if she had been insulted or not.
[> [>
All of the above and ending on "Typical tasteless Xander joking"? -- Briar Rose, 15:16:04 02/14/03 Fri
[> [> [>
I think in the end, she was amused...after the horrified wore off. -- Rob, 18:56:42 02/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
Doesn't Willow know any nice, not-evil girls from college? -- cjl, 23:49:12 02/14/03 Fri
"...yeah, I kinda thought the professor wasn't really on his game, either. Listen, Doreen, I wanted to talk to you about something. You broke up with your boyfriend about two months ago, right?...I know. It sucks. Are you seeing anyone right now?...What? No, no! I wasn't talking about me, honest! I'm seeing somebody anyway. No, I've got this friend, a really wonderful guy, and I think you two would get along great...Uh, he's the foreman of the construction crew working on the high school. Tall, got a great smile...Yeah, I used to have a crush on him, before--well, you know..."
Maybe she's waiting for the Xander/Anya thing to work through before she plays matchmaker...
[> [> [> [> [>
Has anyone ever played "matchmaker" on that show? -- WickedBuffy, 09:47:57 02/15/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Xander and Anya tried to set Buffy up with Bland!Boy in OaFA. -- Rob, 10:37:53 02/15/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
with friends like these, who needs ... ;> -- WickedBuffy, 10:52:24 02/15/03 Sat
Wow. All that time together. All those people. All the times a Scooby complained about not having a date. And there's only one attempted setup? (and a bland one, at that?)
It either supports the theory that the Scoobies
don't think anyone they know is good enough for their friends or
found a passive-aggressive way to keep their friends ALL to themselves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Or the fact that -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:16:26 02/15/03 Sat
They don't really seem to know anyone outside the Scooby Gang. If you try to set someone up, you're most likely to set them up with a friend. And if you don't have any friends outside that one particular circle, it becomes a difficulty.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Or the fact that -- WickedDater, 18:16:43 02/15/03 Sat
... and yet on their own they manage to randomly "run in" to their future gf/bfs. hmmm, Anya probably doesn't fit into that idea...
remember how Willow told Tara she liked having something (Tara) that was only hers? (paraphrased).
Deconstructing the Texas Belle and her suitors (AtS spoilers, up to & including Calvary) - LONG! -- Solitude1056, 15:10:59 02/14/03 Fri
I've been reviewing the many enlightened and thoughtful comments about the Fred/Wes/Gunn triangle. I'm not sure I'll necessarily provide any answers, but I do have some questions that occurred to me while watching Calvary, issues that don't appear to have been mentioned elsewhere.
Over the duration of her relationship with Gunn, Fred's appearance has tended towards straight hair and little makeup. Gunn makes the announcement that they're history, and the very next scene three significant changes occur. Fred's wearing lipstick (and a dark shade, at that), her hair is loose and curly, and her attitude is distinctly snarky. What's the message here? Get dumped by Mr. Nice Guy, get attracted to Mr. Brain, and find your inner bitch? Fred's response to being dumped leaves me suddenly unable to relate to her character, but mildly intrigued. To understand the triangle, I think we need to go back a few episodes. Not to Supersymmetry, but to the only point where Gunn and Fred even remotely discussed what has happened. When Gunn says, "We don't talk. We sleep on opposite sides of the bed. We haven't even touched each other since...", Fred concludes his statement with the words, "...since we murdered Professor Seidel."
What caught my ear at the time, and made sense looking back at the original incident, was that Fred puts particular emphasis on murdered. Reviewing my expectations at the original scene of the crime, I had expected Fred to kill Seidel, or at least try. She wanted him to pay for what he'd done. But the Fred/Wesley combination came up with something better suited to Seidel's crime, and that's where it seems (to me) that the basic conflict lies. Fred didn't want to murder Seidel. She wanted him to suffer. Gunn, on the other hand, chose to murder Seidel not because he'd rather be the murderer than Fred - he chose to do so because he made the impulsive snap (so to speak) decision that he'd rather bear knowledge that someone died because of him... rather than let Fred carry the burden of knowing that someone continues to suffer in hell because of her.
It's not at all that Fred intended Seidel to die. As a matter of fact, it seemed to me (and it still does), that Fred's revenge hinged on Seidel living, and suffering, for as long (or longer) than she did. Five years, minimum, and if longer, all the better. Killing Seidel was equivalent, for Fred, to letting a brutal, sadistic, rapist-murderer die quickly and quietly by lethal injection. For the victims and/or their families, capital punishment doesn't always fit the crime. While I understand that many, while discussing Supersymmetry and its fallout episodes, seem to fixate on Fred's anger at Gunn for stealing her thunder, I think the fixation on a 'murderous intent' is missing the point. Fred (with Wes) plans for Seidel to suffer. Gunn recognizes that if Fred does so, she's making herself no better than Seidel, who did the same to her.
There were only three options: Seidel goes in the portal alive, Seidel goes in dead, Seidel doesn't go in. Fred wasn't about to let the third happen, and Gunn wasn't going to stand by and let the first happen. Since Fred wasn't about to kill Seidel, Gunn chose to. What's not being said is that Gunn couldn't live with himself if he stood by and let another human being get put through the kind of hell his girlfriend experienced, no matter how base the original crime.
Gunn told Fred, in Apocalypse Nowish, that "I couldn't let you carry that. ... Fred, it's not who you are. It isn't in your heart." This is an ambiguous statement. Is Gunn saying that Fred couldn't conceive of and carry out murder, or is he speaking of the live-and-suffer plan that Fred concocted? Gunn's attitude, coupled with his defiant expression when killing Seidal, isn't necessarily saying she should remain sweet and innocent and let others dirty their hands. He's saying he couldn't be with someone who would willingly perpetrate cruel and unusual punishment on another human being. Friends don't let friends torture, I suppose. Gunn may be many things, but one thing he's never seemed to be is in conflict over his principles. If I take the car keys away from you because you're determined to drive drunk, is this only because I want you to remain innocent and without a DUI record? Does my vision of you as DUI-record-less mean that I don't see the real you, the drunken driving fool? Do you have a right to resent me for stopping you from doing something that's against our agreed principles the rest of the time?
Okay, bad analogy, but it's the best I can do when all I've got is skim milk for my tea. Blasphemy!
Wesley, on the other hand, has qualities in common with Fred, and perhaps not just of the brainy kind. As one oppressed/abused during his childhood, he seems to have a flair for oppression/torture himself, a la Justine in the closet. When Fred goes to Wesley for help, there are two things occurring. One, Wesley gains some emotional satisfaction knowing that Fred came to him rather than Gunn - but Wesley and Fred are also, on an unconscious level, recognizing a certain level of sadism in both. As survivors of abuse (childhood, Pylea), they have both learned how to more effectively abuse/torture others. They both, also, appear to have a certain blind spot as to the impact such oppressing-action will have on their own psyches.
Gunn sees such action as dehumanizing, telling Fred that murdering/torturing Seidel "goes against everything... [the gang believes] in. ...don't let him be defining what you are now." There's a fuzzy line here, but it appears to circle around the concept of suffering. As two people who have suffered because of another person's specific maliciousness (both, incidentally, father figures), Wesley and Fred seem to see no wrong in retaliating with the same weapons. Gunn, on the other hand, has suffered but appears to consider his 'hard knock life' to be the result of a bad roll of the dice (so to speak), rather than as the result of a single person's malicious actions. Perhaps this is the reason that Gunn sees no purpose, little benefit, and high cost in stooping to vengeance.
The problem is that after nearly three seasons of Gunn, we still know so little about him, compared to what we can gather from the other characters. We know he's been fighting vampires and demons since he was "a kid," and he traded his soul for a truck at the age of seventeen. The few times the shooting script has referred to Gunn sleeping in the back of his truck, the actual aired episode shows Gunn in a small efficiency, getting up from a cot-like bed, getting dressed, and leaving. I've often wondered about this. Do we not see Gunn's actual homelessness because, as the only black person on the show, it'd be too much of a stereotype? The message in Gunn-with-an-apartment is radically different from the shooting script message of Gunn as so proud, so independent, he won't move into the hotel even when the only alternative is sleeping in the back of his truck or staying at a shelter.
Over the summer Gunn appears to have moved into the hotel and is now living with Fred. There have been references in the recent season (Supersymmetry, Soulless) to Gunn and Fred spending the night together and/or living together. What is this telling us about Gunn, about Fred? If Gunn, previously, was remaining independent (if broke) despite his seeming second-fiddle position after being a leader, does merging with Fred represent the final step in Gunn's inclusion as an Angel-dependent? Gunn probably moved in with Fred at some point after Double or Nothing. Given Gunn's promise at the end to include Fred in his future, and more specifically to not shut her out of anything that's going on, his moving-in would echo this final acceptance of sharing a existence, and any burdens, as a pair.
Part of the tension between Gunn and Fred is this resentment at being left out. Gunn knew Fred was upset, but the only strong emotions (that we've seen) from Fred that he's dealt with are mostly fear, love, and relationship-pain, such as in Double or Nothing. The don't-leave-me kind of strong emotion, and the life-is-good kind. Fred's anger is a new and particularly violent emotion, one that Gunn is ill-equipped to deal with without a bit of necessary regrouping. I don't think, though, that this is necessarily a failing on Gunn's part. Most people, when met with this kind of strong emotion in an otherwise young relationship, would probably misstep or misspeak while trying to determine the appropriate response - that is to say, while trying to determine the response required by the partner. So what we get is Gunn's instinctive response, while he struggles to figure out what Fred needs. The failing, then, isn't completely in Gunn for suggesting milk, it's also on Fred for not giving Gunn a second chance to understand the depth of her anger.
Seeing how upset Fred was at being shut out of Gunn's moment of despair (Double or Nothing), it's particularly ironic that now Fred resents Gunn for his actions given that she left Gunn out of her own moment of despair. The only equivalent would be if Gunn spent three months all broody because Fred refused to let him lose his own damn soul. Now, he refuses to let her lose her own, and she resents it. Go figure.
Ahem.
Getting back to where I was before I so rudely interrupted myself, the most recent episode made me think about Texas. Why Texas? What's the common understanding about Texas that adds to Fred, that we wouldn't have gotten with a character from Georgia, or Montana, or Oklahoma? Georgia, we would've gotten a somewhat similar accent (or, this being Hollywood, the identical accent), but the connotation would've been of Tara and Miss Scarlet and birthing babies. (Grrr. Arggh.) Montana is Big Sky Country, and Oklahoma was already taken by Lindsey and his Evil Grabby Hands.
But Texas is our country's Lone Star state, a culture fiercely independent, one that would understand perfectly Gunn's refusal to comfy hotel over independent, if uncomfy, truck. Plus, in Texas everything is bigger - the cars, the hair, the golf courses in the middle of the desert. The streets are double-width, the accents are broader and louder, and visiting your friend in the next county could mean an eight-hour drive. Fred, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily look like a debutante (where Cordelia always did), but if she's from Texas and has a good family, she just may've had a coming-out anyway. It's pretty much traditional, nearly as traditional as the idea that the little woman back at the ranch is probably a crack shot with that there rifle, mister. Fred's shown strong Texan FUness, in watching Gunn's back during fights and putting up a decent fight for such a tiny thing. That's Texas for yah, and it's something Gunn sees, understands, respects and loves, and vice versa. Fred's still not curvaceous, but her hair started getting a little bigger in the most recent episode. Finally. Get that girl some hairspray and a sandwich.
Oh, where was I. Right-o.
Given this assumption about Fred's upbringing, and Gunn's own personal outlook on life, I remain convinced that Fred and Gunn's relationship was believable and chemistry-laden. In some ways it was also sweet, with that element of protector-protectee, but I don't think it always necessary that both a partner be blindingly brilliant simply so the other person, who is genius-level, will remain interested. What I can't get is this: the major argument seems to be that Fred is no longer attracted to Gunn now that Gunn has killed someone on her behalf. This has pushed her away from Gunn and towards Wesley.
Hmm.
Nope, not really buying it.
Based on Fred's physical and emotional reaction to being dumped, and her fluttery little look-down, look-up glances at Wesley while telling him, I get the strong impression that Fred didn't move away from Gunn only because he stole her thunder. She moved away from him specifically because he drew the line that he would not be a part of making someone else suffer cruel & unusual punishment, and he wouldn't let her do it, either. Fred then understood that Gunn was serious - he couldn't continue to be with her, if she was truly such a bloodthirsty sadist as to inflict on another what had been inflicted on her. Wesley, however, agrees with Fred about causing suffering - as a matter of fact, what may be turning Fred on is watching Wesley inflicting suffering on Gunn.
Let me back up.
Wesley is angry, perhaps originally justifiably so, at the gang for turning their backs on him. But Wesley's strong self-ostracization has merely aggravated an already tense situation, as we've all discussed here ad nauseum. Angel has attempted, if mediocrely so, to at least make some sort of a working peace between himself and Wesley. Both may be aware that Wesley's rescue of Angel was about as much apology as Angel may ever get, and that Angel's acceptance of Wesley's re-incorporation is about as much apology as Wesley may ever get. Fred reached out to Wesley a few times after being the one to tell him to stay out, but Cordy, Lorne and Gunn seem to have otherwise stepped away from Wesley. Since Cordy's return (and Wesley provided assistance in finding Cordy, too), Cordy and Lorne have appeared to essentially accept Wesley back, if on limited terms. In the past two or three episodes it has even seemed that Wesley is stepping back into a leadership role, slowly but surely. Gunn alone has refused to accept Wesley's return, and it's reasonable to expect that although Wesley makes a good show of the Stiff Upper Lip, the resentment is bound to blow at some point.
Keeping in mind that Wesley and Fred are of the same mind about "giving as good as one got," it's no surprise to me that Wesley would finally retaliate against Gunn's refusal by doing his utter best to make Gunn experience what Wesley went through. That is to say, Wesley feels he lost everything. Now, with Gunn being an adversary, Wesley's emotional pain explodes outwards with his otherwise inscrutable constant needling of Gunn, down to kissing Fred in the office... right next to that huge plate-glass window. Brilliant. Playing with fire, harassing, taunting Gunn, and all with one purpose in mind: so Gunn will lose Fred, and experience some of the pain Wesley felt at losing the gang.
The key, though, is that Wesley felt betrayed by the gang. He did his best, he felt, and while Angel was justifiably angry, the rest of the gang made no effort (as far as Wesley knows) to reconcile the rift. Hence, they betrayed him, revealed how little they care for him versus Angel. Now, Wesley is playing the same game with Gunn, pushing Gunn and himself into situations where Gunn will be betrayed, will lose the prize, the wanted/needed love. This is why Wes makes the otherwise unexpected move of kissing Fred, knowing Gunn could appear any minute. It's not enough for Gunn to lose Fred, he must also feel betrayed by her. Fred, unadmirably enough, plays right along.
Fred finds Wesley's retaliatory actions attractive, at the same time she finds Gunn's defensive anger repulsive. Given Gunn's mildly holier-than-thou intentions over Seidel, and their base conflict about the death penalty, Fred has been slowly moving towards Wesley. Wes has those rugged good looks, devious and complex gray matter to match her own, and stronger sense of self-esteem after a year of isolation, but he's also operating on a definite level of make-suffer, and it's one that Fred clearly responds to. She's already angry at Gunn for refusing her choice of vengeance, so Wes' agenda against Gunn plays into Fred's own plans.
This is why she kisses Wes... and it's also why, after Gunn ends the relationship, she next appears in curly hair, heavier and darker eyeshadow and lipstick, and is verbally abusive and outspoken. (In some ways, her demeanor and dress - if not her body type - reminded me somewhat of Faith.) Curiously, Wesley's alleged Dark Queen, Lilah, appeared in direct contrast to Fred. Lilah was dressed in drab, neutral-light colors, hair undone, little makeup, and otherwise distinctly unpolished. Lilah's the bright stone that's lost her luster, while Fred went from colorful little pebble to sharp obsidian in the space of forty minutes. Where Wesley was attracted to Lilah for her dangerous edge, Lilah now blends with wallpaper compared to Fred's dark beauty. Notably the second half of the episode, Fred was mostly in closeup, pushing attention away from her boyish figure to her oh-so-feminine large eyes in a pale face.
The peculiar note, however, was when Angel/us mentions, in Fred's hearing, that Wesley and Lilah slept together. Her look, when she turns around to Wesley, was either horror, fascination, or disgust. I'm not sure. I got the impression, at the time, that it was revulsion, which made me laugh. Here she is, dressed up like there's no tomorrow, fluttering her eyelashes for her knight in tarnished armor, enjoying the agony it's causing Gunn... and then she discovers her knight is far more tarnished than she's willing to accept.
In some ways, Fred's true little-girl-ness was revealed in that single frame, and I realized that Gunn does know Fred better that I'd estimated. There have been so many films and books over the centuries where a young girl (or boy) gets caught up in an adventure and swept away, only to realize that it's for real - Heathers is an excellent example. It starts here, and goes to here, and at some point the former innocent cries out that this wasn't what she wanted. The understanding, of course, is that prior to this realization, the protagonist was treating it all as a game, something that could be undone, that one could make up and be fine again, that saying "I'm sorry" could make it all better. Gunn knew this, perhaps as a former innocent who wanted his sister to be all better, but had to deal with the action as necessary and part of a brutal world. If Fred truly is the innocent with little comprehension of the consequences, Gunn's action was not only self-protective (refusing to compromise his principles that causing undue human suffering, even of a criminal, makes one less human), but it was also other-protective (understanding that eventually Fred would regret, and feel guilty for, condemning someone to a fate she herself nearly didn't survive intact).
It's in Fred's realization of the extent of Wesley's grayness that I think she recognizes what she's allied herself with. And it seemed that Wesley's abashed expression means he knows he can't undo his dalliance with Lilah, it's part of him. Hard to tell yet whether this is, in Gunn's words, a personal history-demon that's not "the horned, fangy kind, [but] be the kind you can't get rid of." Wesley carries that burden, and if Fred allies herself with him, she'll be tainted by it, as well. Wesley won't be moving closer to the good side by being with Fred; instead, Fred will just be moving closer to the dark side.
Like Lilah said, once you add black to white, you can never make it white again - it'll always be a shade of gray.
[>
Re: Deconstructing the Texas Belle and her suitors (AtS spoilers, up to & including Calvary) - LONG! -- Rahael, 15:30:15 02/14/03 Fri
Okay. I am so glad that I played some part in getting this debate started (even if I were a little polemical! but it's effective asking questions of people, no?) just so that it could yield such an excellent, thoughtful post (and this is not the only one. There are other excellent posts below too).
Thank you!! I loved reading this.
[>
Re: Deconstructing the Texas Belle and her suitors (AtS spoilers, up to & including Calvary) - LONG! -- Angela, 16:37:58 02/14/03 Fri
Thanks, Sol. It was an excellent read and not too long. Just right. I'm not sure what I think of Fred right now and maybe that's where we're supposed to be. I know I've been thinking about how well she read him when he tried to break up with her and then went to make good on his soul deal. And I've been trying to equate that Fred with the this Fred and not forget her feelings after the summer the overwhelming pressure of try to be the planner, the organizer, and the one who holds things together. Trying to remember her fear after ground state. Somehow since that point, I feel like I've lost a handle on the character and what she's feeling whereas it felt pretty right before. I haven't posted on her because I feel like I just don't know. The one thing I keep coming back to is the interesting combination of discoveries in Supersymmetry... the validation of her work and the discovery that her Mentor was the one who was also responsible for her ordeal. Her turn to vengeance. That Angel and Gunn questioned her decisions and that Wesley was ready to enable them (rightly or wrongly and bearing in mind that his manner read as somewhat manipulative.) I think she live in a cave before Pylea. I think she was becoming herself. (I also think your comment about her shared experience with Wesley of the shy fumbling intellectual was insightful although I'm not sure how to equate this entirely with the Fred of Spin). But I think mainly I'm waiting to see where she becomes now because I believe she's at a watershed. In truth, I think they all are and I think that the journey for all three in the triangle becomes darker now. Beyond that I'm not sure what to think. I have this slightly hopeful slightly fearful entirely entranced feeling waiting to see what happens next and what they all become. Thanks for an entirely interesting essay, Sol.
[>
Good post. Preserving this thread. Will respond soon, -- s'kat, 20:10:20 02/14/03 Fri
[> [>
thanks - looking forward to it ;-) -- Solitude1056, 20:33:50 02/14/03 Fri
[>
Great post -- Celebaelin, 07:15:09 02/15/03 Sat
I thoroughly enjoyed reading every word despite the fact that it has several oddly personal echoes relating to the world and elsewhere that would rate a fsd (full scale deflection) on my inbuilt Bizzare-o-meter. Eventually I will catch up with all the stuff you're writing about but for the moment let me just say 'Doo dee do do doo dee do do' in a distinctly twilight zone stylie.
[>
Your theory makes helluva lot more sense than mine! -- Scroll, 11:40:40 02/15/03 Sat
...it's no surprise to me that Wesley would finally retaliate against Gunn's refusal by doing his utter best to make Gunn experience what Wesley went through.
I think this makes absolute sense, and fits in better with what we've seen on screen more than my insane theory of Fred = innocent Wes. Instead we've got Wes stealing the girl to inflict suffering (the same kind of suffering Fred wanted for Seidel) on Gunn, the only one who consistently throws the past and Wes' outsider status into Wes' face.
I also have to agree about "Fred's true little-girl-ness" -- while she does have a vengeful streak, I don't think she has truly comprehended what it means to be dark, not the way Angel and (future casting spoiler) have done. If Fred reminds you of Faith, I'll specify I think she reminds me of Faith before her accidental stabbing of Alan Finch. I say "before" because until then, Faith was only flirting with the dark side. Later she was having a full-fledged affair with it.
Fred is flirting with being dark (not so much evil) but she doesn't really know what that darkness is like. IMO, her actions in Pylea are a little different from what she's doing now. She may have killed demons or even other humans in Pylea, but it was always about survival (as far as we can tell). But now, it's more than survival. Being bitchy to Lilah and glamming up to please Wesley don't really have much to do with survival, I'd think.
One thing interesting to note is Lilah's interaction with Wes, which is very different from her previous handling of him. Instead of using her body, she keeps her distance. I don't think they touch even once this episode. She doesn't play on his sympathies regarding her wound, she doesn't even really attack Fred, her rival. In fact, she's positively nice! She tries to comfort Cordy about the "failure" of the soul-spell. She was even making coffee for everybody! Now, I'm not saying she redeemed herself, or was even trying to redeem herself, but she seemed... softer... somehow. And when Angelus was about to give Fred a "hug", Lilah dropping the coffee tray is what distracted Angelus and perhaps saved Fred. Lilah and Fred completely switched roles, just as Gunn and Wesley have.
And I wonder about Lilah's stigmata-like wound. I wonder if it signifies anything longterm. Could be wishful thinking, I already miss Lilah :)
[> [>
Thanks! .... and also, Fred's coping mechanisms -- Solitude1056, 17:53:05 02/15/03 Sat
Fred is flirting with being dark (not so much evil) but she doesn't really know what that darkness is like. IMO, her actions in Pylea are a little different from what she's doing now. She may have killed demons or even other humans in Pylea, but it was always about survival (as far as we can tell).
There's also a major quirk in the fact that by the time the gang showed up in Pylea, Fred's sanity had been doing the tango in the cabbage patch for a bit too long. So there's a great possibility that her actions of beating in guards, tossing bodies off cliffs, stealing dinner, and otherwise being socially unacceptable were actions she could dismiss by virtue of denying that any of it was real. Look at how she handled her return to the Jossverse, and her re-introduction to her parents, or her concept of interior decoration. Not exactly someone playing with a full set of hangers for assessing the Seidel issue; dealing with her former professor may have been the first time Fred's actions might truly be considered real, as opposed to the not-quite-as-real issue of staking vampires or slugging demons. I guess in that sense, perhaps my drunk-driving analogy works better than I thought, since she was treating the realness of the situation rather glibly where Gunn may have been thinking more pragmatically, not having five years of nonreal to confuzzle his mind.
From what little is visible of Fred's former self (the flashback or two during the Pylea arc, or Fred's behavior in Spin the Bottle), it appears that Fred was your basic lanky, overly brilliant, otherwise free-spirited Texan with her own set of morals about proper plant use. She certainly didn't give the impression of being a shy, retiring type, intimidated by the good looking men around her, which made me think that her years in Pylea have taught her to shrink from too much attention. (And, well, the hiding in her room upon her arrival was a clue, too.) So it's no wonder that Fred, already irked at Gunn, would secretly enjoy playing Wes and Gunn against each other (and may even help to aggravate the situation). Fred is hardly an innocent Desdemona in the triangle, even if she might deny a conscious willingness to wreak havoc.
One thing interesting to note is Lilah's interaction with Wes, which is very different from her previous handling of him. Instead of using her body, she keeps her distance. I don't think they touch even once this episode. She doesn't play on his sympathies regarding her wound, she doesn't even really attack Fred, her rival. In fact, she's positively nice!
I don't know whether Lilah knew she was a goner, but I suspect the non-healing wound was a bad sign. I also recall Lilah giving some appraising glances to Wesley and Fred, and as a perceptive character she may've summed up the dynamics pretty quickly. She is supposed to be a lawyer, after all, and can probably gauge the jury's emotions pretty quickly. It's possible she saw no reason to do anything, and chose instead to let Fred and Wes continue their rapid descent into havoc successfully wreaked. Of anyone, I'd expect Lilah to be Most Likely To Not Bother If It's Going To Be Messed Up Just Fine Without Her Help.
And when Angelus was about to give Fred a "hug", Lilah dropping the coffee tray is what distracted Angelus and perhaps saved Fred. Lilah and Fred completely switched roles, just as Gunn and Wesley have.
That was odd - the edits were so fast, I wasn't sure what was going on. (And I still haven't figured out how to get my VCR to work, so naturally, no tapes... dammit.) Do you think Lilah had figured it out, then? Or was she distracting Angel, or Fred, from the almost-hug? Or was there something else that made her jump? She didn't seem too upset about it, if I recall - made some snappy remark about how serving coffee wasn't in her job description.
As a matter of fact, Cordelia's attitude towards Gwen struck me as nasty attempting to be sarcastically funny. Cordelia's original humor was from her ability to toss off zings that stung, but she delivered them in such a way as if she didn't even fully register the extent of the sting. Her comments towards Gwen, however, sounded petty, angry, and jealous - not even remotely funny, just annoying. In Calvary, Fred came across the same way - maybe she was trying for a "you're cute when you're angry" but she just came across as petulant, spoiled, and nasty. Lilah, on the other hand, topped them both with ease, slicing honesty, and true wit. That's why I cursed Joss (as usual) for letting Lilah bit the big one - she was the only bright spot o' attitude in an otherwise fumbling, backstabbing fangstone cops episode.
*sigh*
[>
Re: Deconstructing the Texas Belle and her suitors (AtS spoilers, up to & including Calvary) - LONG! -- Dannyblue, 19:44:24 02/15/03 Sat
It always seemed obvious to me that Gunn killed Seidel so that he wouldn't spend however long suffering in whatever dimension he ended up in. That was the only logical reason I could see for Gunn snapping his neck before pushing him into the portal. So, I was always a little surprised when other fans said Gunn simply killed Seidel so that Fred wouldn't have to do it.
The way I saw it, Gunn was giving Fred what she wanted, pushing Seidel through a portal. He just took the suffering part of it out of the equation.
For anyone interested in Tarot...address for Buffy Tarot, etc. -- Robin Wood??, 15:33:23 02/14/03 Fri
try:
www.geocities.com/lady_greenwood/buffy-tarot.html
also - Robin Wood is the name of a woman who designed a modern tarot deck, of the same name. It is, in reviewer's opinion, an attempt to bring wiccan imagery into the tarot.
[>
Re: For anyone interested in Tarot...address for Buffy Tarot, etc. -- WickedBuffy, 16:36:02 02/14/03 Fri
Wow - thanks for sharing that site! You can tell she knows her BtVS. What an intriguing way to tie Tarot and Buffyverse together - and it made sense.
I especially liked the ones with Xander in them for some reason - even the Evil Xander seemed to fit so well with the message.
[>
Re: For anyone interested in Tarot...address for Buffy Tarot, etc. -- luna, 19:00:47 02/14/03 Fri
REALLY love it, except for the annoying geocities popups! Great understanding of the tarot and the Buffy characters. Interesting substitutions. The council as Hierophant! LOL!
[>
Re: For anyone interested in Tarot...address for Buffy Tarot, etc. -- Solitude1056, 20:16:35 02/14/03 Fri
I like them, except for the 0 card, which was originally The Fool. The First Slayer may be the predominant archetype underlying the series, but that's why I'd put the First Slayer nearer the end/beginning of the series, for Judgement, or the Last Trump (as in Last Trumpet, End of World, not Trump/card). The first card, The Fool, is supposed to be beginnings, innocence, a certain amount of serendipity, that one blindly jumps into new things without looking but somehow will turn out alright - among other meanings. I would've put either Xander in that position, or the "young" Buffy we see in the flashback where Buffy is in the act of slaying her first vamp (and not afterwards, when she's freaking - The Fool doesn't think twice, he just jumps).
Otherwise, a cool & nifty deck - especially with Joss as the Magician. The original title, The Juggler, may be even more appropriate, given how many projects Joss appears to have going at any one time...
[> [>
The Fool -- luna, 18:16:43 02/15/03 Sat
I think the Fool is a lot more complex than that, and I think the First Slayer is probably excellent. First, 0 is the number that's not really a number, and the FS is sort of out of the human realm, too. The Fool is the beginning, the source that underlies everything that comes after. Also, the Fool can be more like Shakespeare's fools, the only ones who really see what's going on. Blake said "if the Fool persists in his folly, he will become wise." It also reminds me of Rumi's ideas about being a fool or being simple--that it is the path to true understanding. The Fool is the mystic, in these interpretations, in touch with ultimate reality.
[>
Hey ! Nice work. Done one myself. -- Etrangere, 12:27:07 02/15/03 Sat
http://anne.elisa.free.fr/tarotexplication.html
It's funny you used Angel for the Lovers and Spike for the Hanged Man and I did the inverse ;)
[> [>
loved it -- WickedBuffy, 13:57:16 02/15/03 Sat
Wow, Etrangere, I liked your take on the Buffy Tarot too. It had a different feel (approach) than the other one which was delightful to explore.
And I REALLY liked Anya/Empress and Tara/High Priestess. Though others might disagree about those choices, that's how I feel about their characters. Loved the artwork and quotes, too - nice work for ust learning photoshop!
[> [>
Great Work! -- luna, 18:27:30 02/15/03 Sat
Loved Faith as the Devil, Oz as Strength, Willow as Temperance. But see my post above on why I disagree with Jonathan as the Fool.
Beautiful work--I'm inspired!
[>
Is this your own work? It's great! -- luna, 18:30:14 02/15/03 Sat
I FINALLY GOT A JOB!!! (COMPLETELY O/T SORRY MASQ.) -- Yu Yu Hakusho, 15:41:38 02/14/03 Fri
After a year and a half of temp jobs that ranged from retarring a parking lot to mopping up the floors near metal casting equipment, I finally found a real job with benefits, vacations, and everything!
This just goes to show all of you who are looking for work, or a better job, if I can find a worthwhile job, anyone can ;)
[>
Congratulations, Yu Yu. :-) -- Angela, 16:00:05 02/14/03 Fri
Best wishes on the new job and congratulations on finding a good one. Hope you enjoy!
[>
Fantastic news!!!!! That's wonderful, Yu. I'm hoping your luck will rub off.*S* -- Briar (work is good!), 00:57:08 02/15/03 Sat
[> [>
Trust me, if a lazy procrastinator can stumble onto a good job, anyone can ;) -- Yu Yu Hakusho, 05:23:57 02/15/03 Sat
[> [>
Ditto. Great news. Hope will rub off on me too ;-) -- s'kat, 07:24:31 02/15/03 Sat
Questions... (Spoils BtVS 7.14 and 5.22) -- imp, 15:59:31 02/14/03 Fri
If you wish to remain unspoiled, read no further.
*
*
*
*
*
I've read practically all threads/all posts on this board since First Date aired (and perused the archives) so my apologies if this has already been pointed out by someone else...
Buffy and Wood are walking along a dark alley on the way to a restaurant. Just before they get there she says "This isn't right." [I think she utters this.] As soon as she says it, a vampire comes into view from around a corner. Next, we see a shot of several vamps attacking Buffy and Wood.
Did anyone else notice what I saw in that one-second glimpse of the first vamp? He appeared to be the same one from the teaser sequence of The Gift. You know, a young man is running down a dark alley that dead ends. A vamp pursuer rounds the corner soon after. Feeble banter ensues. But, this dark alley dead ends at the back door of the Magic Box. Buffy comes out and talks to both boy and vamp. She eventually asks the vamp if he has ever heard of the expression "Oh God, my leg, my leg." He hasn't but does say it before she dusts him.
If you watch the fight sequence closely, The Gift vamp is not there.
[Admittedly, I have a low TTMQ and on many days my cognitive processes are of the fire bad/tree pretty variety. But I will shamelessly pat myself on the back for recognizing the above as soon as I saw it.]...
First, I think it was deliberately spliced in-call it a gut feeling on my part. For all the talk about unreliable narrators there may also be unreliable scenes. Sloppy continuity errors may well be deliberate continuity errors. If you watch AtS and have been unspoiled since early S3 until now, were you thinking continuity errors or character retcon with respect to Cordelia? What do you think of her now in light of the most recent episode?
Second, it may lend support to any/all of the time wonkiness or AU theories floating around.
Third, perhaps Buffy's instincts this season could be correct (see above, "This isn't right"). I wonder what could happen if she ever does 'wake up.'
Anyway, after all that set-up, did any of you see The Gift vamp, too? What are your thoughts on that glimpse of him, if any? I live in North Carolina; if you live in another state/country, did you see it? Throughout the course of BtVS there have been a number of seemingly throwaway lines or snippets of dialogue. Might this be a seemingly throwaway (nearly 2-year-old) visual?
I wonder if this happened in the recent Angel episode as well. I honestly would not know as I have only "rediscovered" AtS during mid-S3.
By Honorificus, I love BtVS. There. I've said my peace; go play.
[>
Re: Questions... (Spoils BtVS 7.14 and 5.22) -- Peggin, 17:06:09 02/14/03 Fri
Did anyone else notice what I saw in that one-second glimpse of the first vamp? He appeared to be the same one from the teaser sequence of The Gift.
I had the same reaction. It looked like the same vampire, and he didn't seem to be one of the vampires Buffy and Wood were fighting moments later. But I can't help you with any more than that. I have no idea if it was just a goof, or if it was intentional. And, if it was intentional, I have no idea what it might mean.
[>
Re: Questions... (Spoils BtVS 7.14 and 5.22) -- Dariel, 17:12:31 02/14/03 Fri
Yes, I also noticed the vamp from The Gift. Guess I got caught up in the rest of the episode and let it slide, however.
I think, as you've implied, that it was a little hint: Don't believe everything you see. Even the big bad is not what it seems.
[>
That's 4 of us -- frisby, 18:41:19 02/14/03 Fri
I noticed it too. It "was indeed" the same guy, and he was then not in the following scenes. Again, either a little nothing, or a sign that something is not quite right. It sure is exciting though coming up on the season's end, again.
[> [>
Simple explanation...... -- Briar Rose, 00:53:10 02/15/03 Sat
If you read the credits, there are only about twenty stunt guys they use as vamps on Buffy. They are always recycling the same guys. Didn't anyone notice that the Amer-Indian biker type killed in Graduation Day is also staked in Becoming and in Buffy's resurrection part one and again in OMWF?*L
He's one of my "insider gossip" sources for BtVS..... a good friend of my adopted son's.
Track the "stunts" credits and the same names pop up over and over again. Not counting speaking roles, which are normally extras that trade out to regular stunt players for the actual fight, over the seven seasons there have only been about 30 stunt players in total playing vampires. They're regulars. Usually the reason why one is missing from part of a scene is either because stunt men actually CAN get hurt stunt fighting, or more normally because they need to shoot a scene in parts and the same stunt actor isn't available the next scheduled shoot of that scene.
[> [> [>
Re: Except... -- snuffynelson, 10:30:39 02/15/03 Sat
Except this isn't just the same actor/stunt person appearing in a new scene. The entire sequence coming around the corner and then the close up on him is a recycled scene from the Gift.
The only other time I've caught ME doing this is in Two to Go, when Willow is tearing apart the police station. There's a repeated scene of policefolk fleeing... Don't know the deep meanings behind that one, either, though...
[>
Re: Questions... (Spoils BtVS 7.14 and 5.22) -- grum, 02:43:31 02/15/03 Sat
I don't know if it was mentioned yet but the disappearing bag o' gun in the Andrew Jonathan/The First conversation is another for any list of oddities.
[>
Re: Questions... (Spoils BtVS 7.14 and 5.22) -- J, 15:07:34 02/15/03 Sat
I noticed it as well, primarily because I actually watched that *very* scene from "The Gift" *immediately* prior to watching "First Date"--I was looking for a videotape I could tape over! Anyway, I caught it immediately, but I couldn't fathom what it meant. Seems like it might have something to do with what Beljoxa's eye said, if it means anything at all.
[> [>
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ... -- Briar Rose, 16:57:30 02/15/03 Sat
Continuity gaps and reusing some minor scenes has a lot to do with budget and production stress/overload.
There are lots of things in any TV production that get overlooked or reused as the coordination of the series of shots needed to produce it is laid out. When you're shooting the ending first and the middle last you have stuff that gets mixed up, messed up and also has to be fit into budget and timing constraints.
BtVS is one of the better ones. ME is on top of the major stuff; the story line and where they plan on going from season to season in the story line. But there is so much packed into the Buffy-verse that I can't help but think that there can't be a "reason" and "hint" and "foreshadowing" to every prop, scene and piece of clothing worn in the show. Sometimes it's just plain old human error or limitations on time and light for a scene.
I also have to wonder how this is being seen as "the same scene" when we see Wood walking next to Buffy and the Vamps are all coming in one by one from different angles. That is not the same scene as in "The Gift" at all. In "The Gift" we see one kid and a Vamp behind him. Buffy comes from the back door of the Magick Shop, not around a corner of an alley. She's standing in front of a large trash bin and the boy is between her and the Vamp. Are you talking about JUST the scene were the boy she saves is looking at the vamp before she comes out?
So much layered philosophical goodness is packed into each ep of BtVS already... I go nuts trying to figure out how the season arcs will play out, even with being HEAVILY spoiled. If I started looking at this like Push, Nevada where every little brick is a potential clue, I'd be "Normal Again" Buffy.*L
[> [> [>
Re: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ... -- J, 05:42:21 02/16/03 Sun
Are you talking about JUST the scene were the boy she saves is looking at the vamp before she comes out?
Yes. It's a half-second clip of a vamp coming around the corner.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ... -- J, 05:43:51 02/16/03 Sun
sorry about the dropped tag!
[> [> [> [> [>
Thank you! You're all correct, that was the same shot. -- Briar Rose, 16:27:17 02/16/03 Sun
Current board | More February 2003