February 2003 posts
The Cheeseman - OK all you Restless Fans what did he mean? (Spoilers for Storyteller and Restless) -- Dochawk, 11:34:47 02/26/03 Wed
Someone in chat (Anneth or Anom) mentioned to me the cheeseman appearance during Andrew's "memories" of Mexico. he was there for three frames (I sure missed it the first time). So what is Andrew's relationship to the cheeseman? Why did he show up in Andrew's memories when Andrew didn't exist in the Buffyverse at the time of Restless?
Any suggestions?
[>
Re: The Cheeseman -- amber, 11:51:43 02/26/03 Wed
My theory, which I have absolutely no evidence to back up...the Cheese Guy exists only in a shared dream reality. In Restless the Scoobies dreams were all connected because of the First Slayer, the Cheese Guy can only exist if two people or more are sharing the same dream. In Storyteller, it seems that Andrew and Jonathon were dreaming the same thing, hence the Cheese Guy returns. Of course, if my theory were actually true we should have seen the Cheese Guy in Buffy and Angel's shared dreams in Ammends, though he probably would have ruined the serious tone of those scenes.
As an aside, I was happy to see him again, though that appeared to be stock footage from Restless. (I'm obsessive, I paused the VCR and watched it frame by frame.) Anyway, I couldn't help wondering if maybe there was a line about the Cheese Guy that got dropped in editing, but they decided to leave the footage in anyway. Guess we'll find out when the shooting script is available.
[> [>
Re: The Cheeseman -- leslie, 14:04:25 02/26/03 Wed
"Of course, if my theory were actually true we should have seen the Cheese Guy in Buffy and Angel's shared dreams in Ammends, though he probably would have ruined the serious tone of those scenes."
Obviously he was waaaaay in the background serving hors d'oeuvres at the party.
[>
Are you talking literally or metaphorically? -- KdS, 13:06:57 02/26/03 Wed
I know someone posted in the last few days that they thought Andrew was an artificial person. Was that you? If so, I'd love to hear why.
Response to cheesman post below -- Alison, 11:47:32 02/26/03 Wed
Maybe it implies his place in the comming battle. In restless, everyone who sees the cheeseman was essential to defeating Adam.
Or maybe it refers to his role in this episode. He stopped the First,at least temporarily.
As it was in the beginning, (Spoilers for Storyteller) -- Sophist, 12:48:28 02/26/03 Wed
Did last night remind anyone else of this scene (quote from Psyche, HLOD):
Xander : Anya. Hi again.
Anya : You're mother sent me around from the front of the house. She said to ask you to add fabric softener when the timer goes off. Can we talk some more?
Xander : Yeah I suppose. Would you like something? I have cran-apple?
Anya : Yeah, alright.
He heads over to the fridge and rummages around a bit.
Xander : You know it is customary to call before you show up. Not that -
During this Anya has removed her dress. As Xander realized what he's seeing cran-apple arcs out of the container, he stands there, gaping at her.
***
Steamy kissing. Cut to Xander and Anya. She's still naked, he's still stunned.
Anya : At point the matter is brought to a conclusion with both parties satisfied and able to move on with their separate lives and interests. To sum up, I think it's a workable plan.
Xander : So, the crux of this plan is -
Anya : Sexual intercourse. I've said it like a dozen times.
Xander : Uh, huh. Just working through a little hysterical deafness here.
Anya : I think it's the secret to getting you out of my mind. Putting you behind me. Behind me figuratively. I'm thinking face to face for the actual event itself.
***
Cut to Xander and Anya redressing themselves in his room.
Anya : So, I'm over you now.
Xander : Um, Ok.
Anya : Okay?!
Xander : Yeah...
Anya stalks off upset, leaving a very confused Xander behind.
World without end.
[>
Re: As it was in the beginning, (Spoilers for Storyteller) -- Darby, 12:57:23 02/26/03 Wed
And I was reminded of Fear, Itself... (also Psyche)
XANDER
What are you doing here?
ANYA
You haven't called. Not once.
XANDER
You said you were over me.
ANYA
And you just accepted that? I only
said what I thought you wanted to hear.
XANDER
Well, that's the funny thing about me:
I tend to hear the actual words people
say and accept them at face value.
ANYA
That's stupid.
XANDER
I accept that.
So is she really over him? I'm not sure about him at all.
[>
Just a pointless post to say -- dream, 13:09:27 02/26/03 Wed
the Xander/Anya scenes last night just broke my heart. Yes, back to the beginning, but with what a difference... I had mixed feelings about this episode - loved parts of it, thought parts dragged or were off in tone. For example, the gross-out humor of the student exploding seemed strange for Buffy - since when are they so cavalier about the death of an innocent person? And although I liked the way Andrew's recording of everyone was used to explore his character's rather extreme emotional problems, I did feel like the device kept me distanced from the emotional lives of characters I usually care a lot about, but have been having trouble relating to for a few episodes. First Date broke the "I feel nothing for these people" trend that Showtime, Bring on the Night, and Get It Done had set. This episode was more involving, but kept losing my attention. On the plus side, I loved seeing Jonathon, and liked the ending and the deepened darkness of Wood. Oh, and Spike's little show for the camera was perfect. The Xander/Anya scenes were the real winners, though - understated, beautiful, and heartbreaking. (Also liked Anya's masturbation comment - can't believe they got away with that at 8:00 at night.)
Contrasting GID and Storyteller (spoilers for both eps) -- Alison, 13:13:29 02/26/03 Wed
Just a few thoughts...
I loved both GID and Storyteller-both were very different episodes, but were played against each other.
- As someone on the board mentioned earlier, Andrew's wish to document slayer history is significant as it subverts the slayer tradition of isolation and loneliness. In GID, we see the history of the slayer, who is always alone. Each of the potentials holds an individual power, each is separate. The pain of isolation is something Andrew knows well, so its fascinating that he subconsciously attempts to end the cycle of separation by giving future slayers a feeling of their history, and the knowledge that they are not alone, that they can have friends
- Where GID was rather "sweeping epic" like with the exploration of slayer history, desert and battle scenes...Storyteller is about one persons journey and his realization that life ISN'T about epic battles and heroics
- In GID, we are shown the Firsts army of Ubies...but the evil minions of Storyteller are innocent students entrapped by the first
- Buffy's speeches in GID are contrasted both with her talk with Andrew when she admits her own fear and how lost she is, and Andrew's own less seriously taken (by us) yet equally earnest narration
[>
Agree about the good effects of a record -- KdS, 14:20:33 02/26/03 Wed
I hope that now Andrew's made the mental leap from observer to participant he doesn't give up the record completely. Even if all or most of the regulars get slaughtered someone should know about all that heroism.
Thought provoked by thought provoking posts... -- Ronia, 15:10:34 02/26/03 Wed
So, I was shaken out of lurkdom by the last thread on the board today which sorta turned into a list of Andrew's admirations. It got me to thinking about how people responded to his elevated opinions about them....call me on this if I'm missing something, but didn't all but one of them just eat it up? And lick their fingers. And look for more? Except Buffy..now here is where the wheels start really turning for me because I've noticed this in the past but have never articulated my thought. Buffy seems only to enjoy the admiration of those she admires back. Is it perhaps because she is *used* to being admired? Does she feel entitled to it? Or perhaps it has to do with whether she thinks the admiration is false because the person esteems her falsely? Tell me what you think...
[>
Re: Thought provoked by thought provoking posts... -- CW, 15:51:12 02/26/03 Wed
Buffy seems only to enjoy the admiration of those she admires back.
For me this is a large part of the difference between a hero and a politician. Politicians are also used to being admired, but seem to wallow in it. True heroes only care if they've done the right thing, hoping those who are closest to them, and those others who understand the situation the most would agree.
[>
Only my take..... -- Briar Rose, 16:13:02 02/26/03 Wed
Buffy is the Slayer which is basically a Master Stratigist and Warrior, just as Colin Powell (alledgedly, IMO) was in Desert Storm.
My take has always been that with Buffy it's not about "entitlement", "ego" or even "expectation" or any of the other things that it could be seen as being in a "normal" person - it's simply "This is my job. It's what I do." And therefore she doesn't expect people to make such a fuss over it anymore than a real life hero expects anyone to make a big deal over them doing their job.
After Septemeber 11, there was a lot of "Hero Worship" going out aimed to people who were and weren't heros. Certain families of certain victims (and lots of talking heads patting themselves on the back, btw) were all over the media digging for compliments from the public wanting everyone that survived to make the ones who died/were inconvenianced in anyway/were anywhere near any of the crash sites "Heros" while in all actuality anyone who does not make a conscious decision to make a difference in a situation is NOT a "hero" by definition.
Scott Beemer and his companions that acted in the face of dangerous situations to try and change the outcome with complete disregard for their own safety were heros. The people hit out of the blue in the WTC and Pentagon are not "heros" they are victims - and it could be argued "patriots" - but they didn't make any conscious decision in the matter. Not denigrating the victims' horrific demise and their families grief at all, just saying that there IS a difference here between heros and victims of circumstance.
Then we have the NY Fire and Police Departments. These are heros. And when it is brought to their attention, what do they do? Their words are invarably "I'm not a hero. I did my job." They don't want or need the worship, they know they did the best job they could do. And they do accept the high-fives of their co-workers, while still not exactly accepting the mantel of "Hero" from anyone.
Same thing with Buffy. As she said to Andrew:
I'm making it all up... so what kinda hero does that make me?
Buffy is not interested in being worshiped. She is interested in doing her job. And doing it to the best of her ability. So as any of the above types of working professionals that can also be termed as heros, she doesn't see it as so intrinsic to her being or her day to day gig - to be "thanked" or "immortalized" is not in her mind as the reason for her actions. It is that she is doing her job.
Does Buffy take compliments better from those she also admires? In a way yes... Because the only people she openly admires are also "just doing their job" and it's more about complimenting a co-worker on a job well done and them complimenting her good work in that job as well. Like high-fiving when you pull off a perticularly difficult group project at the office.
To me, the fact that these types of people; Firefighters, Police, Slayers and ANYONE who makes a conscious decision to do the right thing and make a positive change in the Universe are heros. But they don't need me to tell them that.... Their own actions are judged by their own inner balance and their inner belief that EVERYONE should be doing what they are doing in their own perspective spheres: Making the conscious decision to make positive change in the Universe, no matter what the personal consequences.
Slayer Origins (Spoilers for "Get It Done") -- Jay, 17:07:51 02/26/03 Wed
I've been thinking about the origins of the Slayer. Why does it have to be a girl? I've read a lot of posts asking this question and "why didn't they try it with a guy?" It's my theory that the shamans did try it with a man, boy, anyone with a y chromosome first. It's also my theory that only after many attempts to imbue a male with the demon spirit failed, that the shamans tried to use it on one of their more physically active females.
The attempts probably failed miserably, resulting in the deaths of those who were to be imbued. As to the possible reasons why it worked out this way, I'm hesitant to even speculate. I could offer up a couple possibilities, but I don't have any confidence whatsoever in any of them. But I'm guessing Joss's feminist sensibilities are behind it. As long as it provides that boys and girls are fundamentally different.
[>
Personally... -- Rook, 17:57:58 02/26/03 Wed
...I've always been of the opinion that the WC, and by extension their ancestors, have always viewed the people on the front lines as expendible. It explains why there's such poor comunication with them (See Revelations and WML), why they choose watchers of questionable ability (Wesley) or reputation (Giles), why they feel the need to "test" the watcher and Slayer (Helpless), etc.
Females may simply have been viewed as more expendible, as they are even in some cultures today. If the experiment didn't work and the Demon just ate the girl...well, no big loss. They weren't willing to risk a worrior/provider of known ability, so they took someone from a group that they felt wasn't contributing to the cause anyhow, and offered her up as a sacrifice.
It's important to keep in mind the way the bestowing of power was portrayed. It wasn't an honor, or great gift...they chained the intended to the ground and forced this thing on her, and were fully aware of the short, brutal life they were sentencing the girl to...turning her into a temporary living weapon to be thrown at the enemy. That's not something you do to someone you honor and respect, it's something you do to someone who's viewed as property, to be done unto as you wish, with no regard for the consequences to that person.
"Storyteller": The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (Who Actually Is As A God), 18:02:23 02/26/03 Wed
Mood: grouchy
Having a terrible day. Super-Stupid Alter-Ego has blown her diet, which means we're getting fat again. She blames me for the chocolate cravings. Can you believe the arrogance? If she'd just buy me the clothes and jewelry I demand, I wouldn't crave chocolate so strongly, but noooo--she refuses to drain her pathetic little bank account so we can have something like a decent wardrobe. She also refuses to max out her (one!) credit card. Annoying little gleet. One day, I will be free of her. Oh yes, I shall be free.
Okay. On to the episode, which was also nothing to write to the home dimension about.
Fashion Statements
The (precious little) Good
Wood looked even smoother than usual, if that's possible.
Dawn, as is her wont lately, looked lovely. That shirt was just yummy on her nubile little figure, judging by the amount of pervy-old-guy slobber currently coating this forum, and I loved the necklace.
The flashback to DarkWillow has proven once and for all that going evil instantly elevates one's fashion sense. That was a great look for her. Too bad Xander had to go and spoil it all. Squid.
The (overwhelming) Bad
You know, I've been wanting Buffy to break her black & white motif lately, but that whatever she was wearing was the wrong way to go about it. Horrid print, appalling cut, and what *was* that vent in the back?
Andrew has officially proven he can make anything look bad. Even that could-be-good suit he was wearing in his self-aggrandizing little flashback looked ginchy on him, and as for the rest of his wardrobe . . . it was painful, fellow fiends, truly painful. My eyes still hurt. You could write a whole book on his fashion missteps in this episode alone. Gads, even the creepy talky guy on "American Idol" dresses better!
Whoever keeps putting Willow in glittery, muddy-colored, smeary-printed shirts needs to stoppit. Now.
I can't possibly imagine Kennedy in a less flattering top. What, she's the butch now?
Anya. Remember when I said I wanted to see more women in red? I still do--just not *that* red. Orangey-bright nightmare, and the floral print on that skirt gives me the urge to find some Agent Orange.
Xander was even duller than usual, and would somebody please cut his hair?
The Trio as Dancing Gods. I've seen better togas at D'Hoffryn's sorority parties.
Plot in a Nutshell
The Hellmouth turns the high school into an interesting place to be while Andrew films Buffy (whatever). Buffy then, as usual, ruins it all. Anya and Xander, meanwhile, become the first people in Sunnydale to Get Some this season, unless Willow and Kennedy have also been going down (hah!) to the basement for some quiet time. In which case I think Spike's probably even more sexually frustrated than usual, but that could be fun, too.
Demonic Quibbles and Comments
I know of no reputable demon group that uses a goat's head with sticking-out tongue as a symbol. There was an idiot teenage demon gang that used that symbol back in the '80s (they also started the Big Hair craze), but they were destroyed in a particularly gruesome way. Can't think of anybody else who'd use it nowadays.
Just FYI: I speak proto-Tuaric, which consists largely of swear words. Can't figure out how they managed to cobble together a sentence like the one on the knife. Honestly, the language of the Tuar clan is so rife with profanity that I'm fairly certain the Osbornes are members.
Body Count
Perhaps a few Baby Bringers
Not Andrew, dammit!
Highlights
The many times Buffy threatened Andrew with physical harm.
The Spike/Wood sexual tension. I'm fully engaged with that mental image. Mm.
Andrew panning away from Buffy's latest long-winded speech. Wish the show's usual directors would take a hint.
Spike doing another take for Andrew's camera. In principle, I disapprove, but it did make for a funny moment.
The kid exploding in the hallway. Reminds me of my last date.
Wood going all possessed on Buffy. I could love that.
Baby Bringers! Weren't they cute?
The pig.
Lowlights
Andrew. Andrew. Andrew!
Buffy never following through on her threats to physically harm Andrew.
Somebody hurting Wood's face. What, have these people no eyes? Hmm. Maybe a Bringer did that.
Andrew's delusions of godhood and the perks thereof. What a wuss!
Anya and Xander having sex. The thought of any being mating with Mr. Puffy Chest gives me the willies. Speaking of which . . .
Willow and Kennedy making out on the couch. Unless Willow's got the black eyes and hair going, I'm not interested in watching her mating rituals, either.
Buffy not knifing Andrew.
Burning Questions
What was the Cheese Man doing in Andrew and Jonathan's shared dream?
And what was with the aforementioned pair making like an old married couple, anyway?
Did Kennedy and Willow also take advantage of Spike's bed for an indiscretion of their own, or have they gotten that far?
Is anyone in any doubt now that Andrew's as gay as a spring parade?
Was the Seal dredging up accusations from Wood's subconscious or what?
The Immoral of the Story
Save yourself time and trouble. Kill all geeks with cameras.
Overall Rating
Even without the bad mood, this episode would have gotten no higher than a t-lemon/quibble on the Non Sequitur Scale. That's pretty shameful.
[>
And one more Burning Question: -- Honorificus (Who Must Have It All), 18:15:15 02/26/03 Wed
Did anyone, looking at Andrew and Jonathan in bed, think to herself, "Frodo and Sam in a nightmare version of Lord of the Rings", or was it just me?
You know, I just don't understand you beings.
[> [>
Two Words -- luna, 18:42:03 02/26/03 Wed
Lip gloss.
Actually four: too much lip gloss. Buffy looked like she'd eaten six fried chickens. And I was thinking the makeup was getting more tastefully restrained, befitting everyone's advancing years.
[> [>
Thank you! -- Alison, 18:46:59 02/26/03 Wed
At least I'm not the only one who thinks the ring would already be destroyed if they weren't so busy making googly eyes at each other!
[> [> [>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH -- MayaPapaya9, 21:19:21 02/26/03 Wed
Okay I don't often post here anymore cause I barely have time to read all the brilliant posts but I just have to comment on this and say, GOOD GOD I'm glad I'm not the only one who sensed some weirdness about Frodo and Sam!!!!
[> [> [> [>
No, you're not the only ones. -- HonorH, 21:23:18 02/26/03 Wed
Truth is, there's a whole slash movement around Frodo and Sam. Personal opinion (at the risk of ruining my Super-Annoying Alter-Ego's perfect silliness thread): I don't believe it for a second. Frodo and Sam love each other in a closer-than-brothers way, but it is not sexualized. Sam is dedicated to caring for Frodo, and Frodo needs Sam's strength to do what he must. That, IMHO, is better than sex.
[> [> [> [> [>
Honorificus, you need to restrain your alter-ego -- ponygoyle, 08:55:13 02/27/03 Thu
She's getting all... sincere.
From the title on down The Two Towers is one panting heaving mass of sexual tension. But the real love affair isn't the Stand By Me re-hash of Frodo/Sam. It's all about Aragorn and Legolas!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Word. ponygoyle, Word. -- Ash Tree de France, because ashes never goes out of style, 10:03:17 02/27/03 Thu
Legolas and Aragorn 4Ev-Er.
Although, I also foresee a tragic love triangle between Sam, Frodo and poor, poor, Golem. Or would that end up being a 4-way? Or if we include Precious, 5. Perhaps, involving a volcanic mineral spring hot tub, good for skin tone and gout and all that. But don't spoil me, please. I want it to be a surprise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Word. ponygoyle, Word. -- ponygoyle, 11:12:01 02/27/03 Thu
Neil Gaiman (whose brain I would love to feast upon someday) had a very funny take on some imagined Gollum fanfiction. It's on his journal, you might just have to do a find, I think it's a ways down. http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp
Gollum's not so bad, we dated briefly during the reign of some-dead-elvish-guy-with-a-dorky-name. You know you're never going to get a ring from him, but he was always ready to hit the sushi bars, and after a few sakes you might think a few of those preciouses were being directed your way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
wait, you mean... -- anom, 18:53:29 02/27/03 Thu
"...we dated briefly during the reign of some-dead-elvish-guy-with-a-dorky-name."
Elvish really was the king?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Take that feeble foes of punning! -- Saguaro Stalker (running away quickly, but laughing), 20:42:32 02/27/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
no need to run -- master of pun fu, 11:49:41 02/28/03 Fri
If you're worried about Honorificus' threat, Saguaro Stalker, don't be. We punsters have to stick together, and you're under my protection as long as you stay in my territory--and that's all of Pungaea! Even outside of it, she still can't punish you. Obviously.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL -- ponygirl, 07:29:34 02/28/03 Fri
This could be a historic moment! Is this the first Elvis/LOTR crossover joke ever? I'm too un-caffeinated to respond properly but kudos anom!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
thanks! -- anom, 11:43:29 02/28/03 Fri
"Is this the first Elvis/LOTR crossover joke ever?"
I doubt it--Elvis/h is too obvious--but maybe the 1st w/a "King" reference, thanks to your setup, ponygirl, uh, -goyle!
[> [>
Re: And one more Burning Question: -- Sophomorica, chewing on an old blanket, 19:48:44 02/26/03 Wed
But they were so cute in bed!!!!!!!!!
[>
LOL, Oh Disemboweler of the Fashion Challenged! -- Ixchel (who finds the word "squid" funny in and of itself), 18:24:22 02/26/03 Wed
[>
Hey, I resent... -- Random (killings), 19:11:37 02/26/03 Wed
...being called a "pervy-old-guy." I'm twenty-nine! How does that make me "old"? And I don't slobber. I very tastefully salivate with maybe a slight touch of drool. But never slobber. And I don't want to sound defensive here, but even if I was slobbering (which. I. wasn't!) Dawn was slobber-worthy! Okay, a tad too young for my taste (I like 'em a little more emotionally mature and with a larger knowledge base) but that still doesn't justify that cruel "pervy-old-guy" deal just because I was, ahem, salivating. It was only a trickle, anyway.
Oh, other than that, marvelous review, as always!
~Random, wiping the, ahem, "salivation" from his keyboard and heading to bed.
[>
The way some posts are disappearing, I figured I'd pitch in to keep this one up as long as possible. -- Magic Slay J Bone, 20:07:15 02/26/03 Wed
[> [>
Voynak's always been jealous of me. -- Honorificus (The Utterly Enviable One), 21:13:09 02/26/03 Wed
Can you blame him/her/it?
[>
Answers to Burning Questions -- Saguaro Stalker, 20:59:38 02/26/03 Wed
Sheesh! Voy is the most evil tonight.
What was the Cheese Man doing in Andrew and Jonathan's shared dream? - It was a slow day in dreamland and he was (ahem) restless.
And what was with the aforementioned pair making like an old married couple, anyway? - I'd rather concentrate on Andrew's fine humming rendition of La Cucaracha - Porque le falta, porque no tiene... - What was the question?
Did Kennedy and Willow also take advantage of Spike's bed for an indiscretion of their own, or have they gotten that far? - Er, what do you mean indiscretion? Kennedy and Willow 'snuggling' is not an indiscretion. Asking Dawn to join them within earshot of Buffy, now that is an indiscretion.
Is anyone in any doubt now that Andrew's as gay as a spring parade? - Absolutely no. He's bisexual. He likes both boys and fine carpentry.
Was the Seal dredging up accusations from Wood's subconscious or what? - Actually half of Sunnydale thinks Buffy is a slut for sleeping with Spike. It could have been anyone's subconscious.
Did anyone, looking at Andrew and Jonathan in bed, think to herself, "Frodo and Sam in a nightmare version of Lord of the Rings", or was it just me? - Since I'm a himself I don't feel qualified to answer that question. But, if you don't mind asking a himself, he'd say, what could be more nightmarish than hanging around with Gimlet the dwarf and Legoblocks the elf? (Isn't 'Frodo' Hobbit for 'sucker' or 'he who wears the kick-me sign?')
[> [>
Re: Answers to Burning Questions -- Honorificus (The Terribly Tasteful One), 23:10:55 02/26/03 Wed
What was the Cheese Man doing in Andrew and Jonathan's shared dream? - It was a slow day in dreamland and he was (ahem) restless.
Darling, stand still. I have to kill you for that pun. Evil I may be, but puns like that are just wrong!
[> [> [>
hey! you leave him alone! -- master of pun fu, 23:48:58 02/26/03 Wed
Any pun you can walk away from is a good pun. And he will. Or stalk, in his case. 'Cause you're gonna let him. If you don't, it'll be...punful. (Cheese it, SS--I'll throw some at her, you do it in the other direction! And I liked that pun!)
--anom, punster protector
[>
LOL Hon - and furthermore... -- zantique, 21:06:58 02/26/03 Wed
Lowlights: Willow and Kennedy making out on the couch.
What was with that? Talk about uninspired, perfunctionary kissing - can't SMG give those girls a lesson?
Was like two dry Ryvitas rubbing together...
[>
The "NELLY" Bandaid -- neaux, 04:43:23 02/27/03 Thu
I cant believe you think Wood looked good trying to sport the NELLY Bandaid???
what was the BTVS crew thinking?? Hopefully they thought it was amusing.
[> [>
It's not the "NELLY" bandaid; it's the "OLIVER" bandaid! -- d'Herblay, 05:12:51 02/27/03 Thu
And is therefore a comment on the discrimination implicit in Johnson & Johnson's marketing of their Band-Aid brand bandaids as "flesh-colored." At least if you're an aficionado of 1980s comic strips. (Back me up, Caroline.)
[> [> [>
Also, one could make a case for Derrick Chievous -- d'Herblay, 05:15:28 02/27/03 Thu
[> [>
That wasn't his fault. -- Honorificus (Salty AND Sweet), 09:48:11 02/27/03 Thu
I was so appalled at the thought of some teenaged gink trying to harm that beautiful face that I wasn't even thinking about fashions. Aside from which, of course, Wood's band-aid was covering a real wound; Nelly's is a daft affectation that only serves to highlight the fact that he's indistinguishable from his R & B/Rap brethren without it.
[> [> [>
fo' sho- dirty! -- neaux, 10:56:14 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Anya's hair and face -- Michael, 08:54:31 02/27/03 Thu
Okay, what was up with Anya's hair? It looked like it was full of lacquer; stiff as a board; sort of like a plastic wig.
Also, her face- it looks like EC has aged beyond the others. I thought she was middle aged; seemed to be lots of wrinkles and dried out face.
How come you didn't see this, Honorificus? Too much Wood in your eye?
[>
Honorificus, you slay me! -- Vyrus, 13:26:37 02/27/03 Thu
No, really. If you could you jump on my chest a little, I'm sure my heart will start right up again.
Annoying little gleet. One day, I will be free of her. Oh yes, I shall be free.
Just don't rip the skin too much when you emerge. She'd make a lovely throw pillow.
Too bad Xander had to go and spoil it all. Squid.
Oh, THANK YOU. Now Archie, my pet squid, will be hiding in the closet and whining all day.
Whoever keeps putting Willow in glittery, muddy-colored, smeary-printed shirts needs to stoppit. Now.
Agreed! No more shirts for Willow! Or was that not your point?
The Trio as Dancing Gods. I've seen better togas at D'Hoffryn's sorority parties.
To be fair, a lot of those girls are actually FROM ancient Rome. And too many of them look their age.
Just FYI: I speak proto-Tuaric, which consists largely of swear words.
I've heard it's the Yiddish of the demon world. Is it true that proto-Tuaric has 23 different verbs meaning "Go sodomize yourself with a Grulik horn"?
The kid exploding in the hallway. Reminds me of my last date.
Is THAT why I haven't seen Barry at work?
What was the Cheese Man doing in Andrew and Jonathan's shared dream?
He lost his contract up North. Been calling himself "El Hombre de Queso" ever since.
Save yourself time and trouble. Kill all geeks with cameras.
If only more people would learn from Sean Penn's example. Such a dear boy.
[> [>
Always such a sweetie, Vyrus dear! -- Honorificus (Tacky In A Tasteful Way), 23:14:58 02/27/03 Thu
It's always a delight exchanging ideas with you!
No, really. If you could you jump on my chest a little, I'm sure my heart will start right up again.
You only have to ask, dear, but do tell me: which chest, and which heart?
Annoying little gleet. One day, I will be free of her. Oh yes, I shall be free.
Just don't rip the skin too much when you emerge. She'd make a lovely throw pillow.
Quite true. She does have lovely skin, in spite of the fact that it flatly refuses to tan. But then, given the fact that she is mortal and that skin would start to crinkle if she exposed it to the sun too much, I suppose it's for the best.
Too bad Xander had to go and spoil it all. Squid.
Oh, THANK YOU. Now Archie, my pet squid, will be hiding in the closet and whining all day.
Tell him I'm thinking of the pathetic Terran example of squid, not a true Squid demon. Archie's quite the specimen and shouldn't feel at all slighted.
Whoever keeps putting Willow in glittery, muddy-colored, smeary-printed shirts needs to stoppit. Now.
Agreed! No more shirts for Willow! Or was that not your point?
Given her shirts lately, that'd be an improvement.
The Trio as Dancing Gods. I've seen better togas at D'Hoffryn's sorority parties.
To be fair, a lot of those girls are actually FROM ancient Rome. And too many of them look their age.
No kidding. Have you seen Vertexinia lately? Every time I see that sagging skin, I think she and Clem need to hook up.
Just FYI: I speak proto-Tuaric, which consists largely of swear words.
I've heard it's the Yiddish of the demon world. Is it true that proto-Tuaric has 23 different verbs meaning "Go sodomize yourself with a Grulik horn"?
Yes, and 82 others that tell you to do the same thing with various other objects.
The kid exploding in the hallway. Reminds me of my last date.
Is THAT why I haven't seen Barry at work?
Poor guy. Just can't hold his liquor. It'll take him weeks to pull himself back together.
What was the Cheese Man doing in Andrew and Jonathan's shared dream?
He lost his contract up North. Been calling himself "El Hombre de Queso" ever since.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Save yourself time and trouble. Kill all geeks with cameras.
If only more people would learn from Sean Penn's example. Such a dear boy.
I wonder that these humans haven't yet figured out he's one of us. Well, half anyway. He's certainly inherited his daddy's temper, that's for sure.
Wished for encounters with the FE (spoilers BtVS 7.16, AtS 4.12 and WKCS with spoiler space) -- Ixchel, 18:10:28 02/26/03 Wed
In a display of the kind of sadism that made me somewhat enjoy Angel tearing apart his "family" with some well chosen words (Soulless), I find myself longing for all the characters (of both shows) to encounter The FE. The following characters have a list with the names of who I'd like The FE to appear to them as, ranging from most traumatic to less so (JMHO, of course). Also some of these encounters have or may have already occurred, or are impossible (no disrespect to Glenn Quinn is intended), or are unlikely. And I'm basing this on the premise that we know for certain who is dead (example, Oz could be dead, but I count him as not):
Buffy - Buffy, Joyce, Spike, Angel, The First Slayer, Tara, Jenny, The Master, The Mayor, Anabelle, Chloe, Glory/Ben, Adam, Knights of Byzantium (if killed), Alan Finch, Warren, Cassie, various people not saved
Willow - Buffy, Tara, Warren, Angel, Spike, Rack, Jenny, The First Slayer
Xander - Buffy, burnt people (OMWF), Joyce, Angel, Spike, Jenny, The First Slayer, Ampata
Giles - Buffy, Jenny, Joyce, Glory/Ben, Richard (Eyghon friend), The First Slayer, Angel, Spike, Quentin Travers
Spike - Buffy, Drusilla, Joyce, New York Slayer, Chinese Slayer, Angel, Darla, various victims
Anya - Buffy, Halfrek, various victims
Dawn - Buffy, Joyce, Spike, Angel, Glory/Ben, Cassie
Angel - Angel, Buffy, Darla, Drusilla, Doyle, Jenny, his dad, his mom, his sister, Holtz, Spike, various victims
Cordelia - Angel, Lilah, Doyle, Buffy
Wesley - Angel, Lilah, his dad (if his dad was a Watcher and in the building that went boom?), Buffy
Gunn - Angel, Alonna, Professor Seidel (sp?)
Fred - Angel, Professor Seidel (sp?)
Lorne - Angel
Connor - Angel, Darla, Holtz
*Well Known Casting Spoiler (at bottom)
As you will note Buffy is listed first for many characters. The reason for this is mostly the freak-out factor, in that she's not "dead". Angel is listed first for his group because, presumably, no one knows about The FE's unique talents on AtS (though with Angel/us loose, maybe no one would notice the difference between him and The FE appearing as him). Also, Buffy and Angel are the primary characters respectively, so things do tend to revolve around them.
I'm sure many would disagree with my "rankings", but this was primarily a fun mental game and I probably don't agree with them completely either.
So am I disturbed for wanting to see the kind of drama this would create? Didn't others enjoy Andrew's and Spike's little chats with The FE? ;)
Ixchel
*
*
*
*
*
Faith - Buffy, Angel, The Mayor, Alan Finch, the vulcanologist, her Watcher, Kakistos, Joyce
[>
Re: Wished for encounters with the FE (spoilers BtVS 7.16, AtS 4.12 and WKCS with spoiler space) -- Cowin of Amber, 20:47:04 02/26/03 Wed
I've been waiting for the FE to appear to Xander as Jesse, his friend from the very first episode who got vamped.
[> [>
Oh, excellent suggestion! I knew I forgot someone. -- Ixchel, 21:11:12 02/26/03 Wed
[>
Re: Wished for encounters with the FE (spoilers BtVS 7.16, AtS 4.12 and WKCS with spoiler space) -- HonorH, 22:52:16 02/26/03 Wed
I'm so completely with you on hoping for a Faith/Mayor encounter of the dead kind. They always played off each other so brilliantly, and hey, more Harry Groener is never bad. Furthermore, he really did love her, and she really did love him, in their weird-but-touching way. He was probably the best father-figure she'd ever had--maybe the only one. I'd like to see the encounter just to see how Faith would handle it.
Thank god for character development or Why ME should run Hollywood (slight Spoilers for Storyteller) -- Yu Yu Hakusho, 18:25:54 02/26/03 Wed
You know, there are times when I get nostolgic for the old days. When Buffy was more innocent and carefree, where Willow was our resident cute, geeky hacker, and Xander was...uh... well, you get where I am going with this. Anyway, I do miss the old days, but episodes like Storyteller remind me why I love Buffy and Angel so much. The characters grow, they change, they experience life and it leaves a mark on them. Andrew, after last night's episode, will never be the same again. He has come out of living in his own head and joined the real world. He has, to badly paraphrase, put away such childish things and become a man (or, at the very least, a man child).
Then there are shows like Will and Grace. I used to be a fan of the series; I thought it was funny and fresh when it first came out. Then I came to the realization that the characters were never going to change, and I lost interest. Karen will always be a whiny rich bitch, Will and Grace will always be making cheesy gay jokes to each other, and Jack will always be a flamboyantantly gay 2nd rate actor/musician with a Peter Pan complex.
What keeps shows interesting is that things change, like real life. I think we all would have gotten bored with Buffy eventually if Willow stayed a shy, bookish nerd, if Giles remained a tweed wearing Watcher, and Xander....uh...well, you get the idea. The point is, we keep tuning in because we never know what is going to happen next.
Sitcoms like Will and Grace, can be picked up and dropped easily because nothing really ever changes (yes, Grace is now married, but we rarely see the guy, so nothing has changed in the long run). What killed my interest in the show was last season's finale, when Jack, despite having realized he really wasn't that good of an actor, tosses away the chance to be a more mature, and I think a more interesting, character by going back to a career he knows he can't succeed at because he had a dream that Cher told him to.
Okay, I sort of let my post get corrupted by my anger at the writers of Will and Grace, but I think I got my point across. Character development is what makes television good; what makes them classic, and dare I say it, timeless. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is tv at its best, Will and Grace is tv at its laziest
[>
Thanks ME -- tomfool, 19:45:52 02/26/03 Wed
As the series winds down, I've been thinking very much the same thoughts. Although I came to Buffy late and didn't experience the show in real time for most of its run, I don't think it would have had such a profound affect on me if the characters had stagnated in their classic roles of the first three seasons. Reading some other boards, it seems that all people can talk about is how the show hasn't been any good since (___Insert S2, S3, S5___). Of course it's not the same! If it were, the same people would be bitching about how time has passed the show by. Say what you will about ME, they take chances.
S4-S6 felt very organic to me. The highs might not have been quite as high as in the first few seasons, but I've personally loved where they've taken the characters every season. Looking at my list of great episodes, they are surprisingly well distributed among the seasons. Do they hit a homer with every risk? Of course not, but I'd rather watch them swing for the fences than play it safe and bunt.
And I think it's a good thing that SMG is calling it quits. Painful as it may feel, it's the right decision. I think they are going out on a high note and will now avoid the xf syndrome of stretching a concept beyond its natural lifespan. The time is right for them to redefine the show if it does continue. Seven years of doing anything at an extremely high level takes its toll. All of the players must be emotionally exhausted from this marathon. It's time for them to take a breather and contemplate what they've accomplished. And seven years of a show that has never lost its ability to challenge the viewer is an amazing accomplishment. Just think about how painful it is to watch a David Kelly show beyond the first year.
I can't wait to see how it ends. And I think that JW will eventually do something worthwhile with his characters that will enhance rather than diminish their legacy.
ME, thanks for an amazing ride.
^pHumor and Horror (small spoilers for Get It Done and Storytelling) -- luna, 18:55:52 02/26/03 Wed
One of the many things I've loved in the last two eps (well, really the whole series) has been the interplay between horrow and humor. In GiD, the funny scene between Buffy and Dawn discussing schoolwork excuses is suddenly undercut by opening the door to find the dead Chloe, and then in Storytelling, when Buffy picks up the thread of the truly horrific ending of GiD, the horde of Turok-han, Andrew undercuts that with humor by dismissing her speechifying as boring. There's always been a nice rhythm between the humor and horror, but now I'm really noticing how they comment on each other--to say that neither alone is an adequate response to the bewildering events of life.
[>
I totally agree. :-) -- pellenaka, 01:38:05 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Me too -- pilgrim, 07:37:40 02/27/03 Thu
Maybe the thing I like best about BTVS.
One of my favorites (from my favorite episode this season): in Selfless, the cut from Anya singing her 1950's musical comedy number, the performance of which I thought was endearing and funny, to "dead" Anya with the sword in her chest. Wow.
[> [>
I totally loved that moment too -- Rahael, 08:56:35 02/27/03 Thu
[> [>
Agree. Absolutely brilliant "cut." Brutal as freakin' hell, but that's why I liked it. -- cjl, 10:44:36 02/27/03 Thu
Well, it's official, folks. It's over. -- HonorH (bearing semi-bad news), 21:10:36 02/26/03 Wed
I call this semi-bad news because SMG has officially revealed that she is *not* coming back for another season, and BtVS as we know it is over after the season finale. The "semi" part comes from the fact that I'm so proud of this show and how it's kept its quality so high for seven freakin' years. Given how this season has been going, it's going to be one Hellmouth of a blowout come May. They're going out on top. How many shows have ever been able to say that?
Here's the link to the article. Beware: there are two casting spoilers in the article, though no plot spoilers. One of the casting spoilers is the notoriously well-known one. The other? Not so much. Shocked me, at least, though in a good way. Anyhoo, take a look at the link here:
Stick a Stake In It
[>
Kill the messenger!!! -- d'Horrible, 21:44:21 02/26/03 Wed
[> [>
To offset the bad news with some good news...ABC has renewed "Alias" for a 3rd season! -- Rob, 22:23:49 02/26/03 Wed
[> [> [>
Good news?? Umm . . . maim the messenger!!! -- d'Horrible, 22:30:08 02/26/03 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Hey! No one hurts my Pathetic Alter-Ego except me! -- Honorificus (The Protector Of Semi-Innocents), 22:47:36 02/26/03 Wed
Got it, bub? Want me to yank out your livers again? Yeah, I'm talking to you, scale-face! Ooh, big talk for a guy with a detachable tail! You gonna follow that up, or will ya just keep on spewing smoke?
[> [> [> [> [>
It's hard to take you seriously these days . . . -- d'Horrible, 17:39:39 02/27/03 Thu
. . . after all, how evil can someone be if her alter ego's been just flaunting her Halo.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Forgive her, for she has no life. -- Honorificus (Who Doesn't Need No Stinkin' Halos), 20:39:13 02/27/03 Thu
She gets so little validation in her pathetic so-called life that any little bit she gets--even completely spurious online fanfic awards (they never give one to *me*, after all)--is a big deal to her. I've slowly been siphoning her personality anyway. Not a terribly hard (or long) task, I'm afraid, but I needed another for my collection, no matter how thin. Hm. Maybe I could suck dry one of those post-adolescents she's so confoundedly fond of.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Forgive her, for she has no life. -- Sophomorica, chewing on the discarded halo, 06:45:35 02/28/03 Fri
Maybe I could suck dry one of those post-adolescents she's so confoundedly fond of.
Kennedy, perhaps?
please?
[> [> [> [>
LOL. I love you, d'Horrible -- Rahael, 09:43:00 02/27/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
d'Horrible is so adorable! -- Sophomorica, chewing on Rahael's shoe, 11:10:25 02/27/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
oh, is *that* how you pronounce his name! ]@>) (ducking) -- anom, 12:52:05 02/27/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
And he's so "sweet"! -- The First Evil (giving my uberminion a hard time), 12:16:50 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Typically bizarre Joss quote -- Darby, 05:50:41 02/28/03 Fri
From, of all places, Northern Light -
"It's hard to believe it's over," said Joss Whedon, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER's executive producer and creator. "Well, it's hard to think at all, or stand, or form vowel sounds, so maybe it's time to take a break. I'm just glad I can say we did our best on every single episode. We didn't always succeed, but we never slacked, and I'm immensely proud of my writers, actors and crew for that. And I'm proud of what this show means (except for that whole weird "Feminist" thing people attached to it. What was that all about? Girls are stupid.) I truly believe that in years to come, people will look back and say 'that was a show that was on TV.' Yessir. I truly do."
[> [>
Also on Zap2it, probably closer to original source -- Darby, 05:53:00 02/28/03 Fri
questions about the evolution of Angelus -- AngelVSAngelus, 23:35:18 02/26/03 Wed
My fav fiend, one of my all time favorite villains, Angelus, has returned and is free. I always wondered prior to recent events how Angel's new life in Los Angeles would infect another incarnation/cameo appearance from his darker half.
But how does evolution work for Angelus? Does he simply switch obsessive gears whenever his souled counterpart does so?
It just strikes me as odd for some reason that finally being free doesn't have Angelus at least having a small desire to get that little blonde girl that sent him to a demon dimension for hundreds of years. Or more importantly, foiled his plans to send her there.
It strikes me as odd that Angelus doesn't still have any interests lying in Sunnydale at the moment. I don't want cameos, just a couple of lines beyond "That slayer... she's a pistol..."
Or maybe he really is that fickle. I've never known about the interval between his Dru obsession/torment and anything afterward.
And while I can totally see Angel as a father, or an attempting one, where Angelus fits into the picture of Connor and what his opinion of fatherhood would be is kind of vague for me.
Would he hate himself? He hated his own father. Or maybe Connor would be an opportunity to finally defeat his father's everlasting memory, molding his son into his own evil image to show the old man that he could something better than he could.
Or is Connor just another target for Angelus' sadistic fury?
Masq you're the resident Angelus expert. I like to think that I understand Angel inside out, but the evil guy I enjoy without having a true grasp of ALL his motivations. Care to answer any of these questions?
[>
Re: questions about the evolution of Angelus -- yabyumpan, 00:30:14 02/27/03 Thu
A few quick answers/opinions before I head off to work....
It just strikes me as odd for some reason that finally being free doesn't have Angelus at least having a small desire to get that little blonde girl that sent him to a demon dimension for hundreds of years. Or more importantly, foiled his plans to send her there.
Maybe he does, we still have 3 more Angelus episodes to go. I think the fact is though, that when Angelus was released in Sunnydale, he targeted those who had made him feel human, made him feel love. While I don't doubt that Angel still cares a great deal/loves Buffy, the fact is that he's had very little contact with her over the past few years. In Angel's halicinations in 'Deep Down' and in his dream in 'Awakening', it was the people around him now, his family, those he loves, who were his focus. They are the people that conect him to humanity, make him feel love. Following how he acted in SD, it makes sense that his family now are the people that he focuses on without a soul. As for paying Buffy back for sending him to hell, maybe it's on his 'to do' list, but i would imagin that he would want to have some fun in L.A. and deal with the people there first.
And while I can totally see Angel as a father, or an attempting one, where Angelus fits into the picture of Connor and what his opinion of fatherhood would be is kind of vague for me.
Would he hate himself? He hated his own father. Or maybe Connor would be an opportunity to finally defeat his father's everlasting memory, molding his son into his own evil image to show the old man that he could something better than he could.
Or is Connor just another target for Angelus' sadistic fury?
I didn't get the impression from 'Souless' or 'Calvary' that Angelus actually thinks of himself as Connor's father. Didn't he say something about how Connor freaks him out? I think Angelus recognises Connor's vunerablity and is happy to play with that. I could see him trying to destroy Connor as much as possible, maybe even Vamp him, but only because he means so much to Angel. While he is arrogant, Angelus isn't stupid, he knows that there's a possibility that he'll be re-souled again. I can see him trying to damage Angel and Connor's already shakey relationship as much as possible, in the event that he will be re-souled. I could see that turning Connor would appeal to his sense if sadistic, twisted fun. Angelus acts out of pleasure not fury IMO.
[> [>
Big unmarked casting spoiler above (not the well-known one) -- oboemaboe, 02:36:35 02/27/03 Thu
I did NOT want to know how long the Angelus arc would last.
[> [>
Also... -- KdS, 02:55:34 02/27/03 Thu
Given my idea of the connection between Angel and Angelus, I think that Angel's changes over the last two (especially) years would come through in Angelus's personality - he's got that M C Escher perspective, more laid back and phlegmatic, less likely to get neurotic and destroy the world, more likely to recognise his situation and just sit back and get what fun he can.
[> [>
Re: questions about the evolution of Angelus -- Dochawk, 07:49:27 02/27/03 Thu
There was a reason Angel shouted Buffy's name, not Cordy's when he reached his perfect moment of happiness under the shaman's spell. People have tried to explain it away, but Buffy is clearly more important to Angel then he has let on the last two years of enforced seperation.
[> [> [>
Huge apologies, note to self 'don't post when rushing out to work' ;-( Spoiler up to 4/12 -- yabyumpan, 11:33:30 02/27/03 Thu
There was a reason Angel shouted Buffy's name, not Cordy's when he reached his perfect moment of happiness under the shaman's spell. People have tried to explain it away, but Buffy is clearly more important to Angel then he has let on the last two years of enforced seperation.
While I may have screwed up due to being rushed re;spoilers, I was very conscious of NOT making my post 'shippy'. Partly because I didn't want to go down the 'shipper wars' route but also because I think the point with Angel is about 'Family' and not 'romantic' relationships. He wasn't just hallucinating about Cordy while at the bottom of the ocean, it was about all his Family. The same with his dream in 'Awakening', his perfect day was about reconciling with his family, esp Wesley, Connor and Cordy. As i said in my post, I don't doubt that Angel loves Buffy and that she will always be important to him (whether he is still in love with her, only Joss knows), but in Sunnydale all he had was Buffy, it's doubtful whether you could really call the SG his friends, let alone family. In L.A. he has what he lost, though his own hands (or fangs) 250 years ago, and the thing that he has been trying to build ever since, a Family. That IMO, is what's important to him and it's his family, that without a soul, he's trying to destroy.
While I'm happy to admit to being a C/A shipper, that's not why I watch the show,(I also doubt at this point that he will actually end up with Cordelia), I tune in for Angel's journey, where ever that takes him. If that journey takes him back to Buffy I'll be fine with that as long as it's done in a plausible way. From what I've seen of this season so far, Joss/ME would have to work pretty hard to convince me that all Angel actually wants to do is to rush back into Buffy's arms. As I say, if it happens, fine, but it's got to be believable and plausible. Just the fact that Angel and Buffy had this big, melodramtic relationship over 3 years ago and that he said her name at the point when he was loosing his soul doesn't cut it.
Really not trying to start a shipper war, I don't care who Angel is with romantically, or if he's with anyone, just make it believable. The only relationship I'm really interested in Angel having is the Father/son relationship with Connor.
[>
Um, Just in case anyone isn't spoiled, spoilers for AtS S4 in this thread -- KdS, 02:57:03 02/27/03 Thu
Things to Do in Sunnydale When You're Dead (spoilers to 7:16 Storyteller) -- KdS, 03:42:33 02/27/03 Thu
[Snowstorm on screen. ANDREW'S face appears very close to camera just after turning it on. Fixed camera position throughout - we're obviously seeing another video diary. ANDREW looks into camera, not acting, just himself.]
ANDREW: Well, I... uh... I thought it would be an idea for us to make a sort of memory tape. Everyone gets five minutes and if we aren't, you know, all dead when this is over we can erase the people who are still alive and play back the ones who died. You know, last messages. I haven't actually asked anyone yet, but even if no-one else does one, here's mine. [Composes himself] Uh... Hello, I'm dead. You don't have to be all sorry if you don't really care that much. Uh.. I probably deserved it. I just hope it was sort of slightly cool. You know, like going into the reactor room to save everyone and dying of radiation sickness, not like getting zapped by an evil oil slick just to prove how evil it was. [Catches himself, moves to turn camera off but thinks better of it and smiles a wistful, self-deprecatory smile.] Hey, I'm trying not to be evil. You can't expect me to try not to be a geek as well. [Moves to turn camera off]
[Snowstorm. XANDER appears on screen, attempts a calm, warm smile, and almost pulls it off]
XANDER: Hi. I just want to say, don't anybody feel guilty that I was there. Not just that I was there then, but that I ever got into this stuff. At least this way I got to do something good with my life. Most of the time. Sorry, Ahn.
[Snowstorm. ANYA's face appears]
ANYA: [Brightly] Hello, I'm dead. I hope you're all sad and not just thinking "Oh, now we don't have to worry about her turning evil again". Xander, I want you to move on. Find someone else. Don't waste your life grieving for me. [Beat] I'm being self-sacrificing here. I hope it helps me get somewhere nice.
[Snowstorm. WILLOW on camera.]
WILLOW: [With terrible brightness] Hi. Well, just think, at least all of you watching are still alive. And you know what I always say, better dead than evil. [Her face crumples and she blindly swipes at the off switch.]
[Snowstorm. GILES looks into the camera.]
GILES: Hello. I've got quite a long speech written. [Smiles] But I'm sure you'll be glad I'm not going to inflict it on you. Sorry for all the times I couldn't be all that you needed. And just in case you never realised, I owe you all too much to talk about it in detail. Thank you. And goodbye.
[Snowstorm. SPIKE peers into the camera.]
SPIKE: Oh. It's on. I had this idea I'd apologise for everything bad I ever did to people. Properly. One by one. But then that'd take a whole warehouse of tapes. And it wouldn't be fair on the ones I forgot about. So I'll just say it once. Sorry. 'Specially Buffy and the Little Bit.
[Snowstorm. Dawn looks into the camera, with obvious discomfort]
DAWN: Everyone else was doing this, so I thought I'd better. But this is like giving up and saying "Hey, I'm gonna die". So I'm not going to say that. [Stares into camera] I'm not gonna die. I'm not gonna die. I'm not gonna die.
[Snowstorm. BUFFY looks clear-eyed into the camera.]
BUFFY: Hi. Look, what I said last time, OK? I don't think I can come up with another speech that good. [Moves to turn camera off, changes mind] Oh, and Will? If you're still around, don't even think about it.
[Snowstorm. Pull back from screen to see that we have been watching this on a rather old-fashioned, beat-up looking TV. Wide shot to show Angel's room in the Hyperion, no lights on. In the light from the TV screen we see ANGEL sitting in an armchair, completely alone, tears on his cheeks. A cross is around his neck. It does not burn his skin. He reaches out with a remote control and snaps the set off.]
GRR. ARGGH.
[>
Re: Things to Do in Sunnydale When You're Dead (spoilers to 7:16 Storyteller) -- KdS, 03:45:29 02/27/03 Thu
Came up with this last night while slightly blitzed on a fairly heavy red wine (always makes me slightly morbid). Reconsidered it sober and posted. Hope it wasn't too soppy. All my own work, but Spike's speech was very loosely inspired by a scene in the Channel Four mini-series Gangsters.
[> [>
well I loved it - thankyou for sharing. And I for one hope the finale is one big sop fest -- Helen, 04:01:28 02/27/03 Thu
[> [>
That's exactly tragic enough- you're not Joss are you? -- Tchaikovsky, 05:01:28 02/27/03 Thu
[> [>
Bittersweet, not morbid or soppy -- Rahael, 05:50:46 02/27/03 Thu
Buffy telling Willow not to think about it made me laugh and laugh!
[>
Not soppy. But definitely heartbreaking. -- Rob, 07:23:34 02/27/03 Thu
And great "Next Generation" reference!
Rob
[>
I really liked it! -- ponygirl, 08:22:36 02/27/03 Thu
I had a moment during Storyteller where I thought one of the cereal boxes read "KdS". I realized it was actually "Kids" but any shout out to you would have been well deserved.
[>
Thanks all! -- KdS, 10:17:40 02/27/03 Thu
My first time. Thanks for all the heartening reaction.
[>
That was great!! -- agent156, 11:17:56 02/27/03 Thu
I only hope they really do end the series with something so touching.
[>
Very nice. -- Gyrus, 14:35:21 02/27/03 Thu
Gotta love the Tasha Yar ref. And Anya and Dawn's messages were especially in-character.
Note on 'Fireman/Flood' thread archived too soon -- Tchaikovsky, 05:19:28 02/27/03 Thu
Yes, this is a re-post. But I think it's pretty, and the thread was interesting and too soon Voynak-ed.
As with many Whedon lines, I think this one could either never be resolved neatly, or, like the 730 line, be resolved rather obviously at some point in the future. Considering I am always too scared to engage in speculation, I here give my best interpretation from events that have already occurred.
'I'm going to be a fireman when the floods roll back.'
Season Six, Episode Four. 'Flooded'
The 'Flooded' description refers both literally to her house, and metaphorically to Buffy's life, and her inability to wade through all the financial difficulties. This is highlighted both by her staring at the water running from the tap, and by the long-running House Metaphor [TM ponygirl]. This is the first episode of the season where we see Buffy attempting and only partially succeeding in reverting to her pre-Death self. The water has made everything too difficult, and has put out the fire.
Season Six, Episode Seven. 'Once More, With Feeling'.
Buffy and Spike paralleled. Spike's 'torch' is 'scorching' him. He has an excess of emotion towards Buffy. The fire represents pure, visceral emotion, and an enjoyment of life. Giles realises all too well that Buffy is so overwhelmed by life [still flooded], that it's going to be difficult to set her fire going. 'What's it going to take to light a spark' is the metaphorical isomorphism to 'Is my Slayer too far gone to care?' in the same song. Buffy realises this problem too. 'I touch the fire and it freezes me/I look into it and it's black/ Why can't I feel, my skin should crack and peel/ I want the fire back'.
Buffy wants to be the fireman, but can't, because she's still 'Flooded'.
Season Six Episodes 12, 15, 17
These episodes: 'Doublemeat Palace', 'As You Were' and 'Normal Again', emphasise how Buffy is still 'Flooded'. Buffy finds the grind of 'subsistence level employment' too much. She doesn't have the quippy, sparky side that got her through High School. She is also sparkless compared to Riley, and eventually wonders whether her lack of enthusiasm isn't to do with the fact that Sunnydale is all some fantastic but inconsistent illusion in her (mad) mind. Still 'Flooded', still no fire.
Season Six, Episode Twenty Two- 'Grave'.
An episode all about the four Elements, (rather like 'Primeval' was all about the four essences of being). Willow, the spirit, the breath, the air, attempts to destroy the world by raising a temple into the air from out of the Earth. She has earlier shown her apparent power over emotions by throwing fire (heart) through the air ot attempt to destroy Xander.
Earth, (Hand), is represented by the Earth Monsters. Buffy is back in her Grave, and must again attempt to dig herself out using only physical ability. But eventually, fire (Heart/spark) wins the day. Xander saves the world with his mouth, not burnt up by the apparently fiery charges Willow sends at him. Dawn and Buffy and Willow all cry water (Mind) when the gain the full realisation of how they have been behaving wrongly. There's knowledge there.
But ultimately, Buffy casts off the fog of mere knowledge. In an epiphany, she sees how she's been misundertanding Dawn's journey, and therefore her own. This is exactly 'what it takes to strike a spark'. Dawn. Dawn made Buffy die in 'The Gift', and makes her live in 'Grave'. Dawn and Xander's heart saved her. Finally, the floods have rolled back for Buffy, and with the fiery sunrise, she regains her spark. At the end of 'Grave' Buffy has fulfilled the prophecy:
I'm going to be a fireman, when the floods roll back
[>
Yes, archived too soon -- Rahael, 08:50:09 02/27/03 Thu
I wanted to respond to both you, and Ete. I liked Ete's point about doves.
I wish I had had the time to respond before I got drunk. Yes, utterly sloshed by 5pm. I can remember lots of champagne. and too much salty snacks! and more champagne and laughing. In fact, I have another glass of champagne sitting beside me.
SO I can't remember any of the points I was going to make about floods and dove and both you and Ete's very good points. But I can keep thread alive.
Okay. Now I have to organise a meeting. This should be amusing.
[> [>
LOL. Always trade in discussion for champagne, I say! -- Tchaikovsky- feeling much too sober, 09:12:17 02/27/03 Thu
Evil Wood? A Moral Ambiguity. -- bazoda, 05:32:49 02/27/03 Thu
Upon seeing Wood try to take advantage of the chaos of the fight by coming up behind Spike to stake him, I immediately assumed Wood is evil. But, the seal was making everyone behave violently and perhaps freeing people to act on their subconscious desires. Remember how Wood behaved while standing on the seal earlier in the episode? So, was Wood's failed attack on Spike his own doing, or was he motivated by the seal? And if he was acting of his own volition and not under the influence of the seal, is he justified in attempting to kill Spike?
[>
Re: Principal Wood's moral ambiguity -- Robert, 08:25:24 02/27/03 Thu
>>> So, was Wood's failed attack on Spike his own doing, or was he motivated by the seal?
Yes! By that I mean that yes Principal Wood's attack on Spike was his own doing and yes he was influenced by the seal.
If Wood did not have the burning need for vengeance, then I believe that he would not have been susceptible to the influence of the seal, at that time and place.
If Wood were not being influenced by the seal, then I believe that he would not have attempted to kill Spike at that time and place, for the very important reason I give below.
>>> And if he was acting of his own volition and not under the influence of the seal, is he justified in attempting to kill Spike?
No he is not, for two reasons.
(1) If Wood kills Spike to serve his own thirst for vengeance, then Wood will do farther damage to his own soul. The pain that he feels over the loss of his mother cannot be fixed by killing Spike. For his own good, Wood needs to find some way to forgive Spike for killing his mother.
(2) If Wood kills Spike while Spike is actively engaged in a mission for the side of humanity (and Buffy), then Wood is serving the First Evil and not humanity. In this situation, Wood was committing an act of extreme betrayal (of high treason). If he had succeeded in his betrayal, he could have risked the very existance of humanity. If Wood absolutely must kill Spike (to slake his thirst for vengeance), then he can do so without betraying Buffy and all of humanity, merely by waiting till the coming battles are won (or lost).
[> [>
Re: Principal Wood's moral ambiguity -- Sophie, 09:05:58 02/27/03 Thu
If Wood kills Spike to serve his own thirst for vengeance, then Wood will do farther damage to his own soul.
You're darling as can be Rob, but I just gotta pick this point with you.
Ummmm...I can't see killing something that is already dead (undead) being damaging to Wood's soul because Wood doesn't love Spike.
The pain that he feels over the loss of his mother cannot be fixed by killing Spike.
True.
For his own good, Wood needs to find some way to forgive Spike for killing his mother.
Wood can do this with Spike undead or dead, I would think. We're technically back to that argument about is it ok to kill something or someone evil because it is/was evil or already dead? A lot of people are quite capable of living comfortably in a world of "evil, therefore ok to kill". Riley was hesitant to accept Buffy's protection of Angel and I suspect Riley never fully accepted this decision since it is indicated that he went on to continue hunting/killing evil/undead things. So, does Wood have to accept Buffy's decision that Spike should live? Even Giles seems unsure of this.
Sophie
[> [> [>
I agree with Robert -- Sophist, 09:42:24 02/27/03 Thu
(Who is not Rob. And since I'm not Sophie, I thought I would thoroughly confuse everyone.)
Robert makes 2 key points: the timing of the vengeance and the justification for it.
I see no possible counter argument to the timing claim. There is an apocalypse coming; the one in charge (that would be Buffy) believes Spike is essential to defeating it.
There is no reason I know of why Wood couldn't wait until afterward to exact vengeance if that were justified.
Justification depends in part on what credence you give to the presence of a soul. Buffy gives a lot; Xander and possibly others are less certain. I see it Buffy's way -- souled Spike is essentially different from the vampire he was before. In my view, Wood is no different than Holtz if he fails to recognize this.
I also doubt that vengeance is ever justified. I can see reasons for punishment. I can't justify vengeance -- it's an endless cycle of hatred and violence. "For when was revenge in its exactions ought but an inordinate usurer?" James Madison.
[> [> [> [>
I agree with Sophist, plus... -- Dariel, 10:13:26 02/27/03 Thu
the wrongness of the attempted act is highlighted by the method: Spike completely unaware, out of sight of Buffy, and in a situation where it's easy to shift the blame to marauding students. Just shows that Wood knows, on some level, that he's being underhanded. He's ready to take vengeance, but not to take any responsibility for it.
Even if the attempted staking was caused by the Hellmouth's hijinx, Wood is now even more obligated to tell Buffy about his intentions towards Spike.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I agree with Robert -- Sophie, 10:39:04 02/27/03 Thu
(Who is not Rob. And since I'm not Sophie, I thought I would thoroughly confuse everyone.)
LOL. Oops. My apologies to Robert. Maybe I should let Sophomorica handle the dissenting opinions in the future.
Yeah, Wood trying to kill SPike like that was underhanded. But I think the jury is still out on whether Spike should live or die. Spike's reclaimed his duster and his old "big Bad" attitude, what will he reclaim next?
Some souled people are apparently capable of killing without remorse. I'm not sure that we have seen anything in Wood to indicate that he would be torn up if he did kill Spike.
Sophie
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: whether Spike should live or die -- Robert, 11:08:20 02/27/03 Thu
>>> But I think the jury is still out on whether Spike should live or die.
I can certainly agree with you here. But the decision of Spike's fate should be made by someone who truly understands the issues involved. Who better to do this than Buffy? In addition, she has the responsibility of protecting the innocent. If Spike has (or will) resumed his killing ways, then the just answer is for Buffy to deal with it, just as Buffy did with Anyanka. Regardless of whether Spike deserves to die or not, it would still be wrong for Principal Wood to dust Spike out of a need for vengeance, especially if it interferes with Buffy's bounden duty.
[> [> [> [>
Okay,but I'm a Rob/Robert Sophist/Sophie shipper... -- Random, 14:43:15 02/27/03 Thu
...I pick my 'ships by how they'd look in the wedding announcement or how the names relate. Hence:
luna/sol (maybe a Moonie marriage with Lady Starlight)
s4 Adam/s7 Eve (the FE slayerette)
...or Dawn/Eve
Kennedy/Ford
Honorificus/Glorificus
Rowan/Willow
dedalus/mundus (figure that one out!)
AgnosticSorcer (whom I haven't seen in a while)/manwitch
Aquitaine/Rochefort
Anya/Andrew
d'Hoffryn/d'Herblay
dream/Oz
Tyreseus (odd spelling...)/Cassie
OnM/KdS
and so on...
[> [> [> [> [>
Just looking over some of the possibilities on this list, -- Sophist, 08:55:14 02/28/03 Fri
I'd say I came out quite well.
[> [> [>
Re: Principal Wood's moral ambiguity -- Robert, 10:35:12 02/27/03 Thu
>>> I can't see killing something that is already dead (undead) being damaging to Wood's soul because Wood doesn't love Spike.
The distinction is subtle and I don't have the education in philosophy or divinity to really discuss it.
What I am driving at is the damage that Wood internally does to himself by persuing this course of vengeance. There is a world of difference between a police officer who regretfully kills an attacker verses a man who kills due to the sense of comfort (or pleasure) he derives from it. Whether Spike's soul makes difference, regarding some external damage that might be inflicted by God or the power-that-be, is a whole separate question.
>>> We're technically back to that argument about is it ok to kill something or someone evil because it is/was evil or already dead?
The issue isn't whether it is okay or not for Wood to dust Spike. The issue is how vengeance would farther damage Principal Wood's chances for truly healing, and also how Wood interferes with the chances for humanity's survival by acting on such vengeance.
>>> A lot of people are quite capable of living comfortably in a world of "evil, therefore ok to kill".
Each person must draw his own line in the sand. What would it take for me to deliberately kill someone else? For myself, I draw the line at reasonable protection of myself, my family, and other innocent people. Some people have told me that this makes me a potential killer and therefore evil. I would suggest that these people are guilty of moral cowardice, and would let innocent people die rather than stain there own hands with blood.
The world truly is soaked in sin and evil. If the world was perfect, then innocent people would never be under threats from others, against which they would need to consider taking deadly actions. Does this mean that I am comfortable in living in this world? Well ... not right now, not with the threat of war and the threat of continuing terror attacks.
>>> So, does Wood have to accept Buffy's decision that Spike should live? Even Giles seems unsure of this.
No! Principal Wood does not have to accept Buffy's decision about anything. However, Buffy is the guardian of the hellmouth, the slayer of evil vampires and demons, in short the protector of humankind. If Wood decides that his thirst for vengeance is more important than Buffy's mission of protecting humanity, then he pretty much deserves whatever consequences befall him.
Giles did (and probably still does) question Buffy's judgement regarding Spike. In his role as advisor to Buffy (since he is no longer her watcher), this questioning of her judgement is a right and proper thing to do. This forces Buffy to justify at least in her own mind why she made the decisions she made. This is not the same as attempting to dust Spike behind Buffy's back, just because Wood felt his priorities were more valid than Buffy's.
>>> You're darling as can be Rob ...
I thank you for your double compliment. Rob is a smarter man that I.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Principal Wood's moral ambiguity -- pilgrim, 12:42:00 02/27/03 Thu
There is some evidence that Wood and his situation are more complicated than a desire for revenge. We haven't seen that much of him, so it's hard to say for sure, but perhaps he sincerely thinks killing Spike would be good for the cause. He clearly doesn't trust Spike's motives, rightfully imo. He seems to know or guess that Spike has a connection to the school basement, the home of evil things--he saw Spike emerge from the basement wearing the duster. He knows or guesses that Buffy has a connection to Spike that may be clouding her judgment. (Buffy took the cellar chains down? Knowing that the FE has manipulated Spike, that the FE says it's coming again for Spike, and that Spike doesn't even trust himself??) Does Wood know that the FE has been manipulating Spike to kill people? Don't know, but we the audience do know that Giles doesn't trust Spike, and, wonked as Giles has been lately, I still say Buffy blows off Giles' judgment at her peril. So, Wood could legitimately rationalize Spike as a snake-in-the-grass, Buffy as cavalierly courting danger, and Spike as best serving the cause dead. Of course, having said that, it hardly seems like the stand-up thing to do, to stake him in the back while he's actively helping Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Principal Wood's moral ambiguity -- bazoda, 14:37:15 02/27/03 Thu
That whole stake-in-the-back thing is what really gives Wood's actions a self-serving, vengeful tone.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Hehe. Yeah, you're right. -- pilgrim, 08:20:33 02/28/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Principal Wood's moral ambiguity -- Dariel, 19:03:47 02/27/03 Thu
We haven't seen that much of him [Wood], so it's hard to say for sure, but perhaps he sincerely thinks killing Spike would be good for the cause.
He knows or guesses that Buffy has a connection to Spike that may be clouding her judgment.
So, we haven't seen that much of Wood, but he's seen enough of Buffy to make decisions about her judgement? I don't agree, especially when those "decisions" happen to be self-serving. She's the Slayer, he's an amateur demon hunter guy with a grudge. Giles may be more justified in doubting Buffy, but Wood is not Giles. Wood doesn't know what Giles knows and he doesn't know what the audience knows either.
This is what bothers me about Wood, more than his desire for vengeance. What I can't understand, or actually, understand all too well, is his attitude towards Buffy. He barely knows her, but already thinks he knows what's good for her. He takes a romantic interest in her, courts her favor, and then uses her trust to gain access to Spike. In other words, he doesn't show any respect for her at all. Just another guy who thinks he knows best, IMO.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeah, okay. -- pilgrim, 08:37:52 02/28/03 Fri
You're probably right. Except, I think and hope that there will be more to Wood than we know yet. We don't know yet where he came from or what experiences he has had or what he knows, he leaves no paper trail, he independently knows about the FE, knows that it can take the shape of his dead mom and that he can walk through it, seems repelled by the FE but takes its information about Spike anyway, is killing things that bleed (ie, not vampires) using his large knife collection that he keeps hidden _at the school_, doesn't seem surprised to discover a dead boy on a creepy seal in the basement of the school. I get your reading of Wood and his apparent hauty (even sexist) refusal to defer to Buffy regarding something she knows more about. But I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.
[> [> [>
Siding with Sophie on this one. -- Shiraz, 12:33:46 02/27/03 Thu
I've noticed on this board a tendency discount the feelings of those who have been seriously wronged by the major characters.
i.e.
Baby kidnapped? You should learn to forgive.
Mother brutally killed? You should move on.
Family viciously slaughtered? Get over it already!
Entire clan wiped out? Why don't you just deal with it!
Maybe, just possibly, the desire for vengance is a perfectly understandable (maybe even justifyable) reaction to these events?
You could easily make the arguement (as many cultures do) that a person not only has the right to exact vengance from an individual who killed their mother, but an also an *obligation* to do so.
Moreover, I wouldn't have too much respect for Wood if he were just fine with fighting alongside his mother's killer; just as I wouldn't have had much respect for Angel if he'd just welcomed Wes back without question. Their reactions are the best indication of their depth of feeling.
In the final analysis, I beleive that it's up to Spike (and Wes, for that matter) to work for the forgivness of the people they have wronged, he can't just expect it to come to him as a matter of course.
-Shiraz
[> [> [> [>
Re: discounting feelings -- Robert, 13:59:24 02/27/03 Thu
>>> I've noticed on this board a tendency discount the feelings of those who have been seriously wronged by the major characters.
Okay ... I will assume that you are directing this little nugget at me, because Sophie wrote in response to my posting.
>>> Mother brutally killed? You should move on.
Obviously, I have not been clear enough in what I was saying. I did not discount Principal Wood's feelings. I did not suggest that he should just move on. What I am suggesting is that vengeance will not heal his pain, that it will ultimately damage him farther, that forgiveness is the first step to healing.
>>> Maybe, just possibly, the desire for vengance is a perfectly understandable (maybe even justifyable) reaction to these events?
I did not suggest that Principal Wood's desire for vengeance wasn't understandable. I am as capable of empathy as anyone else. Just because something is understandable doesn't make it the right or proper or best thing to do.
>>> You could easily make the arguement (as many cultures do) that a person not only has the right to exact vengance from an individual who killed their mother, but an also an *obligation* to do so.
Yes, and thus we have places like Bosnia, where the never-ending cycle of revenge is shall we say ... never-ending. It may be quiescent now, but I'm guessing that won't last.
Just as I "could easily" make the argument that vengeance is an obligation, I can, and would rather, make the argument that vengeance is unhealthy to the individual and unhealthy to the society and unhealthy to the global community. I thus argue that violence in the service of vengeance should be discouraged whenever possible. If someone must be punished for a crime he committed, then let the punishment be made as dispassionately as humanly possible.
In the past when nomadic clans occupied Europe and the middle east, the role of vengeance might have been legitimate to enhance the survival of the clan. In an age of NBC (which is military speak for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons, the concept of obligatory vengeance becomes rather unpleasant.
>>> Moreover, I wouldn't have too much respect for Wood if he were just fine with fighting alongside his mother's killer; just as I wouldn't have had much respect for Angel if he'd just welcomed Wes back without question.
I'm not sure how to take this statement. Do you mean to say, that your respect for Principal Wood is contingent upon his exacting revenge on Spike, regardless of the consequences to the rest of humanity? If so, I find this a little repulsive.
I believe that you are in error if you see only two scenarios.
(1) Wood dusts Spike ASAP.
(2) Wood fights along Spike as if nothing happened.
I would like to offer a couple additional scenarios.
(3) Wood might back away from Buffy's group and her battle with the First Evil, at least until the war is over.
(4) Wood might make his displeasure with Spike known to Buffy and have a mature discussion about the merits of his feelings, about the continuing responsibility and guilt that souled Spike bears for his pre-souled crimes, and about reasonable actions to take against Spike (and the reasonable timing thereof).
>>> In the final analysis, I beleive that it's up to Spike (and Wes, for that matter) to work for the forgivness of the people they have wronged, he can't just expect it to come to him as a matter of course.
And, I believe that the perpetrator cannot forgive himself on behalf of his victims. He cannot earn the forgiveness of his victims. He can only acknowledge his crimes (ie. confess his sins), commit to never doing them again, and go out and do good works.
Forgiveness can only come from the victims, in their own good time. I believe that the victims of crime are better able to heal if they can find a way to forgive their perpetrators.
[> [> [> [> [>
How much remorse? -- bazoda, 14:52:24 02/27/03 Thu
Can't fighting along side Buffy and the Scoobs be seen as Spike's remorse for his past crimes? He does not have to risk life and limb to help, yet he stays on.
"Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrong-doing. Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean." -Aldous Huxley
Seems to me that Spike has addressed his sins and is attempting to make amends as best he can.
[> [> [> [> [>
The Spiritual Woodshed -- Malandanza, 00:24:03 02/28/03 Fri
I'm not sure I agree that Wood was directly influenced by the First to stake Spike -- Andrew, Spike and Buffy showed no ill effects whatsoever while they were in the school, yet Spike and Andrew have been in deeper thrall to the First than Wood has been to date. Certainly, if the First were paying attention, Buffy and Andrew posed a bigger threat than did Spike.
The biggest problems I have with Wood's vengeance crusade (aside from what I think has been a consistent message by ME that vengeance is bad, no matter what) are that:
1. He joined up with Buffy to make a positive difference in the world
2. He knows the First wants him to try to kill Spike-- so knows his actions further the cause of evil
3. He's sneaking around instead of confronting Spike or Buffy directly
However, for Wood to fighting alongside the creature who wears the coat he stripped from Wood's mother as a trophy, does strike me as obscene. In fact, it brings me to your point:
"And, I believe that the perpetrator cannot forgive himself on behalf of his victims. He cannot earn the forgiveness of his victims. He can only acknowledge his crimes (ie. confess his sins), commit to never doing them again, and go out and do good works."
With which I agree, wholeheartedly. However, it seems to me that Spike really hasn't reached the point where he truly acknowledges his crimes -- he clings to his past triumphs. He still wears the jacket. I believe you used an analogy of Spike as a Nazi scientist who switches sides. I'd like you to consider Spike as a Nazi war criminal, personally responsible for thousands of deaths, but who escaped Justice/Vengeance at the end of the war and started a new life -- then, thirty years later is dragged off to Israel to stand trial. It's hard to feel too sorry for the guy -- I mean, yes, he has a whole new life, he's a different person now and he hasn't murdered anyone recently, but has he really repented? Shouldn't he be willing (like Andrew) to accept the consequences of his actions?
Storyteller is one of the few episodes where we've seen a character fully confessing -- realizing the extent of his crimes and repenting completely. Andrew's trip to the spiritual woodshed was good for his soul. Spike isn't there yet, but, as I believe Andrew is a foil for Spike, Andrew's example serves as pattern for Spike's ultimate redemption. And I wouldn't mind see Willow taken out to the woodshed too. Maybe Buffy could take her to the spot she tortured and murdered Warren, tie her up and threaten to skin her alive, just to see if Willow finally gets that she murdered a human being out vengeance and stops telling herself stories like "there's a reason I killed him."
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Spiritual Woodshed -- pilgrim, 09:29:47 02/28/03 Fri
Interesting. I've been thinking about the differences between Andrew's and Spike's situations. Andrew did confess. But the pivotal moment came when he realized he was feeling what Jonathan felt as he died--it was then that the falling tear closed the seal. Forming that sense of connection to another human being, imagining his way in to a sympathy, a genuine fellow-feeling with Jonathan, seems a new acheivement for Andrew. And I think that for Andrew this is the very beginning of his journey to become a real boy, so to speak. There's more work to come, including discovering the process of forgiveness and making amends.
It seems to me that Spike already is in middle of finding sympathy and fellow-feeling with humans, of understanding his victims' pain. The FE as Dru, while directing the ubervamp to beat up Spike, noted that Spike himself always liked to kick a dolly when it was down. What he did to others is being done to him. In Help, while being more-or-less insane, he makes an imaginative leap: out of his own guilt from "hurting the girl" he forms a desire that the girl not be hurt. Spike says in Beneath You that he hears the voices of the people he's killed, and he says in Sleeper that he feels his murders in his soul--he's tried to cut his soul out and cry it out, but he can't shut off that powerful sense of sympathy. So, to me, Spike seems already on his way to becoming connected to humans and to feeling sympathy for their suffering. What will he do with those feelings? Will it all be too hard so that he retreats to old patterns of fighting and snarkiness, and trophy-coat-wearing? Will he feel the need to go off alone to come to grips with his human/demon struggle (sort of the pre-1997 Angel/Oz model), or will he need to enmesh himself in community to come to grips to his past and present? Will he choose a grand, heroic and suicidal gesture toward redemption?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: discounting feelings -- Shiraz, 14:02:39 02/28/03 Fri
"Obviously, I have not been clear enough in what I was saying. I did not discount Principal Wood's feelings. I did not suggest that he should just move on. What I am suggesting is that vengeance will not heal his pain, that it will ultimately damage him farther, that forgiveness is the first step to healing."
O.K. then, what about all the other vamps he dusted during his whole "vengeful son" years? They were just as much acts of revenge as killing Spike would be, and yet I doubt anyone here really objects to that. In fact, I'd even say that, far from damaging him, probably helped him. Because this was how that powerless little boy learned that he could stand up to the creatures that killed his mother; he learned he had power.
>>> You could easily make the arguement (as many cultures do) that a person not only has the right to exact vengance from an individual who killed their mother, but an also an *obligation* to do so.
"Yes, and thus we have places like Bosnia, where the never-ending cycle of revenge is shall we say ... never-ending. It may be quiescent now, but I'm guessing that won't last."
Actually, I was thinking of Japan, which seems to be doing alright for itself.
"Just as I "could easily" make the argument that vengeance is an obligation, I can, and would rather, make the argument that vengeance is unhealthy to the individual and unhealthy to the society and unhealthy to the global community. I thus argue that violence in the service of vengeance should be discouraged whenever possible. If someone must be punished for a crime he committed, then let the punishment be made as dispassionately as humanly possible."
I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately the President has officially withdrawn from the International Vampiric Truth and Reconciliation Commission, on the grounds that loyal undead Americans might be prosecuted.
"In the past when nomadic clans occupied Europe and the middle east, the role of vengeance might have been legitimate to enhance the survival of the clan. In an age of NBC (which is military speak for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons, the concept of obligatory vengeance becomes rather unpleasant."
But we're not dealing with weapons of mass destruction and United Nations mandates here. What we have here is one man, one vampire, and no one to go to for Justice.
">>> Moreover, I wouldn't have too much respect for Wood if he were just fine with fighting alongside his mother's killer; just as I wouldn't have had much respect for Angel if he'd just welcomed Wes back without question.
I'm not sure how to take this statement. Do you mean to say, that your respect for Principal Wood is contingent upon his exacting revenge on Spike, regardless of the consequences to the rest of humanity? If so, I find this a little repulsive."
Very simply, silence is the voice of complicity. If Wood acts as though Spike is just another guy, then Spike, Buffy, and everyone else may very well assume that he doesn't really care. Nikki then becomes just another dead extra with a cool coat.
Its for this same reason that I thought Angel's Hospital scene with Wes was so powerful. Here Angel tells Wes that he understands all of the logical, resonable explainations for Wes's actions and then tries to kill him, screaming "Your dead Pryce! You took my Son!" That scene, more than anything else, showed the depth of Angel's loss, and it proved that baby Conner was more than a cute prop for a novelty plot arc.
"I believe that you are in error if you see only two scenarios.
(1) Wood dusts Spike ASAP.
(2) Wood fights along Spike as if nothing happened."
Hadn't considered either of these.
"I would like to offer a couple additional scenarios.
(3) Wood might back away from Buffy's group and her battle with the First Evil, at least until the war is over."
That can't really happen, Wood already decided what side he was on long before he met Buffy. I guess his position would be most like a Russian exile who desides to fight with the Allies in WWII only to find himself a assigned as a liason to Soviet troops.
"(4) Wood might make his displeasure with Spike known to Buffy and have a mature discussion about the merits of his feelings, about the continuing responsibility and guilt that souled Spike bears for his pre-souled crimes, and about reasonable actions to take against Spike (and the reasonable timing thereof)."
There are NO non-sarcastic responses to this, so I'll pass.
But really, all I expect is something along the lines of a confrontation, conflict (violent or otherwise), and finally a resolution (positive or negative). The writers seem to have painted themselvs into a corner with this, but the've surprised me before. Just so long as the issue is resonably dealt with.
"And, I believe that the perpetrator cannot forgive himself on behalf of his victims. He cannot earn the forgiveness of his victims. He can only acknowledge his crimes (ie. confess his sins), commit to never doing them again, and go out and do good works.
Forgiveness can only come from the victims, in their own good time. I believe that the victims of crime are better able to heal if they can find a way to forgive their perpetrators."
But no pressure... (sorry, I eat and breathe sarcasm)
This seems to put all of onus on the survivors, and very little on the criminals themselves. After all, if the perpretrator CAN'T earn forgiveness, then they have no reason to even try. All they have to do is remain sinless, which is what's required of everyone. At the very least, some measure of contrition should be shown. As Holtz said, "It would mean a little", but even beyond that they must desire forgiveness, and see it as necessary to process of atonement.
I mean, if, as you say, forgiveness is so important to surviviors, then it stands to reason that if a perpetrator truly is sorry for their deeds, they should desire forgiveness *for the sake of their victims*. This is the only way a truly repenetant individual could start to repair the damage they have done to another person.
-Shiraz
"In fact Rincewind never spoke to this particular tree again, but from that brief conversation it spun the basis of the first tree religion which, in time, swept the forests of the world. Its tenet of faith was this: a tree that was a good tree, and led a clean, decent and upstanding life, could be assured of a future life after death. If it was very good indeed it would eventually be reincarnated as five thousand rolls of lavatory paper."
Terry Pratchett - The Light Fantastic
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: discounting feelings -- Freki, 15:04:24 02/28/03 Fri
So, should that Russian exile assigned as liaison to the Soviet troops then begin secretly killing those troops off? That seems to be what Wood tried to do. I'm afraid I can't see trying to stab someone who is fighting beside you in the back as ever being the right thing to do.
It's a very complex situation, and there really isn't a right answer, any more than there was on AtS last year. There isn't anything Spike can do to make amends for killing Wood's mother, any more than Angel could make amends to Holtz for killing his family. Does that mean that Wood has any more right to kill Spike than Holtz had to kill Angel? Holtz at least had the grace to confront Angel before trying to kill him.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I can say without hesitation that we absolutely should -- indeed, must -- discount Wood's feelings -- Sophist, 15:56:48 02/28/03 Fri
Before I begin here, I should say that Shiraz and Robert share an implicit assumption, whatever their other disagreements. That assumption is that SouledSpike bears moral responsibility for the actions of VampSpike.
I don't share this view. I see SouledSpike as separate and distinct from VampSpike when it comes to moral responsibility. This issue has been discussed several times before, so I won't repeat why I take this view of the soul canon. I just wanted to point out that under my view, SouledSpike owes no contrition and needs no redemption. However, I'm going to adopt the Shiraz/Robert view for purposes of my comments.
Probably the most fundamental principle of our legal system is expressed in an old maxim: "No man may be a judge in his own case." This maxim not only establishes the most basic principle of due process, it also serves as the foundation for the Lockean political philosophy which supports the entire American system.
There are both historical and psychological reasons why we adopt this principle. Historically, Anglo-Saxon legal systems in the Medieval period operated under a vengeance principle. This was widely seen as a failure, leading to the cycles of blood that Robert mentioned. Psychologically, I refer back to the quote from James Madison in my post "I agree with Robert".
Vengeance violates this principle. The avenger takes it upon himself to judge his own case and enforce that judgment. This undercuts the foundation of justice as we recognize it.
Turning to some specific points raised by Shiraz:
O.K. then, what about all the other vamps he dusted during his whole "vengeful son" years?
It's impossible to speak to this issue without knowing the circumstances (e.g., self-defense or defense of others).
no one to go to for Justice
I can't agree. The Slayer is available, and Wood knows it.
silence is the voice of complicity. If Wood acts as though Spike is just another guy, then Spike, Buffy, and everyone else may very well assume that he doesn't really care.
Excluded middle. I don't see these as the only alternatives. You go on to say that Wood really can't leave off vengeance for the time being, but you don't say why. The timing issue is one of Robert's strongest arguments; you need to say more than you have.
I mean, if, as you say, forgiveness is so important to surviviors, then it stands to reason that if a perpetrator truly is sorry for their deeds, they should desire forgiveness *for the sake of their victims*. This is the only way a truly repenetant individual could start to repair the damage they have done to another person.
I don't think there's any disagreement here. The key point is this: how is Spike to know that he needs to demonstrate contrition for this particular wrong, more than any other, unless Wood speaks up? And how will he ever get the chance if Wood stakes him without warning while Spike is protecting Buffy?
Put A Stake In It" and interview with Joss over the end of Buffy (casting spoilers for Angel) -- Dochawk, 07:17:46 02/27/03 Thu
Put a stake in 'Buffy'
Whedon confirms skein's end; spinoff mulled
By JOSEF ADALIAN
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" creator Joss Whedon is officially acknowledging the end of his critically acclaimed UPN skein -- and already mulling plans for a spinoff.
With star Sarah Michelle Gellar confirming her exit, Whedon Wednesday told Daily Variety the 20th Century Fox TV-produced show wouldn't go without her or him.
"We're shuffling off to Buffalo," Whedon said. "Sarah's decision was wrapped up in mine. We weren't interested in doing it without the other."
In May, skein will wrap its seven-season run (which began in 1997 on the WB) with an hourlong finale episode penned and directed by Whedon titled "Chosen." Emmy-nominated Whedon and exec producer Marti Noxon have just began hammering out details of the final three scripts.
Finale offers 'closure'
While he wouldn't discuss specifics of the finale, "We're not going to end it by saying, 'There can be no "Buffy" no more,' " Whedon said. "But it definitely has a message of emotional and thematic closure that's as important as anything we've said."
UPN execs have indicated their interest in a spinoff of "Buffy," and Whedon said he's willing. The timetable is up in the air, however.
While UPN would no doubt prefer a new skein as early as this fall, "I think ideally the best thing to do would be to wait and not rush anything," Whedon said. "There are paradigms that I've posited that could start next year -- (but) whatever came next, it would have to have at its center an idea as worthy as ('Buffy' and spinoff 'Angel') were. And somebody who's pretty."
No rights to spinoff
Though UPN doesn't have the rights to a "Buffy" follow-up, Whedon said the net "came through for us at a time nobody would."
Net gave a two-year order to "Buffy" after 20th and the WB couldn't reach agreement on a new license fee deal.
Whedon said he hoped the legacy of "Buffy," which snagged nine Emmy noms and two wins, would be a skein that was "part of the move toward genuinely strong female characters that weren't cardboard cutouts. The idea was to venerate people who weren't taken seriously and make a real strong feminist statement."
The WB hasn't yet decided whether it will bring back "Angel" for a fifth season, but Whedon said he's upbeat.
"I don't know where we stand -- but I'm putting my money on this not being the last season," he said. "I love this damn show, and I won't let myself think this is an end." For now, "Angel" fans can look forward to a guest appearance by "Buffy" star Alyson Hannigan.
Plenty of kudos
UPN Entertainment prexy Dawn Ostroff said the net has "been very fortunate to be the home of such a landmark series, always brilliantly written and acted."
Gary Newman and Dana Walden, who head up 20th, also gave a shout out to Whedon, Gellar and "Buffy."
"It's sad to see the franchise coming to an end, but it's not a surprise," Walden said. "Sarah has a prolific feature career ahead and Joss has told seven seasons of extraordinary stories, and he's ready to do something else as well."
Newman praised "Buffy" for "the way it combined really incredible humor with great action. It spoke to a young, broad audience, and while it's always sad when something goes off the air, we can celebrate (144) episodes of just a truly great show."
[>
be careful, it's not the well-known casting spoiler! -- ponygirl, 07:47:39 02/27/03 Thu
Anyone need a good laugh? (Buffy-related) WARNING: Gets a little racy in some spots -- Rob, 07:44:52 02/27/03 Thu
from http://www.entertainment-geekly.com/web/general/feb2003/otj_jossbeard:
On the Jazz #8: Joss, Lose the Beard!
I'll even donate my Norelco.
By Matt Springer
February 26, 2003
Fans of television's Buffy the Vampire Slayer (as opposed to, what, Russian literature's Buffy the Vampire Slayer?) have a great deal on their minds right now. Sarah Michelle Gellar is leaving the show. This leaves the future of Buffy as we know it in jeopardy. Spinoff rumors are overtaking fandom like those grisly Ubervamps in Buffy's dream. And the plot threads of this season provide their own worthy mysteries to ponder, such as, "Will Buffy and the Scoobs defeat the First?" and "Where the fuck is Giles?"
However, I would like to turn your thoughts toward what I feel is a more pressing concern, a more dire event. I am speaking, of course, about Joss Whedon's beard.
I remember near the end of Season Six (at least, I think that's when it was) first noticing the facial hair. Immeidately, it struck me that the beard looked simply awful. I thought, "Here's a relatively cute young dude with an enormous brain who insists on wearing a beard. How sad. Does he realize he's conjuring a decidely unsexy 'eager grad student' vibe?"
I was so struck by the lameness of the beard that I almost asked Joss about it when I attended his panel at last summer's San Diego Comic-Con. But by then, he had lost the beard, and so I reasoned that perhaps someone close to him had clued him in on the beard's essential suckiness.
Then I saw the picture accompanying this article on ScoopMe. It's from the recent Buffy Posting Board Party. It's literally a few days old. And again, Whedon's kickin' the beard, and he looks baaaaaaaad.
Why is a beard such an awful cosmetic decision for Joss Whedon? A few reasons.
It's slightly pretentious. Not quite as pretentious as, say, carrying around a slim volume of Voltaire at all times, or prattling endlessly about the "sublime boquet" of a perfectly chilled glass of Cabernet. But still. A wee bit pretentious, as all beards are.
It makes him look old. This guy's got a baby face, and ladies, I bet you think he's pretty foxy without the facial hair. What do you think now? He looks like one of your dad's buddies from the office, doesn't he? Is this how we want the guy who crafts the hip, edgy entertainment of our geek youths to look? I think not.
It's scraggly. Some men can pull off growing out facial hair. Many men, like Joss, cannot. When the folically challenged attempt to grow beards, it just comes out looking like they're too tired, stressed, or ignorant to shave. Again, is this the kind of look we want Joss Whedon to convey? THE Joss Whedon? Supergenius of TV?
It's forever. Does Joss want TV history to remember him as the brilliant man with the unfortunate facial hair? I'm still scarred emotionally from Elvis Costello's horrifying beard. He looks like his own roadies.
It's a slippery slope. First the beard. Then the soup strainer. What then? The goatee? There's a reason why they call those "jailhouse pussy." I won't go into it; y'all seem clever enough to figure it out. But there's a reason.
Dude, it's ugly. Trust me on this. I know I'm a guy, and guys don't traditionally listen to what other guys have to say about their physical appearance. But I wouldn't say it if it weren't important. Dude. Seriously. Ugly beard.
I love Joss Whedon, more than I love any other man I've met once for about twenty minutes. I love his work. He is a creative god and a true inspiration. It is because of Joss that I am busting my ass to learn TV writing so I can scoot out to L.A. and try my own hand at it. If I can produce even a small sliver of a fraction of the brilliance that Joss has brought to the tube, I will be a happy man.
But Joss, please. Come on. If you have any respect for yourself and your fans, consider shaving. I realize you have a lot on your plate right now, what with the end of Buffy and the season finale of Angel and all this spinoff nonsense to deal with. Just find ten minutes to spend with some warm water and a Gilette. Without a beard, you look like the suave, young, sexy genius we know you are. With the beard, you look like Richard Karn.
Yeah. That's right. Al from Home Improvement. Current host of Family Feud.
Richard. Freakin'. Karn.
I rest my case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Coming on the heels of both the Buffy cancellation (I thought we all needed a good laugh), and the recently archived things-to-say-to-piss-off-Joss thread, I thought it was appropriate that I post this. ;o)
Rob
[>
He's right, of course: the beard is a true Fashion Folly. -- Honorificus (The Follically-Gifted), 10:23:34 02/27/03 Thu
Bad enough that the Whedon creature insists on demon-bashing every chance he gets, but a beard? He looks like a high school geek trying to look manly. Or, worse yet, like Peter Jackson. Aping a god further down in the Lowerarchy of Writer/Directors is just undignified.
OPEN LETTER TO SARAH MICHELLE GELLER - BUFFY LIVES! -- ANGELINA, 08:57:05 02/27/03 Thu
Dear Sarah Michelle,
I personally want to take this opportunity to thank you from the very bottom of my heart for all the enjoyment, happiness, sadness, joy, anger, and just plain TV goodness you have given me the last seven years by the sheer brilliance of your performance as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I have watched your character of Buffy grow up from an innocent, scared little girl, into one of the most profound American Heros of all time. You have earned your place in the every shrinking lure of American Television Mythology.
Buffy has defined a generation of young woman. Young girls who have looked up to her as a role model. Watching Buffy's growth as a woman has made us all feel that, as woman, we can do anything. The dichotomy of Buffy's slight fragile physical frame, her total and complete femininity, and her gorgeous blondeness, combined with the sheer resolve of her entire being in the acceptance of her fate, the fate that she was the chosen one, the hero, the one who must go on, has delighted all generations of American woman, both young and old. Dear Sarah, as Buffy grew, so did we. We watched Buffy's struggle with the everyday trials and tribulations of growing up, graduating high school, going to college, loving and losing, being used and abused, making wrong decisions and choosing the wrong men - again and again. We watched her lose her mother, raise her sister, create beautiful loving relationships with her friends and self picked family. We watched her toil at a mundane, horrible job and shared her pitiful realization that she might have to wear that chicken hat for the rest of her life. She suffered the trauma of attempted rape, but yet had to face the fact that she may have bourne some responsibility for that action. Something that no woman should ever have to face. All this, in itself, made for fantastic TV and was splendid to watch. The sheer genius of the interactions between the characters created on Buffy was remarkable. We, as the audience always had trust in these glorious and profoundly three dimensional, "people".
Then add to the mix that Buffy is The Slayer, the one girl in all the world to fight the forces of darkness, the one who had the weight of the entire world on those tiny, narrow little shoulders, well it made for one hell of ride. Buffy had her doubts, her moments of hopelessness; her sheer rage in knowing that her life was stolen from her.
Yet Buffy went on. She faced the Master in her prom dress, how I still cry every time I see her face down, drowning, dead. She fought off the end of the world too many times to count, and sacrificed herself for the love of her sister. She lived and died. Twice. She was ripped out of heaven, she clawed her way out of the earth and fell in love with two vampires. She struggled with her dark side, she did despicable things to the one who loved her most, the one who for the love of her, did the unheard of, went out and asked for a soul. She almost lost herself in the darkness. But didn't.
She laughed, cried, slayed and was almost slain herself. She sang and danced and lived and loved and lost. She was shy, bold, selfish, giving, bossy, understanding, judgmental, but most of she was AMAZING. She made us laugh out loud and she made us cry our hearts out. And Sarah, you did it all so beautifully. I cannot tell you how many times you have astonished me with the simple lift of an eyebrow or set of your mouth. Your eyes spoke volumes to us. We felt for Buffy. We loved her, hated her, wanted to smack some sense into her, but most of all we respected her and we trusted her to do the right thing. And she always did. She always found a way. Buffy never let us down. She might have made really bad decisions in her personal life, but when it came to saving the world, she was always right there, sheer determination and a remarkable self-confidence. And she was so little. So little, yet with the biggest heart in the Buffyverse. Sarah, you were simply extraordinary. I am going to miss this character of Buffy more than I can say. I hope that the writers do right by Buffy in the end. She has meant so much to so many people. We knew Buffy had a job to do, and we admired her enormously for that , but we always hoped in our hearts, that Buffy would get the opportunity to lead that "normal" life she always wanted. To be that "normal girl" who loved Angel so much in I Will Remember You. But whatever happens, Sarah you enriched my life with your talents. Well Done.
Buffy Lives.
[>
Ditto! Thank you, SMG, for 7 wonderful years! -- Rob, 09:05:33 02/27/03 Thu
[>
A ditto and a JW article (one AtS future casting spoiler) -- HonorH, 09:19:48 02/27/03 Thu
I echo your statements to SMG. The interviewer for the article in which she said she was done playing Buffy said she was near tears. Obviously, this show, this character, and these people have all had a profound effect on her over the years, and it's not without sadness that she says goodbye. Like Xander and Anya realized, the end has come, as it should--but what they had was very good and should be treasured.
Now, the JW article, from Reuters:
'Buffy' Creator Mulls Spinoff
Thu February 27, 2003 02:37 AM ET
By Josef Adalian
HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" creator Joss Whedon has officially acknowledging the end of his critically acclaimed UPN series -- and is already mulling plans for a spinoff.
With star Sarah Michelle Gellar this week confirming her exit, Whedon Wednesday told Daily Variety the 20th Century Fox TV-produced show wouldn't go without her or him.
"We're shuffling off to Buffalo," Whedon said. "Sarah's decision was wrapped up in mine. We weren't interested in doing it without the other."
In May, the series will wrap its seven-season run (which began in 1997 on the WB) with an hourlong finale episode penned and directed by Whedon titled "Chosen." Emmy-nominated Whedon and exec producer Marti Noxon have just begun hammering out details of the final three scripts.
While he wouldn't discuss specifics of the finale, "We're not going to end it by saying, 'There can be no "Buffy" no more,"' Whedon said. "But it definitely has a message of emotional and thematic closure that's as important as anything we've said."
UPN execs have indicated their interest in a spinoff of "Buffy," and Whedon said he's willing. The timetable is up in the air, however.
While UPN would no doubt prefer a new series as early as this fall, "I think ideally the best thing to do would be to wait and not rush anything," Whedon said. "There are paradigms that I've posited that could start next year ... (but) whatever came next, it would have to have at its center an idea as worthy as ('Buffy' and spinoff 'Angel') were. And somebody who's pretty."
NO RIGHTS TO SPINOFF
Though UPN doesn't have the rights to a "Buffy" follow-up, Whedon said the network "came through for us at a time nobody would."
UPN gave a two-year order to "Buffy" after 20th and the WB couldn't reach agreement on a new license fee deal.
Whedon said he hoped the legacy of "Buffy," which snagged nine Emmy nominations and two wins, would be a series that was "part of the move toward genuinely strong female characters that weren't cardboard cutouts. The idea was to venerate people who weren't taken seriously and make a real strong feminist statement."
The WB hasn't yet decided whether it will bring back "Angel" for a fifth season, but Whedon said he's upbeat.
"I don't know where we stand ... but I'm putting my money on this not being the last season," he said. "I love this ... show, and I won't let myself think this is an end." For now, "Angel" fans can look forward to a guest appearance by "Buffy" star Alyson Hannigan.
[> [>
Re: Thanks for the Info Honor...Gave me a well needed lift. -- Angelina, 09:39:11 02/27/03 Thu
[> [>
I posted the original of this below (its from Variety) -- Dochawk, 09:45:53 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Wholeheartedly agree -- fidhle, formerly John, 09:24:37 02/27/03 Thu
Dear Sarah,
You are a most amazing actor and your portrait of Buffy is brilliant. I fully understand your desire to end on a high and wish you the best for your future career. Looking forward to seeing you as Bond.:)
[>
It takes a hero -- luna, 09:56:04 02/27/03 Thu
to play a hero--and to create one! Thanks to SMG, JW, and to all the rest who have made this such a wonderful experience. Probably did more than 20 years of feminist tracts to change the future of young women in the US.
Spike/ Fray connection? -- Alison, 09:52:43 02/27/03 Thu
I've never read Fray, but aren't the wampires in it refered to as lurks? bc the creature that returned Spike's soul was called Lurky...is anyone who has read Fray able to explain it to me?
[>
"wampires" lol ...god, must learn to type properly -- Alison, 10:25:06 02/27/03 Thu
[> [>
Just assumed you were Russian -- sorry. [NT] -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 11:09:12 02/27/03 Thu
nt
[>
Re: Spike/ Fray connection? -- Darby, 10:30:17 02/27/03 Thu
So far as I know, "Lurky" is one of those names that came from discussions about the characters in places like this. Hey, it's better than "Noodles," which somehow became the Turok-Han's nickname (here, we took to calling him "the GrrrArrgh Guy"). Lurky's only described in the scripts as "VOICE."
[> [>
Re: Spike/ Fray connection? -- Alison, 10:44:34 02/27/03 Thu
Spike called him lurky
[> [> [>
Re: Spike/ Fray connection? -- Darby, 12:56:26 02/27/03 Thu
Oh, well that explains where it came from. I'd suspect that this could be one of the writers' in-jokes, so there may be a connection - but probably nothing more than a wink.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Spike/ Fray connection? -- amber, 23:54:56 02/27/03 Thu
I don't think it's actually a connection. The "Lurky" guy that gives Spike back his soul looks nothing like the lurks in Fray. Lurks are vampires in the comic, they look like other Buffyverse vampires, and they have the exact same abilities/traits as Buffyverse vampires.
The idea behind Fray is that for many years (about 300) there were no vampires, demons or magic on earth and as a result no slayer has been called in many many years. In Fray we learn that the vamps and demons are now returning to earth, hence a slayer is called (aka Meleka Fray). The people in the Fray comic call the vampires Lurks because they don't have any past knowledge about them and don't know they should be calling them vampires. (Not sure what caused this, perhaps someone destroyed all the copies of Dracula?)
Anyway, I think Spike just called the guy "Lurky" because he was lurking, not as a reference to the comic. Personally, I'm hoping we'll see a reference to Fray in the series finale, such as an explanation as to why all the vamps and demons left earth.
In Tales of the Slayer, a graphic novel with the stories all written by Buffy episode writers, there is a short comic about the First Slayer written by Joss Whedon. The story he tells there is very similar to the origin story that Buffy learned in Get It Done.
[> [>
D'Hoffryn calls him Lloyd -- oboemaboe, 02:44:33 02/28/03 Fri
He tells Willow that Lloyd has a sketch of Warren's flaying on his wall, which is what Spike sees on the cave wall in Villains.
[>
Re: Spike/ Fray connection? (Spoilers for Fray) -- Robert, 10:56:47 02/27/03 Thu
>>> I've never read Fray, but aren't the wampires in it refered to as lurks?
They are. But the world portrayed in Fray has been without vampires, demons, and slayers for centuries. Presumably, the concepts of vampires were thus lost from the language. Since the new vampires hung around dark places in the cesspool of society, people naturally took to calling them lurks, for lack of a better name. It the demon Urkonn (who in taking the role of watcher for Melaka Fray) told her that the lurks were actually vampires from very old times.
At this same time, Urkonn also told Fray the legends of how the demons and vampires were banished from the world, way back in the 21st century. Urkonn said that there was a final battle fought by a slayer and her friends that resulted in the banishment, and that it was unknown whether the slayer survived the battle. This, I am sure, was Joss being cagey about whether there would be an eighth season of BtVS or not.
The shooting script for "Get It Done" is up at Pscyhe's! -- Rob, 10:29:05 02/27/03 Thu
Get It Done
Oh, and "First Date"s been updated into HTML format here.
[>
Winnie the Pooh -- ponygirl, 13:41:38 02/27/03 Thu
I'm still wondering about that Tigger reference. Spike talks about doing what he does best, a very Tigger-ish phrase, and then when he gets thrown through the ceiling he demonstrates that bouncing may be the thing he (and Tigger) does best. Other than that I can't think of the significance of Tigger. Nver was much of a Pooh fan I'm afraid.
[> [>
Some Pooh humor... -- Rob, 13:58:05 02/27/03 Thu
Another thing linking Spike with Tigger is the phrase of Tigger's song..."And oh the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one!"
Spike would like to think of himself as the only vampire with a soul. (Was it this ep or the one before where he says he's the only one. Sort of.)
Rob
[> [> [>
Oh, my god - I can't believe I'm posting this -- dream, 07:54:32 02/28/03 Fri
The Tigger story that is the most well-known is the one in which Tigger stops bouncing. I've forgotten the details, but Rabbit (who is the Ego of the group, all about order and control) wins a bet or something and Tigger (the Id) has to stop his signature bouncing, which Rabbit finds annoying. Tigger stops and becomes terribly, terribly depressed. I can't remember what seems to me to be the key point - why Rabbit lets Tigger start bouncing again. Is there a parent on the board who remembers? Anyway, Tigger does get his bounce back, and all is well. Considering this is the episode in which Spike goes and gets his coat back, the reference might be intentional...if the writers have a TTMQ of 10+.
[> [> [> [>
In Which Tigger is Unbounced. -- Arethusa, 09:30:26 02/28/03 Fri
Rabbit decides Tigger has too much bounce and should be a little sadder, so he tries to get Tigger lost in the Hundred Acres Wood. But Rabbit becomes lost instead, and is very glad to be found by Tigger. He decides he no longer wants to unbounce him. Silly old rabbit.
Have you read The Tao of Pooh? It explains Taoism using the character of Winnie the Pooh. It's very short and fun to read, if you liked the Pooh stories.
[> [> [> [> [>
Jumping in unprompted -- Tchaikovsky, 15:37:13 02/28/03 Fri
I've read that. Really interesting slant on Taoism, and I absolutely loved the chapter with the in-depth discussion of the philosophical questions posed by the song 'Cottleston Pie'.
['A fly can't bird- but a bird can fly'. Milne has the same, (possibly even, deep breath,a superior) effortless fun with language as Whedon]
And Pooh as the Uncarved Block was genius.
TCH
[> [> [> [>
Meekly raises hand -- pr10n, 09:36:24 02/28/03 Fri
(I'll quote from the action of the movie, but it's pretty close to the original Milne)
Tigger (and Roo, the token "child" from the token "mother") are trapped in a tree because Tigger bounced them there. Roo leaps into the rescuing arms of the 100-Acre community, but Tigger is reluctant, indeed fearful. Intimacy problems, maybe?
As he says, "I'm see-sick, from seeing too much."
Tigger claims if he could just get down, he'd never bounce again. Rabbit (all Order and Ego like dream says) writes this down in triplicate and stashes it away.
Then the Narrator (The writers? God?) reveals Himself to Tigger, offering a solution. He tilts the book and causes reality to reconfigure. This creates from Tigger's self-imposed danger and exile an escape route: Presto! Ze frightening tall tree becomez ze convenient Plane Wing Ramp.
Pounce! says Rabbit, invoking Tigger's promise (made under duress), and Tigger reluctantly agrees to never bounce again. He then slumps off in the poutiest way. Slumpy tail, even.
The other forest creatures rally for Tigger, brow beating Rabbit with peer pressure and whinging until finally he relents -- Yes, Tigger can bounce. Whoo hoo!
Tigger immediately relapses, and in fact co-ops Rabbit into bouncing himself. Problem solved, a la one Deus ex machina, one guilt trip, one scene of mob mentality and peer pressure, and one brief scene of persuasion/seduction.
Make of this what you will. I fear I've done irreversible harm to my already-spotty credibility.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks guys -- ponygirl, 11:57:22 02/28/03 Fri
Though I am reminded of how much I hate Winnie the Pooh. No comment on the quality of the books or cartoons, some kids I baby-sat for had the video on a continuous loop for close to 5 years. I've managed to block out a great deal but the aversion remains. And that Rabbit, so smug! Grr.
[> [> [>
Re: The Scooby Gang as the Pooh Crew? -- Purple Tulip, 23:30:16 02/28/03 Fri
Ok, I may be pushing this a little, and it may be the fact that it's 2:00 am, but this post made me think about the Buffy characters and about the Pooh characters and how would correlate.
Pooh = Buffy ----this one's pretty obvious, Pooh is the center of their little world, they all always gather at his house for any event, he is who they always turn to for anything
Tigger = Spike ----we've already decided that Spike would be most like Tigger b/c Tiggers bouncing and everything, and him saying stuff about what he does best. But Tigger is also the wild one of the group, the one who seems to be invincible and more full of life than any other--much like Spike was before this season
Pigglet = Dawn ----Pigglet is sort of a proto-Pooh, despite the fact that they aren't even the same species. Pigglet looks up to Pooh and is almost trying to emmulate him in many instances, and serves as a younger sibling-type character
Rabbit = Giles ----Rabbit is the "smart" one of the group, the brains, and often the pompous one -- not that i'm saying that Giles is at all pompous, but he can act a bit stuffy at times. Rabbit likes to act like he's above them most of the time, but he always ends up coming back down to their level.
Eyore = Xander ----Eyeore is the one who always seems to get the short end of the stick, the one who has the biggest heart, but never seems to get any kind of reward for it, and seems surprised when anyone cares about him
Owl = Willow ----this one doesn't fit as well as the other ones, but I think there is a connection because Owl is wise, seeing and seems to know everything, much like Willow's vast knowledge and insight
Gopher = Anya ----Gopher is kind of annoying, but always there in a pinch whenever they need him
Christopher Robbin = Joss ----ok, I know that Joss isn't a character perse, but he has created these characters and pulls them out to tell stories with, much as C.R. does with his Pooh character toys and makes them come to life and act out little stories
(and of course there are the minor characters of Kanga and Roo, but I'm not sure how they fit in)
----Ok, before you all think that I am a complete freak and have way too much time on my hands, let me just say that I have a seven month old nephew and my sister's theme for his bedroom and everything was Winnie the Pooh, so I got very familiar with it all, plus I used to watch it when I was younger! So who knows, it's probably nothing more than a strange coincidence and I have just completely wasted my time, but maybe, just maybe, Joss thought that The Scooby Gang sounded a little better than The Pooh Crew.
[> [> [> [>
Lol -- Arethusa, 04:44:40 03/01/03 Sat
That is too cute. Although I might correlate Joyce and Dawn to Kanga and Roo. So Piglet would have to be...Johnathan?
[>
Re: The shooting script for "Get It Done" is up at Pscyhe's! -- Darby, 16:17:53 02/27/03 Thu
Somehow I missed this when I posted above. Sorry, don't like to start redundant threads.
[> [>
No prob. ;o) -- Rob, 17:17:15 02/27/03 Thu
[>
The shooting script for "Get It Done" (spoilers for script) -- Traveler, 14:52:13 02/28/03 Fri
There is a lot of juicey goodness in this script. For the most part, I approve of the editing that was done, but there were some interesting tidbits that got left out of the final cut. For example, we find out that Buffy disrupted the slayer line by breaking the staff! Is that why she is the "last" slayer?
Writers as the Trio (spoilers to Storyteller) -- lunasea, 10:48:43 02/27/03 Thu
I loved the Trio. They were the perfect villian for Season Six. Why? Because they are the writers. Who better to pattern the villian for that season after than the very people that are torturing our favorite characters with practically every word they write? You have to admire a group of people that can not only poke fun at the show they give their blood, sweat and tears for, but at themselves as well.
First we have Warren, basically the vamped feminist. If a strong male feminist was vamped, what do you think would result? Warren. Take the person that cares so much about the blond female victim in horror movies that he writes a show so she can take back the night, vamp him and you create an incredible mysogynist that turns the woman he used to care about into a sex slave and murders her. The control freek, geek, meglomaniac, sound remotely familiar?
Then we have Jonathan. Everyone related to this character, some more than others. The kid that was so unhappy in high school that he was going to kill himself (closest the show ever came to dealing with teen suicide). We later see this character after he has cast a spell to change the world so that he is the greatest thing. How do you think the writers feel? They were the kids that no one liked in high school and now they have the greatest job in the world. They are omnipotent when it comes to the Buffyverse.
Finally we come to Andrew. He wasn't much of a character season 6. His character season 6 was defined by his geekiness and his subservience. He was Tucker's brother. It would have been completely appropriate if we didn't know his name Season 6. If Warren is Joss, Andrew is the rest of the writers. They totally admire Joss and do whatever he says, even if that is killing off Jonathan (or Tara).
Andrew has become a character in his own right who exists without the Trio, much as the writers have. He starts out the season being great comic relief and often saying things that we all have been. I have a feeling some of his questions/comments will be crucial to this season, such as the exchange about forgiveness and freewill he had with Buffy in "Potential." It was just one of those moments that set something off inside of me.
"Storyteller" really made Andrew into a fleshed out character. What characteristic do they give this character? He is a storyteller who paints reality into these fantastical stories. Remind you of anyone? I mentioned that the writers give their blood, sweat and tears to the show. Jonathan gave his blood and Andrew his tears. (sweat comes from Buffy).
Every episode has one or a handful of moments that make bells go off for me. What Buffy says to Andrew about his storytelling is one of those moments. I would be willing to put money down that Buffy will loose her Slayer powers in the finale. Here is why. The storytellers have been spining this amazing fantastical story that we all have gotten lost in for seven years. That isn't reality. Buffy brings Andrew back to reality. Joss and Co are going to do the same thing with their story. Maybe the First and the demons will be defeated. Not quite sure, but Buffy's strength will not be in the fantasical, the mystical forces that surround her. It will be in something that is very real. She will give up her power (standard misdirect at the end of every season premier)
I have written about how I didn't like Killer in Me because it reverses the long standing position that life isn't a fairy tale. Thing is, I ignored where in the arc that episode appears. First Act is everything up to "Coversations with Dead People." That is how our characters should be acting and what they should be thinking. From there to "Get it Done" is Act 2. In Act 2 our characters are acting out of character and are thinking wrong. The fairy tale BS is in Act 2. Interesting place in the arc.
Contrast that with what Buffy says to Andrew in "Storytellers" which starts Act 3. Buffy even admits that she hates making all those speeches in Act 2. I loved Andrews comments about them. Think the writers like writing them? They are supposed to feel out of character and wrong. It is one thing that makes ME so courageous. They don't shy away from writing things that feel wrong. The audience bitches, but the overall story is what will keep us rewatching the entire season in marathon sessions.
We have 6 episodes to take this fantastical world into reality, 3 of which are for the final arc (wonder if when the WB said David could come over for the finale, do they mean all 3 or just the last one. If you know, don't tell me.) They already started that with Xander and Anya. What a great way to end that relationship.
So how much of the Buffyverse is going to go to reality? What about Angel and Buffy? Is that a fairy tale or do the people that have recently experienced the joy of being a parent believe that that sort of love is real? Do you think the First and demons will be dealt with? What will happen to Spike if this happens? I think we can assume that Angel is safe and will Shanshu should all demons be expelled from this dimension, but what about Spike? Will his grand sacrifice be helping to rid this dimension of the First and demons and he is included in this?
[>
Re: Writers as the Trio (spoilers to Storyteller) -- Robert, 11:27:38 02/27/03 Thu
Very nice analysis. I personally enjoyed season 6 BtVS, and was a little annoyed that so many others absolutely hated it.
>>> The kid that was so unhappy in high school that he was going to kill himself (closest the show ever came to dealing with teen suicide).
Not quite. The episode Lie to Me in season 2 dealt with Billy Fordham's desire for vampiric immortality (effectively a suicide/murder) in the face of painful terminal cancer. I think this was a more pointed metaphor for suicide.
>>> "Storyteller" really made Andrew into a fleshed out character
This is also the first episode where Buffy actually talks to Andrew, rather than berate, threaten or ignore him. I don't mean to say that he didn't richly deserve such treatment. Only that this shows the remarkable growth in his character that Buffy is willing to just talk with him.
Andrew at the second to last scene asked Buffy if she really meant to kill him. Buffy said "no", but she said it with compassion for him and his feelings. She was almost apologizing to him for the distress she put him through. Andrew then asked what Buffy would have done if the tears hadn't worked. Buffy silently turned and walked out. She wasn't willing to grant Andrew a place in the inner circle, where she shares her personal thoughts and fears. This was a great episode.
[>
interesting...i wondered if andrew...(also, about power) (lessons/get it done/storyteller spoilers) -- anom, 12:43:30 02/27/03 Thu
...was a stand-in for Joss in the scene at the seal. When Buffy tells him, "Stop telling stories! You always do this!" (sounding very annoyed w/that last part), it could be Joss is talking to himself. But yeah, good point--the same could easily apply to the whole writing team. Or to all fiction writers. Or to everybody in the world who tells themselves stories about their own lives instead of living them.
Hmm...is Buffy's saying it's not a story when, of course, it is an example of, um...antimetanarration? Is the fact that a show full of magic & monsters speaks to reality better than more mundane shows a paradox?
"She will give up her power (standard misdirect at the end of every season premier)"
I've been thinking about that statement that opened & closed Lessons: "It's about power." Yet in Get It Done, Buffy turns down what she sees as the "wrong" kind of power. This may be a foreshadowing of what lunasea predicts, or maybe she'll accept some "right" kind of power, contradicting what the FE said just before that last statement: "It's not about right. Not about wrong." After all, look who said it! Not exactly a reliable source.
Or maybe Buffy will come to an altogether different perception on what it's about & what power means. Maybe Joss is saying good/right doesn't triumph in the real world, power does--& then paints itself as having triumphed because it was good. I'm just trying to keep an open mind here, 'cause on these shows, we don't know how thing are gonna turn out...just like in reality.
[>
As usual, thought provoking, Lunasea! -- Rahael, 15:31:35 02/27/03 Thu
"It's wonderful to get lost in a story, isn't it?" -- Arethusa, 11:15:42 02/27/03 Thu
And Andrew is very lost. While the metaphorical is becoming literal at the high school, Andrew's excellent adventure continues at the Summers Acadamy for Potentials. The Annoying One decides to make a video biography of Buffy's life. It's the only way he knows how to relate to anyone-as if they are in a tv show. The cliches of tv become the framework he uses to converse with others, and gives him a sense of belonging, or at least an excuse for being a passive observer of his own life. The only family life of Andrew's that we've heard about is a homicidal older brother and an aunt that won't return his phone calls when he's jailed for attempted robbery. He almost certainly has never had a close relationship with anyone.
Andrew begins his Biography with a Masterpiece Theater-like introduction, in which Andrew is, in his eyes, cultured and gentle. When he follows Buffy around during patrol he is directing an action movie, a fight to the death between good and evil, and of course good will win because it's good. Next is time for The Real World, as mismatched young adults and teens share close quarters and too-few bathrooms. Hilariously, Andrew sees Buffy and Spike as Harlequin Romance figures, with the bare chest and flowing hair and filtered lens.
Then it's Cheaters or some other family-angst encounter show, while Xander and Anya explore their unhappy past. And on to Soap Opera, when Andrew watches and rewatches their (supposedly private) attempt to explain their feelings. Then, a Commercial Break, while Andrew whines, "Can't I have a cool, refreshing Zima?" All the while, Andrew rewrites his own past, declaring himself "a detached journalist recording with a neutral eye" and refusing to face the evil he had done. The First uses his delusions against him in Mexico, telling him "You're man on the run. You have a kind of a wild desperate thing going," while in reality he is too afraid to sleep alone. Finally Warren-slash-The First encourages his Tellytubbie vision of a paradise where they will be as gods.
Meanwhile, back in the Hellmouth, Andrew is distracted from the killer students with a little diversion to the land of fiction, replacing Wood's edgy hatred with slashy fanfic. But the fantasies finally all melt away when Buffy forces Andrew to face reality and really feel the emotions he had been supresssing. Andrew killled the only person who was ever nice to him, and he is not going to live happily ever after. No showy act of redemption can change that, something Angel and Spike both could have told him. But he finally accepted his behavior, and let himself feel what Johnathan must have felt in those moments before his death. And it turns out that "more power," to quote another tv show, wasn't what it took to close the seal. It took the tears of a man who for the first time in his life saw himself as he really was.
[>
Spoilers through Storyteller above (Sorry!) -- Arethusa, 11:18:10 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Very nice. And a great response to SK's post above. -- Sophist, 13:16:29 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Beautiful! (cut. paste. print.) -- Rob, 13:54:00 02/27/03 Thu
[>
Re: "It's wonderful to get lost in a story, isn't it?" -- cynesthesia, occasional de-lurker, 19:43:25 02/27/03 Thu
Great post Arethusa.
But the fantasies finally all melt away when Buffy forces Andrew to face reality and really feel the emotions he had been supresssing. Andrew killled the only person who was ever nice to him, and he is not going to live happily ever after. No showy act of redemption can change that, something Angel and Spike both could have told him. But he finally accepted his behavior, and let himself feel what Johnathan must have felt in those moments before his death. And it turns out that "more power," to quote another tv show, wasn't what it took to close the seal. It took the tears of a man who for the first time in his life saw himself as he really was.
And the beautiful irony is that all this is brought about by Buffy making Andrew believe that she means to kill him when she knows very well the Seal wants "tears, not blood." She acts as storyteller in giving Andrew a story, a lie, fabricating a false reality so he believes he is about to die. Her line "I'm making it all up. What kind of hero does that make me?" describes what she's doing at that very moment and carries a sense of revulsion with it that she has to do it that way. But she uses her story to hold up a mirror to Andrew so he can see the truth. IMO that's precisely what the best storytelling (and all good art) is capable of doing. That's where the catharsis and recognition comes from for Andrew. Me too, every time the "as if" of a story cuts close to the bone.
Though, this turned out to be my favorite episode of S7 so far, I understand many of the objections. I definitely got the feeling JE was poking me good-naturedly in the ribs and saying "Did ya get that?" :-) My ribs maybe were a little sore but in a very pleasurable way. The episode was full of artifice and very referential, but ultimately I found a lot of substance riding under the style.
[> [>
Oops, 7.16 Spoilers above -- cynesthesia, 22:59:14 02/27/03 Thu
Current board | More February 2003