January 2003 Archives

January 2003 posts

Previous January 2003
More January 2003

Favorite Endings (OT, admitidly) -- Majin Gojira, 08:36:55 01/04/03 Sat

Well, we all pretty much accept the fact that this will be the last season, likely. and it will have a cool ending (hopefully). My question to you all is this: What are your favorite endings?

My Favorite Endings are as Follows:

Gamera 3: Revenge of Iris -- After defeating the Big Bad Monster. Lots of 'little'-bad monsters are on the rise, THOUSANDS of them. He choses to fight them, even though it means certain death.

Neon Genesis Evangelion/End of Evangelion -- to describe them would spoil. suffice to say, it's head-trippy.

Gojira (1954) -- nothing like a selfless sacrifice to really get a message across.

Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Ghidorah: Daikaiju Sokujekii -- Nothing like a scene where you think the hero's have one, only to be shown that 'evil endures'...

Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail -- The Anti-climax defined.

Life of Brian -- "Always look on the Bright Side of life"

That's just off the top of my head. What about you?

[> Favorite Buffy Endings -- cjl, 09:19:05 01/04/03 Sat

"We're doomed." The Scoobies realize their social lives will never be normal. ("I Robot, You Jane")

Giles and Buffy's graveside discussion about white hats and black hats. ("Lie to Me")

Angel turns evil, and Buffy's birthday cupcake with Joyce. ("Surprise"/"Innocence")

"Actual size." ("Fear Itself")

Spike's exhortation to W/X to get out there and fight evil and save puppies. ("Doomed")

"You think you know...what's to come..." ("Restless")

"Mom...Mom? MOMMY?" ("I Was Made to Love You")

"I'd like to test that theory." ("Two to Go")

[> [> Re: Favorite Buffy Endings -- Rattletrap, 15:03:04 01/04/03 Sat

Good ones, cjl

My choices:

"She's a god." (Checkpoint)

Dawn reaching out to touch Joyce (The Body)

Buffy's monologue and the closing shot of The Gift

I can't think of any good non-Buffy movie or TV endings off the top of my head.

'trap

[> [> Can't believe no-one's nominated... -- KdS, 03:35:30 01/05/03 Sun

I Only Have Eyes for You with Spike revealing that he's faking...

[> [> [> Another good Spike ending. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:37:22 01/05/03 Sun

The end of "Lover's Walk", when everyone is een wallowing in their own sadness as dreary music plays. Then we cut to Spike driving out of town and singing along to rock music. It's definitely on my list.

[> [> [> [> Re: Another good Spike ending. . . -- Wizardman, 14:33:08 01/05/03 Sun

Have we already forgotten the endings of this seasons first two eps? The endings of "Lessons" and "Beneath You" are two of the best Buffy endings I've seen yet. Oh, and the ending of Becoming (actually, of both parts, but especially of part 2), although non-Spike related. Actually, all of the Buffy season finales have great endings.

[> [> Killed by Death! -- Rob, 11:16:11 01/06/03 Mon

The last shot of the crayon picture that the little boy drew Buffy, of her killing the Kinderstod, blood and gore everywhere, and Joyce's "That's very....nice" reaction. Priceless!

Rob

[> Re: Favorite Endings (OT, admitidly) -- Arya_Stark, 15:41:24 01/04/03 Sat

I have to go with the best ending of any television series ever was Blake's 7. I can't even describe it here, so hopefully some people have seen it.

I'll second your nominations of both Neon Genesis Evangelion and The Life of Brian.

[> [> Re: Favorite Endings (OT, admitidly) -- Snow White, 17:19:34 01/04/03 Sat

>>I'll second your nominations of both Neon Genesis Evangelion...
If we've got anime fans in the house (and let's face it folks, why wouldn't we?), then who could raise a hand for Cowboy Bebop?
_Bus 44_, and _Red BMW_ are nice
One of my favourite endings are _lie to me_, and _the gift_.
_Lie to Me_, in particular, is one of my favourite moments in all literature and film and stuff I've ever read, seen, or listened to.

[But, like all good endings, a lot is context, without which the endings can seem not so much. Which, I suppose, may go someway to explaining the student of Delany's, who writers are also to write for?] *wanders off into the forest and underbrush talking and muttering to self*

[> [> [> Re: Favorite Endings (OT, admitidly) -- Michael, 19:02:47 01/04/03 Sat

I have a particular affection for the ending of Earshot when Buffy says to Giles: We can do some training (or something like it), if you're not too busy having sex with my mother.

As for non-Buffy endings, if you have ever seen the John Wayne film, The Searchers, that is an incredible ending.

Also the ending to Citizen Kane, The Life of Brian, The Godfather.

[> [> Re: Favorite Endings (OT, admitidly) -- Kitt, 07:38:57 01/05/03 Sun

No, No, No!!! Blake's 7 was an awsome series, but the ending was one of those that wasn't (it looks like everybody's dead, but you can't be sure, could just be stunned), at least Joss leaves us with some closure,... mostly.

I agree about best endings with Michael tho - gotta love Giles walking into the tree in Earshot!

[> Favourite Ending -- Celebaelin, 08:16:25 01/05/03 Sun

Evil Dead III, The Mediaeval Dead

[> Re: Favorite Endings, for raw yuks -- pr10n, 20:02:50 01/05/03 Sun

I swear the end of the New England-hotel Newhart show, when he woke up in bed with Suzanne Plechette (sp), still makes me chortle spontaneously.

When I originally saw it I fell over on my couch laughing, a la Stiff!Dawn. (<-- deftly remaining on topic.)

So OT, but this board has such intelligent posters. -- Deb, 17:04:15 01/04/03 Sat

Has anyone heard of "excitatory neurotoxicity" and perhaps its relation to oxygen-deprivation or injection of radioactive isotopes? Also any reputation info. on Dr. Paul Cheney?

[> the Doctor is in -- cougar, 17:27:21 01/04/03 Sat

I believe he was on the frontlines of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (and Fibromyalgia) research (along with a Dr. Bell) and that they were featured in a newsweek cover story on CFS one November in the early 90's. That's all I can pull out of the dusty mental archives of my wild mind. Does this connect at all to Neurosomatic disorders? If so then you may find Dr. Jay Goldstein a further reference he has a website. Also if the CIFID's chronicle has a site you may find archived material by or about Dr. Cheney, presuming we are speaking of the same man.

Hope that helps Deb.

[> [> Yes, much help re neursomatic disorders. Thanks! -- Deb, 22:41:13 01/04/03 Sat

[> [> [> you're welcome Deb (I'll send you my bill) :*} -- cougar, 23:09:38 01/04/03 Sat

Actualy if you have info on what Paul Cheney is doing now I would be interested in it myself. (or other CFS related links or studies)

[> [> [> [> And for the Island Girl -- Rufus, 02:02:46 01/05/03 Sun

MEFM BC

I was at a talk Jay Goldstein gave....exceptionally smart guy with the ability to put one to sleep with his voice. He is a much better writer than speaker. If you want anything by Goldstein search amazon.ca or com and a list of books such as Betrayal of the Brain will show up.

[> [> A few links -- Rufus, 01:39:33 01/05/03 Sun

Link to site for the documentary I Remember Me.

CFIDS Association of America

The CFIDS/M.E. Information Page

Two books to consider....

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and other invisible illnesses.. by Katrina Berne, PH.D.

Thriving with your Autoimmune Disorder..by Simone Ravicz

[> [> [> Havn't seen those books -- cougar, 10:39:46 01/05/03 Sun

Thank you Rufus.

I too have seen Dr. Goldstein in person in Vancouver some years ago but that was when he was still developing his current theory. Back then he had a refrain he had the audience chant every time he came to the end of a point. "the Limbic System". It was very lulling.

[> [> [> [> Re: Havn't seen those books -- Rufus, 17:52:40 01/05/03 Sun

You must be talking about the one at John Oliver School a few years or so ago.

[> [> [> [> [> OT Universe -- cougar, 18:55:36 01/05/03 Sun

Quite a few years ago, maybe between 90 or 92 , back when I lived in Delta. (has it been that long, gee time really flies in a hell dimention) Were you there? Maybe we have met, I was involved in MEBC in those days and knew some people.

I know he has been back to the area at least once since. Saw that on community TV maybe five years ago. I kind of stopped watching developments these last few years.

This whole thread is spooky because I was actually thinking of all this (or trying not to) when It materialized on the board. And I blame it all on Jung and his "meaningful coincidence" (I am reading Man and his Symbols just now and synchronicities have been stitching together my whole week). Also this board is channeling some weird current of energy because it has happened repeatedly. Something on my mind pops up in an unexpected OT thread. (I find the on topic less regular!) Well, everything is connected...

cougar (nearly thriving... on chocolate)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh oh I think we just may have met. -- Rufus, 19:15:49 01/05/03 Sun

I went to the conference with a few other folks.

If you lived in Ladner on 46A St. we have met.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have our paths crossed? -- cougar, 19:47:27 01/05/03 Sun

No I didn't live there, but knew Kate Anderson (I see, thanks to your link, that she is going to be on CKNW show in May) Geoff Brewster and Donna Haley and one or two others. Any of them ring a bell with you? Also my mother was on the board of directores for MEBC for a year around then.

I have been really avoidy about keeping current the last couple of years. (and I thought I was getting away with it!)

Oh well, reality bites back ; o}

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have our paths crossed? -- Rufus, 19:54:19 01/05/03 Sun

I knew Kate and Geoff. Last I heard Geoff was on the Island or did he go back to England?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> paths or wires -- cougar, 20:32:41 01/05/03 Sun

I lost contact with him a couple of years back when I moved. Last I heard he was living with Molly in a house on one of the gulf Islands (Galiano?). Then there might have been a change of adress, I know there was another factor in losing track but can't recall what (They might have taken an extended trip). I hope he is doing well, he is a really dear soul and so is Kate.

Well, this works out nicely then ( except for the escapist, fantasy aspect of this board though!) Oh well, back to the world of dreams and shortly, Masterpiece Theater

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually.... -- Rufus, 23:10:58 01/05/03 Sun

You would have had more of a chance of running into my husband....he did the MEFM BC site as a favor to a friend...he didn't even take credit for it. My contribution was helping him keep it simple and easy to use for persons with disabilities....information without bells and whistles. Meaning I'd look at a page and go....that colour sucks...or that graphic is distracting.....I work soooooo hard.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually.... -- cougar, 23:57:40 01/05/03 Sun

I had a quick look at it today and thought it was great. I've bookmarked it and everything else and will read it more. Thank him from me, resourses like that are so valuable. Thanks again to you for your feedback.

May you also thrive on chocolate.

falling now...

[> Thank you all! I knew someone would know something! -- Deb, 18:37:18 01/05/03 Sun

Buffy time, job time -- luna, 19:23:27 01/04/03 Sat

Now here's what I wonder about you all. I know that I have a fairly responsible job supervising other people, but the fact is, I spend some of that time posting to this board. Probably it's illegal to admit that, but nonetheless it's true. How much of your work day is really dedicated to ATPoBtVS&AtS? We'll assume that many won't respond and consequently double all responses to arrive a fair estimate of state and corporate supported vampire studies.

[> Re: Buffy time, job time -- Snow White, 19:27:18 01/04/03 Sat

I hadn't actually thought about it before, but I guess I spend about an hour or so a day. (Reading, mostly)

^_^

[> Re: Buffy time, job time -- Darby, 19:58:09 01/04/03 Sat

I've got a job with a lot of flexible time and no actual supervision (and great vacations - I've been off for 2 weeks and have 4 more, sort of, before I start again, and this is my shorter vacation. It's a racket!). I check the board when I get in and then through the day whenever I have some time - that time can vary from a few minutes one day to hours on others. You can see that I couldn't contribute to the "things I hate about my job" thread...

But I also do a lot of checking and posting from home, as I'm doing now.

[> Re: Buffy time, job time -- Deeva, 21:40:21 01/04/03 Sat

On an average day where it isn't summer or winter hiatus, I wouls spend about 30 minutes to an hour just on this board but that's combined with the time I spend at home checking out the board. I do a lot of drive-bys that often just last about 10 minutes, quick checks and much of what I post is not lengthy in the least. My boss hasn't said much to me about it as she is on the net 3 times as much as I am.

[> By Comparison -- Cactus Watcher, 08:16:50 01/05/03 Sun

As someone neither working nor looking for work, I spend about half an hour during the day catching up here. If I post, reply or it's just an interesting discussion I may spend between one and four hours either here, or working on posts off-line. I write slowly and though it never looks like it, I do try to proofread. (Watcher's Journal over on the Firefly site took me all morning). So I'd guess during working hours I usually spend from half an hour to an hour.

[> Re: Buffy time, job time -- neaux, 13:08:49 01/05/03 Sun

Usually I check the board at least every hour when I'm at work.

When we have slow days at work, that's major internet time and my boss I know has seen me online.

He says he doesnt care as long as I'm getting my work done. So what the hey.

Infact, since I use the only Macintosh at my work.. I have that nifty hidden sidebar that I can have this page loaded and knocked down to the left of my screen. so I can just go poof poof whenever I want to check the posts.

[> Re: Buffy time, job time -- Sara, 13:47:07 01/05/03 Sun

I almost never check the board at work because it's so addictive that it ends up eating up more time than I can afford. I don't have enough time to get things done (which is actually a good thing!) without this wonderful obsession, so I try really, really hard to only check it at home. (Of course if something really interesting is going on even the most sincere of intentions won't save me...) Some evenings I only check it once, or I skip, other evenings I may spend an hour or more.

[> Re: Buffy time, job time -- Silky, 13:53:15 01/05/03 Sun

You guys must have nice jobs! Even when I did have a job, I never, ever would have had time to be on the net for anything not work related - at the one job where I had access. At other jobs, just eating and potty breaks were all I got if I was lucky. I cannot imagine...

The First Evil has a LiveJournal! -- HonorH, 11:20:58 01/05/03 Sun

No, I am *not* responsible for this one (though Honorificus is now begging for one of her own). I was given a heads-up by a good friend and laughed myself silly. Did one of you do this, by chance? Anyway, go check it out at:

The First Evil's LiveJournal

[> Re: The First Evil has a LiveJournal! (spoilers to date) -- Indri, 11:48:56 01/05/03 Sun

Did one of you do this, by chance?

No, not me. But I started one for Giles during the summer hiatus. Abandoned it when I realised just how difficult it was going to be to stay in sync with the series... and that was before PossiblyHeadlessGiles and the possibility of time distortion.

The Livejournal of Cardboard_Giles

[> [> I beg you.... -- Helen, 03:30:26 01/06/03 Mon

Indri, please please please would you attempt to find the time to write some of Giles' chapters of the new Slayer's Handbook. Especially "Vampires are evil, yes all of them (particularly the handsome ones)" I have to read that. My life will then be complete.

Good work both of you. HonorH, we know it was you. It had to be, and we love you for it.

[> Thanks, that's hysterical. -- Lilac, 14:48:11 01/05/03 Sun

[> Oh, as usual, dear -- Dead Soul, 16:46:19 01/05/03 Sun

What does it say about me that I "friended" the First Evil?

[> Re: The First Evil has a LiveJournal! -- purplegrrl, 13:32:25 01/06/03 Mon

Oh, this is a hoot!!! (I had to hold in the laughing out loud part as I am currently in public!)

And the best part is when you click on "my website," you're sent to www.msn.com!!!

What fun.

[> [> The FE emailed me back. -- Deb, 02:44:08 01/07/03 Tue

Seemed to be in an extraordinarily generous mood, considering his only "kick" right now is the UPN sedated water torture sessions of the "shirtless, souled vampire." He/she/it seems a bit down and bored, but I'm trying to get "It" up to fighting speed using my best "Willow" techniques.

[> [> [> Oh! I just really said that. -- Deb, 02:45:36 01/07/03 Tue

Sara's Sunday Night Job Fair -- Sara, your friendly classified ad reader, 20:25:40 01/05/03 Sun

Here are a few of the opportunities in the lovely Capital District of NY - come join us!

sk - sorry there were no jobs in the paper but I highly suggest you check out Matthew Bender & Co. which is part of Lexis-Nexis. Their website is at www.bender.com and they seem right up your alley. They do have a job availabilty page on the site, so go check!!!!

Dream - this one's for you:
Organizer to manage community gardens for non-profit organization. Strong organization skills and interest in gardening. Resume to CDCG, 295 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, Fax: (518) 272-2744

Deb - this looked like something you might be interested in:
Special Events/Public Relations Coordinator working with the AIDS Council of Northeaster New York. Resume goes to the Director of Human Resources. The address is 88 Fourth Ave. Albany, NY 12202 and they have a website at www.aidscouncil.org

More details about both jobs, especially the AIDS council job, are at the Times Union website www.timesunion.com, which also has loads of other listings.

- Sara, saying I love NY and so should you!

[> Re: Sara's Sunday Night Job Fair -- Rahael, 02:37:01 01/06/03 Mon

Struck by the sweetness of this post, I remembered d'Herblay saying a while back that Darby was a lucky man. Something about you liking Gould and reading PKD.

(Which was really really funny - dH and I have oddly similar criteria - I think I'm lucky because he likes Tristram Shandy!)

Well anyway, I think there's more proof here!

I also think of the first thread I properly participated in here, re Evolutionary Biology with amusement. So, so glad that Darby, Mole and Sophist weren't around, cos they would so have put me to shame. I responded to d'Herblay's long, complex post on memes and culture with a terse "see this is why I don't like Dawkins" or something like that. To my shame, I think I managed to be even more dismissive. Good thing that argument turned out well in the long run. Hehe.

Okay, now I'm just rambling cos I miss d'Herblay. The oblique point of the above was really to express my admiration of all the posters named in this post.

[> [> The luck of Darby... -- Sara, 05:11:06 01/06/03 Mon

is a matter often debated in this household - I think you can guess who takes the yea side, and who takes the nay side. I'm so glad to have more ammunitition when the topic comes up (again) although I must admit that the opposing viewpoint is usually communicated by a mere hopeless whimpering which might even be better than agreement. (I've always thought my perfect alter-evil name should be "Darby's Wife") Loved your story about the first evolution debate, even though I don't know who Dawkins is, and still haven't quite figured out what a meme is, but I love the happy ending part! Thanks for the lovely post - it has made my day! (and even put me in such a good mood, I drove the monster to school instead of making him walk through the snow like the mean mother I planned to be!)

- Sara, who will have to be extra mean tonight to keep that balance between good and evil right...or at least that's what Warren keeps telling me...hmmmm

[> Thank you Sara -- Shadowkat, 07:23:16 01/06/03 Mon

Thanks for doing this Sara, really appreciate it. I'll check it out.

Also want to echo Rahael's post - Darby is a lucky person but so are we, to have both of you posting on this board.

Thanks again.

SK

[> Bless your sweet heart! -- dream, 07:48:00 01/06/03 Mon

That's awfully nice of you - and sounds like an interesting position. Troy may not be the most lovely place on the planet, but I could afford to live there, which gives it one up on Boston. And community gardening is one of my pet topics. Thanks!

[> I second blessing your sweet heart. -- Deb, 09:15:06 01/06/03 Mon

It does sound like something I'd be interested in looking into. If we end up in NY, we can have a get-together!

A Tale of Two Shows (spoilers to date) -- Darby, 06:43:30 01/06/03 Mon

Ah, rerun mini-seasons! Spent much of Thursday and Friday watching S4 Angel eps with Sara, and right from the "previously on..." it hit me...

Buffy has largely lost the "knack" for peripheral characters, both large and small.

Holtz. Mother Darla. Sahjean. The Three floaty ladies ("Mmmmm, Angel!). The Goddess of the Lost. Skip. Justine. Gwen. The portal sealer. The combination of interesting actors (casting) and making sure that the characters have something twisty and interesting about them (one aspect of the writing) makes the show entertaining.

Versus...what? Gnarl? The First Evil's variation on previous themes? Dawn's now-you-see-them-now-you-don't-care friends? The proto-Slayers? The demon-calling high schoolers? Even Cassie lacked that certain something - she was interesting, definitely, but wouldn't we have felt her loss more deeply if she had seemed a bit more rounded a character? Who has there been? Ahhh, Holden Webster, he of the growing subthread, no wonder we felt his departure so keenly and want him to return. Beyond the Nerd Trio, I'm hard-pressed to even come up with anyone from last season. Does D'Hoffryn count? Nah, character and actor date back to previous, more charming times; contrast with Mrs. Riley Finn - yeesh!

Mind you, I think that this may be the only area in which AtS has a clearcut advantage over BtVS. Buffy still seems to have more purposeful layers of meaning - I couldn't have waited this long to rewatch this season's episodes, I don't find digging under Angel's surface to be quite as satisfying.

This season, for the first time, I'd put the portrayal of the core characters between the shows at about even, as Angel kind of plays catch-up with Gunn and Fred, and takes Wesley and, one hopes, Cordelia in new and interesting directions. Right now, Angel's interactions with his group are more interesting than Buffy's, but that aspect can and has changed quickly before.

Tough to compare the arcs of the last year or so - I feel that Angel's arc has been more engaging on a week-to-week basis but Buffy's has had the longterm strength. Angel's arc often had too many balls in the air, and got awkward and sometimes felt forced; Buffy's arc got sluggish and seemed offtrack, but was more character- than plot-driven, which gave it more punch. Looks like that may continue to be true, as we all don't really expect a slapfest to be much good against the First, but the Rain-of-Fire guy seems the battly type, requiring blunt force of some type.

We've got a bit of time before something new rolls out to discuss, and there are plenty of bases to make comparisons. Give it a try!

- Darby, who is not purposely trying to annoy but knows that this sort of thing is naturally going to do it.

[> I think I'd be enjoying Angel a lot more... (spoilers and spec) -- cjl, 07:52:50 01/06/03 Mon

If I felt better about how Joss and his crew were handling Cordelia. The C/C pair-up at the end of "Rain of Fire" was a boil-over point for a lot of Cordelia fans; we have no idea who this woman is, and have been struggling to figure out the character's direction since "Birthday." Has Cordelia been a pawn of the PTB since that episode? Is her freshly-inserted demon half manipulating her? Did the real Cordy come back from Heaven, or is it one of Joss' Patented Doppelgangers?

And, dear lord, what's going to happen to the character now that Charisma is pregnant?

I'd consider this a total disaster, except I can't believe Joss and Jeffrey Bell don't have a twist in mind that would explain at least some of Cordy's baffling behavior.

[> Re: A Tale of Two Shows (spoilers to date) -- Arethusa, 08:50:58 01/06/03 Mon

Gaah!! Erased my post. Curses and maledictions!!

I agree. BtVS is character driven, and has better character development, especially over time. Look at Anya-one note until the glorious "Selfless," which gave her complexity and context-or Tara, who went from Love Interest and Plot Device to a warm, loving human woman.

AtS is plot driven, and the minor characters are more shallow and comic bookish-this year especially has been full of comic book references (Wonder Girl, Electro Girl, Hulk, Batman, Dark Horse, comic store guy). Even Lorne is treated like a secondary character about whom we do not learn much, despite all his screen time. The characters sometimes act in a manner that serves the plot, rather than driving the plot. Take Cordelia Chase. Please.

Emotionally, Cordy's been all over the map this year. After becoming wise, patient and nurturing last year, she became her snarky old self while on the higher plane. Then she was amnesiac, fearful Cordy, Bitca Goddess teen Cordy, and finally fatalistic, numb Cordy. All these emotional swings served the plot, driving her farther away from Angel and closer to Connor and their mutual fate, especially right before the Beast emerges. I am convinced that she is being manipulated to serve a purpose, although I'm not sure if it's by the Beast or The Powers That Screw You. In "Slouching Towards Bethlehem," Cordy dreams that she is watching a movie that might be "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," a movie that showed people taken over by sinister alien pods that dampen or eliminate all human emotions. She is not fully in command of her actions. Cordy tells Dream Connor, "I want to warn Angel but the words won't come out. Why can't I tell him?" In the 70s version, the pod grows a clone of the person when they fall asleep, and the real person disintergrates. Connor says to her, "You haven't slept since you came back," and than the Beast invades her dream. When Cordy wakens, she feels compelled to seek out the Beast. "Flashes...images...tugging at me-pulling," she tells Connor to explain why she wants to leave the loft. As she approaches the alley of its and Connor's birth, she says that for the first time since she came back, she has a purpose.

The Beast has only done two things since its eruption through the earth-create the Eye of Fire, setting off city-wide fire and destruction, and ask Angel, "Do you really think she's safe with him?" ensuring that Angel will view the Oedipalooza. What are its plans for Cordy and Angel? What will be Connor's role?

After watching BtVS I ask, how will these developments affect the characters? After AtS, I ask, what's going to happen next?

[> Not annoyed...actually sort of agree (spoilers to Btvs 7.10 and Ats Rain of Fire) -- shadowkat, 09:10:55 01/06/03 Mon

First off - I usually and up to now have actually preferred Btvs to Ats. Mainly because of the points you raised:

1.Buffy still seems to have more purposeful layers of meaning
2.Buffy's has had the longterm strength.
3.Angel's arc often had too many balls in the air, and got awkward and sometimes felt forced; Buffy's arc got sluggish and seemed offtrack, but was more character- than plot-driven, which gave it more punch.

I admit it - I prefer character driven to plot driven. I'm too good at figuring out plots - plot driven things I can predict way too far ahead of time. So it's partly just personal taste. Also I'm metaphor girl - prefer metaphor to literal and Angel, at least to me, feels a tad more literal and heavy-handed in its mythos. The metaphors are more obvious to me than on Buffy. Plus Angel is more action oriented. I like the quiet moments.

But the major reason I've preferred Btvs over Ats has to do with core characters: Up until this season - I just happened to find Willow, Buffy, Giles, Anya, and Spike more interesting than Gunn, Fred, Wes, Cordy and Angel. One show is also more focused on the female journey and one more on the male, and most of fantasy/sci-fi tv focuses on the guy's journey, very very few shows take it from a female pov. Here's the guy shows: Smallville, StarGate, Enterprise,
Hercules, Andromeda, Mutant X, Farscape, Firefly, John Doe,
The Pretender The Prisoner, Star Trek, and this year Miracles. Here's the gal shows: Btvs, Xena, Relic Hunter, Birds of Prey, and possibly Voyager. (Not sure we can count La Femme Nikita and Alias - since they aren't sci-fi/fantasy really) Short list. So that's the other reason. I find it interesting to see a petite blond as the superhero as opposed to the strong guy as we see in Angel. It was great seeing Buffy beat the strong manly man - Riley in Season 4 and 5 and even 6 - she defeats the monsters and saves him, not the other way around. Nice twist on a time-worn genre. In Angel - Whedon admitted that he almost went against his own thesis - in City of Lights and In the Dark - he has Angel save the poor blonde, he does it repeatedly. It really isn't until towards the middle portion of Season 1 that ME gets away from that let's save the damsel in distress story arc and the story starts getting interesting. It's Angel's tendency to fall into the old "we're going to save the girl" - that gets on my nerves and I stop watching. I expect more from ME.
And they delivered last year. They twisted the theme on its head. Showing that it was hard enough to save themselves and sometimes the girl can save herself quite splendidly thank you. In a way Angel is exploring the theme of machoism and chavinism in a different way - through the pov of Angel as opposed to the pov of Buffy. Which means watching both Angel and Buffy consistently and comparing the shows themes to each other has become incredibly fascinating. They do echo each other in remarkable ways.

*****************

Was thinking of doing this on New Year's Day but held off, below is a list of my favorite Btvs/Angel episodes of 2002 and my list of favorite tv episodes. The top twenty so to speak.

Season 6&7 - not sure about the ranking, I keep changing my mind so just listing them as I think of them

1.Conversations with Dead People Btvs
2.Sleep Tight Ats
3.Beneath You Btvs
4.Loyalty Ats
5.Deep Down Ats
6.Never Leave Me Btvs
7.Forgiving Ats
8.Dead Things Btvs
9.Selfless Btvs
10. Supersymmetry Ats
11. Sleeper Btvs
12. Grounded Ats
13. Seeing Red Btvs
14. Benediction Ats
15. Normal Again Btvs
16. Entropy Btvs
17. Lessons Btvs
18. The Price Ats
19. Two to Go Btvs
20. Apoclaypse Nowish (Rain of Fire) Ats

9= Ats

11= Btvs

I basically judged it on whether I could remember them or not and whether I wanted to re-watch and how much each episode affected me on an emotional level. Of the episodes listed, the Btvs episodes tended to be more cringe inducing and emotionally wrenching - I debated including them b/c it's hard to rewatch them for that reason - but realized if they got such a reaction and the performances were so raw that they made me feel what the writers clearly intended me to feel - they needed to be included, because the writers succeeded in their intent and did it well. (Sort of similar to some movies I can think of - if you didn't cringe a little or feel uncomfortable during The Accused, Far From Heaven, In The Company of Men, or Schindlers List - then the movie didn't deliver the goods. I did cringe innwardly. I may not have enjoyed watching these, probably won't be able to watch these movies ever again, but the movie delivered and I can't forget it, it haunts me which makes it a great movie in my book.)

Ats in some ways has been easier for me to watch - b/c it doesn't make me cringe quite so much - probably because I'm not as invested in the characters. But also b/c the characters actions while dark - don't seem to be as real somehow. I mean Wes's dark acts towards Justine did not feel nearly as raw as Spike's towards Buffy or Buffy's towards Spike. Btvs at least in my opinion seems a little rawer in its performances, less...safe? Ats feels more safe, behind the elongated rectangular screen with the smooth lighting, and the noirish setting. I'm not sure that makes any sense whatsoever and possibly it's a purely subjective reaction. I'm sure someone who is more attached to Ats' characters could argue the exact opposite.

*********************

Buffy has largely lost the "knack" for peripheral characters, both large and small.

Holtz. Mother Darla. Sahjean. The Three floaty ladies ("Mmmmm, Angel!). The Goddess of the Lost. Skip. Justine. Gwen. The portal sealer. The combination of interesting actors (casting) and making sure that the characters have something twisty and interesting about them (one aspect of the writing) makes the show entertaining.

Versus...what? Gnarl? The First Evil's variation on previous themes? Dawn's now-you-see-them-now-you-don't-care friends? The proto-Slayers? The demon-calling high schoolers? Even Cassie lacked that certain something - she was interesting, definitely, but wouldn't we have felt her loss more deeply if she had seemed a bit more rounded a character? Who has there been? Ahhh, Holden Webster, he of the growing subthread, no wonder we felt his departure so keenly and want him to return. Beyond the Nerd Trio, I'm hard-pressed to even come up with anyone from last season. Does D'Hoffryn count? Nah, character and actor date back to previous, more charming times; contrast with Mrs. Riley Finn - yeesh!

Completely agree. I think the problem Btvs has is it has too many regular characters and can't spend time on the peripheral ones. When it did? It had really only four main regulars. Willow/Xander/Buffy/Giles - with OZ, Angel,
Cordy relegated to supporting. Now it has Willow/Xander/Buffy/Spike/Anya/Dawn and sometimes Giles
and maybe Dawn relegated to supporting. I guess you could call the SIT's peripheral characters. I'd say the problem was too many characters - but Ats has just as many and seems to be doing fine. Lorne, Lilah, Gwen, Gwen's sleazy bad-guy client, Gavin, Holtz and Justine, Saijhan, Mother Darla, all of these were interesting. Buffy? Outside of Holden Webster and maybe Gnarl...not so much.

The First isn't that interesting a villain - b/c he/she/it is anyone it morphs into - so I guess what is fascinating is seeing the dark edge of the character the First morphs to. Seeing the evil of Buffy or Spike or Cassie is sort of interesting. Principal Wood is an interesting peripheral character. And I think the slayer called Kennedy might have some potential. But I miss Amy, Larry, Harmony (well not so much), Sheila, Forrest, Graham, Prof Walsh, Faith, Glory and Jinx and Ben, Jesse, even little Jonathan.

Andrew - is a peripheral character - but not, well, that interesting to me. I preferred Jonathan and the actor who played him. Andrew just grates on my nerves - he's the uber-geek. And I guess Warren is also a peripheral - which was pretty well done. Depends on how much you liked or enjoyed Warren. I didn't. The uber-geek as a sociopath. ugh. I find Lilah on Ats more interesting. Also Saijhan and Holtz far more interesting villains. (Again all of this is purely subjective, isn't it?) Would prefer to see Holtz resurface on Ats than Warren on Btvs. Also preferred Justine to Andrew as the spineless co-hort. So, yep, I preferred Ats' villains to Btvs' last year. Not fair, I know, totally different concepts, but there you go. The Lilah/Wes S&M sex is also more interesting than the S/B and I actually liked S/B up to a point. L/W is just less cringe inducing and less I think at any rate predictable. With the S&M Spuffy - I knew we'd get Seeing Red eventually. But have no clue where L/W is going.
They are very different scenerios, I know and completely different characters. It's odd to find one easier to watch over the other. Maybe I'm just less emotionally invested in Ats?

I'm also finding that I prefer the Connor story to the Dawn story. Not sure why. Didn't like C/C coupling. But that was about it. Have mixed feelings about Dawn. I liked her in Season 5 and parts of Season 6, even in a few episodes this season, but lately she feels like she's just a place-setter or taking up space that could be filled by another more interesting character, such as Anya or Willow. Most of her scenes and lines in the past four-five episodes made me cringe and feel embarrassed for her.

At any rate...I found myself having more fun watching Angel in 2002. Part of that may have been do to way too much emotional investment in certain Btvs character arcs and part may be due to the fact that Angel just had more interesting antagonists and peripheral characters.

SK (who needs to get off the internet soon.)

[> [> Well, there was Clem.... -- PepTech, 12:44:43 01/06/03 Mon

...but if that's your (rather, BtVS's) high point in a year and a half of so-called peripheral characters, you've sure enough got a problem.

Not intended as a knock on Clem - rather a push, since I was surprised neither of you mentioned him yet. But in terms of intriguing characters you'd like to delve into further, Skip has it all over Clem. I wish Clem had more screen time, but they haven't got me interested in hearing about any back story.

[> [> [> Re: Well, there was Clem.... -- shadowkat, 13:26:31 01/06/03 Mon

Forgot about Clem - for reasons you gave actually.

But in terms of intriguing characters you'd like to delve into further, Skip has it all over Clem. I wish Clem had more screen time, but they haven't got me interested in hearing about any back story.

Interesting - someone just told me that everyone has a story, everyone on the planet has one and it is interesting. So guess same can be said for Btvs. But we in Btvs as we are in life, are stuck in a limited pov. So the only characters that get fully developed are the ones the central character is interested in or affected by. Just as the only characters/people we see or know are the ones that directly or in some manner affect our lives. This may sound horribly self-absorbed, but it is impossible to be aware of and know every human on the planet - there are too many. So naturally you meet and know the one's that affect you. Same with Buffy and Angel.

For the same reason we don't get much more on Clem - we don't get much more on Skip. Clem is Spike's friend, but we are pretty much in Buffy's pov and only in Spike's to the extent that it affects Buffy. Same with Skip - we are mainly in Angel's pov and only see Cordy to the extent it affects Angel and Skip is Cordy's friend/guide. So the writers only tell us as much as is necessary to move the plot forward and develop peripheral/supporting characters as the affect the journey's of the title characters. In same manner - the supporting characters - Cordy and Spike - are only developed to the extent necessary to further the title character's story arc and overall theme/plot of the show. It is vitally important that the supporting characters' stories do not overshadow the central/title character's one - can't have too many characters sharing spotlight at the same time, gets crowded and confusing for the audience. They came awfully close to crowding that spotlight last year on Btvs with Willow and Xander sharing it with Buffy in Grave. Prime Time TV shows really need a focal point, don't have enough time in twenty-two - 43 minute episodes to focus on six characters stories.

We see Clem as a sounding board for Spike and later a sounding board for Dawn. He is mentioned in passing in one of the episodes in Season 7 - I believe Same Time Same Place but not reintroduced - b/c Spike is no longer evil soulless demon and the nice Clem is thus no longer needed as a contrast/sounding board. Cordy is no longer glowy light higher being, about to die due to visions, nor is she about to consummate her love for Angel - so Skip is no longer needed. Same is true about Amy - we no longer need Amy as a contrast/temptation for Willow - Willow crossed over, so Amy will probably never re-appear.

Peripheral characters in Btvs are used to a)develop and grow the regular central characters and b) further plot
In Ats - they are used to a) further plot and b) develop the other characters.

Once the peripheral serves it's purpose? He/she/it is killed or disappears. This is why Saijahn, Lindsey,
Darla, Drusilla, Harmony, Larry, Amy, Skip, Clem, Cassie, and Holden are now gone. They'll reappear only if they can add to the central characters arcs and developed to the extent necessary to further the central character's story.

[> [> [> [> Slightly different tack, actually... -- PepTech, 14:06:51 01/06/03 Mon

(insert much substantial agreement on purpose of peripherals)

I'm not really *expecting* backstories of anyone; what I was failing to say concisely is this: If I found myself strapped in the Comfy Chair conveniently located in front of the TV Screen of Infinite Knowledge, and told I could dial up either Clem's or Skip's version of This is Your Life, I'd take Skip. Sure, Clem's cuddly in a leprous sorta way, but Skip (in less screen time, seems to me) has been written/portrayed more intriguingly. After an ep with Clem, I'm thinking "heh, that guy was entertaining", whereas after Skip I'm more "I'd like to hear a night full of stories in a bar from *that* guy!!!"

Which corroborates the original post's thought that AtS has more compelling peripherals. Not that there's anything wrong with that, for all the reasons you've put forth.

[> [> [> [> [> yep agree...while I love Clem, more intrigued by Skip -- shadowkat, 14:13:56 01/06/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Are we all forgetting Nancy? -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:11:29 01/06/03 Mon

There was a brief time after Beneath You first aired that I was a Xander/Nancy shipper. Granted, it looks like she's strictly a one episode character, but it would just be too easy to hook her and Xander up, so I respect ME's decision, when I think about it now that I have some distance. Still, I thought she was an interesting peripheral character.

There are some other things I want to bring up just because I like disagreeing:

First off, I've found Dawn very entertaining this year and have only felt some cringe induceness at her lines during "Him", but she was under a spell at the time, which garnered similar cringe remarks from Buffy, too. I'm honestly hoping they're going somewhere with Dawn having a darker and, yes, I'll say it, scarier side.

Second, I find both Andrew and Warren to be very entertaining. In fact, Warren comes in third on my big list of villains, behind Spike and Faith. And Andrew, well, I find him funny, I admit it.

Lastly, while Angel does have some very interesting peripheral characters, I'm a bit annoyed with their non-interesting peripheral characters (here I'm thinking of Justine, Linwood, Gavin, and, I'll say it, I find Wesley boring in Season 4).

[> [> [> [> [> My thoughts below are similar... except Wesley is my favourite character in the series! -- slain, 14:48:27 01/06/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Well, there was Clem.... -- slain, 14:44:54 01/06/03 Mon

Well, I remember complaining sometime around Season 6 that BtVS was too claustrophobic - they spent, and still do spend, way too much time in that bloody living room. Maybe it's just because I don't like the decor, but I think BtVS needs to get out more, and I still do. For some time I've though that it has too many main characters; right now, I'm feeling that Xander in particular has become too peripheral, after some good moment in Season 5.

However I think if we look at the reasons for this, they're actually very positive; peripheral characters have become stickier than in the past, and have demanded more screen time. Spike and Anya aren't peripheral characters any longer; while Oz, for example, existed comfortably without much of an arc (with notable exceptions), Spike and Anya demand them.

So what I'm trying to say is that while BtVS does have a lot of characters, to the point where sometimes there isn't enough room for all of them (sometimes literally - that living room gets pretty crowded), eventually their arcs do play out in a way which I think is more satisfying than in earlier seasons, where there were fewer characters but too many episodes about fish. Well, one.

As for AtS - reading Darby's list, I was struck by how AtS's peripheral characters are, at least to me, annoying or tedious. Holtz, Justine, Sahjean, Darla. I wouldn't consider any of these to be good characters, but rather somewhat two dimensional when compared with Angel or Cordy; the peripheral characters on AtS seem too obviously manifestations of one particular thing with one purpose; which is what BtVS does brilliantly for single episodes, and still does (Cassie, Webs, Gnarl), but I think that the long term peripheral characters on AtS seem like single episode characters drawn out over a whole season or more. The better characters, as on BtVS, seem to be ones which have continued because they're good (Lyla, Lorne), rather than because they've been artificially inserted into the story to be 'Man who wants to kill Angel a lot'.

Don't get me wrong; like Darby, I enjoy Angel (at least when Holtz or Justine aren't on screen), but I don't see that it does peripheral characters better than BtVS; rather I see BtVS as having less space for them, on account of it having so many good characters. AtS has rather too much room, a vacancy one might say. To my mind there's no comparing Cassie with Justine, for example - even though Justine had many episodes and Cassie only had one, Cassie is a more complex and better character to me. The same can be said of Holtz vs. Webster. AtS just isn't interested in the individual characters are much as BtVS is, certainly not in the peripheral characters and I think it more a testament to the ability of the actors that Lyla and Lorne have become the notable exceptions.

What does this have to do with Clem? Well, er, not a lot. But I have to put my posts somewhere, even when I'm just rambling generally. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> Okay... coming to defense of Holtz/Justine -- shadowkat, 20:45:42 01/06/03 Mon

Before this gets out of hand and turns into I like this character over that character thread - mea culpa! mea culpa!
(That's what Jbones contests are for guys): I'm going to try and objectively explain why Holtz, Darla and Justine are more developed as characters than: Cassie, Webs and Gnarl. (Okay I love, really love Webs but objectively? Darla is far more complex.)

Let's think about this for a moment. What do you know about Cassie? She's a kid in Dawn's class, writes poetry (bad or good depends on your personal taste), thinks she's going to die and seems nice and oh her Dad's an alcoholic. Gee, can we say cliche?? Not overly complex here guys. Just a kid who didn't want to die and did of a heart problem. We know actually very little about her.

What do we know about Darla? She was dying of syphlus in 1500 Virgina. Is 400 years old. She used to be a prostitute and had a thing against men and kids because of how she was used. The Master tempted her and turned her into a vampire. She left the Master for a hunky vamp named Angelus that she turned in 1754. She was attracted to Liam because he seduced women the way she seduced men. He cared about no one and used people. She saw a viciousness in him that spoke to her and trained him to be even worse than her. Even though she betrayed him once or twice, she couldn't help but adore him and want to be with him. Clothes and money and image meant everything and she played every role there was. Yet when she became human - she felt lost, the guilt the pain the cowardice hit her full in the face. Angel's desire to sacrifice himself to save her soul overwhelmed her and she decided to let herself die of syphilis, not to be turned this time even though Angel offered it as a way out. Unfortunately Dru - her vampire granddaughter turned her. She lost Angelus - b/c of a gypsey girl she brought to him - a gypsey girl whose relatives punished Angelus by giving him back his soul.
When she's turned by Dru - she faces the loss of Angel again. Tries to turn him - make him into her boy again. Tries to go to hell. Angel half-rapes her and throws her out. She discovers she's pregnant with his child and over time discovers a love for the child, the child's soul starts to move her and she becomes terrified of it's birth because she'll kill it. It is the only thing she has ever loved. She also finally with the child's soul understands what Holtz went through and takes her own life to save the child's.

(So objectively speaking - how is Cassie more complex than that?? Give me something objective. I can understand preferring one character over the other due to personal reasons, maybe you just hate the whole soul metaphor thing.
But that does NOT make Darla any less complex. She's been developed slowly over time and her story greatly affects the others - heck it brought Connor to life.)

Gnarl and Holtz.
We know zip about the Gnarl demon.
What do we know about Holtz? That he lost his entire family to Angelus and Darla. That he had to kill his own child after Angelus turned her into a vampire. That he was once a righteous man, who hunted demons much as Angel and gang do now, but because of Angelus - he sold his soul to a demon so he could come to earth years later to enact his revenge.
In the process he discovers a love for Angel's son - but revenge overcomes this love and he still enacts his vengeance. He struggles with his course but never veers. And each decision he makes ultimately hurts him more than anyone else. He is truly a tragic villain.
We actually know more about Holtz than we did about Warren. We met Holtz's family. We saw him kill his child. We saw him try to get Darla and Angelus in the past and why he hated them. We saw him pull together his hunters. We saw his deal with Justine which was a clever and dark twist on the Giles/Buffy relationship. And we saw the pain he endured. What the heck do you know about Warren Mears?
We know he's a geek. We know he likes comics and tech stuff. We know he left high school early and went to a high tech school. We know he still has a thing for the old girl friend and we know that he made a robot. He seems sort of less developed to me than Holtz. And far less redeemable or complex. Holtz had clear reasons for going after Angel - revenge and knew the cost. Warren? Hmmm, revenge for losing Katrina? Holtz actually struggled - was on the brink of redemption when he decided nope - I'm going for vengeance even if it means I go to hell and convinced Justine to kill him. What did Warren do? Brag about what he'd done and get flayed by Willow. No struggle. No suspense. The suspense was about what Willow would do or choose to do not Warren. In Ats - the suspense was about what Angel and Holtz were going to do.

Justine vs. Cassie, Webs or Gnarl. What do we know about Justine? We know she's a masochist. We know she hates vamps because they killed her twin sister Julie. We know she's alone and bitter. We know she loved Holtz like a father and possibly a lover. We know she had a bizarr love/hate relationship with Wesely. I'd say she's very complex and far from one dimensional and very developed. Far more so than Cassie, Clem or Andrew or Webs have been - characters we know actually very little about if you think about it.

Even Lorne - we know more about - we've met his entire family, we know what motivates him, etc. We actually know more about Lorne than we do about Tara or Jonathan.

How about Gwen? We meet her family, we see her go to an orphanage, we see what she does for a living and why, and we see her pain at not being able to touch. That's a heck of a lot more information than we get on Nancy or Cassie.

Sorry - but I think Ats does a better job at developing peripheral characters than Btvs. Maybe that's because it doesn't have as many well-developed central characters? I'm trying to think of recent peripheral characters (non-contracted characters) that have been as developed as the ones on Ats. Can't think of any. Even long-running peripherals weren't developed that well - Oz and Jonathan never really got much development. Prove me wrong or right as the case may be.

SK (hoping she did this right...and it doesn't turn into a Btvs vs. Ats war. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Lots of backstory doesn't always equal interesting. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:08:58 01/06/03 Mon

In fact, if you dislike the character, the backstory is tedious and dull.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lots of backstory doesn't always equal interesting. . . -- Rufus, 22:00:14 01/06/03 Mon

But that is where personal opinion comes in. It's natural to find tedious and dull that which doesn't interest you, no matter how well presented. Also explains the difference in volume of posts devoted to certain vampires who frequently wear no more than a sock over their private member.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Echoing Rufus here, Finn ...it all comes down to -- shadowkat, 13:55:36 01/07/03 Tue

PERSONAL OPINION or Subjectivity. Which I'm sorry - I find largely irrelevant in most of our Btvs/Ats discussions - while it can be informative at times - it can also get tedious.

For instance do you really care why I find the character of Cassie largely uninteresting? (I could give you a long paragraph on the fact that she reminds of me of far too many tv cliches..but it won't change your mind nor should it. Although you might find it highly ironic that I chose this character as my photo for the existential scoobies profile...life is odd.) Does it matter to the story the writers are telling? Nope. Most of my friends find Angel and Btvs rather uninteresting, even silly. My Dad much prefers West Wing and Law & ORder - two shows I find tedious at the moment and repetitive. One friend prefers the characters on Seventh Heaven or Gilmore Girls. Another person I know has an intense personal dislike for SMG, can't stand the actress and refuses to watch anything she's in.

Jbone has created a great little game where we can pick and choose characters based on personal like/dislike and post obnoxious and humorous takes on it. But clog up board space on it? Seems silly to me. I remember being on one board that literally was nothing but posts in this vien:

SPIKE is EVIL and DUMB

XANDER is an idiot!

To the point that the board master deleted all posts and warned the posters that if they tried it again? They would be banned from the board.

Slain and Finn's posts claimed that Darla, Holtz, etc weren't as well developed and not as complex - well the back story and plots on the shows disproves that thesis. You may not like the characters - they may urk you for some reason or other, but they have been developed and are very complex. I think my post proved that. Cassie and Gnarl and Webs weren't developed very far. We know very little about them and certainly not enough to compare them to other characters or claim they are complex. What I was challenging you to do was to find a way in which you could prove they had been developed and were complex...not prove why they are more interesting -since that's merely personal taste. And We'll always disagree on that, just as I may happen to prefer grapefruit to apples while you prefer apples to grapefruit or vice versa. Doesn't make one better than the other, just means we have different tastes - which shouldn't be a shock. What is amazing is we are both in love with Btvs.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't deny the complexity in Holtz, Justine, and Darla far surpasses Gnarl, Holden, or Cassie -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:17:47 01/07/03 Tue

My only point was that more complex isn't always better. If you like a character, or at least don't mind them, than complexity and episodes spent developing their backstory and character are usually very good. But, if you dislike the character, and/or are bored by him/her, than spending screen time adding complexity to that character will usually seem dull. I wasn't trying to refute your argument, but just kind of observing the fact that, at least on this board, a more complex character is usually taken as more interesting, while I find that isn't always the case. I wasn't trying to sound like one of those "SPIKE is EVIL and DUMB" people, but personal opinion had already been brought up previously in the thread, so I figured it was OK to mention it.

I do agree with your Law and Order sentiment (haven't seen the West Wing so can't comment). I've seen several episodes, and the show seems to have the most clearcut, unrelenting formula that I've seen on primetime TV. The thing that really gets me, though, is when they advertise an episode as "Ripped from the Headlines". It just seems odd that they're actually taking pride in unoriginality.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay agree with you on this and mea culpa on personal opinion -- shadowkat, 16:49:17 01/07/03 Tue

LOL! on Law and Order. Couldn't agree more. Nice to see someone else who sees this. Most people I know go off on how wonderful and realistic it is. For me? It just feels tired and predictable. But then after law school - I had that reaction to most legal dramas.

Mea Culpa on bringing up the personal opinion thing. I admit - I was the first person to obviously express personal opinion, something I usually try to refrain from. My fault. You were correct to respond to it. ;-)

I do agree with this statement:

My only point was that more complex isn't always better. If you like a character, or at least don't mind them, than complexity and episodes spent developing their backstory and character are usually very good. But, if you dislike the character, and/or are bored by him/her, than spending screen time adding complexity to that character will usually seem dull. I wasn't trying to refute your argument, but just kind of observing the fact that, at least on this board, a more complex character is usually taken as more interesting, while I find that isn't always the case.

This is very true. I know I have stopped watching a few shows on TV because the writers suddenly got fascinated in a character that I found horribly dull. I'll refrain from stating which characters for fear of offending people. But it is one of the reasons I stopped watching Xena and Deep Space Nine way before those series ended. Not because the character being explored wasn't complex or had layers or wasn't interesting - but because that character simply never interested me. I can change my mind...but the writer has to show me something about the character to motivate that as the ME writers did with Wesely who prior to Season 3, didn't really interest me very much. They managed to do the same thing with Cordelia in Season 1 and 2 Angel, but Season 3 Birthday caused me to lose interest in the character - the events of Supersymmetry through Rain of Fire - brought some of that interest back - motivating me to actually write an essay on her, something I would not have done a year before. In contrast Xena and DS9 were never able to accomplish this.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> shadowkat... -- yabyumpan, 14:30:13 01/08/03 Wed

You said above Re: Cordelia - "motivating me to actually write an essay on her, something I would not have done a year before."

Have you posted the essay on this board, I can't remember seeing it? If so, please point me in the right direction. If not, then please do, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. I started one a little while ago entitled 'Cordelia- the Eternal Cheerleader' but being the total spoiler whore I am I'm not sure if it's still relevent but I would love to read yours.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: essay -- shadowkat, 18:40:33 01/08/03 Wed

It's posted on my web site now at www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs

If that link doesn't work - go to the links at the top of the board and it should be listed there.

It's titled : Little Girl Lost, Cordelia & Fred and takes place right after Supersymmetry. It's a comparison with Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of OZ.

I'd love to see you post yours as well. This board needs more Ats posts. I have to say this year I really am enjoying Ats more than Btvs.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay agree with you on this and mea culpa on personal opinion -- slain, 17:32:45 01/08/03 Wed

I think we're on the same wavelength... I wasn't trying to be objective, because I didn't consider the original question to be objective. Everyone has subjective opinions (I can talk at length about how much I dislike Holtz's beard, if you like), and how much a character really succeeds is inevitably based on them; not on their complexity alone. It's also based on the writer's and actor's ability to charm the audience and to draw them into a new character we know nothing about - but that's pretty much subjective, too, as not everyone was charmed by Spike in Season 2, for example.

Whether or not characters, peripheral or otherwise, are good isn't objective, in the end. We can perhaps say that AtS' peripherals are more complex, it doesn't mean that BtVS has lost the knack for minor characters and that AtS has found it, as far as I'm concerned; it means, as I think we both said, that AtS simply has more room to explore peripheral characters than BtVS does. Quality isn't always as good as quantity. No, hang on. Other way round.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Read yabyuman's post below Rattletraps -- shadowkat, 14:57:21 01/07/03 Tue

Also Rahael's. They both express far better than I can why some may prefer Ats over Btvs. And they show how Holtz and the other peripheral characters really do add to the show. And they do it without falling into the trap I did which was comparing specific Btvs peripheral characters to Ats characters.

I honestly think it all comes down to which characters hit you on a personal level. It's really no different that asking yourself why you watch Btvs while your friends may prefer something completely different.

I've become an Ats convert. I'm beginning to thoroughly enjoy both shows - equally. Taping both. Making time for both on my schedule. I may rewatch Btvs more and post on it more...the exact opposite of what yabyuman says below and I may still prefer the character of Spike over Angel and the character of Willow over Cordy (Cordy and Angel urk me for personal reasons, while I deeply identify with Spike and Willow who have become my favorite tv characters period.). But that does not stop me from loving both shows. I see their weakenesses, but I ignore them largely because their strengths IMHO overshadow them. Also I grant the writers a little margin of error based on the fact that a)they have a limited amount of time to tell their stories, b)they have to deal with network censors, advertisers, and other industry related headaches which could hamper the story and c)there's only so much you can do on TV.

I'll miss both shows when they go. Hoping at least one of them continues for another few years.

[> [> [> Weird OT question to PepTech -- Sophist, 10:57:48 01/07/03 Tue

Do you post at baseballprimer.com? Someone does using your nick. It's unusual enough that I thought you might be the same person.

[> [> [> [> Guilty as charged -- PepTech, 13:04:08 01/07/03 Tue

And here I was thinking they'd be diverse enough sites... guess not :-)

Always amusing when interests intersect. Do you post there, or just lurk?

[> [> [> [> [> Mostly lurk. I post only occasionally, and I use my real name there. -- Sophist, 14:02:42 01/07/03 Tue

I guess it really is a small world when the same 2 people frequent 2 sites as esoteric as that and this.

[> Re: A Tale of Two Shows (spoilers to date) -- Rattletrap, 18:31:39 01/06/03 Mon

Interesting points, all.

The decreasing number of peripheral characters seems to begin with mid-S5 on BtVS. SdHS and UCSd provided fertile breeding grounds for peripheral characters because much of the focus of the show was on Buffy protecting innocent people from the forces of darkness. After Buffy drops out of school, though, the focus of the gang turns inward for late S5 and all of S6. We have a few peripheral characters introduced in places like the DMP during S6, but none of them really have much of a bearing on the story. S7 has, I think, shown a slight change in this trend with the introduction of Principal Wood as a recurring character and a number of victim-of-the-week peripheral characters. But, in the end, the people of Sunnydale are still not as well developed as they were during S3 or S4.

I agree that Angel has never shown the depth of its big sister and that the show often has too many loose ends that remain unresolved. Historically, they have introduced some fabulous peripheral characters--Lindsay, Holland Manners, Lorne, Denver the book shop owner. This is where I feel like AtS has suffered the most over the last 2 seasons. It is moving in the same direction as Buffy with the gang increasingly focusing inward--e.g. the Angel/Connor conflict, the Angel/Cordy/Connor triangle, Fred/Gunn/Wes triangle, Wes's betrayal, etc.--often to the detriment of the peripheral characters.

Just my $.02

'trap

[> [> Re: A Tale of Two Shows (spoilers to date) -- shambleau, 22:18:24 01/06/03 Mon

I'd add Principal Wood to the list of peripheral characters on BtVS and I find him developing nicely.

On shadowkat's analysis, especially of Holtz and Justine, I'd go back to what someone said earlier. On Angel, you ask what happens next. On Buffy, you ask how what happens affects the main characters. To me, Justine and Holtz were a collection of character traits for moving the plot forward. I never felt they existed the way Holden Webster does for me, for instance. I know that guy. All the things about Justine, however, don't cohere for me. How and why she fell in love with Holtz, where the masochism came from and so on. He nailed her hand to the table and she adored him for it. What the hell? It isn't dealt with, it's just there for effect.

On paper, Holtz should have worked, but I never felt he did. As has been said, backstory isn't enough. I never saw any difference in the character after his family was slaughtered. He was still the cold, commanding figure he'd always been. Where was the broken man who lived only for revenge and who could draw other victims to him by his own transcendent understanding of their pain and focus their rage and grief on their task?

If they'd shown one scene of someone breaking down and Holtz holding them or giving a speech that showed his empathy, not just ordering people around, he would have become a real person to me. He should have been Ahab, with his family as his lost leg. Instead, he works as a sadistic, commanding nemesis for Angel, but he never reaches the truly tragic status he could have. There's great narrative drive in his story, don't get me wrong. You always want to know what happens next. But, after it's over, meh. You're not going to go back and rewatch his story, thinking my god, what a tragedy. Or at least, I'm not. I know what happened and that's all there is to his story for me. That's my reaction to most story lines on Angel now. I want to know what happens next, but once I know the surprises, there's not an underlying depth that draws me back to rewatch. I'll admit Darla as the exception that proves the rule. I'll rewatch episodes featuring her any time.

I'm going to defend Clem over Skip, too. I think Clem's a paradigm of the difference between the two shows. He started out as an uninteresting demon at a poker game and gained depth and likability each time he appeared. Skip started out gangbusters. I absolutely adored him after his first episode, as did many others. Each subsequent appearance, my interest in him as a person declined. He became more and more there to move the plot along, as are so many AtS characters. To the extent that I'm interested in him, it's in what plot twist is going to come out of it all. Another case of what's going to happen, not what kind of person is Skip.

[> [> The closure issue -- KdS, 05:11:21 01/07/03 Tue

You're not alone, Rattletrap, a lot of people who don't like AtS seem to point to a perceived lack of closure and assert that it's a sign of bad plotting. Personally, I quite like the loose ends and I think it's a conscious artistic decision.

My personal opinion has tended to be that BtVS is about physical warfare and AtS is more about spiritual warfare - that evil is always going to be around, that you need to save people one by one, and that the good and bad consequences of actions keep rippling out and can't be tied up with a bow. By contrast Buffy holds more to the traditional action movie template where Evil is left dead on the ground while Good strolls away with a merry quip. From what I've heard this might change in S7 though.

[> [> [> Holtz, Justine and minor variations on a theme. -- Arethusa, 08:07:04 01/07/03 Tue

...that evil is always going to be around, that you need to save people one by one, and that the good and bad consequences of actions keep rippling out and can't be tied up with a bow.

Well said. It's the ambiguity of AtS that keeps me coming back, and my often-stated belief that the repercussions of evil can do more harm than the evil acts themselves.

I don't think of Holtz and Justine as shallow minor characters. They beautifully embodied the themes of AtS, showing how the true evils in the world are the cruelties we commit on each other. Holtz and Justine were rigid in their beliefs, letting their pain turn justice to vengance and love to selfish exploitation. They are cautionary tales that counterpoint the actions of the heroes, so we can see what happens to people who let their good intentions lead them straight to hell, without the pain of seeing characters we love descend to unredeemable cruelty.

Most of the evil characters in AtS are people who, when faced with a difficult choice, choose the easy way out, instead of facing the uncertainty and pain of change. They let their rightous anger justify any action that they feel would make up for pain that has no redress in this world. Lindsay, Holtz, Justine, Kate-all clung to their pain, using it to fuel their hatred, and becoming corrupted by their hatred into actions just as bad as those perpetuated on them. Just as Angel used his loss of Connor as an excuse to use dark magics that killed people, and Wesley channed his guilt and anger into screwing his friends-and enemies. Even Cordelia ended up using Connor and gravely hurting Angel, because of her intolerance for the failings of others. This rigidity led to her cruelty in school and later her rejection of Angel, despite his attempts to atone for the damage his demon did. Who knows how her actions will affect the three of them in the future.

I've said evil travels like ripples in a pond, and in our lives we frequently don't see the effects of selfish, callous, and evil acts. In "Angel" we do, and the minor characters that demonstrate these themes are just as important as the major characters, and make for an endlessly fascinating show.

[> [> [> [> What did Kate do that was that bad? Have I missed something? -- KdS, 08:17:23 01/07/03 Tue

I don't judge attempted suicide quite that harshly.

[> [> [> [> [> No, no-Spoilers for Seasons 1 and 2 of AtS -- Arethusa, 08:56:02 01/07/03 Tue

I didn't mean to say Kate was evil-careless of me. I meant Kate's rigid mindset and anger against the vampires that killed her father led her to reject Angel as just another killer, like Holtz and Justine. Kate's entire self-image was centered around being a cop, one of the good guys, and fighting the bad guys. When she found out that some of the good guys, including her father, were actually breaking the law, and one of the bad-guy vampires was actually a good guy, her black-and-white view of the world was shattered. When her badge was taken away her entire self-image collapsed, and she could no longer trust her life-long assumtions and ideals. She would have to start all over again, with only her confidence in her own judgement to help her figure out who to trust and what to believe in. Kate couldn't face that, and decided to kill herself instead. Luckily she failed, but I really wonder what happened to her afterwards (in an idle, I-know-she's-fictional way). Was she able to find the confidence to face the world, in all its uncertainties and moral ambiguities? Or did she just continue to let her fears and hatred control her behavior?

[> [> [> [> Kate? Evil? -- Rufus, 09:33:18 01/07/03 Tue

They let their rightous anger justify any action that they feel would make up for pain that has no redress in this world. Lindsay, Holtz, Justine, Kate-all clung to their pain, using it to fuel their hatred, and becoming corrupted by their hatred into actions just as bad as those perpetuated on them.

Let's go one by one......

Lindsay, he did evil ostensibly because of greed, but that damn Christian Kane is so damn cute they went and gave him layers. Lindsay didn't start evil, he started poor. If your belly is empty enough, or your life has been mean enough, just how far would you go to get away from the poverty? Lindsay was in a process of finding out just how well he could close his eyes and pretend that paperwork don't make one evil, just the guys with the blood on their hands. The only difference between Lindsay and a hands on employee of Wolfram and Hart was a clean suit, and distance from actual carnage. He was led by Holland Manners who would have made a great silky voiced snake oil salesman (who cares if the crap is poison). Ultimately Lindsay found that he had a limit, and left town in a truck that was descriptive of a past he now feared less than what Wolfram and Hart had seduced him into doing....I miss that character, he brought out the worst in Angel, and I mean that in a good way.

Holtz, well he was a good guy, if you ignore his predilection for torture using demon status like someone would use race or gender or religion to get a job done. I have no doubt the vampires he caught were evil, but in his treatment of them he took a chance his family ultimately paid for with their lives. Instead of looking at himself, Holtz externalized all blame and it made him a monster, a cult type leader, who wasn't adverse to using someone's pain of losing a loved one to get them to go to places they normally wouldn't have visited had they not been a relative or love of a victim. What made Holtz evil was his ability to ignore decency to get what HE wanted. Once he started using people (replacing them like light bulbs if they went out) making an army driven by grief and hate, to do what he couldn't himself. He became a victim of himself, his family left alone to face the monsters he flushed out of the dark, forgetting that these monsters had the brains to figure out how to make him suffer. Angel said Holtz was a good guy, and I don't doubt he started that way, but his inability to care for anything past his goal of exterminating the demonic everywhere he "saw" it, caused him to become selfish, manipulating, and criminal in his means of "protecting" others. His time spent frozen in grief waiting for revenge didn't change him, only made him a sad reminder of how even good men can cross a line then can never get back over because they just don't have it in them to let go of the need for vengeance.

Justine, well Justine was a walking suicide, she knew there were monsters out there but fought a battle without thoughts of surviving it. She was used by Holtz in ways that reminded me how good a character he was, and how tragic Justine was. Somewhere in there was a loving sister who didn't survive the death of her twin. If Holtz hadn't found her, she would have possibly ended up a vampire, or dying in an alley fighting them. This guy, this little man became her messiah, her lover, her father....Fred was right, there was no happy for Justine anymore. I wouldn't wanted to have crossed this disciple of that nutbar Holtz, but from a distance I can only feel pity for her loss of family and loss of self. I do have to say that she was a victim more than a monster because at least she was capable of loving Holtz, he just could never return that in a healthy way. She had the potential to become so much more than the angry captive of a closet with a bucket.

Now, Kate....you are going to have to detail Kate's evil sins to me because I just don't see her as evil. That one was trapped in good intent, considered a Mulder by her co-workers who understood that she was good at her job, but didn't share her need to fix it all. Kate wanted to make the world better and found out through experience that the job would never end as long as people walk the earth. She gave into despair because through her interactions with Angel she eventually lost her job because doing the right thing put her at odds with the bureaucracy of the police department. She was also a victim of Angel, who used her and didn't consider the consequences of her bending departmental rules to protect others. Kate wasn't evil, she didn't want to do anything other than make things right, she kinda got a little lost in the blood and guts of the constant victimization of those she wished to protect. If she couldn't fix it, she couldn't live with it...at least for that moment when she swallowed those pills after losing her job and identity. When you fight evil you always risk losing yourself to grief, to anger. You risk losing the ability to see what is still good because you can only feel the pain of the bad things you have witnessed. Kate wasn't evil, she just wanted something better for everyone, and lost ability to care about herself getting there. If she was evil, then everyone who cares enough to want to make a job out of helping others should find another way of making their daily bread.

Evil does travel like ripples in a pond, a destructive force, it doesn't care who goes under. What we see in ATS is the result of what happens to people who started out one way and either become victims, villians, or just get by trying to survive in a world where evil lives in every heart, and it can become easy to forget to stop long enough to search for the good.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kate? Evil? No! -- Arethusa, 10:07:23 01/07/03 Tue

Lindsey did evil things, but finally changed-like Angel. Holtz did evil too, even making sure the evil would continue after he died, by setting Connor against his father. My sympathy for Justine ended when she tried to slit Wesley's throat. At that point she was no longer fighting vampires, she was taking out her hatred on a man who was fighting to stop bloodshed. Holtz loved Connor, but that didn't stop him from trying to separate the boy from his father, who loved Connor and wanted to protect him. Kate was not evil-see correction above. But Kate didn't become a cop just to save the world. She also did it to gain the acceptance of her father. She adopted his beliefs, stoic demeanor, and profession, and when they were taken away from her she wanted to die, because she couldn't see that she had anything left. She could have continued to fight the good fight, as Wesley, Gunn and Cordy did when they lost their suppport systems. Instead, she rejected what Angel calls "the mission," because it was part of a battle she no longer understood.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kate? Evil? No! -- yabyumpan, 10:13:59 01/07/03 Tue

"Instead, she rejected what Angel calls "the mission," because it was part of a battle she no longer understood."

I think she did get 'the mission' back in 'Epiphany', I just don't think she knew what to do with it. It's a shame she left, I really liked her character and would loved to have seen her continue on the show in some way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree, I miss Kate -- Scroll, 19:13:27 01/07/03 Tue

Like shadowkat, I still sit back and wonder (in a 'she's totally fictional' kind of way) about how Kate has been doing since "Epiphany", how she's been dealing with vamps and demons now that she's no longer a cop. I really wish the writers and Elizabeth Rohm could revisit Kate; I found her endlessly fascinating. Which goes to show I find the periphery characters on AtS much more interesting than on BtVS.

Maybe complex doesn't equal interesting, but IMHO the AtS secondary characters are much more complex than the BtVS characters. OTOH, the BtVS main characters are much more complex than the AtS ones -- which is understandable since AtS is only 4-years-old while BtVS is 7.

Buffy: 7 years and a movie. She's the main character. Most character development.
Willow: 7 years. Best friend of main character. AH has second billing after SMG.
Xander: Also 7 years. First few years had fewer characters, more time to focus on B/W/X/G.
Giles: 7 years. Not as much development as the teens, but lots of Slayer/Watcher story. Being a Watcher also automatically provides a backstory.
Spike: 5 years. Lots of development.
Oz: 2 1/2 years. Mostly secondary character.
Anya: 4 years. Mostly secondary character, but then we had "Selfless" which was wonderful.
Dawn: 3 years. Some early development, then a big dry spell. Hopefully will be picked up with this SIT story line.

Angel: 7 years. Lots of development, mostly starting from "Amends". Main character.
Cordelia: 7 years = 3 as comedic support with some development + 4 as female lead and lots of development (though lately her development is rather controversial).
Wesley: 4 years. Began as comedic support, got fleshed out in S2 of AtS, got really fleshed out late S3.
Gunn: 3 years. Sporadic development.
Fred: 2 years. Very little development until S4.
Connor: Hi, we just met you.

So while I do agree BtVS characters are more fully fleshed out, I think the "we're family/we're the Scoobies" focus helped, not to mention the 3 extra years. Hopefully Wes, Gunn, and Fred will continue developing as S4 comes along. I also can't wait to see how the Angel/Connor relationship turns out. As for Cordy... I trust Joss. I trust Joss. I trust Joss?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree, I miss Kate -- verdantheart, 07:34:23 01/08/03 Wed

Yes, and it seems to me that Elizabeth Rohm is getting a some reviews that are a little unnecessarily harsh where she is now, too. (Although I tend to agree with them about Thompson.)

[> [> Re: A Tale of Two Shows (spoilers to date) -- yabyumpan, 09:59:23 01/07/03 Tue

There are a few things I'd like to comment on which have come up in this thread:

First...Arethusa wrote
"After watching BtVS I ask, how will these developments affect the characters? After AtS, I ask, what's going to happen next?"
For me it's the opposite and I think that's probably the crux of the discussion in some ways. I'm much more invested in the characters on AtS, I want to know how the story line affects them, I care about their actions, reactions and interactions with each other. Whereas with BtVS I'm not really interested in the characters anymore, I don't really care about them so it's left to the story line to keep me watching.

As for character development of the central players: Buffy/Willow/Xander - Angel/Cordelia/Wesley, I think the characters on AtS have grown and developed far more than on BtVS. B/W/X still seem to me to be intrinsically the same people we first me in 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' whereas A/C/W are very different people than those who left Sunnydale 3 + years ago.

In regards to the peripheral characters I think they are both used to carry the story forward AND are more developed on AtS. I also think they serve different purposes on each show and are used in different ways. ( I admit this is probably a very slanted view as I've watched and re-watched my AtS tapes so much that the ware and tear is starting to show but my BtVS tapes are almost in pristine condition. I've probably only re-watched S4 & S5 a couple of times and I'm still struggling through my second viewing of S6. )

BtVS is a small town story about characters who mainly only relate to each other, their lovers and family. In some ways, it's quite insular. IMO most of their character growth comes from their interaction with each other, they learn and grow through their own and each others actions/mistakes/experiences.

On AtS, it is more often the peripheral characters which precipitate growth and awareness. It's been that way since the start of the series, even down to introducing us to the characters. Cordelia was introduced first through Tina at the party and again through Russell Winters. Wesley was introduced through Barney in 'Parting Gifts'. Even Angel was introduced through Doyle, he gave us Angel's back story and the mission statement. (although Doyle was in the credits so probably can't be truly counted as a 'peripheral character', he was only on the show for 9 episodes and 'feels' like a 'peripheral character' 3 years on). On BtVS, the characters introduced them selves and each other.

AtS is played out on a much larger stage than BtVS and is much more outward looking. The original mission statement was 'helping the helpless and saving souls' (maybe their own in the process). The peripheral characters often give us insight into Angel/Cordy/Wesley and are used as a catalyst for change and growth. In 'Eternity', we see through Angel's interaction with Rebecca his loneliness and when she brings out Angelus, we see that Cordelia and Wesley are able to confront and subdue that which they most feared. Darla in S2 was used as a catalyst to explore Angel's darker side, for him to question who/what he is and who he wants to be. By exploring who Darla was we were able to see more clearly who Angel is and why. With Holtz we also have a chance to explore Angel's past, to see how he's changed. We get to explore Karma/actions have consequences etc. We can feel sympathy both for the 'Hero' and the 'protagonist' and see that 'right' and 'wrong', 'good and 'bad' aren't always so clear cut or black and white.

We have also had W&H from day one. Evil writ large and seemingly insurmountable. It's the constant shadow which not only gives us great peripheral characters (Holland/Lindsey/Lilah) but has become a 'peripheral character' in it's own right. 'It' has plans for Angel, which even H/L/L doesn't seem to be fully aware of. It can be seen to represent the large corporations/governments etc which can make us feel small and dis-empowered but it also speaks to us in a very personal way of the potential for evil in each of us. While W&H may seem mysterious and unknowable, run by demonic powers, the people who choose to work there are very human, possibly even sympathetic or 'likeable'.

In short, I think that the 'peripheral characters' on AtS are crucial, not just in terms of storytelling but also for the development of the main characters and our understanding of them. This doesn't strike me as being the same on BtVS where the main focus and character development is with the main characters. I never felt I got to know Glory at all, she was just this 'god' from a demon dimension who wanted to go home and Buffy had to battle. Tara I never connected with at all, she was just 'Willow's girlfriend' whose death caused Willow to turn all veiny and black-eyed.

At the end of the day though, as I said at the start, I think it probably in some ways, comes down to which characters/show you prefer and care about. Darla and Holtz interested me as 'peripheral characters' partly because of what they meant to Angel, my favourite character. The 'peripheral characters' on BtVS don't seem as developed or interesting partly because I don't really care about the characters they affect.

As for whether AtS is 'less deep' than BtVS, I've sort of covered that above but also just echo Rah's post. She's so much better than me at pointing out the sub-text and metaphors. :-) (go back to S2 and delve into the Darla/Angel arc again Rah, there's just so much there). My response to AtS is very much from the gut; I can see all the stuff that's there but my poor inarticulate brain has difficulty separating it out into coherent thoughts. I just know that I respond in a very deep way to AtS whereas for me, BtVS is just fun storytelling (or not). I'm not saying I don't see the deeper stuff in BtVS but it just doesn't effect me in the same way that AtS does.

Re: the loose threads on AtS, I agree that S3 was quite frustrating in that way but I think/hope that S4 will be dealing with all that. I think it was TM or JW that said that S4 would be S3 part 2.

[> [> [> Excellent post, thank you -- Scroll, 20:06:21 01/07/03 Tue

You put my thoughts into words. The AtS secondary characters are used to mirror and illuminate the main characters -- and not just the main characters on AtS. Like many have noted, part of the power of Holtz/Justine is the way they mirrored the Watcher/Slayer relationship.

Angel and Connor are very much alike, but at such different stages in their development that they can't see their similarities for all the trees (uh, ignore the bad analogy). Those two are mirror images, if the mirror was one of those fun-house types that show everything wonky.

[> Angel and depth (Spoilers, for Season 3) -- Rahael, 05:40:03 01/07/03 Tue

I have to say, I'm always puzzled by the assertion that Angel is less deep.

AtS is starting to hold an unrivalled place in my heart, something I wouldn't have predicted. It has depth! and resonances! And many, many metaphors. C'mon, Lilah giving Wesley a copy of Inferno. Cordy telling Angel he should buy them a boat in 'Provider', with Connor lying in between. By the end of the season, there was Angel and Connor on a boat, having quite the bad time. Connor intervened before Angel and Cordy could meet.

Justine, who 'thinks she's the slayer' and who is also in love with pain (love sex pain - it's all the same thing to you vampires, isn't it?). Wesley's hands covered with blood oozing from the books of prohecy, an image we see again when he gets his throat cut. The hotel walls peeling and cracking, just like the skin of the people infected with the slugs. Holtz posing the King Solomon dilemma to Angel - do you love your son enough to give him up to me, the quandom parent rather than dividing him in two and killing him? Everything about Darla in Season 3, who we learned loved a certain painting in the Vatican by a painter who was most famous for his Madonnas. Cordelia and her stigmata. I have to say I thought that AtS in Season 3 had far more subtle and powerful metaphors than BtVS 6, and it's basically my favourite AtS season so far. (I found Darla pretty annoying in Season 2 so it got spoiled for me - maybe I should revisit it again).

Of course, once I get to see all the new Buffy eps at the end of the month, I may be singing a different tune. I have a fickle heart.

[> [> Not really a reply to Darby, just general musing above -- Rahael, 05:44:17 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> Does that make me a musing muse? -- Darby, 07:02:40 01/07/03 Tue

I actually thought it was pretty on-topic, and very interesting. It's easier, I think, to lose the subtext on Angel. Thanks for reminding me it's there.

[> [> [> And also on the subject of annoying wordplay... -- Darby, 08:22:15 01/07/03 Tue

Just as I sent the original post off to Voy, I realized that A Tale of Two Series was a much better title. Don't you hate when that happens?

[> [> [> [> Witty wordplay is beyond me! -- Rahael, 09:32:07 01/07/03 Tue

I just enjoy other people's. Seriously. For someone who reads so much and considers her prose tolerable, I'm pretty crap with anything like that. d'Herblay says I overthink crossword puzzle clues in the same way that I overthink Buffy ep annotations. Maybe this is why I like Anya so much!

[> OK then- here's a question -- Tchaikovsky, 07:30:22 01/07/03 Tue

Confronting choices is of course one of the themes of the Buffyverse, particularly in Buffy's life. Season Six, as has been mentioned somewhere on this board recently, was about her (and the rest of the gang), learning to make individual choices without each other as major crutches. But I'm going to ignore that lead on this occasion, and use my fellow virtual friends, (if that's not too impersonal), as a crutch.

Should I buy Angel DVDs? Of course, I'm here in the UK, which means that Seasons One and Two are readily available. I have looked at them with a strange mixture of longing and husbandry over the last couple of months. I am a student, although £150, (about the value of the first two seasons), wqouldn't entirely break my bank balance, but might dent it. I caught a couple of episodes in Season Two on Channel 4, (including the excellent episode where Darla reappeared,), but haven't watched any of Season One, or any of Angel on a consistent basis.

I do feel as if I'd like to contribute more to Angel threads here, (particularly as my thoughts on Buffy's new seasons are delayed dramatically by my over-the-pond-ness), but don't know whether it's worth the investment, which would after all be primarily for the watching of the show. I realise it's Whedon-helmed but I'm still not convined I need to part with that cash.

I seek counsel. All replies welcome.

TCH

[> [> Re: OK then- here's a question -- Rahael, 07:41:46 01/07/03 Tue

Can't you borrow the videotapes from a friend, and then just decide whether you want to own them on DVD? Also the DVDs sell for a lot less in America, if you have multi region - I'm sure S1 has come out there, or is about to.

I fully understand not wanting to buy them. I'm not going to buy Buffy S6 since I have vcds of the season - I'll wait until it comes out in America.

I'm sure I'm not the only ME fanatic who bought the box sets, and is now buying the DVDs - it shouldn't be too hard to find someone who now has several video box sets that wouldn't be too painful to part with.

I really love Angel - but I have to say that S3 has been my favourite so far. But S1 and 2 have some very very good eps.

[> [> An answer- -- Arethusa, 08:28:19 01/07/03 Tue

Videotapes are bulky, degenerate in quality, and are inconvenient, especially if you want to search for a certain scene quickly to research a point you want to make in your posts. Mine are filled with commmercials, too, since I taped all my episodes off the tv. But I'm cheap, so like Rahael I'd borrow or download the eps if possible, and start watching AtS regularly to see if you like the show enough for multiple viewings and a 150 pound hole in your bank account.

[> [> [> Re: An answer- -- yabyumpan, 10:09:02 01/07/03 Tue

I'd be happy to lend you the tapes of the first 3 seasons. I'm in London but we could sort out postage etc. Email me. (Always willing to turn someone else on to my addiction.)
he he he (evil laugh) ;-) (hey, wanna score some 'Angel')

[> [> [> [> Many thanks but -- Arethusa, 11:10:17 01/08/03 Wed

I'm waiting patiently for the DVDs. My own personal little Christmas!

[> [> How can we answer except as a matter of taste? -- Sophist, 08:58:14 01/07/03 Tue

I think Rah is right to recommend watching some tapes before you take the plunge. Personally, I don't buy DVDs unless I intend to watch a show or movie multiple times. If it's a one-night stand, I can rent it (there may be a broader life lesson here, *snicker*).

I don't care much for AtS. The characters don't interest me, the story line doesn't move me, I think the acting is poor. Obviously, however, people whose opinion you should respect (probably more than mine) find it both deep and fascinating. I don't know how you could resolve this just by reading our views -- you need to decide first if there's enough to make it worth not just watching, but re-watching.

[> [> I agree with Rahael, Arethusa and yab on this one -- shadowkat, 14:25:12 01/07/03 Tue

If someone offers you copies of their videotapes or can loan them to you? Take them up on it. Someone offered to give me copies of Ats Season 1-2 and I hesitatntly took them up on it and have never regretted it. I'd already seen the episodes but had forgotten them and evil Fox/WB won't rerun them. Thanks to the person who sent to me!! I'm indebted to them!!

On second viewing - I found Ats more rewarding and deeper than I remembered. Of the seasons? Season 3 and 4 are my favorites. But there are some very good epsiodes in Seasons 1 and 2. If you are a Faith fan? You have to see the two Faith episodes in Angel. If you ever liked B/A together - you must see I Will Always Remember You and Sanctuary - it may explain why they finally drifted permanently apart. Also if you like Spike? In The Dark - the third episode of Season 1 is a must. There's also some very good Cordy episodes - one of my all time favorites for both shows regarding Cordelia is A Room With A View. So is Angel worth a look? Yes. But if you can save the bucks? By all means do so.

I am probably the only person online who has yet to buy a DVD player - still can't afford it. Don't own cell phone either - same reason. Yep - I'm living in the dark ages with my VCR and Dtv, normal cordless phone/answering machine and computer...sigh. And I tape Btvs and Ats now religiously. I'd love to buy the DVD's for the commentary alone, but can't. So i sympathise. My advice? See if you can get a friend to loan them to you first.

[> [> An idea for TCH -- KdS, 06:27:24 01/08/03 Wed

If someone lends you the videos, there's a lot of disposable episodes in the first half of AtS S1 that might put you off - hence here's a tomfool-esque list of necessary episodes to watch if you're lacking time or patience:

City Of
In the Dark
Rm W/a Vu
Hero
Parting Gifts
Somnambulist
I've Got You Under My Skin and all subsequent episodes

Possibly controversial omissions: Sense and Sensitivity and The Batchelor Party have interesting backstory on Kate and Doyle respectively, but are really quite silly (and the backstory in question is covered again in The Prodigal and Hero respectively). I Will Remember You is IMHO the only ME episode which is entirely dependent on you loving a certain 'ship - if you're still a diehard B/A fan watch it, if not don't bother.

S2 - watch everything

[> [> [> Re: An idea for TCH -- Rahael, 07:23:02 01/08/03 Wed

I can't stand I will Remember You, and I'm a B/A shipper!

But I really like Sense and Sensitivity. It's funny, and yet there's the absolutely heart breaking bit in the restaurant, and at the very end, where we see how sad the relationship between Kate and her father.

I agree the batchelor party is possibly expendable.

[> [> [> Thanks, I'll bear this list in mind -- Tchaikovsky, 02:08:07 01/09/03 Thu

it's bugged me for a few weeks -- Clen, 07:16:25 01/06/03 Mon

I'm surely not the only person to have wondered this, so I thought I'd get some general opinion before we get busy talking about the episode that will be on in a few, but...

how did it get from November to December so fast in the show? CwDP was explicitly Nov. 12, then BotN was explicitly in December, while the episodes in between could not take 3 weeks. Yes, they did make some fun of that when Buffy was talking to Giles, but is there a reason for it all? Or is it just because they got stuck airing eps over the holiday hump? I must be anal, because this still bugs me weeks later. Not trying to be too much of the "Comic Book Guy" from the Simpsons, but I am a fan of continuity.

[> 'Worst Temporal Continuity Gaffe--EVER!' (mild spoilers) -- cjl, 07:35:01 01/06/03 Mon

If you're going to sound like Comic Book Guy, you might as well go all the way...

But all seriousness aside (cjl, doing his best Steve Allen impression), here are the three most popular explanations for the temporal wonkiness between NLM and BotN:

1) Buffy is dreaming. The ever-popular "it's all in Buffy's mind" extension of "It's All About Buffy." This falls into:

(a) Buffy is in the mental institution from "Normal Again"; (b) The First Evil is messing with her head;
(c) the forces of good are messing with her head; or
(d) she's either still face down in the Master's wading pool in Prophecy Girl, she's still in the interdimensional vortex from "The Gift," or (my vote) we're already at the end of S7 in the Buffyverse, and this entire season is a one-second flashback in Buffy's head.

Pick your choice.

2. The First Evil is manipulating time, as part of its plan for ultimate annihilation. How? Who knows. Why? Don't ask me, not my theory.

3. Nothing's going on. We had to wait four weeks between episodes and Mutant Enemy is funnin' with us.

[> [> Re: 'Worst Temporal Continuity Gaffe--EVER!' (mild spoilers) -- Just George, 10:16:47 01/06/03 Mon

cjl: "3. Nothing's going on. We had to wait four weeks between episodes and Mutant Enemy is funnin' with us."

I think ME made a mistake putting the date in CWDP and Buffy's "I hardly noticed it was December" line was a shout out confessing their mistake.

But this season is surreal enough that I could be wrong.

-Just George

[> [> [> Re: 'Worst Temporal Continuity Gaffe--EVER!' (mild spoilers) -- Juliet, 18:26:51 01/06/03 Mon

Maybe ME execs are doing it to see how many threads like this one pop up because of it. ;-)

[> [> What about option #4 -- Tyreseus, 18:38:05 01/06/03 Mon

Drew Goddard wrote an unaired episode where he killed off the minor but long-beloved character Josephine, "keeper of time" (also from an unaired episode in season 4).

[> [> [> That's what I'm thinking as well: Evil UPN, not evil ME. Sudden thought... -- Briar Rose, 01:53:19 01/07/03 Tue

There was one line in BtVS Ep 7/10 about "the sun always comes up... Except in LA...." that could be a clue as to what the episode that could have been deleted from air might have contained. It could have been AtS centric, and the PTB at UPN decided it wasn't in their best interest to air it before Angel was back on the air OR the WB may have pressured them in some way to not air it.

Yes - there is the *Well Known Casting Spoiler* that indicates there WILL be a cross over. And since WB has decided to not only delay the fresh eps of Angel until Mid January (also why I think we're getting "Flubs" preempts on 1/14...Grrrr) but also to move Angel to Wednesdays, therefore whatever happens in the "well known spoiler cross over* is going to be mis-timed if it isn't aired AFTER the beginning of the arc airs on AtS.... Hence the shows have to "wait" for each other and WB can gloat if the UPN numbers for that week (or two, or three [geez I hope not!]slip because they messed with the ep timing of Angel.

Considering all of that speculation - I truly think that UPN is having to mess with the ep order a little to make it all appear cohesive.

One of the reasons I believe this is that UPN was counting on Buffy to lead into their highly hoped for "New break out show" Abby. With the way it stands now - they have one new Buffy ep to use as a lead in to this Abby show. Then they are going to be stuck with having to pinch hit with what will probably get NO audience for it's second showing???? This is not good promo in any way.

What is still amazing me is this odd fight that UPN and WB seem to be indulging in. This is practically unprecedented in network history that two stations would have such a grudge match over a show and a spin off of that show.

I used to laugh when posters at the Bronze and elsewhere wrote things like WB was sabotaging Angel or BtVS because ME moved BtVS to Upn.

From working in the EI and having friends in the EI, it sounded so unrealistic. Most stations are only competing in a very minor way. Only ratings. The actual people involved all lunch together, share scripts, work from the "competitions" studios.... (Radford Studios in Studio City is owned by CBS. NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX shows all shoot there, as well as other cable and network channels' shows. The same w/ CBS South [Gower Gulch] and NBC Burbank and etc.)

But there does appear to be some running contention between WB and UPN that superceedes the Biz's normal happy and friendly rivalry. I think that's why a lot of the things happening now are taking place. Just my spec, but let's just say that anything can happen when petty people are involved in an outright feud in Hollywood.

Current board | More January 2003