January 2003 Archives

January 2003 posts

Previous January 2003
More January 2003

Thoughts on Lessons (includes hindsight from subsequent S7 eps) -- KdS, 05:25:46 01/17/03 Fri

First reaction: best season opening since WttH.

A few thoughts:

Like the opening training scene a lot. Some people might have been shocked by Buffy letting the vampire bite Dawn, but I think her biggest fear is still Dawn getting herself killed through blithe optimism.

Spontaneous explanation from either yab or Rah (sorry, don't remember) on Buffy arriving at the High School - "It's Joyce!".

Really liked the painfully brief Anya/Halfrek scene. Anya and Halfrek's reaction to the folksingers almost exactly mirrored my mental one. (Maybe an apology from Joss for the singer-songwriter overload in the last few eps of S6.)

A bit disappointed by the manifest spirits. Would have been more effective if they'd been people we actually saw die in S1-3 - my personal nominations would have been Jesse, Theresa (from Phases) and Flutie. One disturbing question - which werewolf killed the girl? I was under the impression that Oz hadn't killed a human until Veruca - or was Veruca active in Sunnydale earlier than we thought? One presumes the spirits were an early attempt by the FE to make Buffy doubt herself as well as to keep Spike under control - they tried to create despair in their victims, which seems the FE's hallmark MO.

Was I the only person who heard Dawn say "I'm in the fucking basement!" the first time they watched the ep?

Buffy does seem very incurious about Spike's bizarre behaviour, even given the immediate threat from the manifest spirits.

I thought Buffy's job was implausible reading spoilers. Seeing the actual episode makes me think the offer was meant to be implausible - Wood definitely knows or suspects what she is and wants her at the High School for some reason - how simple or complex that is and what side he's on is very murky.

There's already the first hint at the end that the entity talking to Spike isn't the real
Big Bads - the real Master would never have used a slang term like "schmuck". And why does the FE talk to Spike in the forms of Wilkins and the Master, neither of whom we have any evidence that he ever met?

Again ,either Rah or yab described the look of the ep as "clean and polished" - the colours do seem particularly bright and the daytime scenes very well-lit. The camera work is noticeably free and swooping as well, especially in one (can remember which one) of Buffy's conversations with Wood.

And massive thanks to yab for providing the venue and TV!

[> Forms of the FE and other thoughts -- Helen, 07:43:02 01/17/03 Fri

We were robbed. If the FE was taking on the forms of the BB of each season, where was Angelus (oh I know, in a contract with Warner Brothers)?

How fabulous was Spike's hair? Love the two tone curly look - very Duran Duran. And I too found it strange that Buffy didn't seem more interested in what he was doing there, ranting like a mad man.

Whole talisman thing lame - even ME seemed to be aware that it was lame with the rather speedy donuement by a suddenly coherent Spike "Manifest spirits controlled by a talisman". Which was quite funny.

And LOL about the folk singers. My husband, who used to be a secret Buffy fan but has gone off it lately, walked in at the beginning of the scene in the Expresso Pump and said, "what the f** are those hippies supposed to be?" then Halfrek said pretty much the same thing.

Good to see Dawn with a) more grown up hair b) more grown up lines. And she IS taller than her sister. How did she grow that much? Have they put little Michelle on steroids? I think we should be told.

[> Re: Thoughts on Lessons (includes hindsight from subsequent S7 eps) -- Sophist, 08:24:57 01/17/03 Fri

And why does the FE talk to Spike in the forms of Wilkins and the Master, neither of whom we have any evidence that he ever met?

Given the Master's connection to Darla and Angel, and Spike's long relationship with the Fanged Four, I think we can reasonably assume that Spike and the Master met at least once, even if we never saw it.

As for the Mayor, here is some suggestive dialogue from Lover's Walk:

Mayor Wilkins: ... So, we have a Spike problem, do we?

Allan: He's been spotted back in town.

The Mayor's shot is on target this time, but comes up short. He lets out a frustrated sigh and goes to retrieve his ball.

Allan: And there was an incident at a magic shop in broad daylight. Police had a hell of a time covering it up.

Mayor Wilkins: (drops the ball) (laughs) Well, yes, y'know, he was up to all sorts of shenanigans last year. We had a world of fun trying to guess what he'd do next.

I'm inclined to agree with you about Lessons, though Anne grows on me each time I watch it.

[> [> Depends on dates... -- KdS, 08:51:41 01/17/03 Fri

I don't think we ever have a firm date on when the Master was trapped in Sunnydale. It's possible he might have been trapped before Spike was even sired.

On the Angel/Darla connection, given how badly Angelus and the Master got on, I don't think Darla reconciled with the Master until after Angel's final departure. I also don't think Darla would have hung around playing gooseberry with Spike and Dru for long after Angel left her.

And I don't see Spike being especially interested in looking up his great-great-grandsire, given what he would have heard from Angelus or general gossip about the Master's personality.

[> [> [> Joss sucks at dates, but -- Sophist, 09:04:24 01/17/03 Fri

from the Harvest, we get this:

Giles: This is what we know. Some sixty years ago, a very old, very powerful vampire came to this shore, not just to feed.

Buffy: He came 'cause this town's a mystical who's it.

Giles: Yes. The Spanish who first settled here called it 'Boca del Infierno'. Roughly translated, 'Hellmouth'. It's a sort of, um, portal between this reality and the next. This vampire hopes to open it.

Buffy: Bring the demons back.

Xander: End of the world.

Willow: But he blew it! Or, I mean, there was an earthquake that swallowed half the town, and him, too.

Giles: You see, opening dimensional portals is a tricky business. Odds are he got himself stuck, rather like a, uh, cork in a bottle.

So, there was plenty of time for Spike to meet the Master.

[> [> [> [> Re: Joss sucks at dates, but -- Dochawk, 11:53:24 01/17/03 Fri

In WttH the Master himself tells us he was stuck there for 3 score years (60).

[> Happy to share my addictions :-) -- yabyumpan, 08:46:20 01/17/03 Fri

Just a few thoughts;

I had no problems with Buffy's reaction to Spike. My reading of the scene was that she was curious and part of her wanted to stay and find out what was happening with him but she had to put her 'slayer' hat on and go save her sister (it must have been a tuesday).

I would actually have liked Dawn to have found some way to save herself (and friends) although the bricks in the bag were cool.

Really liked Principal Wood, apart from now being the most attractive man on BtVS IMO, he was so nice, so much the sort of person you would want as a Principal that it makes my cynical mind suspicious. Why is his office over the Hellmouth? How much does he actually know about Buffy (and Dawn)? Looking forward to finding out more.

Liked Willow talking about everything being connected and listening to the earth, made my Pagan heart smile. I've done some interesting 'Earth listening' in that part of the UK myself and know some Wiccans/Pagans in that area who could help Willow.

Definately back on the Buffy train after this ep (even watched it again after Rah and KdS left, something I'm even now struggling with with S6).

[> [> The bricks scene -- KdS, 08:54:24 01/17/03 Fri

I remember thinking at the time that it was cool to have Buffy hitting monsters with a handbag ;-)

[> [> Principal Wood -- Rahael, 10:20:09 01/17/03 Fri

Got to agree with you there! Best looking male on BtVS (whereas AtS offers 3! - Wesley, Angel and Gunn).

I had a lovely evening. Thank you for having us over!

[> [> [> JM is not good looking?????! -- Sophist, 10:46:31 01/17/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> And in Lessons he had the sexy Unkempt Hair of Inner Turmoil!!! -- ponygirl flashing back... :), 10:59:14 01/17/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> I remain strangely immune! -- Rahael, 11:10:51 01/17/03 Fri

To be honest, I've never seen the attraction. I hardly ever noticed him until Season 4/5.

The character he plays is really not attractive to me. I never fancied Angelus, but I frequently watch Angel with much aesthetic enjoyment. When he was with Drusilla, they just had such a dark vibe, and he was so much with the posturing and swaggering, and you know, drinking people - personally speaking, that just prevented me from seeing him as anything other than 'Spike the Vampire'. A slightly skanky Vamp too! I mean - Drusilla, then Harmony!

OTOH I have to confess that I saw an interview with James Marsters and thought the actor was far more attractive than the character he played.

Ponygirl - I agree. Unkempt hair is a HUGE improvement over the slicked back look.

[> [> [> [> [> I'm with you, Rahael, but we may be the only ones! Oh well! -- MaeveRigan, 12:08:09 01/17/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> No, me too. -- Arethusa, 12:23:30 01/17/03 Fri

I never really saw the sexiness of Spike or Angel. Strangely, it takes a layer of tweed to get me excited by the morally ambiguous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me three... or four -- Masq, 13:13:01 01/17/03 Fri

I find Angel as a character much more compelling than Spike, who hasn't interested me much since Season 4.

But that's compellingness of character. I'm not the best judge of good-looking men. : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um, me five? -- Scroll, 13:26:58 01/17/03 Fri

Echoing Masq: I'm very interested in Angel's journey, but not so much Spike. Very, very interested in Wesley's story. And really enjoying his new "dark" look. Look for Action Figure Wesley! Completely poseable! Comes with 2 handguns, 1 pump-action shotgun, and 12 grenades!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Poseable??? -- Arethusa, now deeply lost in thought..., 13:37:45 01/17/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Disagree only on a couple details. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:19:06 01/17/03 Fri

I can totally understand not being too interested in Spike or his story. However, I do tend to view it more like this:

Season 2 - really enjoyed the character here, and is still, in my opinion, the best villain BtVS has ever had.

Season 3 - I really enjoyed what they did with him in "Lover's Walk", where he constantly swtiched into various roles.

Season 4 - Could take him or leave him. He was good comic relief, but the whole loser aspect was uninteresting to me.

Season 5 - Depends on the episode. "Out of My Mind", "Fool For Love", and "Crush" rank among the best episodes to heavily feature Spike, and he had some good parts in other. However, some of the more redemptionistic or romantic parts I found a little groan worthy.

Season 6 - Less said, the better.

Season 7 - With the exception of "Sleeper", Spike hasn't been too interesting this season as a character. However, I am interested in his story to the extent that he is heavily tied to the First Evil and the main arc.

As for the issue of attractiveness, I'm also not a good judge, since I'm male and hopelessly hetrosexual, but James Marsters does seem to look similar to men I've heard women call handsome. Couple that with his large, female fan base, and I'd be willing to say that he probably counts as attractive in the eyes of most people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Complete opposite -- shadowkat, 16:37:34 01/17/03 Fri

Okay been trying to be good...but can't stay silent.

Angel:

1. Interesting in Season 1 - had no clue where they were going and found the contrast potentially interesting

2. Fascinating in Season 2 - the idea of flipping him and how they'd pull him back

3. Season 3 Btvs - groan worthy, But I hung in there, thinking okay it'll get better - didn't until Season 2 Ats, then after that got bored. If it weren't for Wesely and Fred and Holtz/Justine/Lilah/Lindsey/Darla and the intro of Connor and Lorne? I'd have stopped watching Ats entirely.
Angel's character is incredibly predictable to me.

Spike:

1. Fun villain - enjoyed watching him, but nothing amazing.
in Season 2. Liked him better than the other villains though.

2. Interesting in Season 3...but didn't necessarily compell me. Was more into Faith's arc in Season 3 actually. But Lover's Walk is an all time favorite.

3. Season 4? Couldn't figure out where he was going. But he made me laugh harder than any other character and his scenes with Xander were classic.

4. Season 5? Amazing. I got intrigued. I couldn't predict what he'd do next or where he'd go...started actually making plans to watch Buffy every tuesday and rushed home for it.

5. Season 6? Got so obsessed with the character - actually began to tape the episodes. He was unpredictable and suddenly very compelling to me. Wait there's more here than I thought and they might (whoa!) actually redeem him and tell me more about his background ? Cool! And redeeming him would be unpredictable and ironic and yes...something new. Also the metaphors - the whole growing up metaphor, the Clockwork Orange one, the whole existential theme of choosing to be good when your slanted towards evil - this is soo much cooler than the oh we're going to slowly redeem Angel, he'll turn human and ride off into the sunset someday with Buffy idea...I lost interest in that idea in Season 4 Btvs.

6. Season 7? Watching the character jump from insanity to tortured to manipulated killer to resisting torture has been a thrill ride and the actor has lived up to my estimation. Wow.

So I guess once again guys and gals it's different strokes for different folks...;-) I know I wouldn't be into these shows right now if it weren't for the changes in the character of Spike and James Marsters performance. I grew bored of Boreanze way back in Season 2...he's growing on me again and I'm holding out to see what comes next. But he doesn't compell me not like Spike does.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, but... -- Masq, 16:51:21 01/17/03 Fri

Different strokes for different folks is right, all right!

But I see opinions similar to yours everyday on this board. It's gotten a bit disheartening to me. I'm glad to see other people share my opinion for a change.

: )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, but... -- Angela, 17:48:13 01/17/03 Fri

It's not just here Masq, an incredibly popular character. I actually think this board is pretty good for talking about both shows (comparatively, that is.) And rather unique and lovely for that. I wonder about the show aspect too...what I mean by this is I've tried similar topical searches on both Buffy and Angel and generally come up with many many more hits for Buffy. The longer running time? Female lead? Nature of her story compared to Angel's? Different way the shows are arced? Balance of light and dark? Character mix? Very curious about this. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- shadowkat, 21:41:17 01/17/03 Fri

Point taken - Masq. You're right. My apologies - Even now after the first Ats episode of the year the board is moving back to Buffy.

I was feeling in the minority for a little while today- been a bad day (you know the type where no matter what you do it doesn't work and after such a lovely snowfall last night..sigh)...but I went over to a few boards late tonight, one's I could get into without a password, including Bronze Beta and realized that Angela is right - Marsters is the man of the hour. It's not just the character that's popular - it's the actor who plays him - who of all the actors on the shows - goes out of his way the most to greet and entertain fans. (How many Cons or Shore Leaves or fan gatherings has Boreanze or Gellar gone too? Or any of the others? That has to have something to do with the nuttiness?) Personally - never ever been to a fan convention in my life, so don't know what they are like - but something tells me if you fan the flames, it helps?

But back to Angel - you can pat yourself on the back for this one Masq, you and Aerustha and Dochawk and cjl are primarily responsible for getting me to give Angel another chance. I'd stopped watching during Birthday. But the season 1-2 tapes Doc sent me and the episode Sleep Tight, made me rethink things and look again. And what I saw was one of the most ambitious multilayered fantasy shows in the history of tv. Slain's right - it's noir, but it's not noir, it bends and expands the rules of that genre creating it's own. The character of Wesely is probably one of the most multilayered and developed characters I've seen - he went from the comic relief to the dark anti-hero in four seasons and it made sense. Cordelia flips the stereotype of bitchy bully cheerleader on its head - forcing us to see the pain and lonliness that lies beneathe the surface - her character has been explored more on Ats then ever was on Btvs. Fred - while she does appear to be all over the place at times - continues to intrigue me with the possible depths the writers can go to at any moment. And has there ever been a better looking, more intriguing kid than Connor?
Sorry I'm a Connor shipper - enough to sort of get the guys who are into Dawn and feel guilty about it.

The show bends the rules at times. And the Lilah/Wes romance? Have to agree with the posters on this board, as much as I love S/B - they did L/W far better. That's the way it should have been done. L/W has nuance to it, it's more intellectual, more intriguing.

As I've posted more than once on this board - even though I'm admittedly obsessed with Spike - oddly enough, I'm enjoying watching Angel the Series more. Why? Because as I told a friend last night ATs - is right now a little more cohesive, the production value and editing are better, the story seems to hold together better, the acting from every cast member seems to be on. It's gripping me more. And that's saying a lot since I prefer the BB on Btvs...but I'm getting a bigger thrill out of Ats.

Here's my current rating breakdown by episode

Ats
4.1 Deep Down - 9/10
4.2 Grounded - 8/10
4.3 The House Always Wins - 6/10
4.4 Slouching Toward Bethlem - 8/10
4.5 Supersymmetry - 9/10
4.6 Spin the Bottle - 8/10
4.7 Apocalypse Nowish - 8/10
4.8 Habeas Corpus - 8/10

Btvs
7.1 Lessons - 8 maybe 7 (on the fence here)
7.2 Beneath You - 9/10
7.3 Same Time Same Place - 6
7.4 Help - 5
7.5 Selfless - 9 or 10
7.6 Him - 7
7.7 Conversations with Dead People - 9 or 10
7.8 Sleeper - 8 or 7
7.9 Never LEave Me - 8
7.10 Bring on the Night - 7 or 6
7.11 Showtime - 6

Of the two - Ats in my humble opinion is knocking Btvs out of the park. And I prefer the characters on Btvs. Very odd.
Felt the same way when I revisited last season - Ats' last group of episodes were better.

So...while I may prefer the character/actor of Spike to Angel. Right now? I'm preferring the series Ats to Btvs.
Want to explain that one? Somebody?
;-)SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, my ep rankings are very different! -- Rob, 23:18:13 01/17/03 Fri

Ats
4.1 Deep Down - 8/10
4.2 Ground State- 9/10
4.3 The House Always Wins - 4/10
4.4 Slouching Toward Bethlem - 7/10
4.5 Supersymmetry - 10/10
4.6 Spin the Bottle - 8/10
4.7 Apocalypse Nowish - 7/10
4.8 Habeas Corpus - 10/10

Btvs
7.1 Lessons - 10/10
7.2 Beneath You - 10/10
7.3 Same Time Same Place - 10/10
7.4 Help - 7/10
7.5 Selfless - 10/10
7.6 Him - 3.5/10
7.7 Conversations with Dead People - 10/10
7.8 Sleeper - 8/10
7.9 Never Leave Me - 8/10
7.10 Bring on the Night - 9/10
7.11 Showtime - 7/10

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why so much hate of 'The House Always Wins'? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:07:21 01/18/03 Sat

Granted, it was a pretty light episode, but, frankly, a show where every episode is dark could get boring. But that can't be the case, since I notice praise of "Spin the Bottle" (which just felt recycled and aimless to me, no offense to Joss the Almighty). Not meaning to be rude or anything, but I would like to know why "The House Always Wins" recieved such a low rating from both of you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why so much hate of 'The House Always Wins'? -- Darby, 09:04:24 01/19/03 Sun

First, the basic bones of the plot were nothing original.

Second, they rewrote the soul canon - You "give" your soul to someone you're in love with? Wouldn't that negate the curse on Angelus? Even if it doesn't, it was a lame use of a feature that has real parameters in the Buffyverse, which were violated.

The "trust me" aspect of Angel's bet, although probably set up to play against the old cliches, just pushed AI into the position of killing someone to whom Gunn really owed a debt. It left a bad residue on the episode.

That was my take, anyway, from watching it and reading the board after.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Think that was Double or Nothing -- JM, 11:57:29 01/19/03 Sun

If it helps, I didn't hate THAW. However it was the most filler like, light ep of the season. During the season the more intense ones are always appreciated more.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooops...never mind. -- Darby, messing up the betting references, 11:59:12 01/19/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why I ranked HAW in the 6 range -- shadowkat, 12:38:15 01/19/03 Sun

Actually Darby oddly enough answered some of this in his post against Double Or Nothing. Can see why he confused the two - both are somewhat cheesy episodes that take place in casinos yet don't make good use of the setting.

What I liked about THAW?

- Cordelia's screaming at him from space, then showing up without a memory
- Wesely' phone sex with Lilah
- Lorne's lounge act

What I disliked -

1. Angel's weird comments about knowing the Rat Pack which did not make a lick of sense and sounded like a retcon.
They also made Angel look sort of like a goof ball and I cringed during them.

2. The whole plot about losing your destiney through the House and Angel losing his and becoming a gambling drone seemed well sort of cliche and cheesy to me.

3. The Gunn/Fred saving Lorne bit didn't work for me.

I laughed hard during Spin The Bottle - each character was used well, and the relationships changed. But most important of all - we had each character start at one emotional place in the story and gradually through its arc move to another place, we learned a lot about them and their relations with each other along the way.

The jokes in THAW fell flat for me, I saw them coming a mile away. The characters didn't grow or change much. Except possibly for Cordelia. And nothing seemed to move forward. In some ways I preferred Double or Nothing from last year to THAW.

JMHO. Not sure why Rob ranked it low - he ranked it even lower than I did. But then I liked HIM better than Rob...(shrug) Maybe check the archives - back when it aired - there were tons on it back then.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why I ranked it low... -- Rob, 15:07:40 01/19/03 Sun

Come to think of it, I did that list pretty late at night, and perhaps I was a tad unfair, but with the cheesiness of the ep in mind, coupled with it being compared to the other eps this year, and also the fact that it, at least for me, did not have very good rewatchability potential. Usually I grow to really like or respect an episode on repeated viewings that I thought was only so-so the first time. This ep was the exact opposite. I enjoyed it the first time, but did even less so on repeated viewings. I even liked "Him" better on repeated viewings (particularly the middle of the third act to the end), so that's saying a lot.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Stop reading my mind, sk! -- Valheru, 23:53:28 01/17/03 Fri

I pretty much agree with all you said.

AtS is simply a more entertaining show than BtVS right now, pretty much since the UPN move. BtVS has retained its strong intellectual discourse, but the show-stopping excitement is missing. It's as though BtVS left all its cinematic touches on the WB for AtS to use.

I'm with you: I like the Scooby Gang better, so why do I like the Fang Gang's show better? Except for Wes, Angel, and Lorne, I don't much care for those guys in L.A. If Gunn, Fred, Cordy, Connor, and Lilah died tomorrow, I wouldn't mourn nearly as much as if Xander lost an arm or something. I know, heartless, but y'know?

Still, I get a much wider range of emotions while watching AtS than BtVS. I felt a sudden urge to go kick some demon butt after the big Beast fight in "Apocalypse Nowish," but I barely got a twinge after Buffy's Thunderdome battle with the UberVamp in "Showtime." I laughed longer and harder in the humor-centric "Spin the Bottle" than I did in the humor-centric "Him" (although that could just be because of Joss). Even though I like the First better as a Big Bad, I'm more terrified by the Beast's threat (which, unless the Beast is more evil than the Source of Evil, is kind of ironic).

I would hazard to guess that the reason for this is that AtS is at the same creative stage that BtVS was in Season 3. The camerawork, lighting, stunts, coreography, acting, writing, directing, set design, costuming (except Cordy's), and music are firing on all cylinders on AtS. Everything seems so fluid and together. Which is remarkable, this being Season 4 and all, when most other television shows are starting to fall apart. I just get the feeling that everyone who works on AtS gets up in the morning and can't wait to be back at the job. And that enthusiasm comes through on the screen, turning bad episodes that less-energized people would have made into good episodes.

For BtVS, I don't see a whole lot of enthusiasm, or when I do see it, it's from the new blood. Drew Goddard is pumping out some brilliant episodes while the old bloods of Petrie, Noxon, Espenson, and Fury are struggling. Tom Lenk, Michelle Tractenberg, Emma Caulfield, and James Marsters seem to be putting more into their performances than Gellar, Brendon, Hannigan, and Head. Not to say that the older writers and actors aren't still doing well, it's just that they seem overshadowed by the new guys.

I dunno. Like you say, I can't exactly put my finger on why AtS is catching my attention more, other than the idea that AtS is hitting its stride. IMO, only 24 is a more exciting show on the air, and with the snippets of stuff I know are in the Fang Gang's future, I don't think it's too far a stretch to suggest that they might soon overtake Jack Bauer's Day Off as the highest-octane show on TV.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- Dochawk, 00:31:15 01/18/03 Sat

Funny its I who helped revitalize your interest in Angel. I've come close to losing mine. I'll explain down below.

As for acting prowess, there are very few actors on Angel who one would consider even good. DB is getting better, but just getting bye. CC isn't that good. AD is an excellent actor and up until recently had blown away anyone else on the show, but the actress who plays Lilah has matched him. On Buffy, the acting quality is universally very good to excellent. SMG, AH, ASH are all exceptional actors. James is fabulous in this role, I think he would be great in many other roles, unfortunately noone else in Hollywood seems to feel that way. He hasn't even been offered roles like Emma and Nicholas have. There is a reason why NB and JM are the two actors most interested in Buffy continuing, they seem to have much less of a future than the others (hopefully someone will offer James a part in something else so we can really see his chops, he has done some exceptional work on BtVS). And don't read too much into the fact that James and Amber seem to do so many cons and Sarah and Alyson don't. The major reason is money (I have read that James has been paid as much as $50,000 for a weeekend con though that seems high). James and Amber really haven't made anywhere near as much on these shows as the others. James' payday would be ina spinoff. Although I understand that both James and Amber have fabulous personalities, which makes them very fun for a con. But, Alyson and Alexis do also, but they don't need the money so would rather spend time alone.

As for production values I just don't get the laziness that seems to happen sometimes on Buffy (the Watchers Council Building for example). Seems that even though Buffy has a much larger budget, they don't get their money's worth (they changed CGI shops this year, but its the same shop that does both shows!). Buffy has had more exceptional episodes this year (3 fantastic ones - Selfless, CwDP, Beneath You, but also the only true clinker on either show - Him). Also I think the last couple of Buffy episodes have been uninspiring. But, the difference is (for me anyway), Buffy is an epic - a mythology - Joss's Lord of the Rings and Angel is a dark fantasy - Joss's Harry Potter. Also, for me MN was right, there is something about Buffy's calling and her journey that is intrinsically more interesting than Angel's story. Her flaws are more human and there is no question I would have been friends with the Buffy gang and would have no interest in any (maybe Fred or Wes) in the Angel gang. of course, this is why there are so many different types of TV shows, we all are drawn to different things.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now that was scary Doc -- Sophist, 09:14:07 01/18/03 Sat

Reading that post was like reading my own thoughts. I couldn't have said it better.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- shadowkat, 11:34:44 01/18/03 Sat

It's so odd I agree and disagree with your comments above.

As for acting prowess, there are very few actors on Angel who one would consider even good. DB is getting better, but just getting bye. CC isn't that good. AD is an excellent actor and up until recently had blown away anyone else on the show, but the actress who plays Lilah has matched him.

Would agree. Overall the best actors on this show are AD, Stephanie Romanov, and possibly Amy Acker and Andy Hallet.
Connor is actually pretty good. (Personally I think he is a far better actor than some other young guys I've seen on the screen.)

As for production values I just don't get the laziness that seems to happen sometimes on Buffy (the Watchers Council Building for example). Seems that even though Buffy has a much larger budget, they don't get their money's worth (they changed CGI shops this year, but its the same shop that does both shows!).

Would agree here as well - they seem to have become increasingly lazy since moving to UPN. The sloppiness with the building (certainly they most realize how incredibly anal their fans are??) I'm wondering if all the money is going into writer and actor salaries - if so, SMG needs to stop phoning it in. The actress hasn't done an excellent performance since Normal Again that i've seen. Granted I may have high expectations for a B movie and tv actress. But Marsters with his ten-twenty minute scenes is out-performing her. So for that matter is Michelle Trachenburg (sp?) and Emma Caulfield.

Regarding actors and roles. I think from what I've read that James has been offered the roles, but turned them down because a) no time and b)they aren't quality roles. SMG and AH are not that picky. I've seen all their movies (I'm embarrassed to say) on tape, and they are B/C movies. Not memorable and hardly something that you can build a lengthy career from. Both need a breakout role and have yet to get it. Seth Green actually has a better resume at this point.
Here's an example of what two actresses did after Cruel Intentions: SMG - Bewitiched/Bothered and Bewildered (bad movie trust me), Harvard Man, Scooby Doo. Reese Witherspoon - Election, Legally Blonde, (the movie with Tobey Macquire that was in Black and White and color which I'm drawing a blank on) and Sweet Home Alabama. A movies with nominations, with the possible exception of Sweet Home.
Granted Reese isn't on TV at the moment. But sometimes it's better to have no movie then a bad one to your credit.
SMG has one too many. Her best work is actually on Buffy.
Until I see her do something else half as good, in a quality film? She's limited. I don't know what else James can do - only seen him do Buffy. I have heard what he can do vocally - in an audio book - blew me away. Btvs is let's face it a hard genre to get a movie career out of.

Here I disagree:
Buffy is an epic - a mythology - Joss's Lord of the Rings and Angel is a dark fantasy - Joss's Harry Potter.

I think you may be disappointed. Could be wrong. But from what the writer's have said - the mythology on Btvs is very limited to the theme of growing up - which is how JK Rowlings Harry Potter Books are limited - the mythology used only as metaphor. Although I see Btvs as being closer in form to say Wizard of OZ or Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials than Harry Potter. It seems more complex. But they are limited. Ats on the other hand is not as limited by this metaphor (growing up) and can explore the broader mythology that Lord of The Rings does. After all you say yourself in another post that it is ATS not Btvs that brought up the prophecies and the oracles - it is ATS not BTvs that is creating a metaphysical world and a philosophy.
And Ats not Btvs that has examined the role of demons in that world and explored the varieties of demons in detail.
Btvs' demons are metaphors for growing up and a young woman's journey to adult hood. Ats' demons are metaphors for broader themes such as good/evil, racism, moral greyness, anti-hero...etc. In ATs - we have a character who is very Frodo like attempting to overcome the darkness that resides next to his soul. He's the main character. In Btvs - the supporting characters are somewhat Frodo like.

No...I think it's the opposite actually and I think these seasons will probably prove me right. Then again, we'll probably still see it differently by then. ;-)

Will end with an agreement

Also, for me MN was right, there is something about Buffy's calling and her journey that is intrinsically more interesting than Angel's story. Her flaws are more human and there is no question I would have been friends with the Buffy gang and would have no interest in any (maybe Fred or Wes) in the Angel gang.

Have to agree here. Maybe it's because I'm female, I don't know, but Buffy and her friends journey is intrinsically more interesting to me. I identify more with Buffy and (I know here we'll always disagree) Spike than I do with Cordelia and Angel. I would have been friends with Willow and Xander (heck I am friends with people like Willow and Xander). Outside of Fred and Wes and possibly Gunn...nope.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- Dochawk, 11:50:03 01/18/03 Sat

"I identify more with Buffy and (I know here we'll always disagree) Spike than I do with Cordelia and Angel. I would have been friends with Willow and Xander (heck I am friends with people like Willow and Xander)"

Actually we won't disagree here. Give me Spike over Angel any day. Spike at least enjoys life once in a while and the actor just oozes charisma, Angel broods and looks wooden (sorry Masq). Although I think Angel is more nobel (see my other post), Spike is far more interesting (just don't give me Spuffy sex, or if you do, lets see some of Sarah :) )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL!! Thanks for clarifying -- shadowkat, 12:21:31 01/18/03 Sat

Actually we won't disagree here. Give me Spike over Angel any day. Spike at least enjoys life once in a while and the actor just oozes charisma, Angel broods and looks wooden (sorry Masq). Although I think Angel is more nobel (see my other post), Spike is far more interesting (just don't give me Spuffy sex, or if you do, lets see some of Sarah :) )

Don't really see Angel as noble as everyone else seems to.
Don't know why. But he does seem to get stuff handed to him on a platter in Btvs and early Ats - without really working that hard. Spike seems to have found things more on his own.
Angel - had to have Whistler to find buffy or a direction. The powers had to intervene numerous times for Angel. Spike on the other hand seems to find his own path...and I'm not sure I agree that soul was as selfishly motivated as everyone thinks - I take Buffy's and through her the writer's view on this: "You faced the monster inside and fought back. You risked everything to become a better man."
NLM. I've never seen Angel do this. I've seen him say some nice words to the effect of doing it. But his actions tend to have a lot do with three causes: 1) I want to be human again and be part of the world. 2) I want a family that loves, respects and approves of me (Deep Down), and 3)I want to be considered a Champion or someone important. He is a true anti-hero - not noble in the least but struggling to be noble or to the right thing just not sure how to get there. Which makes him incredibly broody to watch. He reminds me a great deal of Clint Eastwood's character in The Unforgiven. A man who was a horrible killer and built a family to get away from it but never really fought to be a better man, so falls into being the killer again. Very different story than Spike - who does actually metaphorically and literally fight to become better - just because it's Buffy that motivates him partly to do this - I don't believe cheapens it.

Do agree on this comment - "if you show Spuffy, show more of Sarah" - (they won't btw, she has a clause in her contract that echoes Freddy's that she will not do nude scenes. In Scooby - the nude scene was done by a double (although I think they cut it because don't remember it on the screen). Shame - she and Marsters could compare how large their ribs are ;-)- sorry both actors are far too skinny. At least he's gained a little since last year.)

Anyways my point - I had one - is that the writers have gone overboard on the male chests and male nudity and nothing female. It's getting well a bit obvious. I mean when I think it's time to give Spike a shirt is saying something. Personally I don't think we're going to see any sex this year on Btvs - with the possible exception of Xander or maybe W/K but even that seems a longshot.

Poor Drew Goddard - he apparently got his job at BTVS writing a spec for Six Feet Under, it was dead people talking to the characters and had tons of sex. He said on Bronze Beta - that you should put tons of sex in spec scripts since the producers apparently love that. If that's true - why didn't Drew get to do Him?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL!! Thanks for clarifying -- Doriander, 13:53:56 01/18/03 Sat

Don't really see Angel as noble as everyone else seems to.
Don't know why. But he does seem to get stuff handed to him on a platter in Btvs and early Ats - without really working that hard. Spike seems to have found things more on his own.

Pretty much agree. But name me a character who has suffered and got screwed over more than he did (perhaps Buffy). Spike benefitted from Angel's run through. I feel for Angel in this respect, he really was lost.

I find them both compelling on a very personal level for this very reason, especially this season. With Angel it's in the "what will happen to him next and how will he react to it?" sense, with Spike it's "oh god, what will he get himself into this time?" Angel is your promised guy, whom even back in his human days everyone expected something out of. With it comes his Kurt Cobain complex (the sullen "I didn't ask for this" thrown in for good measure in StB, was funny but creepy). No such niche for Spike, yet he's the guy who desperately wants to matter, often pathetically so, and will insist on a niche for himself even when uncalled for (which is the case for the most part). My identification with Spike feeds my fascination for Angel and vice versa.

/disclaimer:I have A/S leanings, and in my mind Spike is less All. About. Buffy. and more guy with Angel issues./

With Angel I don't despair and quite prefer it when fate messes with him. He's the type of character I don't wish to relate to. I rather like my analogy of him (from Spike's POV) as the type you just don't get, because he doesn't realize how good he's got it (note that in this self involved POV, you're blind to the heightened fuck ups happening to Angel). He's that guy who outdoes you in your most desired endeavor, and he's not even trying. The freaking dilettante who gets A's while you toiled in achieving a B-. The celebrity who gets free clothes from designers but passes most of them on to his "people" because the style just doesn't become him, while you work overtime to buy a knock-off ensemble that befits an implicit dress code. The guy who gets overwhelming adoration but shirks from it because he's "in it for the art, not fame", while you're out desperately pimping yourself just to get noticed (geez, I'm on a roll. Me? Projecting?). You know he has his own brand of strife, one which you yourself may not be able to handle but you don't entertain that prospect. You're so consumed with the grander aspects, he's the been there, done that fellow of the cliched "all-I-want-is-a-simple-life" persuasion. He fascinates you, he stirs up resent. You almost feel sorry for him missing out, but you perish that sentiment. You can't bring yourself to empathise, you don't really want to lest you adapt the same insular world view. He's your point of reference, reminder that when you finally get there, you'll damn well make the most of it and more.

So finally, S7. It happened. "Angel. He should have warned me..." Shell-shocked, finally significant, and very much screwed. Smacks himself for how utterly clueless he's been, prime desires now thrown out the window. Spike gets it now, why Angel's priorities transcended his own previous ones. He probably hates having known Angel, as he provided subliminal cues; thankful he did know Angel, as a point of refernce for how improved circumstances are for him in comparison to his grandsire's (he has Buffy who has dealt wih something similar to this before and is beholden to him for some reason; Angel had no one); thankful he's not Angel, it must have sucked for him then.

Personally, I want Angel suspended in mystic (he still is more or less), and Spike in that place of longing, perpetually never central to anything. So understandably in the last two eppies, Spike's role being a virtual composite of WML2 Angel, S4 Riley and S5 Dawn had been this Spikophile's nightmare. Whereas before my mind reels with what he's gonna do next, lately it's been what will the writers do to him, which makes him less of a tangible character, and more of a chess piece as Valheru phrased it. And indeed it's true of all characters in BtVS lately. Pray those days are past.

PS: Best looking male to me was intern Ben; Best looking female, Jenny Calendar; Most magnetic character, Spike (I share your anxiety level when it comes to him. Driven people who set themselves up for a fall always get to me eg Beige Angel, Wes, Lilah, W/L ship); Best actors: AD and EC; Most moving actors: JM and AH.

And I agree on no. more. Spuffy. sex. And please ME, Spike is a magnetic guy, use him prudently. Put him on screen, give him nothing to do and it's glaringly noticeable. While I'm very much obssessed with the character, I want him to remain a character, not a lead. An inspired fan from another board said something she wished for the next ep which was crassly hilarious but I very much agreed with: No screen time for Spike, unless you show him actually doing something; scratching his balls, whatever, just...something.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post...and good lord how much I agree -- shadowkat, 15:58:41 01/18/03 Sat

I find them both compelling on a very personal level for this very reason, especially this season. With Angel it's in the "what will happen to him next and how will he react to it?" sense, with Spike it's "oh god, what will he get himself into this time?" Angel is your promised guy, whom even back in his human days everyone expected something out of. With it comes his Kurt Cobain complex (the sullen "I didn't ask for this" thrown in for good measure in StB, was funny but creepy). No such niche for Spike, yet he's the guy who desperately wants to matter, often pathetically so, and will insist on a niche for himself even when uncalled for (which is the case for the most part). My identification with Spike feeds my fascination for Angel and vice versa.

Thank you for explaining to me why I still have this odd fascination for Angel and why I want a Angel/Spike meeting more than the others. You did it well. Also you projected my problems with Angel perfectly in your post. That's me to a T. I see Angel so much as Spike does...that it's uncanny.

With Angel I don't despair and quite prefer it when fate messes with him. He's the type of character I don't wish to relate to. I rather like my analogy of him (from Spike's POV) as the type you just don't get, because he doesn't realize how good he's got it (note that in this self involved POV, you're blind to the heightened fuck ups happening to Angel).

yep that's me too. Which again proves my thesis that the way we analyze these characters and see them has so frigging much to do with us. Are we in a sense hammering out our own issues through a Buffy/ATs prisim?

So finally, S7. It happened. "Angel. He should have warned me..." Shell-shocked, finally significant, and very much screwed. Smacks himself for how utterly clueless he's been, prime desires now thrown out the window. Spike gets it now, why Angel's priorities transcended his own previous ones. He probably hates having known Angel, as he provided subliminal cues; thankful he did know Angel, as a point of refernce for how improved circumstances are for him in comparison to his grandsire's (he has Buffy who has dealt wih something similar to this before and is beholden to him for some reason; Angel had no one); thankful he's not Angel, it must have sucked for him then.

Very true. This for me is my relationship with Buffy as well. I've always in the oddest way seen Buffy through Willow's eyes. And Cordelia through Fred/Willow's eyes.
And Angel through Spike's. It puts you in an odd dynamic.
What I believe is brillant in Whedonverse is I believe Whedon does too. I believe that what Whedon is doing with the characters we often admire from afar is forcing us to see that their lives aren't as wonderful as we think.
Buffy - the superhero who Jonathan believes has it all - in fact we see exactly Jonathan's image of her life in Superstar - is in reality a struggling young woman. Cordelia who in Out of Mind Out of Sight appears to have the world on a swing - is lonely and frightened - it's better to be alone in group she states then alone all by yourself. And Angel - who appears on the surface to be the guy with everything - the superheros true love? the champion? yet he constantly get's screwed. Go up close?
And you get what Spike did..."Angel hid it well...The pain."

I don't believe Spike ever knew Angel's story. He didn't know Angel spent 1oo years in hell before coming back to be with Buffy, only to have to leave her again. He doesn't know she sent him there. He doesn't know Angel was cursed with a soul and can't have a moment of true happiness without losing it again. Spike didn't know any of that.

Personally, I want Angel suspended in mystic (he still is more or less), and Spike in that place of longing, perpetually never central to anything. So understandably in the last two eppies, Spike's role being a virtual composite of WML2 Angel, S4 Riley and S5 Dawn had been this Spikophile's nightmare. Whereas before my mind reels with what he's gonna do next, lately it's been what will the writers do to him, which makes him less of a tangible character, and more of a chess piece as Valheru phrased it. And indeed it's true of all characters in BtVS lately. Pray those days are past

On the fence with this one. I see Marsters as a great character actor, but I'm not sure he should be the lead?
I like him involved with Buffy - I want to see more of him - but I want them to use him on screen, not just let him hang there half naked or stand on the sidelines...it seems a crime somehow. Also it does feel as if the characters have become chess pieces - moved by writers hands not their own...

I'm afraid of being disappointed. Most of my past television show compulsions have well disappointed me with their outcomes. The characters fell flat...and nothing really was resolved or moved forward. I fear that happening now, as someone might fear...the Giants losing a football game because they are watching it and so desperately want them to win.

That said...I do wish to see Spike be redeemed in some small way...to have found something as Marsters states in an interview that makes him happy besides killing.
I also desperately want more information on who this guy is at his core. As i told a friend we know so much of Angel's background and so little of Spikes.

Here's Liam's: he was born in Ireland in The 1700s - we see his gravestone in the episode Dear Boy I believe. His family was aristocratic and upper middle class with one maid. The Mother may have been dead. He had a sister and was apparently the only son. His dad chastised him for being a drunk and womanizer - he'd bedded the maids. He left home and stole his father's silver to get drunk in a bar and got turned into a vampire trying to seduce a maid in an alley. He had a horrible rep among the girls - having slept with most of them and leaving them without a word the next day. He was clearly capable of better things but throwing them away for booze and women - this according to his father. Hating his father's constant disapproval and religious piety - Angelus kills the whole village starting with dear old dad and takes his kid sis' name for him: Angel.

Willaim: he wrote some bad poetry. Fancied himself in love with Cecily. Bravely told her at a party, she rejected him.
He is dressed in a bad suit and is somewhat foppish. And has a mother. That's it. Oh and he died in 1880. Not that bloody much. I want more! And I'm not talking about the fantasy histories fans have cooked up for him based on their own studies of the period. I want to know what ME came up with. If that means making him a lead to tell me, so be it.

PS: Best looking male to me was intern Ben; Best looking female, Jenny Calendar; Most magnetic character, Spike (I share your anxiety level when it comes to him. Driven people who set themselves up for a fall always get to me eg Beige Angel, Wes, Lilah, W/L ship); Best actors: AD and EC; Most moving actors: JM and AH.

Hmmm this is the first vote for Ben - I've seen. I thought he was good looking until I saw the commentaries. See this guy with long hair and you may change your mind ;-) Then again maybe not. Other than that? Completely agree.

Although i'm on the fence about Emma, she hasn't had much to do. But I have seen her in other roles and she was very good in them and versatile.

And I agree on no. more. Spuffy. sex. And please ME, Spike is a magnetic guy, use him prudently. Put him on screen, give him nothing to do and it's glaringly noticeable. While I'm very much obssessed with the character, I want him to remain a character, not a lead. An inspired fan from another board said something she wished for the next ep which was crassly hilarious but I very much agreed with: No screen time for Spike, unless you show him actually doing something; scratching his balls, whatever, just...something.

Also agree. Don't worry about the sex - I am willing to bet all the cyberkitties and chocolat I have that there won't be any this year between Spike and well anyone. (I'm hoping they don't have Buffy sleep with anyone either...because that would make this show a shameless soap...but hey that's just me.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post...and good lord how much I agree -- Spicywings, 21:56:46 01/18/03 Sat

Just found this thread and had to put in my two cents worth. I always felt that one of the best scenes on the Buffy series was Angel leaving. Although I admit the whole B/A thing was watchworthy for a short time, I never saw the chemistry between them that I felt should have existed, and frankly felt DB was way out of his league. I did continue to watch him when AtS began, however, merely for the sake of the potential crossovers and to try and maintain some continuity of story. The best thing on AtS was Doyle, and he kept me watching. Killing him and replacing him with Cordy was absurd. Watching it today I feel as though few of the actors have their hearts in the show or in the characters, with the possible exception of Lorne and Wesley.

The character of Spike, on the other hand, is absolutely essential to the series IMO. True, he began as another throw-away villain. However, his and Dru's appearance on the scene in School Hard brought an entire new fire to the show which was intriguing --- obviously, since they were kept on through the end of Season 2. Lover's Walk cemented Spike and James. The introduction of Spike in School Hard has to be the most brilliant introduction of a villain I have ever seen (although JM thinks he sucked big time). Although I was a latecomer to the whole Buffy movement, there was an instant reaction to Spike, and Lover's Walk then tied me to the character completely. Even though Season 4 was a bit of a wash, JM still made every on-screen second worth the watch, and continued, even without great character development from the writers, to bring an element to the character's development which made me want to see more. Unlike many, I had no problem with season 6. True, the show is "Buffy", but a couple of essential elements of Buffy's character throughout have been her inability to maintain a relationship, and her inability to see grays.

IMO Spike's journey to his present state is essential to the story. Though we have no idea whether there'll be another season, it appears obvious to me at least, that Spike's sacrifice has forced Buffy to re-evaluate her previous moral assumptions --- making her recognize the grays that do exist. I also believe that the joining of Vampire and Slayer is necessary, since they come from the same people. Buffy must have a vampire to complement her, and vice versa. If the show must end, they can die together on the side of good, or destroy each other --- but it all comes down to The Slayer and The Vampire!

While Angel could have been the "one" originally, his soul was a curse, his leading a "good" life was forced upon him. He only chose to do so when he saw the little teeny bopper sucking on her lollipop on the school steps. To me that is what makes him such a complete bore --- because DB plays him like someone who just doesn't want to be where he is---someone just reading the lines. Spike chose to be where he is, chose to get a soul that he felt would make a difference. Yes, he did it without thinking it through, but it was his gut reaction to the problem --- that being his inability to give the Slayer what she deserved --- someone who could stand beside her on more equal footing. He was led by Passion -- being more alive than most of the humans in Sunnyhell.

Finally, Marsters is incredible! He may have a problem later with character identification, however, given the fact that he no longer has to worry about paying the rent, he can continue with his pursuit of the music, and come back to theater. He'll never be without work --- as for DB, let's just hope he's got a good IRA.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post...and good lord how much I agree -- Miss Edith, 16:39:18 01/19/03 Sun

My perspective is that I was never fond of the Angel character. I don't have much in common with Buffy but I always emphasised with the character, and Sarah was wonderful at making me feel Buffy's pain. E.g with Buffy/Faith I found Faith the more dynamic character when Buffy was being slightly self-righteous in Consequences but Sarah sold me on Buffy's reactions and kept me rooting for both characters. Wheareas when Buffy fought Willow in Grave I cared so little for Buffy's stone face and talk of showing what a slayer really is I actually smiled when Willow told Buffy "You really need every square inch of your ass kicked". Sarah was good in the beginning of season 6 and I was particularly impressed with her performance in Barganning, Afterlife and Life Serial. Also she was simply heartbreaking in the musical. But I get the feeling that she lost interest in displaying all the subtulties that had worked so well for her and choose to simply play Buffy as a one note depressed character. Occasionally she made the effort but most of the time she is IMO doing the bare minimum of acting she can get away with and I find that disapointing as she was once one of my favourite actress's on the show. In interviews she has suggested playing depressed Buffy became tiresome and she didn't really get where the character was coming from and IMO it showed.
I saw the B/A relationship through Buffy's eyes and I cared about Angel when the relationship tore Buffy's heart out. In Becoming Angel was sent to hell and it wasn't David's constipated expression (sorry David fans) that drew me in, it was the incrediable pain on Buffy's face. I did lose interest in season 3 and I believe Joss has said the relationship was beginning to drag in his mind as well. But that's how I now feel about B/S and I once shipped them in season 5/early season 6 so sometimes the life can be sapped out of a relationship.

I do think James is one of the best actors on the show (after ASH) and I think Alexis is the best on Ats. I think David has improved and he occasionally surprsies me with a good performance. Charisma was someone I once thought of as fine, and if nothing special she was very good at times (hospital scenes in season one finale for Ats impressed me. And great comic timing). But lately she has lost her sparkle. I have downloaded some season 7 episodes (I'm from the UK) and I haven't liked Alyson's performance as much as I usually do either. I am getting the feeling that she is trying a little too hard to win back sympathy for her character by breathing heavily and playing the victim Willow. It's hard to explain and I don't know if anyone else has noticed it? I think David was awful at the beginning of Bts and I believe Joss admitted he was hired because the all the women in the room become excited over the actors looks. But he has improved a lot since then and he is actually pretty good as Angelus. Wesley, Lilah, Lorne and Conner are the characters that hold my interest on Ats personally though

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the reply SK! -- Doriander, 19:09:14 01/19/03 Sun

Which again proves my thesis that the way we analyze these characters and see them has so frigging much to do with us. Are we in a sense hammering out our own issues through a Buffy/ATs prisim?

nodding.

This for me is my relationship with Buffy as well. I've always in the oddest way seen Buffy through Willow's eyes. And Cordelia through Fred/Willow's eyes.
And Angel through Spike's. It puts you in an odd dynamic.
What I believe is brillant in Whedonverse is I believe Whedon does too. I believe that what Whedon is doing with the characters we often admire from afar is forcing us to see that their lives aren't as wonderful as we think.
Buffy - the superhero who Jonathan believes has it all - in fact we see exactly Jonathan's image of her life in Superstar - is in reality a struggling young woman. Cordelia who in Out of Mind Out of Sight appears to have the world on a swing - is lonely and frightened - it's better to be alone in group she states then alone all by yourself. And Angel - who appears on the surface to be the guy with everything - the superheros true love? the champion? yet he constantly get's screwed. Go up close?
And you get what Spike did..."Angel hid it well...The pain."

more nodding.

I don't believe Spike ever knew Angel's story. He didn't know Angel spent 1oo years in hell before coming back to be with Buffy, only to have to leave her again. He doesn't know she sent him there. He doesn't know Angel was cursed with a soul and can't have a moment of true happiness without losing it again. Spike didn't know any of that.

You're right. Darla and Spike bleed together in my head.

I do wish to see Spike be redeemed in some small way...to have found something as Marsters states in an interview that makes him happy besides killing.

Yeah, I've pretty much hung up my evilista hat at the moment. For Spike to regress at this junction would be a waste of the build up, and it would just be very cruel to Buffy (who at this point has invested a lot in redeeming the guy). Then again...I don't know. Writers are evil.

I also desperately want more information on who this guy is at his core. As i told a friend we know so much of Angel's background and so little of Spikes.

This is the reason why I have residual regret that Spike wasn't sent off to AtS sometime in mid-S5 because I think he could be better explored there as foil to Angel. Then again AtS S2 was perfect the way it was and Spike in the mix would just throw off the arc. Anyway, I've always thought Lindsey was Spike by proxy so I'm glad with what they've managed to do with him in his AtS tenure. I'm also very intrigued with what they're doing to Spike this season as so s'all good.

But yeah, I would want to know more about William as well. Spike as we know is a perpetual pursuer ("once he starts something he never stops"). Carry-over from his human days we later learn. What gave William such will? Such single mindedness? With Lindsey the impetus was I'll never go hungry again. What was William's? Sheer naivete? While directing all his energies into one pursuit at the risk of setting himself up for one big fall is in some ways inspiring, does it really make him a better man? I'm curious about his upbringing as he seemed to have his life (prematurely) sussed out. Liam grew up deprived of a sense that he had any control of his path, with his father's will seemingly imposed upon him, fear of God deeply instilled in him as well, it's always somebody else stirring the wheel (a running theme for him. PTSY indeed). No wonder the guy rebelled.

Hmmm this is the first vote for Ben - I've seen. I thought he was good looking until I saw the commentaries. See this guy with long hair and you may change your mind ;-) Then again maybe not.

Didn't alter my opinion. Well, actually it did. Acting bad, guy pretty (recalls locker scene in "Family". Man's torso beats JM, DB, MB, NB). The thrall was gone when he had to go play his part. I'll give him props for the murder scene, best piece of acting from him on the show (repaet mantra, these actors are very hard working). Anyway, I saw the commentaries and found myself renewably smitten with the person. Same goes for Blucas BTW, who seemed quite winsome.

On the subject of actors, This afternoon I caught a Thirteen Network segment endorsing Juilliard. The student featured as representative for the acting dept. was none other than Ms. Morena Baccarin aka "Inara" of Firefly.

/pause/

mind wanders off to a visual of one of those infamous Shakesperean readings held at JW's house. All ME actors are present. JW has the floor and does a David Letterman Oscar host shtick:

"James, Morena. Morena, James."

/cackling/

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO...and welcome -- shadowkat, 20:54:45 01/19/03 Sun

On the subject of actors, This afternoon I caught a Thirteen Network segment endorsing Juilliard. The student featured as representative for the acting dept. was none other than Ms. Morena Baccarin aka "Inara" of Firefly.

/pause/

mind wanders off to a visual of one of those infamous Shakesperean readings held at JW's house. All ME actors are present. JW has the floor and does a David Letterman Oscar host shtick:

"James, Morena. Morena, James."

/cackling/

Ohhhh and evil Joss would do it too. Make Marsters burn.
I honestly think Joss enjoys torturing his actors as much as the characters. ;-) (Oh for those reading this who don't get the joke? Marsters keeps stating in interviews how he got thrown out of Juillard and it sent him into his mad rebellious stage. His idea of acting and Juillard's apparently didn't mix. Think Spike - when you think of those years for Marsters - oh he got the eyebrow scar in those years.) I really need to stop reading actor interviews..sigh.

Agree on Ben...but Blucas just doesn't do it for me. Too heavy browed and football player looking for my taste.
I'm weird, I know. ;-) Inara was lovely on Firefly though.
But disappointing as an actress...of course I can't really judge her performance of less than ten episodes.

Agree also on Spike as a foil for Angel - I think they were playing with that in Season 4 Btvs/Season 1 Ats but decided not to do it, b/c Spike interacted better with Buffy characters. And they needed the vampire role on Buffy more.
But I think in the future - he could work as a possible foil? Who knows. Wouldn't mind some insight into those 20 years between Spike's turning and Angel's loss of soul which we've never really seen. Would be curious to see why Spike and Dru stayed as long as they did and what broke the Fanged Four or Fanged Three up eventually. Even if it ends up screwing with people's fanfics - including my own brief forray into it ;-)

Yep with just a few tiny exceptions..we are methinks on the same wavelength.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Has anyone else noticed -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:39:12 01/19/03 Sun

That except for the Fool For Love/Darla flashbacks, we've never seen all of the Fanged Four in one place? It would be really cool if they somehow all got together in present day Buffyverse (though that would require a second ressurection of Darla).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wouldn't mind seeing three of them do it -- shadowkat, 21:45:10 01/19/03 Sun

Maybe have Dru/Angel/Spike reunite on Connor's birthday to remember poor Darla? nope wouldn't work...Dru being insane and still evil - she'd either try to turn Connor or get staked by him. Hmmm...Dru, come to think of it, is the only member of the fanged four to remain soulless and evil.
Would really really like to see her return and deal with a ensouled Spike. Probably just cackle and tell him she saw it and knew.

Fanged Four was in my opinion one of Whedon's best creations and additions to vampire lore.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel v Buffy -- Darby, 09:21:50 01/19/03 Sun

I like that both heroes are very flawed, and find interesting that the peripheral characters reflect what are still gender roles in society. When Buffy shows her clay tootsies, everyone calls her on it (she's just a girl and we can criticize her to her face), but when big broody male Angel does it, everyone grumbles but essentially lets him stumble along. This plays out very differently on both shows, with Buffy obsessively hiding her flaws and Angel more-or-less revelling in his, and with the dynamics of the group being very different as a reflection of those central truths. In some ways, too, it give DB a broader range of traits to play for the audience, and I think he's getting skilled in one of the most varied parts on screen.

But I'm watching Angelus of S2, and it's Jesse from Gilmore Girls! Bizarre...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- slain, 12:51:37 01/18/03 Sat

I'm wondering if all the money is going into writer and actor salaries - if so, SMG needs to stop phoning it in. The actress hasn't done an excellent performance since Normal Again that i've seen. Granted I may have high expectations for a B movie and tv actress. But Marsters with his ten-twenty minute scenes is out-performing her.

Well, what impresses people varies a lot; one person's phoning in is another's understatement, and one person's out-performing is another person's overacting! Lots of people thought 'Magnolia' contained a brilliantly powerful performance by Tom Cruise. I thought it was embarassing. Give me Kevin Spacey any day. But if Marsters can get me emotionally invested in his character again, like he did at the end of FFL and The Gift, then I'll say he's a great actor - at the moment he's still doing his King Lear bit, and while he does it very well, I'm just not a big fan of the theatre!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- yabyumpan, 14:00:06 01/18/03 Sat

"But if Marsters can get me emotionally invested in his character again, like he did at the end of FFL and The Gift, then I'll say he's a great actor - at the moment he's still doing his King Lear bit, and while he does it very well, I'm just not a big fan of the theatre!"

Totally agree with this. I'm not a big fan of JM's acting, it just feels to 'studied'. I found him embaressing to watch in 'Lessons', his initial laugh when Buffy asked is he was real made me cringe and with the whole being crazy/seeing the FE stuff I felt I could almost see his thought processes 'this is how I should play a crazy person, this is how some one would react to seeing visions' etc. I just didn't believe it. I'm not denying he's probably a good actor but for me his style is best suited to the stage and I too am not a big fan of the theatre.

OTOH, I do like Tom Cruise as an actor (although I've never seen 'Magnolia'), he has something which I think DB has as well. He can make me forget who is playing the part and I really like that in an actor. In both 'Interview with a Vampire' and 'Born on the 4th of July' at some point in each film I had to remind myself who the actor was who was playing the roles, I was so drawn in by the characters that I forgot about the actor.
With many actors, and I think this is particuarly true of those who follow the 'method acting' route, you are always aware of the actor. I think this is in part due to the style, from the little I know about it (and I may be wrong) but 'method acting' requires the actor to go 'into themselves' to find the core of the character, this means that they are always present within the part they're playing.

With TC and I see it also in DB, it seems they 'step out side of themselves' to play the part, like putting on a different suit and totally becomming that character. I find DB's acting totally compelling, I 'believe' it (don't find him wooden at all) and I think part of that comes from playing the part from an instinctual/gutlevel. I'm not saying that he doesn't think about what he's going to do or how he's going to play a particular scene etc but I think once he steps into the scene he 'becomes' Angel, the 'suit' engulfs him if you will. My obsession with the character of Angel is largely due to how DB draws me in and makes me totally believe in the character.

It's probably just down to a preference in acting styles, JM seems to work from an 'intellectual' position where as I see DB to be more 'instinctual', and as I watch the shows from my gut, it's the 'from the gut' performance that I respond to.

I don't know if any of that made sense but it's been something I've been thinking about for a while. Glad I've had a chance to air it although I think the majority of the board wil disagree with me ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More rambly musings and defense of actors -- shadowkat (whose feeling ashamed), 15:22:10 01/18/03 Sat

"It's probably just down to a preference in acting styles, JM seems to work from an 'intellectual' position where as I see DB to be more 'instinctual', and as I watch the shows from my gut, it's the 'from the gut' performance that I respond to."

Odd. I see the exact opposite. I went on a board with a couple of acting teachers who discussed this and they state it could be the difference between method and no-method?
Don't know.

But I feel nothing when I watch DB. He seems to be...playing himself? SMG has left me cold for several episodes now. But yours, slain's, and other's posts have proven a theory of mine that I posted somewhere else that now I'm convinced of:

What we see and prefer has absolutely nothing to do with the performer and everything to do with us - which means that every acting award show is in truth nothing more than a popularity contest or a consensus among actors on what performance hits the right note with them.

Think of it. There are two performances being touted in the USA right now - Daniel Day Lewis' theatrical showy performance in The Gangs of New York and Jack Nicholson's against type, introverted, contained performance in ABOUT SCHMIDT = both are stellar performances but amazing well-established actors. But the one you prefer has more to do with what you are looking for.

So in a way - debating actors performances is no different than debating cheek-bones. We like what we like. I prefer Marsters to Boreanze right now. A fact that surprises me, because way back in Season 2/3 Btvs when I watched the episodes for the first time - it was the exact opposite.
While I remember that fact, I can't understand why or why it flipped. I've come up with all sorts of reasons - but maybe the major one is somewhere along the way I changed.
(Note I say "changed" not "matured"...just changed. Don't really know how or why. But something changed for me.)

The laugh that made you cringe in Lessons worked for me - it was the laugh I'd make if someone was playing with my head and I couldn't tell what was real. She asks if he's real, he laughs because ironically he's wondering and I may add as we've seen in the last several episodes, had greater reason to wonder, if she is.

Here's another example. I loved Amends when I first saw it.
I find it a smulchy, manipulative, episode on repeated viewings that just does not work. Beneath You, Sleeper and Never Leave Me work better for me now. Why this is so? Don't know. Maybe somewhere along the way I took a turn in my own life in which Angel and his story arc and the acting no longer worked for me? Don't know. But from your comments and slain's - I'd have to say it's the same with you - not the opinions about acting - but the fact that the acting and your response to it has to with what speaks to you, this is I think says more about us maybe than the actors. And if I'm right - does this mean that getting ahead in Hollywood is about hitting the most people in the right way and if so, how impossible is that??

What I find interesting is how defensive we all sound - and I think my lord, look what I started! (note to self the next time you get frustrated with your life and have this compulsive urge to be snarky and critical stay away from the internet posting boards!!!) Slain - says Marsters is theatrical and King Lear (god...it sounds almost insulting but was I any better? No. Maybe worse, actually much worse - I used the term phoning it in which he rightly reacted to and slammed my favorite actor as a result.) And you state how what I see as subtle emoting is in your eyes overacting and makes you cringe. If we are like this...no wonder these poor actors haven't been in more roles. How impossible it must be to be an actor. You are criticized on your looks, your performance, everything and not just by the people who hire you but by an audience who examines it compulsively on the internet. This realization makes me feel a bit ashamed of myself. What do I know about their acting? How dare I accuse SMG of phoning it in! She probably worked her ass off, took two or three takes and the editors picked the one they wanted. It would be like SMG coming on line and picking at the grammar in an essay I wrote or something.

No..I'm taking a step back here, I think, to say, that for what they are doing - the ten-20 minutes they have to rehearse, the number of takes, and the fact that the ones who pick and choose what gets on screen is most emphatically not them - these actors are doing an amazing job - better than I could do. And for that they all deserve exactly what they are being paid.

Someone told me once that the reason ball players and actors make so much is because they have to get in front of millions of people and make asses of themselves on a daily basis. That isn't easy.

My Apologies for taking this baby in this direction. Also hope I haven't offended anyone. SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A fascinating exploration -- Tchaikovsky, 15:40:42 01/18/03 Sat

I don't really think anyone had transgressed in this debate- inasmuch as actors are there to be lauded or criticised. For every triumph, there's a disaster, and although I'm not a great fan of Kipling's 'If', the lines:
'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same'
does ring true.

But in a sense I'm glad you doubted yourself- because this post, as well as being a really interesting discussion, probably brings up the most important point in this debate. All of the actors are putting in long hours and working tremendously hard. Although we may all have different preferences, the general quality of acting across the series is undoubted. I've never thought that any was really wooden, even if my particular favourites do sometimes ride roughshod over the efforts of others, (see David Boreanaz trying to give Sarah Michelle Gellar back the same emotional intensity in several episodes.)

Their dedication and success is something to which we can all aspire.

TCH

PS Completely disagree about 'Amends', (but then I am obsessed by snow!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Thanks... -- shadowkat, 16:13:54 01/18/03 Sat

On the Amends...I've been hunting for this snow poem that a friend of mine wrote me in college. Yet to find it. It was called Love in Winter and discussed how when we look at the snow outside the window and watch them combine we feel a yearning to be like the snow, to be able to be a part of something so wonderful - but we are caught forever on the other side of the glass watching it combine and drip down the pane. The last line I think goes " and we raise our glasses to paradise" and something about being glad we can watch at all. I haven't read it in years and believe it may be lost somewhere amongst my belongings in Parents house in Hilton HEad.

But upon walking home the other evening...I was reminded of it, as I saw the snow drop in soft feathery balls to the ground and the world felt oddly silent, dampened...and quiet at rest. Unless you leave in a major city...you probably can't appreciate how odd and moving this is.

So yes I get the snow obsession. But the rest of the episode gets on my nerves. ;-)

Anyways two points I want to remphasize:

1.All of the actors are putting in long hours and working tremendously hard. Although we may all have different preferences, the general quality of acting across the series is undoubted

and

2. For every triumph, there's a disaster, and although I'm not a great fan of Kipling's 'If', the lines:
'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same'
does ring true.

Such moving words and oh too true. Not a big fan of Kiplings either...but I guess there's something to be said for walking out onto the field and tripping and falling on your face. Because at least you tried. Sort of like Dawn's cheerleading try-out in HIM.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- leslie, 17:04:16 01/18/03 Sat

"OTOH, I do like Tom Cruise as an actor (although I've never seen 'Magnolia'), he has something which I think DB has as well. He can make me forget who is playing the part and I really like that in an actor. In both 'Interview with a Vampire' and 'Born on the 4th of July' at some point in each film I had to remind myself who the actor was who was playing the roles, I was so drawn in by the characters that I forgot about the actor."

Again, no accounting for tastes. I cannot bear to watch Tom Cruise--he makes my skin crawl. He is one of the most opaque actors I've ever seen, I have never gotten the sense that there is even anyone inside there. A pretty, empty shell. If he were to turn out to be a Tombot, I would not be surprised at all.

When I saw Interview with the Vampire--and admittedly, I am not an Anne Rice fan--what I came away with was an almost unshakable conviction that white American men can't play vampires no matter how hard they try--I found both Cruise and Pitt completely unconvincing because I always had the feeling that they were, as actors, afraid to let go into what vampirism was all about--Puritan vampires, if such a thing were possible. In contrast, Kirsten Dunst and Antonio Banderas, in different ways, really nailed vampirism for me--Dunst was completely and utterly bone-chilling, Banderas just going for broke with the over-the-top Gothic vampire, the decadent European, both getting the self-indulgence, greed, and polymorphous perversity of vampirism. I think Juliet Landau and James Marsters got as close to that as you can in prime time--vampires who were in it for the fun of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More musings and some questions on popular taste -- shadowkat, 21:13:44 01/18/03 Sat

When I saw Interview with the Vampire--and admittedly, I am not an Anne Rice fan--what I came away with was an almost unshakable conviction that white American men can't play vampires no matter how hard they try--I found both Cruise and Pitt completely unconvincing because I always had the feeling that they were, as actors, afraid to let go into what vampirism was all about--Puritan vampires, if such a thing were possible.

Would agree with this. When I saw Tom Cruise in the role, I saw well Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. I'd read the books and actually liked them at the time. Oddly enough, Stuart Townsend in Queen of The Damned nailed it better for me.

Surprisingly enough - Anne Rice preferred Tom Cruise to Townsend. Very odd. When she originally wrote the books - she'd written them for Rutguer Hauer - from the movie BladeRunner. Daniel Day Lewis was originally up for it but turned it down. A real shame.

Tom Cruise does little for me as well. I have a friend who can't stand him - but thought he was wonderful in Minority Report. This same friend can't abide Julia Roberts.

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

But I have a more, well metaphysical? question for the board regarding all of this...assuming anyone sees this post.

What is it that makes one actor more popular than another?
It's not talent necessarily - which we've already proven may in fact be in the eye of the beholder. What is it?
Why does a film - a critically panned film - like Scooby Doo make a shitload of money. While a critically praised film like say Far From Heaven or Tadpole or even a film like Chance - not make any? Why does Tom Cruise get the big bucks while an actor like say James Marsters is rarely seen?And how do we rate art? On how much money it makes - as Doc states in a post, or be the critical reviews and awards it gets? Or just on how much we individually get from it? Is it really a popularity contest? And if so, what happens if you are well one of the ones who follow a different drummer and don't share the popular view??

Whedon states he'd rather have a 100 people rush online to discuss the issues in his shows than a million watch it every night but never think about it - a la Friends. (Although a 100 people may be discussing the philosphical meaning of Friends on the internet as I speak...so who knows. Just because I see zip to like or analyze doesn't mean others don't - clearly the majority of viewers watch it, while a small minority watches Btvs - if you believe the ratings.)

What makes something "art" in our culture? What gives it meaning? What makes it worth spending time and money watching or viewing it? Us? Why do some actors become millionaires and others struggle and are never seen? Marsters idol - the man he followed to Hollywood and considers the best theater actor ever - I've yet to see in film and have never heard of.
YEt I've seen tons of Chris O'Donnell, Freddy Prince Jr.
and Marc Blucas...who seem to be wooden and don't appear to add anything new to their roles (perhaps it's the roles??)

It's something I've been wondering about lately as I once again attempt to get myself published. What is it that makes one person a success and another a starving artist?
Luck? Random Chance? Fate?

And finally...a thought that I have when I get annoyed with it all - do the majority of people truly have the horrible taste that the NY Times Bestseller List, the Blockbluster Movie List, and The Nielsen Ratings seem to convey? Or maybe it's my taste that's at odds with it. Maybe it's not a matter of horrible, good, etc - just different taste.

Why do I care? Because the fear that eventually the networks will decide why bother on gifted writers like Whedon and shows like Firefly, Btvs and Ats - when they can cheaply copy the reality shows and situation comedies over and over again and get huge ratings. If you can make a million dollars making ten Scooby Doos - why bother making a BladeRunner or a Far From Heaven or a Magnolia?? Is that it then? Is the business of making art - just business? Just about money??

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: great post, great questions -- Angela, 06:58:10 01/19/03 Sun

There's so much here that a real answer could fill the board. I won't even attempt. And you already know my views on QotD so I won't bore the rest of the board with them. ;-) I tend to feel BtVS is very successful for what it is. Generally, articles seem to mention the surprising success or if more academic, seem to feel the need to explain or justify the author's viewing (this is still happening since a least according to the words of a recent reviewer and my own experiences trying to explain my interest to people I know.) It's popularity I always put down to a great combination that hit the general interest and had enough going on under the covers to provide scope for the discussions on myth, philo, metaphysics, etc. Unique.

In terms of who is watching now and who is not, I don't know anyone else who is into Buffy and Angel the way I am but I do know some people who used to watch it and don't now. It lost them after Season 5. These would be the types of viewers who watched it when they thought of it, not an obsessed fan and they were looking for something a little lighter, a different mix than the direction the show went. Others have never given the show a chance because they still lump it in with more lightweight fare. And Ben drifted over to Angel and other shows because he likes the male characters better...he doesn't really care for Spike's current arc or Xander's (what there is of it.) Just to requalify, these are opinions of people I know.

I hope some other people chime in on the questions about the industry and popularity...I always feel that my tastes are so off-mainstream that I'm not a good judge. Gut reaction is it's multi-factor and luck is at least a part. I do remember with Rice that there was a timing component and it seems like most of the interviews I read, the author mentions how surprised they were that something took off the way it did. I'm not sure the industry itself predicts entirely accurately... otherwise, there would be fewer failures? and I wouldn't so often hear that something became huge in spite of its lack of promo? Which reminds me, the internet itself is a factor now...wasn't that part of what happened with Buffy? Great questions. I wish I had more answers...hopefully someone else will pick up on it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have a theory -- JM, 08:44:14 01/19/03 Sun

It doesn't have any backing, but it works for me. I've started becoming uncomfortable with my assumption that the majority of people who don't share my taste in entertainment are stupider and shallower than me (not insinuating that that is anyone else's position). It was what I assumed when I was the lonely nerd in school, but time has changed me and my estimation. The not very intellectual people I come into contact with at work are often hard workers, people whose lives are well governed by their sizable common sense, and generally friendly, kind, and optimistic if not noticably introspective. Life's been humbling me lately about book smarts, and a number of people I've grown to admire don't have a lot, or much of a yearning. So I'm starting to renegotiate what a I value, and the virtues I associate with it.

I've been wondering whether what we enjoy in art, and how we enjoy it, has something to do with how our minds work and how we process information and stimuli. I'm not crazy about Meyer-Briggs personality typing, but I do think that there is relevance to the difference between extroverts and introverts. The prime difference being where individuals get their energy. Extroverts are energized by interacting with other people, often becoming lethargic and bored when their interaction is restricted. Introverts tend to become exhausted by too much interaction with others, and enjoy down-time alone to recharge. (I like the description, because it exactly describes me as an introvert, even though that may be a solipsistic reason for adopting it.)

More people are extroverts than introverts, plus American culture is extroverted, so borderline cases tend toward extroversion. It makes sense too that different types of entertainment would appeal. Extroverts enjoy being temporarily charmed and stimulated by humorous or exciting entertainment, but don't see the appeal of something that improves with reflection and extra watching. It's not that they're too stupid to get it, just that is not particularly attractive to them. I think that extroverts prefer entertainment that entertains while they are enjoying it, and goes away after. Introverts need something that they can add to the cannon in their head. It's not surprising that few works acheive crossover status.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have a theory -- Darby, 10:12:03 01/19/03 Sun

I often think that the most valuable fraction of my life experiences were the six years I spent between high school nerddom and college, out working in retail, delivering milk, selling vacuum cleaners, and building furniture in a factory (and mattresses during college). It has had a huge impact on my abilities as a teacher, and the eyes-rolling attitudes I may have once had for the working folks really changed (sometimes I have it now for colleagues who don't seem to understand what it's like out there, or how well we have it). I echo your comments about the people who maybe weren't all that compatible with modern American education but are no less valuable because of that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Extroverts and introverts and entertainment -- shadowkat, 12:14:56 01/19/03 Sun

More people are extroverts than introverts, plus American culture is extroverted, so borderline cases tend toward extroversion. It makes sense too that different types of entertainment would appeal. Extroverts enjoy being temporarily charmed and stimulated by humorous or exciting entertainment, but don't see the appeal of something that improves with reflection and extra watching. It's not that they're too stupid to get it, just that is not particularly attractive to them. I think that extroverts prefer entertainment that entertains while they are enjoying it, and goes away after. Introverts need something that they can add to the cannon in their head. It's not surprising that few works acheive crossover status.

This makes an odd sort of sense to me. I've been tested by Meyers-Briggs and came out the introvert. I do think there's a range. But most of my off-line (non internet/non buffy related) friends are extroverts. They don't describe themselves in this manner. But they fit the definition, which was given to me ages ago by a career counselor.

Extroverts are energized by interacting with other people, often becoming lethargic and bored when their interaction is restricted. Introverts tend to become exhausted by too much interaction with others, and enjoy down-time alone to recharge.

I am exhausted when I interact with people too much. While my closest friends start to climb the walls and get horribly depressed if they don't have something going on constantly - they hang out at bars, etc, to fulfill this need. While I love nothing more than to curl up alone on my couch and watch Buffy, my friend prefers going to someone elses house, having lots of people around and watching football, she doesn't get my interest in Buffy. That's not to say there aren't people who enjoy both. I actually enjoy both (well not football - college basketball, but I think you understand the point). Another interesting difference in TV habits between me and my extroverted friend:

I love Btvs and serial dramas. She prefers episodic dramas or dramas that don't involve her, fast action,situation comedies, or really comforting like Seventh Heaven or Walker Texas Ranger. She loved Xena until it got too experimental and interesting - odd, because the time she stopped liking it was when it became interesting to me. She's very intelligent, my friend,
reads a wide range of books, recommended American Gods to me, has read LoTR's three times, and has read all of PG Wodehouse. Our tastes just differ when it comes to television. Another close friend - who graduated magna cum laude and went to Stanford University for her ph.d - favorite show on television is Survivor. She also loves Friends and I Love Lucy and the Brady Bunch. She does NOT get my Buffy obsession at all, but has noted that I tend to become rather analytical about everything. She is also very extroverted and a writer.

In my life - I inadvertently cultivate people as friends who may share similar interests, but are in some ways polar opposites to me. I once made a comment at lunch - about how it would be nice if we all shared the same opinion and agreed, and they shot me down in two seconds - "how boring that would be, and to never be challenged? How do you know you're right? If you never have to fight for your point of view? Never have to defend it?"

I've learned that in some ways -- and maybe this makes me somewhat masochistic, I like the debate, I like to be challenged on my views - to be pushed to look at it another way and question myself.

I think I may have wandered off topic here ;-) So back to the extrovert/introvert thing. I think you may be right.
My brother - who in some ways could be described as more extroverted than I am - liked both Btvs and Ats up until around Season 6, when it got too experimental and deep for him - he sort of went to 24, a show that bores me to tears. He loves it. I find it way too predictable. But as he would say - "you think too much". And he's an ex-film major, with an art background who worked on a few movie sets. When my brother watches a movie or TV show, he sees all the camera angles, he sees the visual moves, and that's what obsesses him. I'm more obsessed with the metaphors, dialogue, and
the characters. And we're both way too stubborn for our own good.

Taste is an odd thing. I'm not sure how much our individual tastes reveal or say about us.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Extroverts and introverts and entertainment -- akanikki, 14:55:06 01/19/03 Sun

Re: the extrovert vs introvert discussion - I always thought the real differentiation between the two was how you determined what influenced you - from within yourself or from external places. Of course, people who respond to others would also probably tend to be more outgoing and the reverse. Case in point, is that no one who knows me would describe me other than as an extrovert - I enjoy people, talking, parties, etc. However, although I will certainly listen to what others have to say, I always go my own way. And in the MBTI testing, I came out as an "I". My sister who is an obvious introvert, also is an "I" - but is much further out on the scale than I am.

Regarding how Joss Whedon shows (while so clearly "better" tv than almost anything else you can find out there)have to be satisfied with niche audiences.... Meanwhile, Friends, Seinfield, quaisi-reality shows, almost everything else that makes it to S3 and beyond - how do you explain that? While you're at it, try to explain the popularity of daytime soaps or talk shows.

I think the person who brought up the MeyersBriggs in the 1st place (sorry, forgot the name!) is absolutely right about the unwillingness of most to put in any effort in their tv viewing. I also think that some people like their dramas to be dramatic, comedies to be funny and no mixing it up. the first time I recall seeing a movie with murder, comedy, romance all mixed together was "SilverStreak" with Gene Wilder, Jill Clayburgh, and Richard ??. I loved it, but my boyfriend (plus two other friends)absolutely hated it and thought I was weird to have liked it so much.

It's the same thing with the popularity of actors. Tom Cruise probably is resting on his laurels of having been so popular back when the babyboomers were watching movies. It's like how you can often tell a woman's age by how she does her make-up - women do that daily and if they never bother to change their routine, then do you think they bother to change their first celebrity crush? He's safe, not controversial (at least not in ways to which anyone's paying attention), and he still looks the same. And frankly, he bores me to tears, (although I did like Minority Report.) Julia and Meg - well they can talk to Demi about how to command the box office for years and then not. There are always different rules of thumb for male stars vs female stars (some might argue same as in real life). I won't bore anyone with the statistics, but there are a whole lot more roles for men in their 40's-60's (and it doesn't seem to matter how well or poorly they aged), while the women in their 30's -40's (mind you, they cannot look that old!) scramble for whatever they can get.

I adore Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks, but they have developed their extraordinary acting skills while we watched them be movie stars. Just count up how many bombs Tom delivered over the years and we still forgave him. (The fact that both actors may be actually really nice and decent people may have also influenced the public.)

Ok, I'm wandering all over here and in doing so, I've come back to the original explanation - who's popular is often based on the role they create which captures the public's imagination - harrison Ford/Bruce Willis/Clint Eastwood as action heroes with that self-mocking thing or flinty determination to right the current wrong. Meg Ryan/Julia Roberts/Sandra Bullock as the girl next door in romantic comedies (or would have been next door if life had not been so unfair). True, as bonafide actors, they've tried to break the mold, but the public usually demands they go back to that safe, predictable role so no one has to think too hard about the movie.

Finally, I do see some encouraging signs on the horizon - some of the recent movies - The Hours, Adaptation, Talk to Her, The Pianist, Far From Heaven, 25th Hour, Rabbit-Proof Fences (and I could go on) - what a line-up. usually I wait for videos, but some of these movies may be too good for me to wait.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- Dochawk, 14:33:39 01/18/03 Sat

Thank You for reminding me I wanted to respond to SKs comments on acting. I totally disagree with you on SMG and her performances. Showy acting, which is what JM gets to do most the time, and Emma got to in Selfless and Sarah in Normal Again. But great acting occurs in subtle sequences as well, Sarah at the end of Showtime for example. She has multiple instances this season and in the past where she has those kinds of performances. And she does dramatic and comedic in rapid succession extremely well. As for comparing Sarah to Reese Witherspoon, its a little unfair. SMG does not get to make any movie she wants or is even offered because of her television committments. And Reese has done three movies where her character is a riff on the same person, hardly stretching her acting chops (and although Election was nominated for some minor awards, I don't remember Reese ever being nominated). And you know what, Scooby made a sh*tload of money, not every movie is made for critics or people like us. As for other movies, I agree SMG has made some poor choices, but there are many many many more poor movies than good ones. Because of the money Scooby made and especially if Scooby Two does well, Sarah will get some opportunities. I am still not at all certain that sarah won't be coming back for another year on Buffy (basically another year on Buffy at a bumped salary and the money she will get from Scooby Two, she will be set for life in a way that she can choose anything she wants, even do the movie Freddie is writing). But the young female lead category in movies has astounding attractiveness and talent - Christina Ricci, Jennifer Garner, Kristen Dunst, Liv tyler, Gwennyth Paltrow, Uma Thurman, Renee Zellweger, Drew Berrymore, Catherine Zita Jones, Naomi Watts even women like Nicole Kidman or jennifer aniston are all competing for a very limited number of worthwhile female leads. Gonna be hard for anyone to make a mark.

As for Alyson, she is going to be a character actress, the best friend, she is never going to be a female lead. she isn't classically pretty enough (and they don't make movies for people like me who prefer AHs looks to the women above). But, the American Pie movies are phenomenolly successful and alyson will build quite a nice career on thes kind of roles.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> see my above post (more ramblings) in response to yabby. -- s'kat, 16:17:52 01/18/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- Miss Edith, 17:34:56 01/19/03 Sun

Sarah has said that she has chosen movie roles based on the script and then the movie can turn out to be very differently from what she had expected so I can't blame her for the occasional bad movie. I actually liked Cruel Intentions though and thought Sarah was great in it.

As for your comments about Sarah's acting on Bts to an extent I agree with you. I do think Sarah is very talented and when she chooses to pull out all the stops she does make me sit up and take notice. That is why I have been so disapointed with her recently. I do get the feeling that for a lot of her scenes she does put in the minimum effort. I see a real difference in her performance in the first and second half of season 6 for instance. I saw a depressed Buffy in the episode Life Serial but there was still some spark that encouraged me to watch the character, whilst fully understanding that she was depressed and lacked energy. IMO the point at which Sarah became bored with the Buffy character began to show around Wrecked/Gone. When she is given a good script to work with such as Normal Again she does seem to welcome the challenge. But for some episodes she has to me just seemed to drift through them and not be fully invested in her character.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Character acting vs. leads -- shadowkat, 21:29:56 01/19/03 Sun

As for Alyson, she is going to be a character actress, the best friend, she is never going to be a female lead. she isn't classically pretty enough (and they don't make movies for people like me who prefer AHs looks to the women above).

Paul Newman once said that the one thing he regretted was not being able to be a character actor. The character actors have the longest careers and the best roles. How true.

The actor who can jump from lead to character actor is indeed the rarity, there are so few. And it requires a great deal of talent.

HEre's a short list of male and female character actors:
Joe Pantialano - he's now playing a to die for lead on Broadway opposite Rosie PErez, he's been in more films than Tom Cruise and you probably don't know it. He's had roles Cruise would kill for. The latest being Ralphie in the Sopranos.

HArvey Keitel - this guy has had an amazing career. The Piano, Bad Lietuenant, Reservoir Dogs, Smoke.

Gene Hackman - a character actor who is the lead, Popeye Doyle in French Connection, The Conversation, The Unforgiven, Superman, The Royalt Tennebaums, The Birdcage

Michael Caine - a working actor who has done everything from play the villain, the sleaze, the hero...his roles include Alfie, The Quiet American, Jaws The Revenge, Educating Rita,

Actresses:

Sissy Spacek - her career has lasted three decades. She started in Carrie, she's done the lead, the supporting part, and played numerous TV specials including MidWives.
Coal Miner's Daughter.

Bebe Neuwirth - also has it made. Lilth Craine in Fraiser, Velma in Chicago on Broadway, Tadpole, and numerous supporting roles in numerous movies.

Meryl Streep - started as character actress and has lasted a long time - with roles in Deer Hunter, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Kramer vs. Kramer, to Sophie's Choice.

Regarding physical attraction - Clint Eastwood, Rowdy Yates in Wagon Train - a supporting role - got character roles in Sergio Leon's westerns. He was considered too ugly for Hollywood - big adam's apple. He know has one of the longest and best careers out there.

Sally Field - started on Flying Nun and Gidget on TV, was very Alyson Hannigan like, funny voice, winsome smile - she did tons of the Burt Reynold's Bandit movies. Then came Norma Rae - a character role and it changed her life. She has had a lengthy wonderful career that outdistances some of her contempories.

Now let's look at the careers of some lovely leading ladies and men, the pretty people they supposedly make movies for:

Sandra Dee - Gidget, Summer Place, Imitation of Life, Peyton Place...a B movie actress who eventually disappeared. Blond, beautiful, no long-lasting career.

Carole Linney - also I think Peyton Place

Farrah Fawcett - beautiful woman, didn't get much until she stretched in some character roles. Started on Charlie's Angels.

Cheryl Ladd

Jacquline Smith

Demi Moore (who had a good career until recently)

Heather Locklear

back is hurting, but I think we can find more.

The guys: Troy Donahue (The Summer Place) - beautiful boy - but stiff. Robert Wagner. Adam West. Bobby Darin - whose contemporary was Jack Lemmon. And oh yes all those soap opera actors who leave and ricochet back again.

It's a tough business, but as more than one acting teacher and actor has told me - if you can cut it as a character actor? Then you have a career. Too pretty? Too perfect looking? Too identified with the lead? The competiton is harsh and your longevity is short-lived.

I may eat my words...but all Alyson needs is one great character part to make it. I thought she had one last year - some movie about a Wedding where she was being bumped up to the lead made in the hiatus?? That's all Amber needs as well. It's what made Julianne Moore - a bit part in The Hand That Rocks the Cradle. And some indies. It's what makes Parker Posey and Lily Taylor who also have amazing careers. Jodi Foster is another example of a child actress who was good at character roles. Tatum O'Neill in contrast - didn't quite make it.

And if you can direct and produce? More power to you - that's how Ron Howard broke from being a tv actor in Happy Days to a top director. Henry Winkler who got known for a similar role to James Marsters at a similar age - The Fonze - broke into producing and is doing incredibly well.

Like all businesses - the Hollywood one appears to be one that is equal parts chuztpah and smarts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: musings on actor pop & why I got reinterested in ATS -- JM, 08:53:03 01/18/03 Sat

I love both shows, and will enjoy them till the day they pull the plug. But I do think that AtS benefits from a certain freedom. At the end it is all about Buffy. But I'm not sure it's all about Angel. He may think it is, even more than Buffy does a lot of times. But the show doesn't. I thought that S2 did a great job of moving the dark hero slightly out of the center. Admitting that he can be rivetting, but so can everyone else. And because the hero is so dark and only sometimes a hero, the producers/writers can say "Oh, by the way, we really love Angel and think he kicks a-- but you know what, he's also a jerk and look how fascinating this character is too."

And when they decided to capitalize on the out-of-the-park talent they accidentally found (AD mirrors JM here), they had the freedom of format to not make his story all about the lead. Angel may have been the trigger, but Wes's issues, journey, is mostly about himself -- his moral code, his fears, his past, his lover, his ideal.

Like I said, I still love both shows, and I think that Buffy can do things that they could never do on AtS, but "Angel" has a certain flexibility, to change track, to change focus that Buffy doesn't have. And when it's better that's why.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would agree -- shadowkat, 10:47:05 01/18/03 Sat

I love both shows, and will enjoy them till the day they pull the plug. But I do think that AtS benefits from a certain freedom. At the end it is all about Buffy. But I'm not sure it's all about Angel. He may think it is, even more than Buffy does a lot of times. But the show doesn't. I thought that S2 did a great job of moving the dark hero slightly out of the center. Admitting that he can be rivetting, but so can everyone else. And because the hero is so dark and only sometimes a hero, the producers/writers can say "Oh, by the way, we really love Angel and think he kicks a-- but you know what, he's also a jerk and look how fascinating this character is too."

I think you hit the nail on the head for me on this. While I love Buffy - I get bored occassionally with the focus always being on her. The mythology on her show is used principally as metaphor to show the growing up or female maturity. Which is incredibly interesting - yes. But Angel seems to be more flexible here - we can explore more themes and the mythology is actually more complex. Prophecies, Powers That Be, Slayers, What Vampires ARe, Alternate dimensions - have actually been introduced and examined more throughly on Ats than Btvs. As the writers themselves have stated - they have to make sure every myth they introduce on Buffy fits a the reality of growing up metaphor, if it doesn't out it goes. On Ats - anything goes as long as it fits the gothic noir theme. Hence the flexibility.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My thanks go to S'kat for putting my thoughts into words. -- Deb -- Coming up from under the flu -- again, 09:28:09 01/19/03 Sun

What S-Kat said.

I'm watching Angel with renewed interest. I just like the lineup. Plus, though I don't think it is as compelling to me as Buffy, it's better than most anything else that I get on basic cable. Comparing Buffy and Angel leaves one "lesser" but compare both to what is available in general television, then we have the answer as to why we are all here on this board.

Aas for Spike and Angel: Can't even compare the two.
When I began watching Buffy in season 4, it was Spike who ccaptured my attention. He was funny, witty, insightful, ppathetic and rather disturbing (By this I had to think about some of the things he did.) He always put his cards on the table, and if there just so happened to be 5 aces, and one wasn't looking close enough to notice -- whose problem was that? He waa extraordinarily androgenous (still is in a less "in-your-face" manner). The only other character in film or TV that came across this strongly androgenous, in my experience, was Charlie Chaplin's "Little Tramp." At that point in my life, I really needed this dramedy of pathos. The character is well written, but JM really has given Spike the depth and broadness. What other character can make you laugh, and disturb you at the same time? I've been watching season two, and it's so strange to be drawn into what Spke is doing and laughing at how Buffy is always foiling his fiendish plots, but I find myself pushing against the back of the sofa at the same time, because the vileness of his plans and the emotional reaction he exhibits is so disturbing. Then he shows he has the capacity to strategize, keep his cards against his chest and win, but it is against Angelus. Then his one appearance in season 3, that sort of sets up the character for season 4, Spike is wickedly funny and disturbingly wicked. He goes from one to the other in a blink of an eye. And what does he leave behind? Seeds of discontent regarding love and its "ability to solve all problems; overcome all obstacles."

The only thing I can equate it with is the sublime that is darkly beautiful and destructive at the same time. It's so fragile at the same time, because you know it cannot exist for long in this state. It's one single moment of chaos frozen.

Although I am into Spike redemption -- for his own sake -- there is a part of me that will miss season 4 Spike -- post-Dru and pre-Buffy.

Nothing about Angel's journey or character can really grip me in the same manner.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Complete opposite (I second this position) -- frisby, 07:02:58 01/18/03 Sat

i liked the angel/buffy thing but the spike/buffy thing has surpassed it and is responsible for the series moving to the highest ranks -- each season has been the best so far and #7 shows no signs of breaking that trajectory

just let it sink in: spike endured the trial of restoring his soul out of his love of buffy: she believes in him and came for him: that has to rival "she sent him (Angel) to hell to save the world"

which of the two ensouled vampires is referred to by the Shanshu prophecy (probably spelled that wrong) is the $64 thousand dollar question -- my $ is on spike

the spike of seasons 6 and 5 only makes the spike of season 2 (and angel and drusilla) all the better -- watching season two "now" while in the midst of season 7 is breathtaking

if joss and co close the world this year they will have created a text worthy of the closest academic study, and spike will prove to be one of the most important keys overall -- redemption, mercy, bravery, love

oh, and of course, lots of sex and violence (the very stuff of philosophy or love and wisdom to speak correctly)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Complete opposite (I second this position) -- Dochawk, 08:16:02 01/18/03 Sat

frisby,

I'll take your bet. Probably even give you odds. The only (very slim even if it did happen) chance that Spike is the focus of the Sanshu prophecy is the cancellation of Angel. Simply put, destroying the backbone (and betraying the fans) of the only show ME may have on the air next year makes no sense. From a profit standpoint there is no chance. But also from a story standpoint. Spike's soul wasn't even a figment of Joss imagination when that prophecy was written (season 1 Angel/4 Buffy). It would be the ultimate retcon to make it about Spike now. And finally it makes no sense from worth as well. Spike's journey is far too easy if he becomes human, no longer having to suffer the guilt that the vampire committed (which he must suffer if he remains a vampire with a soul). If the prophecy is about redemption, what has Spike done to deserve redemption? He has yet to do anything that would be considered selfless, even the agony of the soul was done simply for the woman he loved, not for the good of the world. He may do something in the future thats not for Buffy, but he hasn't yet. Angel on the other hand, since Epiphany has been striving to help people for the purpose of helping them "If nothing we do matters ... then all that matters is what we do" (my favorite Buffyverse quote). I'm a BtVS lover all the way, but Angel's struggles with his soul are far more interesting than Spike's so far, partly because Angel's have been thrust upon him and Spike's were chosen for self-interest.

And finally, a question. The Powers That Be recognize the extraordinary work that Buffy Summers has done as the slayer - averting at least 7 apocolypses (well if Glory was number 6) - Buffy is offered a choice - continue to act as slayer with all your powers, knowing their is a chance you would die soon (I wonder if a body's natural aging would effect her so her reflexes would start to diminish?) or to lose her powers and to spend the rest of her life as a normal woman - but she could spend that life with one of the vampires with a soul,Sanshued, turned human. Who do you think she would choose? Spike or Angel?

First, I am not sure she would accept the offer, remember how she felt in Helpless, how she hated living without the power? But if she did, I think she would choose Angel. Spike, she respects, cares for but she doesn't love in a romantic way. Angel she always loved and even the passion she spoke about Angel in Selfless has been different than she has spoken about Spike (although I think that her unspoken words in Showtime were the most passionate I have ever seen her regarding Spike, when she couldn't answer Eve's question about why they are trying to save Spike). I am really curious what the rest of the board thinks, though I think it will tilt heavily towards Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy's Choice -- Valheru, 14:33:31 01/18/03 Sat

Assuming Buffy would accept the offer, it could go either way.

Choosing Spike - Buffy could choose Spike out of pity. He's at the point Angel was at when he finally rejected the evil and spent nearly a century as a homeless wreck. Given William's propensity for overreacting to his emotions, he could fall much harder than Angel did. Not to say that such an experience wouldn't be beneficial in the long run toward his redemption, but would Buffy be able to live with herself knowing that she could spare him some of that misery?

Remember, Spike's entire impetus for seeking a soul was so Buffy could like him. He falls in love with her, she turns him down, he forces himself on her, she turns him down, she finally reciprocates his advances, he rejoices, she uses him, he doesn't care (much), she turns him down again, he tries to force himself on her again, he goes after a soul and returns, she turns him down, he's dejected, she shows him some kindness, he fears that the kindness is false, and then she gives him the "I believe in you" speech. Buffy has spent a great deal of their relationship telling (or implying) Spike, "If you do this, then you may get what you want," and when he does it, she says, "Sorry, not enough. If you do this, maybe it will work." How dejected would Spike feel if he gets a soul, becomes a truly good man, nearly gets the girl...and then she chooses Angel, basically saying, "Well, good try Spike, but not good enough"? Would Buffy want to do that to him?

That said, here's the downside: Buffy doesn't really like Spike all that much. She respects him, but that's not the same thing. When have we ever seen Buffy enjoy Spike's company in a non-sexual capacity? She hasn't even shown much of an ability to be comfortable around him. There's some great chemistry and sexual tension, but is that enough for Buffy to choose him as her lifelong companion? When Buffy looks ahead 30 years, when the sex is gone, his hair is naturally platinum, and his cheeks are sunken even more, can she see a relationship?

Choosing Angel - Unlike Spike, Angel has learned to live with his soul. While it might be rather heartless for Buffy to Shanshu newly-suffering Spike over century-suffering-from-soul,-century-suffering-in-Hell Angel, Angel would be okay without it. Angel doesn't need Shanshu-ing to live his life.

But aside from pity considerations, Buffy would choose Angel's companionship. They have both changed so much since "Graduation Day," so a rekindling of the relationship might not go smoothly (if at all), but given the choice between the two vampires, Angel's still her "always."

Of course, both vampires' relationship to Buffy might change before the series ends, so by the time Buffy is faced with the choice, she might be deeply in love with Spike and deeply in hate with Angel. As things are now, and for the immediate future, this how I see it playing out...

...if it were only Buffy's choice. But would either Angel or Spike accept Shanshu-ing? We know that Angel doesn't want it prematurely ("I Will Remember You"), so would he take redemption for Buffy's sake? Again, that seems too "IWRY" for him to choose any differently than he did. I doubt Spike would accept either. For all the demonic/adolescent urges within him, the William in Spike still wanted a true romance with Buffy as "Rest in Peace" indicates, even though he tried to force it. Spike wanted the results of having earned something without actually having to earn it. Now that he has a soul, would he want a forced, unearned Shanshu?

In a perfect world, Angel would get the curse removed and retain his soul and powers, Spike would get the full Shanshu, Buffy would go with Angel, and Spike would spend a few decades enjoying the world without being love's bitch, and the three of them would have a comfortable relationship much like Willow, Xander, and Oz did after "Amends."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- shadowkat, 16:32:36 01/18/03 Sat

Way I look at it. Is Angel wouldn't choose Buffy, he wants Cordelia or maybe Gwen. Buffy may still feel this way for Angel, I'm not sure. But Angel isn't in love with Buffy, hasn't been for a very long time. IF he shanshued - it wouldn't be Buffy he'd go back to. Personally I don't see Buffy and Angel together in the end = which was part of what HIM was trying to get at through Dawn's whole this is the real love, the first love, I love his soul - poorly down but there. In fact all four women's loves symbolized Buffy and her boyfriends if you think about it.

Spike? Don't know. Depends on where the writers take it.
I would like to see him do things without just Buffy in mind, but it's hard to do on Btvs because every character in show does things with Buffy in mind. When Angel was on the show - everything he did had to do with Buffy. He had to move to his own show to get away from that, which may be part of the reason the actor has stated off and on in interviews that he's glad there aren't cross-overs and he doesn't want to go back to Btvs. Remember BTVS is ALL ABOUT BUFFY. We may hate it but that's what it is. When the characters do things that have nothing to do with Buffy, we seldom if ever see them. They aren't relevant to her journey? They aren't seen.

I don't believe Buffy will end up with anyone. It's just a hunch. Nor do I see Spike ending up with anyone sexually.
I see the resolution being a more interesting love - agape (Christian love) - ugh or more, the love of respect and companionship. I think at this point in the trajectory Buffy and Spike actually have more in common than Buffy and Angel do. Buffy never really knew Angel...that was part of their problem in the Season 4 cross-overs. They idealized each other. Spike on the other hand - Buffy knows. They've seen each other's darkest side. No one's on a pedestal or idealized here. So I think the writers could make a B/S scenerio work..if they want to.

Truth is? The one character path I've never been sure of or could predict was Spike's. So the writers could do just about anything. I just wish I cared less about him...b/c I'm afraid they'll disappoint me. Makes it very hard to stay away from spoilers let me tell you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Dochawk, 17:41:01 01/18/03 Sat

The more I think about the more I agree with the two of you. Yup, Buffy's idea of Angel is idealized and if she has matured to the point where the PTB offer her that choice, I don't think she would choose either one. I wonder if she would even choose to give up her powers. Its very hard to have power once and then give it up. Of course, if she had that kind of power and no more demons in the world would she be tempted in other ways.

And SK, I really don't think we will see any of the major characters in BtVS go bad (well there is one exception that I am not sure about and for that we won't know until the last 5 episodes). Did that last year with Willow, didn't work too well and if this is the last season, they wouldn't be able to redeem Spike and thats where he is headed. They may leave him wandering off in the moonlight to find his solace, but they won't make him evil (of course I said they would never kill Tara, but that was much more emotional to me). I do think there may be one Scooby (or extended Scooby) death to come.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice - speculation (BOTN spoilers) -- shadowkat, 21:31:28 01/18/03 Sat

And SK, I really don't think we will see any of the major characters in BtVS go bad (well there is one exception that I am not sure about and for that we won't know until the last 5 episodes). Did that last year with Willow, didn't work too well and if this is the last season, they wouldn't be able to redeem Spike and thats where he is headed. They may leave him wandering off in the moonlight to find his solace, but they won't make him evil (of course I said they would never kill Tara, but that was much more emotional to me). I do think there may be one Scooby (or extended Scooby) death to come.

I think you're right here, actually. And I knew they were going to kill Tara, although a few people almost convinced me I was wrong before we were all spoiled (if you were online anywhere at that time - you wouldn't have been able to avoid getting spoiled on Tara and the AR scene, I'm hoping ME is better this year at keeping spoilers like that under wraps)- that's how badly I wanted to be wrong.
I had begun to like the character and wanted more of her.

But back to spec. The more I think about it - more convinced I am that this year is about the good and evil in everyone and how we have to learn how to live with it. The hint is in Joyce's speech to Buffy and Principal Wood's speech in BoTN - "Buffy, evil's always been here, it's in all of us, you can't eradicate it" and Wood - "not interested in horror movies but mysteries - what's underneath it all". I think that's the key to understanding and predicting the season's twists and turns. If everyone has evil inside them - what do you do? Kill everyone? Then there's no one left. We have both - it's a balance. That's what this season is all about balance and reintergration and connection and who we are (identity). I don't believe Buffy will be given a romantic choice at the end - I don't think the Buffy/Spike relationship is meant to be a sexual romance like you'd find in a soap opera or dime harlequin novel. Our society is so obsessed with romantic love, we fail to see that there are many types of love, some far more interesting. Companionship, friendship, being able to share your thoughts, concerns, anguish with someone else without words - can be actually more meaningful - that was what Buffy wanted last year - in the bathroom scene. Spike didn't understand that - he had no soul (ie was immature). He gets it now. It is in a way the same thing she conveyed to Xander way back in Prophecy Girl and what was conveyed in HIM. I think by the end of the season the last thing on everyone's mind will be sex or romance or marriage. I think what it might be is how do we live with the darkness inside us, how do we strive to overcome it...and what are the right choices to make? I also predict that every character that we haven't seen an evil side of yet, will show one before the season ends and each one will have to make a choice and in no way will any of these characters be shown to be totally evil or totally good - instead they will all end up frustratingly gray.
;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice - speculation (BOTN spoilers) -- Dochawk, 21:48:26 01/18/03 Sat

I agree with you completely about the above.

As for spoilers I am turning them off (and I have really cut donw on them) after Episode 15 on both shows (sorry Ruf) because I want the end of the season on Buffy to be a suprise. I am sorry to know the one big one I know. But, there was no way to avoid the casting spoiler (geez even Joss announced it).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> NOOOOOOOOooooooooooo dammit lost a Trollop....<g>...:):):) -- Rufus, 05:20:14 01/19/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I must stand corrected -- your position is stronger -- frisby, 14:34:17 01/18/03 Sat

I think I will have to capitulate to your argument. It does make more sense, given what you've pointed out, that it will be Angel and not Spike that the Sanshu prophecy will have predicted. And of course you're almost surely correct when you say that when the prophecy first appeared on Angel the idea of Spike becoming ensouled was not even considered. Still, given the miraculous turn of events that we've witnessed here and again in the jossverse, I can't go all the way in agreement -- your position is more reasonable and more likely, but (depending on conditions and circumstances, such as which if either show returns for another season, etc) I must still hold that it is possible however unlikely that joss and co will pull a switch and make Spike that key figure. But I won't bet whatever the odds. It's more of a wish really. But your argument is sound. I stand corrected.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Complete opposite (I second this position) -- Miss Edith, 17:58:48 01/19/03 Sun

I can't think of many Spike fans who even want him to Sanshu. I was upset enough when the writers made the decision to give him a soul. I would prefer Spike to remain a vampire. He himself celebrates his position on the food chain and talks in FFL about becoming a vampire making him feel alive for the first time and how it was the best thing that ever happened to him. I certaintly hope that it is Angel who becomes human. It was Angel who was promised that as his reward, it has nothing to do with Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Complete opposite (I second this position) -- Miss Edith, 18:10:43 01/19/03 Sun

Buffy is still hung up on Angel so I am guessing she would choose him. Whether he would choose her is another matter? He seems pretty dismissive of the girl who once "sent me to hell" in contrast to Buffy seeing Angel as the love of her life.
I actually don't want Buffy to choose Spike. I want Spike to move on, realise Buffy doesn't love him, and his next great love is around the corner. I think Buffy has helped his love grow in a mature fashion, in comparision to his screw ups in Crush, but I have decided they are not meant for each other. Season 6 cured me of any tendencies I had to see B/S in a romantic way.

I think B/A was very much the first love phase mind you so I don't think Buffy should end up with Angel either. She needs to move on to a healthier phase. Saying she will never love again like she loved her first love is just ridiculous IMO.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Complete opposite (I second this position) -- Peggin, 08:20:09 01/18/03 Sat

i liked the angel/buffy thing but the spike/buffy thing has surpassed it and is responsible for the series moving to the highest ranks -- each season has been the best so far and #7 shows no signs of breaking that trajectory

I agree completely -- I think every season of Buffy has been better than the previous season. I know there were a lot of people who didn't like season six, but I loved most of it (didn't care for Willow's acid trip, or for Doublemeat Palace, but other than that I had no major complaints). I found the whole thing fascinating, but I have a thing for tragedies, and that's what I thought season 6 was all about -- each of the main characters (i.e. Buffy, Willow, and Xander) heading to some kind of downfall that was at least in part caused by their own flaws and/or mistakes. I get that it was too dark for many people, but I loved it.

As for Angel, since Birthday I have mainly only been watching out of loyalty to Joss and love of Wesley. I'm not even completely sure about the loyalty part -- if Wesley were to leave, I'm not sure I would still keep watching.

[> [> [> [> [> De Gustibus..... -- Sophist, 12:36:20 01/17/03 Fri

I'm not one to talk -- I don't find Charisma attractive, though almost everyone else does.

I understand not liking the character; I was only referring to the actor.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oddness of attraction -- shadowkat, 14:54:05 01/17/03 Fri

It is odd isn't it?

I really don't find Principal Wood attractive at all - can't figure out what people see in him - and the character completely bores me - I literally fast-forward through his scenes when I rewatch, with possible exception of HIM - where he did make me laugh. Nor did I find Riley remotely attractive. These actors just seem so...dull. So bored by their craft, like they are going through the motions. Little facial expression. And it is the actors by the way not their characters on Btvs that bugged me (thought at first it was the characters - until saw them in another show and yep it's the actor), which makes me wish ME had found someone like the guy who played Forrest or Gunn or the guy who played the body hunter Boon in Firefly (now that guy was hot and great expressions) for the role of Wood: I tried watching DB Woodside in CSI Miami - same problem. Dull actor. He's up for murder one - and from looking at the actor's face you wouldn't know it - looked like he was sitting in a chair in the park. Same with Blucas - saw him in Sunshine State with Edie Falco (Sopranos) - they'd just had sex - and he looked like he just got off a park bench. (You see - For me it's not really about looks)
While Forrest in Season 4? Hot. That guy had an expression for every feeling. He even expressed an attraction to Riley. Graham - Riley's other friend? Equally pretty good. Riley? Never understood the attraction.

Marsters got my interest oddly enough in Season 5 more than the others - it was his facial expressions not the body not the cheekbones, but the eyes. He could convey a look of such absolute adoration or pain so well. No one else I've seen on TV does it quite that well. (Physically? I wouldn't describe him as necessarly attractive - Nick Brendon and David Boreanz and Marc Blucas probably have the traditionally attractive bodies - but the Marsters can out-emote all three hands down. He has more facial expressions than anyone and he radiates what he feels. He can say I love you - and express I want to kill you with his eyes or vice versa. That is what makes me fall in love with him. That scene in Afterlife where he sees her on the stairs and his face changes from confusion to disbelief to adoration in the space of five minutes? Wow. Has any other actor in the series with the possible exception of Alexis Denisof (Wes) and ASH (Giles) come close to this?)

Angel - was better with a leaner face. Maybe it's just that I'm an eyes girl? I like the face. I like leaness. I like to see what the actor is thinking in the lines of his face.
Xander? - best in Season 1-3 I think - he expressed more in his face back then and his face was leaner. Now can't really tell what he feels, he seems to look well constipated half the time.

With the women? I agree with you on Charisma Carpenter who plays Cordelia. Lovely woman. But horrible at expressing the nuances. I can't tell if she loves Angel or has a stomach ache or is just annoyed. And she moves horribly.
Seems stiff. So half the stuff she does? I just don't buy.

Now Lilah? She can emote and move. In one scene she got across that she cared for Wes, didn't want to, was jealous of Fred, and upset by it all without a line of dialogue - Supersymmetry. I can see why people are attracted to her - she emotes. Same with Amber Benson - she emoted, showed pain and concern in the silence of Tabula Rasa. And Alyson Hannigan - girl emotes with vocal inflections and her eyes are probably the most expressive I've seen.
Even with contact lenses last year - she was able to get across the pain, self-hate and glee of evil Willow.

I guess my question - is : what is it that attracts you? The acting? The looks? both? Neither? The fact they remind you of someone?? Maybe it is true that when we all look at the screen, we see a completely different show from one another, a show that is enhanced by what lies in our own background and experience?? In which case there will never be a consensus? And probably means that awards shows such as the emmys, tonys, oscars...are a waste of time - since it's all just about personal taste?

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL stomach ache........no kidding she is due in March. -- Rufus, 22:34:01 01/17/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oddness of attraction -- JM, 10:02:25 01/18/03 Sat

Funny thing attraction. I'm more for the quirky. I think that Jason Alexander is three times as sexy as George Clooney. No one else in the world agrees with me.

But on TV it's the character that get's to me. I fell in love with the, to my taste, too skinny Tom Petty based entirely on a head cock at a concert. But back to my regular tastes, I personnally find Xander and Angel more attractive with the extra weight. To the point where I find watching older eps strange.

But then, I like Spike, and he is on the slight, if terrribly, attractively muscular side. And then there's Wes. Body type does nothing for me . . . .character/actor I'm perilously close to offering to having his babies. And it's nothing to do with dark Wes, I felt this way starting with GWG. He's so intense, even more than JM (they both have theater experience, go figure). I love the fact that he can communicate so much with a look and the tone of a single line. I'm just amazed that a character can take me so much out of my usual type.

My PS, I ended up falling in love with Riley''s decency about the same time as Faith realized she was in over her her head. And I loved his downward spiral (which was so much more about his vocation than Buffy).

I think that CC is beautiful, especially is certain shots. But the girl (as a non-qualified het girl) who gets me is Fred. She's way too slender for my taste, but her eyes, the tremor in her voice, her accent, her slightly jarring smile, make me love her so much. And feel what she feels.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oddness of attraction -- Valheru, 17:36:15 01/19/03 Sun

Once again, you hit the nail on the head for me. I agree with most of your assessments of the actors. I'm constantly asked by friends, "Don't you think has a hot body," to which I'm always struck by how I don't notice bodies as much as facial expression. Just to use an example, I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is unattractive, not because she doesn't have a good figure, but because she can't express anything except her beauty. "Look at me, I'm beautiful!" only keeps my attention for a few seconds, whereas someone who expresses, "Look at me, I'm interesting," can keep me riveted. Almost everyone in Hollywood is pretty in some way, so I prefer to distinguish attraction by their ability.

IMO, between AtS and BtVS, only James Marsters, David Boreanaz, and Charisma Carpenter have a kind of supermodel-beauty. Everyone else is definitely pretty, but not really "knockout" quality. But I'm attracted to everyone on both shows because of how they emote. Small things like quirky smiles, nose wrinkles, and use of eyes make them stand out. Alyson's multitude of Willowy facial quirks can make me melt whether or not she has balloons under her shirt.

The actors have all changed in appearance over the years, and while I certainly find some actors more attractive in certain seasons, only a few have changed to the point where I hardly find them attractive anymore: SMG, David Boreanaz, Charisma Carpenter, and Nicholas Brendon. With DB, NB, and CC, it's because they have gained too much weight (although it's understandable in CC's case); they have a much harder time using facial expressions through all the chunkiness. With SMG, she's getting too skinny, so she doesn't have enough flexibility in her facial flesh to emote like she used to. On the other hand, Alexis Denisof, Michelle Trachtenberg, Emma Caulfield, and Stephanie Romanov all seem more beautiful because they are emoting wonderfully now (okay, I'll agree that AD and MT just look really good).

How does all this transfer to how I see them all as actors? In order of acting: James Marsters, SMG, Alyson Hannigan, Tony Head, Alexis Denisof, Stephanie Romanov, Nicholas Brendon, David Boreanaz, Michelle Trachtenberg, Amy Acker, Charisma Carpenter, J. August Richards, and Vincent Kartheiser. In order of attractiveness: James Marsters, SMG, Alyson Hannigan, Stephanie Romanov, Tony Head, Alexis Denisof, David Boreanaz, Charisma Carpenter, Michelle Trachtenberg, Nicholas Brendon, Amy Acker, J. August Richards, and Vincent Kartheiser. Works out pretty much the same. Oh, and I know I left out Andy Hallett, because he transcends beauty and ability into some sort of extra-dimensional karaoke bar of perfection (anyone who can make a green-skinned, horned, wild-suit-wearing demon look cool is beyond my ability to accurately appreciate).

To sum up: "Yeah. What you said." ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oddness of attraction -- Miss Edith, 19:23:52 01/19/03 Sun

I think Charisma has admited that relationships aren't her acting speciality. The only pairing she was in that I found convincing was when she dated Xander. I do think she has good comedic timing and that couple really worked for me. But in regards to A/C the actors just have no chemistry together. I was actually embarrased to watch them in WITW when they were attempting passion. "I'm only alive when you're inside me". I was just cringing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: De Gustibus..... -- Rahael, 15:53:38 01/17/03 Fri

Oh, I'm sure were I ever to meet JM in real life he would totally charm me. But until then, I just can't separate the character from the 'looks'.

After a person's face becomes familiar to me I stop seeing the features and just see the person. Which can sometimes be inconvenient. I once went on a couple of dates with this totally *beautiful* guy. We are talking cheekbones, beautiful eyes, long eyelashes. Just gorgeous. And then of course he opened his mouth and came out with nonsense. And then I just couldn't see it anymore.

Now all I have to do is wait for Principal Wood to say something asinine about girls not having opinions and keeping quiet when men speak, and I'll stop finding him attractive too. LOL.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: De Gustibus..... -- Angela, 18:06:48 01/17/03 Fri

I've known friends to experience the opposite effect too...be prejudged in the other direction as not being likely to have thoughts of any depth because of their looks and to become in effect silenced unless they knew someone well. Others who lack a quick tongue or self confidence, considered slow, yet they have thoughts of great intricacy and insightfulness and some beauty. Sometimes they write extremely lyrically and well, sometimes not. But overall we do have a visual orientation and sometimes that may be native and sometimes a part of socialization. For me there is something about the eyes. Speaking eyes. I even tend to ignore words to a certain extent for what can be read there. And then there's always deeds, of course.

I'm very intrigued by Wood and anxious to have his story. And haven't forgotten that he was given an interesting name either. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> Look what I did! -- Rahael, 15:18:43 01/17/03 Fri

LOL - Ponygirl and Arethusa (by the way, so with you on the tweed. "Rakish Uncle" indeed).

I have to admit, that I didn't even think about whether any of the characters were "good looking" until I got the box set for AtS S1, and I was thinking, "hmmmm, Angel" (I found the "mmmmm Angel" thing so amusing)

My aesthetic appreciation of good looks by itself when watching tv tends to be minimal. Give me an intense dramatic moment, and my appreciation goes up. Give me a great outfit and I'm even more pleased! The little character moments get to me more than anything else, and not in *that* way, which is why I tend to be more drawn to characters like Cordy, Buffy and Anya than those I might actually find "attractive" in rl. Cordy and Lilah in "Billy" during the 'Vicious Bitch' conversation - those two people looked beautiful to me.

It's funny, from what I've noticed of the Buffy fandom outside the board, the focus seems to be on the men - Spike, Angel, Wesley, Spike, Giles, Spike. I tend to be the opposite. I'm all about the women of AtS and BtVS. They just transcend little things like outward beauty and sexuality and become something more for me.

They are the people who capture my imagination. Angel, Wes and Giles are the males who have come closest to doing that, in that particular order.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I remain strangely immune! -- Miss Edith, 16:48:00 01/19/03 Sun

I cannot stand Spike's helmet head look and I really don't know who gave the hairdresser at Bts the idea that it was attractive. I remember when Intervention first aired I was posting at a Spike board and everyone pretty much agreed the tousled hair was much sexier. I believe it stayed that way for the rest of season 5 and most female fans of Spike actually wanted him to keep the BHOF (bed hair of redemption). I wish Spike hadn't returned to the slicked back look. And how Spike's got the nerve to make fun of Angel's use of gel I really don't know LOL.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hehehehe -- Rahael, 02:12:26 01/20/03 Mon

Definitely looked like it required more gel! ;)

[> [> [> [> IMHO, the actors on both shows are all very attractive. -- Ixchel, 13:41:25 01/17/03 Fri

And Sophist, JM does have a exceedingly handsome face. Probably the most handsome of the male actors (JMHO), but the competition is fierce.

Of the females, I would say EC is most beautiful (JMHO), again the competition is formidable. And becomes more so if you include former and temporary cast members such as ED, BL and RDM.

Ixchel

[> [> [> [> [> Really the only way to solve this... -- ponygirl, 13:54:56 01/17/03 Fri

is for the cast members of both shows to spend several weeks vying for my attention and attempting to woo me Bachelorette style. After several weeks or months of intensive research I will be able to come up with a definitive answer for the board on who is the most attractive. Is that fine with everyone?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really the only way to solve this... -- Tess, 14:18:30 01/17/03 Fri

Ponygirl,

I think this method needs two judges and I'll volunteer to be the other one.

Truthfully I enjoy looking at all the actors. They are all very good looking. Although I think Spike holds his age better than Angel. I enjoy all the characters and their stories, and am enjoying the differences in Spike's and Angel's stories. But if I HAD to pick just one, I'd go with Spike...mainly because I've forgotten what DB looks like without his shirt.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, ponygirl! 'Research'! (*chuckle*) ;) -- Ixchel, 14:18:52 01/17/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh dear, what have I started ;o) -- yabyumpan, 14:50:00 01/17/03 Fri

I agree that JM is 'attractive', just not to me! Them cheek bones are scarey!!!

My personal list goes - Angel, Wood(just from one viewing, it's all in the smile) and Gunn, in that order. (Though it's true that there hasn't been enough (any) shirtless Angel lately. I don't know what the writers are thinking. Do they really believe that we watch the shows for the storyline, character development, under-lying themes etc? Come on ME, you know all we want is semi-naked men and short shirts and low cut tops on the women for the guys. )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah! Screw this philosophy crap! -- HonorH, 16:24:10 01/17/03 Fri

Sex, people! Sex is what we want! Wesley and Lilah performing unspeakable acts upon each other! Angel, shirtless and chained up (tradition, after all, is tradition)! More Gunn in boxers! Spike naked (oh, wait, we get plenty of that)! And let's see Connor's chest!

And the girls need to get with it, too. Fewer clothes on Buffy, and bring back the push-up bras! More of Anya's bare belly! Lilah in her skivvies! Dawn in slutwear! Get Willow and Kennedy naked, STAT! Too bad Tara's gone--she had the best cleavage on BtVS, though Preggers CC is definitely a challenge to her from the AtS side. Skin! We want skin!

HonorH of the All Things Prurient on BtVS & AtS board

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! I should be ashamed -- Arethusa, 16:51:14 01/17/03 Fri

but I'm not. I needed a little silly fun today.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We used to have these kind of posts under impressive subject lines... -- Masq, 16:53:42 01/17/03 Fri

At least pretending to be philosophical, until you read the post within!

Yep, there are one or two characters on the shows I'd like to see dipped in chocolate sauce...

; )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How addicted are you? - name your shame -- JulieB, 23:07:30 01/17/03 Fri

Now I've got your attention, ... along this theme, I enjoy JM from an asthetic point of view, but I have to confess I can never get enough of DB, which is why I am a self-confessed Angel addict.

I always regret, that we got to see very little of Buffy and Angel getting horizontal (except in flashbacks and dream like sequences, but they were pretty hazy). I digress, my point is we saw a lot more action between Buffy and Riley and later Spike than, we did of Buffy and Angel. Even in "I will remember you", the sex was more hinted at than shown.

When you think about it, while that encounter was a lot more sexually charged, we still didn't get to see very much traditional or otherwise. Hey don't hate me for my weakness, I'm generally only really interested, in seeing more than imagining, when I'm pretty invested in a couple's relationship, otherwise inuendo is generally sufficient. DID ANYONE ELSE FEEL SHORT CHANGED?

I know the first time that Buffy and Angel did the deed, she was very young and a virgin, but it strikes me that there is an interesting juxtaposition between the more romantic sex of A and B and the later more explicit, often rough sex of Buffy and her other lovers, which is no accident. This is a no brainer.

Without hijacking this post to discuss the previous (by the way brilliant) thread regarding the different treatment of Buffy's sexuality across her different lovers, I REALLY WANT TO GET BACK TO THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT POINT, THAT I CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF DB WITH OR WITHOUT HIS SHIRT ON.

Nevermind JM's cheekbones, what I really love about DB face is the way it changes all the time. I don't personally think of him as conventionally good looking, but rather, that he has the kind of face that changes all the time. Sometimes he's cute and other times he's sublime, I have to admit this is usually when he is emotionally tortured or about to die. Oh well, clearly emotional angst must be a turn on for me. It's all in the eyes. Really I'm not a maschocist, or sadist for that matter, but he does pain so so so well, aesthetically speaking of course.

Final confession, how sad is this, but I have a calendar of the said DB on my wall above my bed, so I get to go to sleep with him pretty much all year round. (A girl can dream) Anyone else able to beat that????

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aw, sweetcheeks! -- HonorH (feeling all Lorne-ish), 23:50:59 01/17/03 Fri

We've all got our obsessions. Gotta confess I go after them all at different times. Riley or Xander would be the type of guy I'd want to settle down with--a guy who's nice and grounded and has a cute grin, who's exceedingly huggable. Giles is the kind of guy I think is scorchingly sexy because of his intellect. Same with Wesley. The intelligence behind the eyes gets my engines revvin'. Angel is big, beautiful, and it seems to me he'd be unbelievably good in bed. He's a fantasy lover. Spike, OTOH, I'd like to have engage me in some heavy-duty flirting, but it wouldn't go beyond that. Then there's Faith, the girl I'd switch teams for. *Just* for her. Well, okay, her and Angelina Jolie, but who wouldn't?

Regarding your observations about Buffy and her lovers, one qualitative difference is that while Buffy was shown cuddling with Angel in bed both in "Surprise" and IWRY--falling asleep in his arms--she's never shown that way with either Riley or Spike. Sometimes she'd cuddle with Riley out of bed, but not once were they ever shown falling asleep in each other's arms. And of course, she and Spike weren't exactly into the cuddling at all. Interesting, no?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How addicted are you? - name your shame -- Dochawk, 23:00:21 01/18/03 Sat

Not that I have any interest in seeing any more of DB (but if they want to show him in bed with Julie benz or with Gwen, I won't argue), but several of us saw him live a couple fo weeks back. I must say I spent more time staring at his wife (Jaime Bergman) who is exceptionally pretty, then I did at him. Was sitting at a table 20 feet away for an hour.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How addicted are you? - name your shame -- Miss Edith, 19:42:14 01/19/03 Sun

I have always thought of David as being conventionally good-looking. Joss said when he was first hired it was because all the women in the room literally melted into puddles. I did have a pretty big crush on David at one time. I would say James's is not handsome in the traditional way at all. I have the Spike calender and one of my friends couldn't stop laughing at his checkbones and said he looked like a bulldog. I spend ages trying to convince her that you really need to see him on screen to get his appeal. It's sex appeal that I find draws me to Spike. E.g in Checkpoint when he is flirting with the watcher "Heard of me have you... Well well isn't that neat". To me he was just dripping sex. And the moment he sees Buffy on the stairs in Afterlife always gets me going.

I also find Wesley pretty hot. Come to think off it Gunn isn't bad either but he needs to lose the facial hair to woo me. And I loved Lindsay when he got his hair cut. I can't stand long hair on a man. I can never resist a shudder when I see Crush with Xander's nasty greasy hair in the Bronze. The poor boy was just crying out for a haircut. I did quite fancie Xander in season 2 and 3 incidently.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel as Bunyan's everyman- and the Nietzschean consequences of aestheticism -- Tchaikovsky, 03:45:13 01/18/03 Sat

Hope that's better.

I always thought Buffy looked just right in Season Five, but they may have been in part due to the innate attractiveness I found in her character around this point.

And I have to admit that, although 19, so only two years older, I do have this guilt thing about Michelle Trachtenberg. I see some of the late Season Six and think one thing- and then replay Real Me or something and feel deeply inappropriate. I suppose Dawn is really one of the only cases in TV of the well-observed sexualisation of a character. In other words, her arc is about going from being a (charming) bratty child in Season Five, to a young woman. We start with Buffy, (and Willow etc) somewhere further through the development. Dawn now reminds me of Season One Buffy, which of course is entirely logical, although her 17th birthday must be coming up soon-ish. The uncomfortable-ness of this thought may be more to do with the fact that Gellar was playing significantly below her real age is Season Two.

I was planning to be superficial but didn't entirely manage it. Oh well.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- KdS, 03:48:17 01/18/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL Angel as Bunyan's everyman- and the Nietzschean consequences of aestheticism -- Angela, 06:01:16 01/18/03 Sat

TCH: "I was planning to be superficial but didn't entirely manage it. Oh well."

Well, (superficially only) I just figured these kinds of age differences are because we're just giving you guys a chance to catch up. :-)

Having been more on the other side of the fence, so too speak, I'm not finding this as odd as you or Xander (Bronze scene) seem to. W/ Xander, the thought seemed more disturbing because of of the brother/father angle than age (true of Cordy/Conner also) but's that's just my completely subjective take. Then there's the legal thing of course not much meshing between legal and real tho'.

Personally, age gap = cultural norm. In high school we all dated older guys and then senior year dreamed of college. Friends with different dreams hit the clubs; but, I think the two to three year age gap was still pretty much the norm. Freshman and sophmore years in college same thing.

Although there was some moving about in HS for the most part these were the people we grew up with as a single JHS flowed into HS there was definitely a sense of knowing each other too well by the end of HS, and most of those partnerships didn't stay together... perhaps there's more to the feeling of family angle than just on BTVS or perhaps so many changes happened in college that we were different people by the end. And perhaps part of it is the shifting of cultural norms after the sixties and seventies. As so many more people attend college, the socially acceptable age shifted also with college now functioning (in someways) as high school used too. 'course there was an earlier shift too as in prior times an even greater gap was acceptable and a woman of 19 or 20 would have been quite ancient.

My family always sort of bucked the norm. I have a great grandma who lied about her age and married a younger man, one grandmother who waited to marry until almost 30 (dropped out of highschool to work and help her parents pay off their mortgage) another grandma who was kicked out of the church for divorcing twice and my parents who married late and now don't fit the stats because they've stayed together. LOL

It's all pretty subjective really. Since there's that split between sex and partnership and mental and physical growing up. W/ Dawn, the current presentation seems quite intentional, especially juxtaposed against the mini-slayers. Like Buffy, circumstances are forcing a quick growing up and like Buffy she'll probably have some problems finding boys her own age that she has much in common with even on the Hellmouth. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting thoughts -- Tchaikovsky, 09:19:31 01/18/03 Sat

Agree mostly.

Shakespeare's Juliet is unlikely to be older than 13, according to people who know about such things, so certainly cultural norms shift and develop. In the case of 16th England, (or Verona, I suppose), life expectancy was so short that everything sped up.

And I think the law tends more to follow shifting cultural norms than imbue them.

One question: what is the age odf consent in California? Nothing's made of Angel and Buffy's sex in Surprise, but Wesley gets the reminder 'Jail Bait' from Faith about Cordelia in Season Three. Just wondering.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Age differences -- Sophist, 09:33:16 01/18/03 Sat

The age of consent in CA is officially 18. However, the consequences vary according to the age gap between the partners. I can't remember the exact divisions off the top of my head, but it's something like this: a year or less, no penalty; up to three years, misdemeanor; more than 3 years, felony. I'll double check this.

Cultural norms certainly have changed. Until very recently, it would be quite common to have a marriage between a 22 year old man and a 17 year old woman. Sexual relations between the two would have been tolerated (though not formally) once the betrothal was announced. The current law certainly discourages such a relationship.

JMHO, but I don't think your view of Dawn is at all odd. And I speak as the father of 2 teen daughters.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age differences -- Angela, 10:08:53 01/18/03 Sat

From the Sophist:
JMHO, but I don't think your view of Dawn is at all odd.

Agreed, and I apologize if that thought got lost in the mish mash of my original post. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If it helps any... -- shadowkat, 11:54:13 01/18/03 Sat

I had the same reaction you did, TCH, to Connor. I'm in my 30s and the kid is hot. Not with Cordy...ugh. But I could understand why she went there. Cordy with Connor to me felt the same way Xander or Spike with Dawn would feel.

Yet by the same token - Connor is attractive to me which weirds me out to no end. So I get the guilt and weirdness guys feel towards Dawn, within that context.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I nominate this subject line for AtPO Best Subject Line of the Year. -- Sophist, 09:20:52 01/18/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But I think you'll find that Thomas Aquinas refutes this view -- slain, 10:37:25 01/18/03 Sat

It doesn't exactly help that Dawn seems to have inherited those push-up bras Buffy wore in Season 1, either. Although she does seem to have gone up a cup size since the start of Season 5. Okay, that's enough boobs for now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plato takes a different tack on the subject of aesthetics, if you'll bear with me. -- HonorH, 12:10:21 01/18/03 Sat

Actually, I'm pretty sure MT's boobs are real. She's gotten quite curvy--take a look at those hips, for instance. Hey, quit drooling, Harry Parachute!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Taking a situational view on aesthetics -- KdS, 14:34:16 01/18/03 Sat

I think both physical development and the character's mannerisms play a part. Despite the differences in the actresses' and characters' ages, AA as Fred gives me far more icky "Have I been listening to Gary Glitter too much?" vibes than MT as Dawn.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Luckily, I'm sixteen -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:06:38 01/18/03 Sat

So I can have any lustful fantasy I want about Michelle Trachtenburg/Dawn without the pedophilia implications. Ooh, here comes one now. . .

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 08:38:06 01/19/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as Bunyan's everyman- and the Nietzschean consequences of aestheticism -- Mr Gordo, 19:50:28 01/19/03 Sun

I don't think there is anything wrong with your interest in Dawn. The character was deliberately sexualised in Him after all so it's not exactly a case of her being a child. Michelle is about the same age Faith was when she started working on the show. I know the actress Eliza was 17 and had to be legally emancipated yet loads of people fancied her so I wouldn't let it worry you.

And I agree that Sarah looked her best in season 5. I loved her wardrobe, and her hair whether the ringlets from The Real Me or the stright hair from The Gift. She looked amazing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah! Screw this philosophy crap! (that's ridiculous) -- frisby, 06:40:59 01/18/03 Sat

You obviously know little of philosophy. Sex and philosophy go hand in hand. As a beginning, one is an external representation of the other. One's position on 'sex' influences and colors all of one's positions in philosophy (says Nietzsche). Both sex and philosophy are unavoidable based in love (without love sex becomes meaningless and without love philosophy ceases to have purpose). Desire and Despair are the lingua franca (likely misspelled that) of both. It amazes me how philosophical one must be to want to screw the philosophy crap -- philosophy "is" humanity.

[> [> [> [> [> The actresses-- -- HonorH, 23:57:47 01/17/03 Fri

Actually, I think the most beautiful actress ever on BtVS was Amber Benson. I never got tired of looking at her. Robia LaMorte was gorgeous, too. And then, in the "up-and-coming" category, there's Michelle Trachtenberg. Before she's out of her teens, she'll be an absolute stunner. CC is beautiful, of course, although I think Amy Acker has the prettiest eyes. Then there's Eliza Dushku, who makes me think twice about my orientation. Curiously, I never found SMG, AH, or EC all that attractive, but I have incredible respect for them as actresses, and I can't imagine anybody playing their characters half so well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The actresses-- -- Dochawk, 09:49:29 01/18/03 Sat

HonorH

I don't think we have to wait for MT to grow up, she is already beautiful (and it scares me, since she could easily be the age of my daughter, if I had one that is!), but everyone seems to forget the woman who I think is the prettiest on either show - Julie Benz. The woman is just gorgeous.

And as for Alyson, her personality (from what I have seen in interviews etc) make her extremely sexy (loved the handcuffs comment from 2 years ago). And the same for Amber, who has a devestatingly beautiful face and of course has a more womanly figure which makes her quite pretty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The actresses-- -- shadowkat, 12:37:31 01/18/03 Sat

Okay this is a hard one...being completely heterosexual, but I see these actresses as being the most attractive right now:

Amy Acker - Fred, not sure what it is about her, but JM says it best in a post above, the catch in her voice, the desire to be strong, something...she just strikes me as very attractive.

Michelle Trachenburg - blew Buffy/Willow/Anya off the screen in the dance scene in Him. She had it in spades.
They seem to be working overtime to keep her from looking too sexy with the clothes and straight hair. No heels.

Alyson Hannigan was actually better looking when she was younger, but she still has it. The wardrobe dept just appears to hate her most of the time. But in Selfless? Whoa.
She looked great.

Emma Caulfield - she looks much better this year than last, better hair, it looks better shorter and darker. And I think she's gained some weight and doesn't look nearly as skinny. More curvy.

Gwen - that girl has it.

Amber Benson - it wasn't until I saw a picture of her in Buffy Yearbook that I realized how attractive this gal is. ME went out their way to make her look frumpy and unattractive the last few years, not sure why. But even with all their efforts - I have yet to meet a male poster who didn't think she was the best looking woman on the shows.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh! Julie Benz! -- HonorH, 15:29:40 01/18/03 Sat

Okay, I'll amend my other statements: Darla is another woman who could make me re-think my orientation. Julie Benz is gorgeous, and Darla is sex on legs. Something about that sweet face and baby-doll voice combined with Darla's curvaceous figure and personality is incredibly creepy and sexy.

[> [> [> [> [> Beauty and chaos, with a incursion into the subversive aesthetics of Aurelius (Marcus) -- Random, 15:59:35 01/18/03 Sat

Eh...a hetero male poster here who's always felt somewhat ambivalent about the physical attractiveness of any of the characters...but one thing that impressed me from the first episode of BtVS (The Pack) that I watched was the relative lack of overt appeals to the loins in the some of the casting. DB and CC were exceptions, but the rest of the characters, while attractive, didn't appear to be chosen as part of the whole "aesthetics conveys credibility" philosophy that permeates shows created by -- to name one particularly virulent form of the FE -- Aaron Spelling. SMG was, and is, supercute, but not -- no matter what the magazines say -- one of the 50 most beautiful women in modern cinema. Had she never done BtVS, just the 1 and 1/2 star movies she's done to date, she would probably barely register a blip on the Hollywood Hottie radar, IMHO. AH was...well, I found her rather unattractive, but she was a favorite character because she fit the role so well. While I'm willing to suspend my disbelief so far as to accept a world populated by vampires and bug people, casting a beautiful girl as an unpopular nerd would stretch my suspension well past the breaking point. As for NB, I reserve judgement, but have been assured by several female friends that he's only reasonably attractive. Seth Green is much like SMG, or so I'm assured -- cute, but not handsome in the conventional sense. Plus several of my female friends (and a couple gay male friends) seem to have a problem with his dentition pattern. Huh. Go figure.
But one of the beauties of BtVS was the fact that even the most attractive ones were acknowledged as such. CC played a popular rich girl, thus her attractiveness was integral to the role. The show even made a point of DB's attractiveness ("...the demon with the face of an angel"), a major point of narrative maturity for the show. The show's really about writing and acting. Though I never found Tara particularly attractive (and, just as a sidelight, one my best friends, a bisexual female, confirmed my opinion) but she was written as a sweet, intelligent, and (later) strongwilled woman, and that I did find attractive, despite my lack of physical reaction. JM never struck me as extraordinarily attractive, but my female friends assure me that his character, as developed by the writers, combined with his looks is enough to set them drooling. Ironically, the only one to mention his cheekbones did so in a negative way: "he looks like he's one missed meal away from being a famine victim."
Incidentally, as long as we're weighing in, I found EM to be the most beautiful character on the show...but sometimes, under the right light and camera angle, she looks positively haggard. And the less said about her vengeance demon aspect, the better. But it's the richness of the show that allows me to appreciate the characters' appearances all the more. SMG has changed quite a bit through the years, and I once even tried to decide which season I found her most attractive (it was a tie between 2 and 5, though her haircut in "Gone" was adorable.) Even the less-than-beautiful ones had their moments. VampWillow made my eyebrows raise more than a little, and while I think AH was more attractive in early seasons, she has had some good moments in subsequent ones too. But let me say this: among all that youth, Robia La Morte was damned hot!

Oh hell, now that I think about it, this entire discussion can be reduced to one simple concept: "it's the hair, stupid!" Perhaps, when the dust has settled, we'll realize that the changing attractiveness of the characters can be measured sheerly by examining the follicular morphings.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Beauty and chaos, with a incursion into the subversive aesthetics of Aurelius (Marcus) -- Random, 16:10:18 01/18/03 Sat

Sorry, how could I forget MT and ED? Dawn: Jailbait. But pretty. But jailbait. And, as a character, far too immature to really qualify as sexy, in my book. Faith: eh, I may be the only male poster here that doesn't find her attractive. Or pretty. Or cute. Or sexy. Slutty, of course, but sluttiness is, from my perspective, overcompensation for lack of natural sexiness. But here's my point -- I've never seen ED in any other work of TV or film (except AtS, of course) so my reaction is based on how the character is presented. In "Faith, Hope, and Trick," I found her not unattractive (strongwilled, confident in her sexuality -- those are winners) but as her tenure wore on, she wore thin. Character and writing make all the difference. Thus my perception of Willow's attractiveness waxed and waned (okay, to be fair, it was tight black leather, not writing, that won her several gold stars in season 3) according to how annoying/interesting her character was. And Angel always annoyed me until he became Angelus...and then, to quote Lorne, "leather pants." Okay, forget hair. It's a leather thing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Beauty and chaos, with a incursion into the subversive aesthetics of Aurelius (Marcus) -- Cleanthes, 21:56:00 01/18/03 Sat

"There is no nature which is inferior to art, for the arts imitate the natures of things. But if this is so, that nature which is the most perfect and the most comprehensive of all natures, cannot fall short of the skill of art. Now all arts do the inferior things for the sake of the the superior; therefore the universal nature does so too. And, indeed, hence is the origin of justice, and in justice the other virtues have their foundation : for justice will not be observed, if we either care for middle things (that is, things neither divine nor base), or are easily deceived and careless and changeable." (Meditation of Marcus Aurelius, XI 9)

It follows then that Eliza Dushku and Sarah Michelle Gellar most aptly incur the subversive aesthetic.

Ipse Dixit

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love it!...um, I mean, Hellenic aesthetics and jurisprudence in BtVS...plus Platonism -- Random, 23:13:46 01/18/03 Sat

That's great! I was just going along with the theme earlier in the thread of placing intellectualized subject lines to less-than-intellectual posts. I haven't even read Aurelius in, geez, going on 8 years now. Not since my Latin days, actually. I gotta dig out my Meditations again (in English...my Latin has all but died on me.) And, after reading the excerpt three times (my mind seems to be dulled tonight. Must be the Red Stripes I drank), I must say that I agree with your analysis. If justice is, in fact, a subversion (so to speak) and foundation of other virtues, then the extremes of SMG/Buffy and ED/Faith are in fact the purest form of art on the show. They, much like medieval heretics, achieve enlightenment, through mortification and/or pure self-sacrifice.
And what of their beauty? They are both art and nature, actor and human being. Taking the text a step further: Is truth beauty, as "Endymion" asserts? Is justice ultimately a matter of looking good? Or ugly? Would an average-looking slayer die in her first outing? (And yet SMG/Buffy and ED/Faith illustrate the ideal. I would submit that MT/Dawn is a good example of the process itself, though.) Ambiguity, eh? ...thy name is BtVS. Oh dear, I have no idea what I'm talking about, quod erat demonstradum.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great sub thread! -- Rahael, 06:56:18 01/19/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love it!...um, I mean, Hellenic aesthetics and jurisprudence in BtVS...plus Platonism -- Cleanthes, 09:33:32 01/19/03 Sun

I dug out my Meditations and began reading until I found a passage about aesthetics. Partly I did this because I wondered whether you had just used Aurelius because of the BtVS "Order of Aurelius" vibe and so I wanted to check whether the actual philosopher had actually commented on aesthetics! I hadn't remembered that he had, but, believe me, it did me no harm to check.

I had to go all the way to section XI to find something, but it didn't take me too long because I was going thru one of my phases when I read this long ago and so the margins are full of my two word scribbled summaries of adjoining paragraphs. I'm sorry to report that Perseus doesn't have this online.

I think Aurelius is saying that justice seeks after the best and tries to fix the hugely wrong but doesn't mess with the vast in-between (or right reason stoicly ignores the triffling). And, since justice involves judgment, just as aesthetics does, so should a just look at art.

And, of course, Buffy & Faith are the mostest in many ways, good and bad. Knight of the Faith vs Betrayer of herself.

Add to this my ipse dixit about SMG and ED as those who most rock my world and I have stoic justice on my side, hehe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The aesthetic of injustiice -- universal values and the end of judgement -- Random, 10:04:32 01/19/03 Sun

I was vibing on the Order...which is why I added the "(Marcus)" at the end of my subject line, as if as an afterthought/clarification. Your interpretation clears it up, and I really like the connection between aesthetic judgement and justice. I'd love to hear more on that idea from you.

I also interpreted the text in terms of the administration of justice. It cannot be properly carried out if we concern ourselves with ambiguity and moral middle ground when making our judgements. Hence, my interpretation hinged on the problem of subjective justice. We (including me) tend to perceive true justice as being inherently mutable and subjective -- we cannot apply a single standard to all instances because the circumstances change. However, if there is a universal and absolute sense of right/wrong (beauty/ugly, truth/falsehood, or even art/nature), concern with the middle ground, while entirely humanistic and compassionate, would be flawed. SMG/Buffy is (cliche though it may be, and, I get the feeling, not a particularly popular stance amongst the intellectuals of this board :-}) has always been my favorite character. Not just because she's supercute, but because her role and the mythology of the Slayer make her the most powerful and compellingly complex character on the show. Justice. Mortality. Legacy. Extremes. She carries (and think about how truly powerful the phrase is, really) "the weight of the world on her shoulders," and, as such, cannot judge, or be judged by normal standards. She may not be above the law -- thank God she realizes that -- but she, ironically enough, must claim special circumstance in order for her absolute stance to be understood. Redeeming human villians while condemning demon ones means only that there is more than one absolute standard, i.e. good versus evil, but also immutable basic nature versus potential for redemption.

Plus, as I said, SMG is supercute. Cute chicks kicking ass...well, what more can you ask?

Again, loved your posts. They made my day. Still haven't found my Meditations. They might be in storage. Oh, and for all you spellcheckers out there...I spell it "judgement" rather than "judgment." I just prefer the way it looks, spelling accuracy be damned.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We may be silent, but we are here! -- Rahael, 15:20:59 01/19/03 Sun

SMG/Buffy is (cliche though it may be, and, I get the feeling, not a particularly popular stance amongst the intellectuals of this board :-}) has always been my favorite character.

Buffy is the reason I watch BtVS. The character is the most compelling in all the Buffyverse, the one who speaks most to me, the one I'm fondest of. (Though I have fondnesses for others - Cordelia, Anya, etc).

You may be right, that it isn't that popular relatively speaking, but if you take a look at the archives you'll find much sympathetic Buffy posting of high quality. There was a great post here by Artemis a while back, in October, titled "Buffy's Journey: a realistic Perspective". There have been others - it was just that one had a pleasing quality after months and months of adverse judgements on our Vamp Slayer

I think the Buffy fans are just waiting for such posts to come along. So here's some encouragement to post about her!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We may be silent, but we are here! -- Random, 17:44:29 01/19/03 Sun

Thank god for moral support! Hello, fellow traveler. I went and looked up Artemis' post, and enjoyed it immensely...and all the subsequent posts. Which, incidentally, I so did not have time to read. But did anyway. (Ah, mind candy...is there a more dangerous and addictive substance in this poor old world of ours?) I think I'm inspired to revive some of the issues brought up in that thread, and as soon as I have time, I definitely will. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue. Maybe in the next couple of days. (Can't remember who said it, but somebody once observed that even the busiest people always seem to have enough time to tell you exactly how busy they are. Heh...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Far more posts than that.. -- shadowkat, 18:42:46 01/19/03 Sun

I missed Atremis', but there are many many others. Buffy actually has had the most positive posts on the board.

Regarding positive Buffy posts - look in the archives for I think August? I posted an essay on Buffy - Hero in A Dark World. And far earlier in June? Exegy did a post on Burial. Then there was Malandaza's post on Buffy in mid-summer.
And of course, the Ixchel/Rahael/Tillow posts on Buffy and depression which actually seemed positive. Rendyl did one.
So did KdS - I think.

So believe me - I can name at least ten posters who've posted lengthy posts that were positive about Buffy.
You aren't alone.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Far more posts than that.. -- Rahael, 02:57:53 01/20/03 Mon

Didn't mean to suggest it was the only one. In fact, I think I said the very opposite - however that one stood out for me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Adding to the encouragement...for Buffy and the philosophy -- Angela, 19:26:17 01/19/03 Sun

Although I can't contribute...very much enjoyed the subthread. There's always many more reading than posting; myself as a non-intellectual but happy reader. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Adding my voice to the choir! -- HonorH, 19:43:33 01/19/03 Sun

I'm a huge fan of Buffy and have spent a good deal of time here defending her and her actions. I'm in the further minority of being a huge Dawn fan, and to me, their relationship has become the heart of the show. The other characters, I enjoy and like very much, but Buffy and Dawn are my absolute favorites. I'll read anything positive about 'em.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...our first Buffy/Dawn shipper -- shadowkat, 21:00:45 01/19/03 Sun

I'm in the further minority of being a huge Dawn fan, and to me, their relationship has become the heart of the show. The other characters, I enjoy and like very much, but Buffy and Dawn are my absolute favorites. I'll read anything positive about 'em.

Buffy and Dawn are the love story of Season 5 and an excellent example of the type of love stories the series has been pushing. Just as Connor/Angel may have their own in the works. (Non-sexual of course - get your heads out of the gutter.)

Not sure if you ever saw my Buffy/Dawn essay...but it's either in the archives under March or on my site which you'll find in the links.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Once I'm past the squick factor, I guess I'll say, 'Yes, I am.' -- HonorH, 21:29:12 01/19/03 Sun

Unfortunately, there are people who write Buffy/Dawn slash with no regard to the fact that it's both physical (they're blood-related) and spiritual (Buffy's both Dawn's sister-figure and mother-figure) incest. To me, that goes *way* beyond the bounds of good taste.

Above lunacy aside, though, you're right: they were and are a love story all their own. In fact, I'd say their love story continued into S6 as well: they hit hard times and there was a lot of conflict, but in the end, their bond was reaffirmed, and Buffy chose to live for Dawn in the S6 finale, just as she'd chosen to die for Dawn in the S5 finale. I admit to being heavily invested in the 'ship. When Buffy and Dawn's relationship is troubled, I'm troubled for them. When they affirm their love and the bond between them, it makes me as happy as the end of "Showtime" would a B/S 'shipper. Which makes me very curious indeed as to how the season's events and "Joyce's" prediction will play out for them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Once I'm past the squick factor, I guess I'll say, 'Yes, I am.' -- shadowkat, 21:41:06 01/19/03 Sun

See my response to Rufus on the "does Buffy Love Spike" thread - in that response I try to state the problem with shipping - is it's all focused on the sex NOT on the relationship.

(I do agree - sexual ships - I cannot stomach include:
Connor/Angel - Connor and well anyone on Ats, Dawn/Buffy, Dawn - and well any of the SG squicks me a little...I can sort of see past Spike under the Angel factor, but not after the soul and the maturity arc - he's too old for her now, and I do have problems with Giles/Buffy, Giles/Willow, Giles/Xander....the others not so much. Just feels incestuous to me.)

But I'm not interested in the sexual relations in the show (that's what fanfic is for) - I'm interested in the relationships..because the problem with tv and movies - is if you fall for someone or build a relationship with a guy - you immediately fall into bed with them. I timed it in a few - took less than half the episode. What i like about Btvs and Ats - is the writers are more interested in the long range relationship and emphasize that casual sex or quickly falling into sex with someone - doesn't work.

But we're so hard-wired to believe it does, that all discussions fall into debates about a) why there isn't more of it or b) why ME doesn't let it's characters have great sex lives. Instead of debating what is going on with the relationships themselves which to me is more interesting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We may be silent, but we are here! -- Miss Edith, 20:03:56 01/19/03 Sun

I loved Buffy and she was my favourite character for the first five and a half seasons. She has since been overtaken by Spike for me personally but I still love her character and would welcome the chance to discuss her more. As for the hottest female I am a female myself and totally straight but still if I were to sleep with any woman it would be Faith. She is so hot she lights up the screen and that to me is very sexy.

She is the only girl I find sexy actually but I do think a lot of the females are really pretty. I have always wanted to look more like Buffy if I had to choose any one female too resemble (couldn't pull off Faith). Tara is not particularly attractive on the show because ME presumedly didn't want her to be? She was dressed down and wore clothes to make her look dumpy etc. But in real life she is actually very cute.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We may be silent, but we are here and talking philosophy of costume! -- Angela, 06:17:20 01/20/03 Mon

"Tara is not particularly attractive on the show because ME presumedly didn't want her to be? She was dressed down and wore clothes to make her look dumpy etc. But in real life she is actually very cute."

It's reassuring that someone besides me noticed this about Tara...I did wonder about it at the time but put down to someone's visualization of a motherly influence. ;-)

I think Buffy's style's have changed pretty substantially along with Willow's. Remember the jumpers? The softer side of Sears remarks? Buffy's short short short skirts, pastels, lollipops...she was a reverse image of Cordelia's costuming but in lighter tones. Over the years, she's gone through some pretty good things and some pretty odd things stylistically and I always wonder how much is the dresser and how much is Sara because some of her off-show styles are similar. Most recently fighting Noodles, she looked all business (except for the heels which reminded me of Dawn's remark in STSP). Between the padded leather jacket and the lack of weapons (and based in last weeks remarks about the fight), I think she set it up intentionally but I've gotten OT from your post.

Eliza did light up the screen and (and James definitely does but not recently of course) but I think Sara's performances have become intentionally more internalized. If Buffy and Faith do meet again, it will be interesting to see how Faith has changed, and how they are together (or if they're are still portrayed as reverse images) especially since both Buffy's role and character have grown.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Costuming of the characters - purpose? chance? -- shadowkat, 09:13:13 01/20/03 Mon

It's reassuring that someone besides me noticed this about Tara...I did wonder about it at the time but put down to someone's visualization of a motherly influence. ;-)

Nope, a friend mentioned it to me - they said: "I think the show's producers have deliberately made Tara look frumpy to emphasize the actress' beauty and make Willow and Buffy stand out more. Tara was never meant to be attractive, she was meant to be sort of a shy ugly duckling like Season 1 Willow."

Yep - I think that was what they were aiming towards. Tara's outfits actually got better as Season 6 moved along as did Willow's. Actually Willow had the best wardrobe in the beginning of Season 6.

always wonder how much is the dresser and how much is Sara because some of her off-show styles are similar

According to interviews - most recent one on E! - Gellar stated that Buffy's clothes in the early seasons weren't of her choosing. "They had me in all this short short skirts which were difficult to move in, now that they've grown her up a bit, I finally get to wear jeans and pants more." Or something to that effect.

I think the clothes are selected to get across some visual message about the character.

For Xander - we have the loud clownish shirts that no one would want to be caught dead in, especially poor Spike - who is relegated to wearing one such outfit in Doomed. When Marsters showed up on the set for takes and costuming in Season 4, they tortured the poor actor by dressing him up in that outfit of loud colorful shirt and bermuda shorts and taking pictures of him. Letting him believe it would be his costume. He says he never complained about costuming after that. His costume - for years - consisted of a black t-shirt he wore to his first audition, his black jeans and a leather jacket that they ran over a few times to make it look worn. They didn't replace the jeans until the buttons fell off. And the shirt tore. Then he got a new costume.

I think the directors and writers honestly enjoyed dressing up Willow like a life-size doll. In the commentary for Restless - they mention how cute they all thought she looked in her Season 1 outfit while the actress couldn't stand it.

So apparently - the actors have little or no say in what they get to wear - TV is a writer/producer/director's medium not an actors.

[> Re: Dawn's basement remark! -- Rob, 09:21:22 01/17/03 Fri

No, but every time I watch "Doppelgangland" I could swear Anya is saying "I'm eleven hundred and twenty years
old! Just give me a fucking beer!" In both cases, the word was "fricking" or "friggin" or "freakin". The hearing can play some fun tricks on ya. ;o)

Rob

P.S. I agree. This was easily my favorite season finale.

[> [> Ugh! -- Rob, 09:23:53 01/17/03 Fri

That should've been season PREMIERE, of course. "Lessons" definitely wasn't my favorite season finale. ;o)

Rob

[> Buffy/Joyce -- Rahael, 16:17:07 01/17/03 Fri

I found the whole 'getting Dawn ready for school' thing really reminiscent of early Joyce/Buffy scenes. Buffy is very momlike (with a few inimitable Buffy touches - 'I made cereal').

We then get that reinforced with the mom hair. There are several references to Buffy being Dawn's mother. Running into Spike disrupts this whole vibe, because suddenly we get a less maternal, protective vibe from her. She just gets jolted and confused by seeing him. She almost seems dazed. It takes the mobile phone to call her back to her main focus - Dawn.

One important contrast with Joyce was the conversation right before dropping Dawn off at school. In WTTH, Joyce enjoins Buffy to fit in, not cause trouble, not get kicked out. For most of the ep, Buffy is trying to get Dawn kicked out. Keeps telling her to fear what she will find, and subsequently destroys her social life in all of 30 seconds.

I loved the cut from Giles saying "no matter what it may look like on the outside, we don't change" to Xander in a suit (there's a James Bond reference by Dawn "Double Oh Xander"). This sets us up for the real denoument, this 'outward presentation/inward state presentation'. Has Spike changed? Who is he now? I think Giles' statement merely sets up the debate, it is not the final word, or the definitive word. Then there's Sunnydale High with its buried pain. Has it changed? Can a spruce up and a new look change what it is, fundamentally? Buffy isn't convinced.

You could also apply Giles' words to the First Evil, whose outward presentation is continually fluid, and who is unchanging through the ages.

[> [> Is Evil always Evil? -- Darby, 10:48:04 01/19/03 Sun

Would the First be unchanging through the ages? Is Evil an absolute, some measureable and constant commodity? That seems to be the definition on the show, but I can't get my mind around it. That's why I see it as more of an "Anti" force, a creation of Balance, the ultimate expression of Order. Hey, it's ironic if nothing else.

And I'm probably wrong.

[> [> [> Right there with you! -- Rahael, 14:56:25 01/19/03 Sun

I mean, I don't believe in Souls, neither, and yet they exist in the Buffyverse! I think at the end of S7, when we find out exactly what's going on, I'll find a metaphorical reading that will suit me and make me comfortable when I rewatch. I really like Manwitch's reading of the FE as 'separateness'.

Current board | More January 2003