January 2004 posts
OT:
2004 Oscar Nominations (complete list) -- cjl, 07:17:32
01/27/04 Tue
1. Best Picture: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the
King," "Lost in Translation," "Master and
Commander: The Far Side of the World," "Mystic River,"
"Seabiscuit."
2. Actor: Johnny Depp, "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse
of the Black Pearl"; Ben Kingsley, "House of Sand and
Fog"; Jude Law, "Cold Mountain"; Bill Murray, "Lost
in Translation"; Sean Penn, "Mystic River."
3. Actress: Keisha Castle-Hughes, "Whale Rider"; Diane
Keaton, "Something's Gotta Give"; Samantha Morton, "In
America"; Charlize Theron, "Monster"; Naomi Watts,
"21 Grams."
4. Supporting Actor: Alec Baldwin, "The Cooler"; Benicio
Del Toro, "21 Grams"; Djimon Hounsou, "In America";
Tim Robbins, "Mystic River"; Ken Watanabe, "The
Last Samurai."
5. Supporting Actress: Shohreh Aghdashloo, "House of Sand
and Fog"; Patricia Clarkson, "Pieces of April";
Marcia Gay Harden, "Mystic River"; Holly Hunter, "Thirteen";
Renee Zellweger, "Cold Mountain."
6. Director: Fernando Meirelles, "City of God"; Peter
Jackson, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King";
Sofia Coppola, "Lost in Translation"; Peter Weir, "Master
and Commander: The Far Side of the World"; Clint Eastwood,
"Mystic River."
7. Foreign Film: "The Barbarian Invasions," Canada;
"Zelary," Czech Republic; "The Twilight Samurai,"
Japan; "Twin Sisters," The Netherlands; "Evil,"
Sweden.
8. Adapted Screenplay: Robert Pulcini & Shari Springer Berman,
"American Splendor"; Braulio Mantovani, "City of
God"; Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson, "The
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"; Brian Helgeland,
"Mystic River"; Gary Ross, "Seabiscuit."
9. Original Screenplay: Denys Arcand, "The Barbarian Invasions";
Steven Knight, "Dirty Pretty Things"; Andrew Stanton,
Bob Peterson and David Reynolds, "Finding Nemo"; Jim
Sheridan & Naomi Sheridan & Kirsten Sheridan, "In America";
Sofia Coppola, "Lost in Translation."
10. Animated feature film: "Brother Bear"; "Finding
Nemo"; "The Triplets of Belleville."
11. Art Direction: "Girl with a Pearl Earring," "The
Last Samurai," "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of
the King," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the
World," "Seabiscuit."
12. Cinematography: "City of God," "Cold Mountain,"
"Girl with a Pearl Earring," "Master and Commander:
The Far Side of the World," "Seabiscuit."
13. Sound Mixing: "The Last Samurai," "The Lord
of the Rings: The Return of the King," "Master and Commander:
The Far Side of the World," "Pirates of the Caribbean:
The Curse of the Black Pearl," "Seabiscuit."
14. Sound Editing: "Finding Nemo," "Master and
Commander: The Far Side of the World," "Pirates of the
Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. "
15. Original Score: "Big Fish," Danny Elfman; "Cold
Mountain," Gabriel Yared; "Finding Nemo," Thomas
Newman; "House of Sand and Fog," James Horner; "The
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," Howard Shore.
16. Original Song: "Into the West" from "The Lord
of the Rings: The Return of the King," Fran Walsh, Howard
Shore and Annie Lennox; "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow"
from "A Mighty Wind," Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole;
"Scarlet Tide" from "Cold Mountain," T Bone
Burnett and Elvis Costello; "The Triplets of Belleville"
from "The Triplets of Belleville," Benoit Charest and
Sylvain Chomet; "You Will Be My Ain True Love" from
"Cold Mountain," Sting.
17. Costume: "Girl with a Pearl Earring," "The
Last Samurai," "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of
the King," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the
World," "Seabiscuit."
18. Documentary Feature: "Balseros," "Capturing
the Friedmans," "The Fog of War," "My Architect,"
"The Weather Underground."
19. Documentary (short subject): "Asylum," "Chernobyl
Heart," "Ferry Tales."
20. Film Editing: "City of God," "Cold Mountain,"
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of The King," "Master
and Commander: The Far Side of the World" "Seabiscuit."
21. Makeup: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,"
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," "Pirates
of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl."
22. Animated Short Film: "Boundin'," "Destino,"
"Gone Nutty," "Harvie Krumpet," "Nibbles."
23. Live Action Short Film: "Die Rote Jacke (The Red Jacket),"
"Most (The Bridge)," "Squash," "(A) Torzija
(A Torsion)," "Two Soldiers."
24. Visual Effects: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of
the King," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the
World," "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the
Black Pearl."
____________________________
Gotta admit, this is an incredibly strong list with a minimum
of "headscratchers." Although I'm a huge fan of American
Splendor, and would have wanted it to supplant Seabiscuit for
a Best Picture nomination--I guess I can settle for the screenplay
nod.
In complete reversal of Oscar tradition, we get three major acting
nominations for comedic roles--Johnny Depp, Bill Murray and Diane
Keaton--and jaw-droppingly unexpected acknowledgments of Keisha
Castle-Hughes' work in Whale Rider and Samantha Morton's in In
America.
And as the topper--Sylvain Chomet's Triplets of Belleville nominated
for Best Animated Movie and BEST SONG! Both well, well-deserved.
The 2004 Oscars might actually be fun!
Replies:
[> Disgusted!! -- Claudia, 07:51:51 01/27/04 Tue
I am DISGUSTED beyond belief with the Oscar nominations, this
year. Not only did the Academy FAILED to nominate "Cold Mountain"
as Best Picture, they also shut out Nicole Kidman for a Best Actress
nod.
When "Fellowship of the Ring" lost the Best Picture
award, two years ago, I predicted that the Academy were waiting
for the trilogy to end before they would finally give it to Peter
Jackson and the "Rings" crowd. My suspicions have been
confirmed. They are really determined for "Return of the
King" to win. And the thing is . . . "Return of the
King" doesn't deserve the award, in my opinion. The only
"Ring" movie that did deserve the award was "Fellowship
of the Ring".
[> Headscratcher -- Dlgood, 09:42:49 01/27/04 Tue
For me, the biggest surprise/disappointment wasn't the slighting
of "American Splendor" or Nicole Kidman, but rather
that Scarlett Johansen wasn't nominated - either for "Lost
in Translation" or "Girl with the Pearl Earring".
I'm less surprised about "Seabiscuit" because while
it's not the greatest film, it's very much the sort of feel-good
story Hollywood likes to celebrate.
[> There are some horrendous absences -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:12:53 01/27/04 Tue
To think that "Matrix: Reloaded", "Kill Bill Vol.
1", and "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" didn't make
the list causes incredibly amounts of head scratchiness. Grr,
why can't the Acadamy just give me complete control of the award?
The world would be so much better that way.
[> [> I Heartily Agree! -- Claudia, 10:30:10 01/27/04
Tue
[> [> Finn, you have a strange, strange taste in movies...
-- grifter, 10:34:02 01/27/04 Tue
...and I disagree strongly with you, but we still both love Buffy...isn´t
the world weird? ;)
[> [> I didn't see OUaTiMexico, but Kill Bill and Matrix
Reloaded are nominated in my dream Oscar list. -- Rob, 11:00:31
01/27/04 Tue
[> [> [> But there are 47 nominations for Best Picture
in *your* dream Oscar list! -- d'Herblay, 16:04:05 01/27/04
Tue
Blah, blah, blah. Rob shows few critical standards. Yadda, yadda,
yadda. He just likes everything. Yakety, yakety.
[> Huge Yays! on RotK's 11 nominations, but... -- Rob,
10:39:16 01/27/04 Tue
...Where is Sean Astin's nomination for Best Supporting Actor?
...Where is Uma Thurman's for Best Actress for Kill Bill?
...Where is Tarrantino's for Best Director for Kill Bill?
...Where is Ellen DeGeneres' for Best Actress for Finding Nemo
(the best comedic performance of the year)?
...Where is Tim Burton's for Best Director for Big Fish?
...Where is Big Fish's for Best Picture?
...Where is Kill Bill-Volume 1's for Best Picture?
...Where is Peter Pan's for Best Visual Effects?
...Where are Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney's for Best Actor
in Big Fish?
...Where is Tobey Maguire's for Best Actor in Seabiscuit?
...Where is Paul Giamatti's for Best Actor for American Splendor?
Rob
P.S. And if Return of the King doesn't win for Best Picture,
I'm going to be very, very not pleased.
[> [> Re: Huge Yays! on RotK's 11 nominations, but...
-- Claudia, 10:43:25 01/27/04 Tue
Where's Nicole Kidman's nomination? I never thought she would
win, but I think that she had deserved a nomination.
As for ROTK winning, I guess I no longer care. I'm too disappointed
by COLD MOUNTAIN not receiving a Best Picture nod and . . . to
be honest, I feel that FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was the only movie
of the trilogy that really deserved a Best Picture Oscar. And
it lost.
[> I agree, they're starting to get it right -- RadiusRS,
19:40:48 01/27/04 Tue
[> Nice! But just a couple mistakes -- DorianQ, 15:38:40
01/28/04 Wed
Finally, we get an awards list that's refreshingly free of Oscar
Bait (Sorry, Cold Mountain fans) and overall a great improvement
over last year. But there are still a few noticeable absences.
For Best Picture, swap out Master and Commander and Seabiscuit
and replace them with Big Fish and House of Sand and Fog (the
best picture of the year in my book).
For Best Actress, take out Samantha Morton and replace her with
either Jennifer Connelly (HOSAF) or Uma Thurman (Kill Bill Vol.
I).
For Best Supporting Actor, replace Benicio Del Toro with Sean
Astin (ROTK)
For Best Supporting Actress, Scarlett Johanasson really, truly
deserves to be in this category (and could win it, too) for two
amazing performances in Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl
Earring, but I couldn't say WHICH performance should be nominated
or which of the other actresses should NOT be nominated, and so
she falls into the trap that Leonardo DiCaprio did last year and
Billy Bob Thornton did the year before that: having two great
performances in the same year in the same category, effectively
canceling each other out.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen City of God, but I definitely thought
that Tim Burton's directing in Big Fish should have been nominated,
his most visionary work so far and of the year.
And I'm sorry, but Sinbad was far better than Brother Bear, but
hey, at least The Triplets of Belleville was nominated for Best
Animated Feature.
Is it too early to predict winners? Oh well, I'll try anyway:
Best Picture
Should win: Return of the King
Will Win: Return of the King
Best Actor
Should win: Ben Kingsley
Will Win: Bill Murray
Best Actress
Should win: Diane Keaton
Will Win: Charlize Theron
Best Supporting Actor
Should win: Tim Robbins
Will Win: Tim Robbins
Best Supporting Actress
Should win: Shohreh Aghdashloo
Will Win: Renee Zellweger
Best Director
Should win: Sofia Coppola
Will Win: Peter Jackson
Best Animated Feature
Should win: The Triplets of Belleville (see it first, then you'll
see what I mean)
Will Win: Finding Nemo
Nikki Wood's Age -- Claudia, 09:32:41
01/27/04 Tue
How old was Nikki Wood when she was "called" as the
Slayer? How old was she when she gave birth to her son, Robin?
And when Spike killed her?
BtVS established in "First Date" that Robin Wood was
four years old when Nikki was killed in 1977, making the year
of his birth - 1973. But the series never did establish Nikki's
age.
Many viewers seemed to believe that Robin was the result of a
teen pregnancy. Why? Does this come from the belief that Nikki
gave birth before becoming the Slayer? Or do many believe that
all Slayers are called between the ages of 15 and 18? While reading
some of the archived posts from the time "First Date"
had aired in February 2003, someone had claimed that Nikki was
pregnant around 14, called as the Slayer around 16 or 17, and
died at age 19! Wow!
But there are other things to consider. One, both actresses who
portrayed Nikki, looked as if they were in their mid to late 20s.
Could it be possible that Nikki was at least 20 when she was first
called? And exactly how old was she when Robin was born? Did the
"Tales of the Slayer" ever establish her age at the
time of her death in 1977? And most importantly, has the series
or any of the Buffyverse comics ever establish the exact range
of age for a young female to be called as the Slayer?
Replies:
[> Re: Nikki Wood's Age -- LittleBit, 14:37:59 01/27/04
Tue
How old was Nikki Wood when she was "called" as the
Slayer? How old was she when she gave birth to her son, Robin?
And when Spike killed her?
BtVS established in "First Date" that Robin Wood was
four years old when Nikki was killed in 1977, making the year
of his birth - 1973. But the series never did establish Nikki's
age.
You essentially answered all of the questions in your first paragraph
with your second paragraph: Nikki's age was never established.
Many viewers seemed to believe that Robin was the result of
a teen pregnancy. Why? Does this come from the belief that Nikki
gave birth before becoming the Slayer? Or do many believe that
all Slayers are called between the ages of 15 and 18? While reading
some of the archived posts from the time "First Date"
had aired in February 2003, someone had claimed that Nikki was
pregnant around 14, called as the Slayer around 16 or 17, and
died at age 19! Wow!
Can't speak for 'many' as I don't really follow fan opinion anywhere
but here. However, as far as speculation goes, I too think that
Robin was born before Nikki was called, if only because I have
a hard time imagining the Slayer being effective when she's 9
months pregnant, not to mention the danger of going into labor
at any moment. Also can't really say about the usual age range
for a Slayer to be called. We have seen three Slayers (Buffy,
Kendra and Faith) for whom the exact moment of their calling can
be pinpointed, and we know for certain the age of only one of
them (Buffy). Without going into the archives myself, I'd have
to say that the speculation about Nikki being 14 is based more
on an 'earliest possible' scenario rather than anything shown
on the show.
But there are other things to consider. One, both actresses
who portrayed Nikki, looked as if they were in their mid to late
20s. Could it be possible that Nikki was at least 20 when she
was first called? And exactly how old was she when Robin was born?
Did the "Tales of the Slayer" ever establish her age
at the time of her death in 1977? And most importantly, has the
series or any of the Buffyverse comics ever establish the exact
range of age for a young female to be called as the Slayer?
Nikki could certainly have been in her 20s when she was called.
The "Tales of the Slayer" (in either the graphic edition
or the three volumes of short stories) do not establish Nikki's
age at any point, nor do any of the comics. Nor has the minimum
or maximum age for the call been established, although strongest
speculation is that the Slayer is not called until after she has
passed puberty.
[> [> addendum to the age thing..... -- Briar Rose,
15:50:26 01/28/04 Wed
I concur with your theory that all Slayers called "naturally"
were probably called once they have reached the age of puberty,
LittleBit.
As has been discussed on AtPo before, it appears to coincide with
the feminine power that menstruation brings in turning a female
child into a woman that also correlates to the "Goddess Power"
(Maiden, Mother, Crone) of many earth based religious beliefs.
However, I would also add that the Slayer's legacy definitely
was shown to reside in a Potential long before that age/time period
of human female existance as shown so dramatically in "Chosen."
There were quite a few close-ups of females answering Willow's
spell cast calling that didn't appear to be anywhere near physical
"puberty" as it relates to female hormonal changes.
The softball player comes to mind readily.
So I think (IMOO of course)that it would have been possible for
a Slayer to be naturally called, without special intervention
such as Willow used, before actual puberty was reached. So a Slayer
could have been called at as young an age as 6 if I read the cannon
that "Chosen" imparted correctly.
I guess it depends on whether you see what Willow did as against
the Universal norm or with it as to how Slayer calling is determined.....
[> [> The Age Thing -- Dlgood, 17:07:28 01/28/04
Wed
One, both actresses who portrayed Nikki, looked as if they
were in their mid to late 20s. Could it be possible that Nikki
was at least 20 when she was first called?
I don't know how relevant the actor's age (or apparent age) really
is. Drusilla was probably no older than 18 when she was turned,
though Juliet Landau was in her thirties when cast for the role.
James Marsters is in his forties, but one generally assumes William
was far younger than that when turned. Nick Brendon is ten years
older than Eliza Dushku, yet their characters were supposed to
be roughly comparable in age in S3.
[> [> [> Re: The Age Thing -- LittleBit, 17:13:09
01/28/04 Wed
I tend to agree. Actors are quite often cast in roles that have
little relevance to their actual ages. I think what Claudia was
mentioning is that when Nikki was cast it seemed that they were
looking for someone who appeared to be in her 20s.
[> [> Kennedy's age -- YesPlease, 22:07:53 01/28/04
Wed
I believe she was 19 and extremely bitter about the fact that
she had never gotten her chance and now believed she never would.
One could possibly conclude then that being Chosen has a "period
of possibility." One could be a Potential, and be outside
the preiod of possibility and all the other Potentials be killed,
but you may still not be called.
Just my .02 (nickels?)
angel: 'tv's most romantic hero'? -- anom,
13:04:10 01/27/04 Tue
Well, TV Guide says so, right on the cover, along w/a picture
of DB. Inside is an interview w/him & Joss, which does not really
bear out the cover headline but is worth reading. It has only
mild spoilers--the WKCS for next week's episode & very, very vague
spoilers for the general direction of the rest of the season.
There are also thumbnail sketches of highlights of the show (billed
on the cover as "His Mightiest Moments"--sheesh, who
comes up w/these)?
Replies:
[> Angel's is master of the brood, but everyone knows that
TV's most romantic hero is Captain Oats! -- Rob (searching
for other 'O.C.' fans), 13:06:22 01/27/04 Tue
[> [> You know I'm with you Rob! Capt. Oats forever!
-- Pony, 14:16:14 01/27/04 Tue
[> [> When it comes to brooding, O.C.'s Ryan runs Angel
a close second -- MaeveRigan, 20:35:08 01/27/04 Tue
But Seth & Captain Oats are also an extremely dynamic romantic
duo!
[> [> [> The Biggest Brooder in TV History --
Claudia, 08:52:12 01/28/04 Wed
Despite Angel and Ryan, I've always thought the biggest brooder
in TV history was the character, Samantha Waters in NBC's "Profiler".
Ally Walker could give lessons on brooding.
[> [> [> Re: Who is Captain Oats??? -- Brian,
12:51:32 01/28/04 Wed
[> [> [> [> Captain Oats is... -- Rob, 13:31:58
01/28/04 Wed
...lovable nerd, Seth Cohen's small toy horse that he's had since
he was young, and who arguably jump-started his romance life when
he "introduced" her to Anna, his current girlfriend.
After sitting alone in a room for a few minutes with Captain Oats,
she was all over Seth!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: a horse, of course! --
Brian, 10:28:11 01/29/04 Thu
[> t.v.'s most romantic hero? Al Franken. -- Rochefort,
17:00:21 01/27/04 Tue
A Possible explanation about the Master left
his bones and Kakistos didn't? -- angel, 17:02:29 01/27/04
Tue
The Master's sire was probably near a closer descensant of the
original vampire than Kakistos was. The Master was probably younger
but it could be also because of the hellmouth's energy.
Replies:
[> Re: A Possible explanation about the Master left his
bones and Kakistos didn't? -- Mighty Mouse, 19:00:32 01/27/04
Tue
I figure yeah, it probably has something to do with the Hellmouth
energies. There is also the possibility with all the work the
Master with the Order of Aurelius, and his efforts to open the
Hellmouth, and the magics that kept him in check, that he was
more "bound" to this Earth than other Vampires, and
his bones were left behind as a result.
Quick Music Question... -- Gaspar, 18:47:29
01/27/04 Tue
Can anyone tell me what the name of the song that Spike is listening
to at the end of "Lover's Walk" is?
Replies:
[> Re: Quick Music Question... -- DS, 19:05:17 01/27/04
Tue
Sid Vicious's cover of "My Way".
[> [> Re: Quick Music Question... -- Gaspar, 20:02:09
01/27/04 Tue
Awesome. Thanks, this will settle a long dispute between me and
a friend.
[> [> Technically . . . -- d'Herblay, 20:14:35
01/27/04 Tue
. . . it's Gary
Oldman from the soundtrack to Sid and Nancy. But in
spirit, it's Sid Vicious.
[> [> [> Re: Technically . . . -- Red Soul, 20:43:08
01/27/04 Tue
I'd never realized that. But it's a good thing that I have such
tasty toes.
'Buffy' class has stake in education article
from The Birmingham News -- Rufus, 01:24:39 01/28/04 Wed
The
Birmingham News
BSC teacher says `Vampire Slayer' can teach social issues
'Buffy' class has stake in education
01/27/04
THOMAS SPENCER
News staff writer
"Pay attention to the arc of the story," Susan Hagen,
the Chaucerian scholar and associate provost at Birmingham-Southern
College, counsels her students. Also, think in terms of semiotics:
look for those signifiers and signs that provide details of characterization,
she says.
The lights dim, and on the classroom screen comes yet another
installment of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the story
of a hot blond babe who, for seven critically acclaimed seasons,
Kung-Fu fought a relentless onslaught of demons plaguing Sunnydale,
Calif.
Yes, Hagen said, at least one student has already reported her
mother saying, "I'm not paying for you to go to school and
watch `Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'"
But "Buffy" is surprisingly meaty and can launch discussions
on the literary theory of intertextuality to contemporary campus
social issues such as date rape.
"We want students to make connections outside the classroom,
and popular culture is part of it," Hagen said.
Every January, Birmingham-Southern offers an intense short term
between semesters, called Interim. Some of the offerings are traditional,
but most are different from your standard academic fare: sailing
in the Caribbean, painting in the Florida Keys, art history in
Italy, New Testament studies in Greece, ecology in the Amazonian
rain forest. Closer to home, there are service projects in Woodlawn,
educational canoeing on the Cahaba and a pavement-pounding exploration
of downtown Birmingham.
But two episodes of "Buffy" a day? Nicole Henderson,
of Loganville, Ga., signed up for the class simply because it
seemed so far-fetched. "I didn't see how you could base a
class on teen series," she said.
Turns out that a fairly large slice of academia takes "Buffy"
seriously. There have been half a dozen academic books on "Buffy"
and countless papers coming from scholars in a bewildering array
of fields: religion, feminism, cosmology, folklore, myth, postmodernism,
Marxism and Slavic studies.
In Nashville this May, Middle Tennessee State University is sponsoring
a major academic conference to commemorate "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer" (1997-2003), with "a post-mortem/wake/summing
up for one of television's greatest shows."
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was the brainchild of Joss
Whedon, who wrote the screenplay for the original 1992 film. The
star of the television series was Sarah Michelle Gellar, who decided
in 2003 not to return to the show, ending the series.
Buffy Summers (Gellar) is a Southern California girl living in
Sunnydale, a town built over a "Hellmouth," a center
of demonic energy. Buffy is the latest in a line of slayers: the
one girl in all the world with the strength and skill to fight
vampires.
In her battle, she is aided by a gang of friends and an older,
scholarly mentor. Buffy battles not only the forces of darkness
but also her own inner demons as she moves through high school
and into college.
Despite its self-mocking name, the show explores tough questions
of love and betrayal, sex and death, authority, duty and rebellion.
The fantastic nature of the show allows it to make quicker, yet
at the same time more believable, pivots that intensify emotional
impact. For example, Buffy's boyfriend, Angel, is a good vampire
with a soul until Buffy loses her virginity to him and he is returned
to evil. Characters can be killed off, then brought back from
the dead. They can be possessed, then have their demons exorcised.
The show is thoroughly encoded with clues to coming plot twists
and changes. By mid-January the students in Hagen's class were
able to detect subtle signals such as a poster on a character's
wall and Buffy wearing a black cowboy hat at the beginning of
the Thanksgiving episode in which she ends up fighting the ghosts
of Indians returned to take revenge for Spanish Colonial atrocities.
That episode is threaded with conversations about moral ambiguity,
conquest, past sins and current obligations.
In another episode, Buffy and her pals - a mousy witch, a less-than-macho
guy and a bookish mentor - pursue a vampire across a college campus
at the same time a secret organization called the Initiative is
also hunting him. The Initiative resembles a military unit made
up of good-looking fraternity-types who follow orders, hunt demons
and don't question the authority of an organization that, at its
root, is driven by the ambition to harness demon power.
Adjustment to college:
Hagen selected the fourth season of episodes to show to the class
because it deals with Buffy's adjustment to college. Hagen's class
is for first-year students, and the scholarly works on Buffy are
mixed with Richard Light's book, "Making the Most of College."
"The class is partly about the show, but it is also about
the adjustment to college," Hagen said.
Thus Hagen can point to the contrast between the collaborative
questioning approach of Buffy's gang, each of whom brings unique
abilities together to solve a problem, and that of the Initiative.
That contrast highlights a trend on campus: a movement away from
a professor lecturing to impart knowledge to students toward an
atmosphere in which students, coached by their professors, come
together to pursue knowledge.
Or kill vampires.
Hagen has a long-time interest in vampire literature and has taught
an interim course about that body of literature and film, along
with accompanying scholarship.
Then she was introduced to "Buffy." "I was really
taken with the dialogue and the way the show was structured,"
she said.
Don't think you can't get meat off Buffy's bones. The introduction
to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling
in Sunnydale" alone introduces readers to Eudaimonism, a
school of thought traceable to Plato, and Aristotle's distinction
between relaxation and leisure. "Buffy," the introduction
says, can elevate the base activity of relaxing in front of the
TV, infusing it with the noblest of pursuits - philosophical contemplation.
For more information on May's international conference on "Buffy"
and the scholarly perspective on "Buffy," visit www.slayage.tv/
Replies:
[> thanks for posting this, rufus -- anom, 11:41:12
01/28/04 Wed
Maybe we could all print it out & show it to doubting friends.
"That contrast highlights a trend on campus: a movement away
from a professor lecturing to impart knowledge to students toward
an atmosphere in which students, coached by their professors,
come together to pursue knowledge."
Sounds like exactly what manwitch is talking about in his post
on IRYJ. Maybe he should send it to Hagen!
"Don't think you can't get meat off Buffy's bones. The introduction
to 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling
in Sunnydale' alone introduces readers to Eudaimonism, a school
of thought traceable to Plato, and Aristotle's distinction between
relaxation and leisure. 'Buffy,' the introduction says, can elevate
the base activity of relaxing in front of the TV, infusing it
with the noblest of pursuits - philosophical contemplation."
And maybe we should tell her about this board, too.
[> [> Thank you Rufus! -- Briar Rose, 15:32:18
01/28/04 Wed
BtVS is definitely one of the more intellectual shows that has
come along in the past few years and for some reason it got lost
in the mix for a long time.
I have to wonder if it wasn't because of the poorly presented
first movie. It's been stated widely that JW was not allowed to
do what he wanted with the movie and that what it became was not
what the series beget later.
I have a feeling that is one of the top reasons that BtVS the
Series had so much trouble from the beginning; Bad movie that
had none of the distinction and gist of the series AND the fact
that the series was over the heads of the fans WB wanted in many
cases. They played it to teens from the get go.
It doesn't surprise me that academics finally found it and embraced
it once the series had gone for a while. What does surprise me
is that academics gave it a chance at all after the less than
intriguing movie it was based on was released.
I was one who saw the movie and didn't want to watch the tv show.
But for lack of a better way to spend a tv viewing evening, I
did watch it from practically day one. Only (as I thought at the
time anyway) from the "you have to glance at the car crash"
perspective.
I am actually glad that the first episode floored me simply because
it was very different from the movie. I will honestly say that
it wasn't until the middle of the first season that I became HOOKED
on the show. But by then it was starting to come together and
I wanted to see where ME would go with it.
I do wish that Hagen hadn't chosen The Initiative season though.....*L
I see the relevance to her class, but season 4 sure wasn't the
difinitive BtVS season to immortalize, IMO. It had it's highlights
to be sure! Hush and the end of Adam, leading to Restless were
all stellar eps.
But what a lack luster "Big Bad" and overall portrayal
of angst without merit in things like "Beer Bad" (actually
one of my funniest guilty pleasure eps of BtVS) and "The
Freshman."
For my money, season 5 shows more artistic merit, even with the
whole Dawn arc that annoyed me at the beginning of the season
and anooyed me through the end of the series.*L
[> On a similar note... -- dub ;o), 15:51:11 01/28/04
Wed
This is one of the sessions in a conference for new teachers I
am helping to organize for February:
Session: A 03
Grades: 11-12
Steve XXXXX
North Okanagan-Shuswap T.A.
Using Buffy the Vampire Slayer to teach just about anything
to anyone
Now that you've stopped laughing, rest assured that the topic
is serious. Buffy is cutting edge television which addresses topics
such as feminism, friendship, responsibility, sacrifice, and doing
the right thing. The program is a natural link to English studies,
social justice, media literacy, safe and healthy schools, and
more.
;o)
Buffy Valentines -- Ann, 12:41:12 01/28/04
Wed
Was just at the local HyVee grocery and my son noticed Buffy valentines
and because I've trained him well, pointed them out. Bought 4
boxes. For those that are interested, they are available. Spike,
Buffy, Willow, Dawn and Zander are represented on valentines.
As well, Anya, Angel, the Master, Tara, Oz, vampAngel, Cordy,
vampDarla, demonAnya, Giles are included on little stickers individually.
I haven't send valentines in years, but this year might be different.
Replies:
[> Re: Buffy Valentines -- YesPlease, 21:54:10 01/28/04
Wed
Can you tell us who manufactures them? I don't have a HyVee here,
but I'd love to track some of these down.
Thanks.
[> [> Re: Buffy Valentines -- Ann, 04:18:46 01/29/04
Thu
American Greeting Corp
Cleveland Ohio 44144
Info on the box
NVTFPO-04
Barcode 13286 18808
no envelopes included though
[> [> [> Thanks! And hee-hee 'Cleveland' ;) --
YesPlease, 11:48:57 01/29/04 Thu
So what do
you think the new council is teaching the new slayers? --
angel, 16:10:01 01/28/04 Wed
I wonder if they are teaching about other than how to kill demons
but not that everything is black and white. For instance that
all demons aren't evil like cordy, clem, whistler and groo. Also
humans aren't all good and not capable of anything bad. They should
be trained but given a option of a normal life not being a slayer.
Replies:
[> Apparently -- Majin Gojira, 19:05:43 01/28/04
Wed
Many of them are entifced by the adventurous aspect of it all.
Also, apparently, there are so fricken' many of them now that
they can afford to send 12 to retrieve 1.
"Hundreds...maybe thousands" eh?
Over 1,000 below 10,000...I'd say a max possible number of slayers
being around 5,000 right now. Ballpark estimate.
No wonder the council could never find all of them.
5,000 girls out of 6 Billion People....
The implications of this...
[> [> Re: Apparently -- Dlgood, 19:23:14 01/28/04
Wed
And apparently, there are so many of them that Andrew, of all
people, gets to lead twelve. And those twelve follow Andrew. Apparently,
willingly. And Buffy trusts Andrew to lead twelve slayers on an
LA mission...
Would have worked a lot better for me if it had been Xander or
Giles.
The implications of that...
[> [> [> I'm thinking the # of the apostles --
Ann, 19:32:37 01/28/04 Wed
What does that make Andrew? ack
[> [> [> [> Well, he's certainly working on the
hair -- RadiusRS, 22:32:41 01/28/04 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, he's certainly working
on the hair -- Ann, 04:34:39 01/29/04 Thu
And Buffy is in Rome building on the rock of the church of Joss.
Placement is so important. lol
[> [> [> Re: Apparently -- Corwin of Amber, 20:05:08
01/28/04 Wed
I'm thinking that Andrew just paid 12 girls off the street to
look menacing. :)
[> [> [> [> I can go with that -- Dlgood, 21:28:41
01/28/04 Wed
After all, it doesn't matter if they're really slayers, or if
he's telling the truth. And it would explain why he didn't use
them to find Dana.
Just like the whole W&H deal, it only matters that Angel believes
it.
[> [> [> Re: Apparently -- skeeve, 11:09:40
01/29/04 Thu
We don't know that all or even any of them were actually Slayers.
Andrew might have been bluffing.
In any case, they weren't necessarily taking Andrew's orders.
Their orders might have come from Buffy.
The really icky part is that Andrew is supposed to be the best.
[> [> [> [> Andrew, as well as slayer power passing
(spoilers for Chosen and Damage) -- VampRiley, 18:37:27
01/29/04 Thu
Well, Xander was in Africa. We don't know where Robin is, probably
showing Faith the world. So, that leaves Giles with Andrew, since
he is a "man", making him "Giles' best".
But, if all the potentials are slayered up, how is the power passed
now? If Dana died, where would here power go? Into a growing fetus?
That delivery might be tough. But, if no slayer dies by the time
of first of the next generation of potentials, would they be a
slayer at birth or before? We've known teenage girls turning into
slayers and, after the beaucou de magi, a preeteen girl became
a slayer, unless she was just really short for her age. Imagine
a toddler going through their terrible twos and being a slayer.
I'll pray for the caregiver of that girl.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> Re: slayer power passing (spoilers
for Chosen and Damage) -- skeeve, 09:40:39 01/30/04 Fri
I think the current theory is that the power is not being passed
or that only Faith's power would be passed.
My theory is that the power doesn't move on.
The calling of a Slayer creates more.
If it didn't, Buffy wouldn't have been a Slayer after her first
resurrection.
My theory is also that *each* Slayer has the power of *every*
Slayer.
The was why Buffy was feeling strong after her first resurrection.
She not only felt the power she had before she died, she felt
Kendra's power as well.
If this theory is correct, the new Slayers should be feeling real
good.
My recollection of discussions of Fray, is that a previous generation
of Slayers had wiped out the vampire and demon population, thereby
preventing the calling of a new Slayer until Fray.
This suggests that Buffy and her colleagues killed Angel, Spike,
Lorne, Clem, and half of Doyle's relatives, not to mention those
of the slurpy-drinking demon from That Old Gang of Mine.
[> Pretty thrilling -- King over the water, 19:34:19
01/28/04 Wed
Just the idea that the Scoobs are putting together a worldwide
organization is amazing (almost as amazing as the idea of 12 superpowered
women taking orders from Andrew). It means that Joss and gang
aren't afraid of the implications of Chosen. They're not going
to forget that storyline, just show us the edges of it until SMG
gets tired of not being on magazine covers. I have to hope that's
going to be soon. I mean the poor thing must be dying. She hasn't
even been on Cosmo in months, much less Rolling Stone or Entertainment
Weekly.
What was better was that the end made emotional sense. This poor
undiscovered Slayer who has been tortured is taken by women who
might actually be able to understand her.
All the women, shorter than Angel's commandos, wearing bright
colors to contrast with the machine-like paramilitary outfits,
looking like nothing so much as the opposing pieces on a chessboard
was very well done. Andrew hardly needed to say who gave the order;
it made sense that it was Buffy. She's preparing for a bigger
war now and doesn't have time to be so sentimental: A Slayer belongs
with her sisters. None of them have to be alone anymore. End of
story.
[> [> SMG's on the cover of March Marie Claire magazine
;) -- Sofdog, 19:51:48 01/29/04 Thu
Guess the wait will be a bit longer.
[> Spoilers in these posts above btw -- Ann, 19:40:05
01/28/04 Wed
[> [> Darn! Read them before Ann's warning! Beware, unspoiled
ones. -- Jane, 19:42:05 01/28/04 Wed
[> 'Damage' Ending (Spoilers for AtS 5.11) -- matlack73,
19:52:39 01/28/04 Wed
I was wondering why Andrew and Giles weren't upfront with Angel
about the resources they had to track down Dana? About their intentions
to bring her with them? If Angel was not trustworthy, why give
him any information at all?
The only thing I could think of was that they were using Angel
for Wolfram & Hart's resources. But if they allowed Wolfram & Hart
to reach Dana first, how could they be sure that Dana wouldn't
be hurt? Wouldn't twelve slayers be less likely to injure Dana
than an armed W & H commando team?
[> [> I think you answered your own question... ('Damage'
spoiler) -- Rob, 20:15:48 01/28/04 Wed
they were using Angel for Wolfram & Hart's resources.
I think that's about it. After all, they did say Andrew "double-crossed"
them. As to your follow-ups:
if they allowed Wolfram & Hart to reach Dana first, how could
they be sure that Dana wouldn't be hurt?
At any time, Andrew had that team of Slayers to swoop in. Team
of Slayers beats W&H commandos any day of the week. The Watcher's
Council doesn't have the same power that they once had, since
they were all blowed up, so they needed to use W&H's resources
to find Dana, and then take her from them at the last moment.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: I think you answered your own question...
('Damage' spoiler) -- Jane, 23:10:33 01/28/04 Wed
Just a thought - if the Watcher's Council was planning on doublecrossing
W&H, using Andrew probably guaranteed that none of Angel's
gang would suspect it. I mean, Andrew? Prince of Nerds? not a
bad tactic. How sad for Angel,knowing Buffy doesn't trust him
anymore. Oh, the angst..
Great episode.
[> [> [> Re: I think you answered your own question...
('Damage' spoiler) -- matlack73, 09:33:21 01/29/04 Thu
Rob, good point. The W & H commandoes would not be a match for
12 slayers. But, it would take just one commando with an itchy
finger on a trigger to hurt Dana. Andrew and the slayers would
have no way of knowing what the commandoes would be armed with.
[> [> One would think that double-edged sword would HURT,
though ... -- Earl Allison,
04:49:29 01/29/04 Thu
I had a real problem with the idea that Buffy and the others suddenly
couldn't trust Angel, nevermind that they never mentioned the
fact that there were hundreds or thousands of Slayers running
around.
If not for Wolfram and Hart, Buffy would never have been saved
from herself (IMHO) in "Chosen" by the amulet.
And the irony of ANDREW condemning someone for their actions when
he has yet to EVER show any remorse over his being an accessory
to Katrina Silber's murder (and being giddy at the thought of
getting away with it, where Jonothan at least had the decency
to be disgusted) just kills me.
Even if I were to accept that Angel defaults to evil once being
within W&H, how exactly does Buffy, especially after her tirades
and behaviors in S7, get to judge ANYONE? I'm not even sure Giles
would have it so cut-and-dried, considering his views on Spike
in S7 and his killing of Ben in S5.
Additionally, if Andrew had those Slayers with him all along,
he (along with Buffy, who is REALLY responsible for everything
Dana did, since she made her a Slayer) bears some responsiblity
for what happened, since 12 Slayers could have taken Dana out
just as easily.
I think the entire exchange was a very, very ham-handed way of
saying "see! Angel is isolated by his bad choices!"
It smacks of, IMHO, the bad writing of ME the past couple years
-- SHOW, don't TELL!
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: One would think that double-edged sword
would HURT, though ... -- Majin Gojira, 05:36:54 01/29/04
Thu
You missed a few episodes right?
"I had a real problem with the idea that Buffy and the others
suddenly couldn't trust Angel,"
It's not Angel they don't trust...it's Angel working for Wolfram
and Hart. And as we've seen, they still have good cause to be
warry of Wolfram and Hart, even under Angel's management.
"If not for Wolfram and Hart, Buffy would never have been
saved from herself (IMHO) in "Chosen" by the amulet."
Wow, an evil company did something good! Once! That jus clears
up ALL their transgressions!
In the words of Fighter from 8-Bit Theater: PHOOIE!
"And the irony of ANDREW condemning someone for their actions
when he has yet to EVER show any remorse over his being an accessory
to Katrina Silber's murder (and being giddy at the thought of
getting away with it, where Jonothan at least had the decency
to be disgusted) just kills me."
You missed the Season 7 episode "Storyteller". Sure,
that focuses on Johnothan's murder more than Katrina's, but the
point still stands.
"Even if I were to accept that Angel defaults to evil once
being within W&H, how exactly does Buffy, especially after
her tirades and behaviors in S7, get to judge ANYONE?"
Default leader. She's learned from her experiences and moved one.
That was one of the points towards the end of seasojn 7. Don't
you remember?
"I'm not even sure Giles would have it so cut-and-dried,
considering his views on Spike in S7 and his killing of Ben in
S5."
Oh god! Moral Ambiguity! The HORROR!
You have been watching this show, right?
"Additionally, if Andrew had those Slayers with him all along,
he (along with Buffy, who is REALLY responsible for everything
Dana did, since she made her a Slayer) bears some responsiblity
for what happened, since 12 Slayers could have taken Dana out
just as easily."
Yeah. but capturing Dana wasn't the first problem: the first problem
was finding her. find, then capture. He's ready for the capture,
but not the find. Teenager girls are not as good as tracking and
conducting city-wide searches as the guys at wolfram and hart
are, no mater how physically strong they are.
"I think the entire exchange was a very, very ham-handed
way of saying "see! Angel is isolated by his bad choices!"
It smacks of, IMHO, the bad writing of ME the past couple years
-- SHOW, don't TELL!"
I didn't find it ham-handed. I found it "Mallet into skull"
directness.
"Take it and run."
Off cliff...WEEEEEEEEeeee....SPLAT!
[> [> [> [> Re: One would think that double-edged
sword would HURT, though ... -- Earl
Allison, 05:46:33 01/29/04 Thu
Actually, I have been watching the show.
I have NEVER seen Andrew show the slightest remorse over Katrina,
not once. Not in name, not in reflection, nothing. So no, "Storyteller"
doesn't address this one bit, IMHO.
As for W&H, my issue is this; when you make morally ambiguous
decisions yourself. When you screw up royally over and over again
(as I feel Buffy did in S7), one would think you might use some
caution, instead of making more snap-judgements.
No one trusts Angel? Why does anyone trust Buffy or the new Council?
Why SHOULD they, at this point? Buffy empowered hundreds or thousands
of girls, and Dana "slipped between the cracks"? Wow,
I'm sure that means a lot to the half-dozen or so people she killed
because Buffy didn't think it through.
When one side cannot show any empathy, they are rarely deserving
of any. Do they have reason to be wary? Yes, to decide someone
cannot be trusted? Not so sure, not when Buffy and the new Council
haven't been straightforward, honest, or particularly moral, either.
As for the "do good once and be cleansed" take it up
with ME -- Spike had a soouulll now, and that absolved him in
S7 BtVS. Don't shoot me, shoot the ones that at least partially
tried to sell the message -- Mutant Enemy.
Take it and run -- but not off a cliff, unless you're a lemming
:)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: One would think that double-edged
sword would HURT, though ... -- Majin Gojira, 05:57:56
01/29/04 Thu
"Actually, I have been watching the show."
Sorry, but it doesn't appear that way to me. but that's just my
opinion.
"I have NEVER seen Andrew show the slightest remorse over
Katrina, not once. Not in name, not in reflection, nothing. So
no, "Storyteller" doesn't address this one bit, IMHO."
I must disagree. But since this is your opinion, that is also
mine so...moot.
"As for W&H, my issue is this; when you make morally
ambiguous decisions yourself. When you screw up royally over and
over again (as I feel Buffy did in S7)"
and towards the end when she realised that she had and became
stronger from it...
"one would think you might use some caution, instead of making
more snap-judgements."
Logically, the evidence is still stacked against Wolfram and Hart.
I'd hardly call it a snap judgement. infact, I'd call assuming
that they are good now that Angel is in charge a snap judgement.
"No one trusts Angel?"
An Angel working for WR&H who has only been working their for
less than 6 months. Yeah. Real trustworthy. We've seen evidence
of the compronises they have had to make and the incidents which
have slipped through their fingers. Why did you not address this
point and instead go on to attack Buffy's credibility I just don't
know. Stay on subject.
"Why does anyone trust Buffy or the new Council?"
1) Default.
2) They are one in the same, Buffy wouldn't have it any other
way. Neither would Giles.
"Why SHOULD they, at this point?"
Because Buffy has grown as a person, is listening to the imput
of others as she should.
"Buffy empowered hundreds or thousands of girls, and Dana
"slipped between the cracks"? Wow, I'm sure that means
a lot to the half-dozen or so people she killed because Buffy
didn't think it through."
Oh god UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES! the AGONY.
In the words of the Cybermen of Doctor Who: IRRELEVANT!
"When one side cannot show any empathy, they are rarely deserving
of any. Do they have reason to be wary? Yes, to decide someone
cannot be trusted? Not so sure, not when Buffy and the new Council
haven't been straightforward, honest, or particularly moral, either."
It is Irrelevent that they are morally ambiguous as well. How
does that stop them from judging or are you saying that they can't
judge because they are morally ambiguous? In that case, I'd tell
you that you are holding them up to a moral standard they may
not have and thus, is a irrelevant point. They did it. Deal.
"As for the "do good once and be cleansed" take
it up with ME -- Spike had a soouulll now, and that absolved him
in S7 BtVS."
Remember spike at the end of this episode? Incorrect point.
"Don't shoot me, shoot the ones that at least partially ried
to sell the message -- Mutant Enemy."
A message which you misinterpret.
"Take it and run -- but not off a cliff, unless you're a
lemming :)"
LEMMING! WEEEEE!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: One would think that
double-edged sword would HURT, though ... -- Earl
Allison, 06:23:44 01/29/04 Thu
"Actually, I have been watching the show."
Sorry, but it doesn't appear that way to me. but that's just my
opinion.
- And it would be wrong, but that's hardly material.
"I have NEVER seen Andrew show the slightest remorse over
Katrina, not once. Not in name, not in reflection, nothing. So
no, "Storyteller" doesn't address this one bit, IMHO."
I must disagree. But since this is your opinion, that is also
mine so...moot.
"As for W&H, my issue is this; when you make morally
ambiguous decisions yourself. When you screw up royally over and
over again (as I feel Buffy did in S7)"
and towards the end when she realised that she had and became
stronger from it...
- In your opinion. I saw her validated through writer fiat and
Deux Ex Machina, not from learning anything. This is probably
where our problems in interpretation arise, and they only escalate
from here.
"one would think you might use some caution, instead of making
more snap-judgements."
Logically, the evidence is still stacked against Wolfram and Hart.
I'd hardly call it a snap judgement. infact, I'd call assuming
that they are good now that Angel is in charge a snap judgement.
- I don't, but was there any actual observation here? And again,
W&H supplied the amulet that saved the world from Buffy. I don't
see that evidence in play. And truthfully? What does Buffy and
the group KNOW about W&H, anyway? Unless they've been studying
since S7 ended, I'd have to conclude nothing, aside from what
Angel might have told them.
"No one trusts Angel?"
An Angel working for WR&H who has only been working their for
less than 6 months. Yeah. Real trustworthy. We've seen evidence
of the compronises they have had to make and the incidents which
have slipped through their fingers. Why did you not address this
point and instead go on to attack Buffy's credibility I just don't
know. Stay on subject.
- What subject? That ME indulges in TELL, don't SHOW? And what
proof is there that Buffy knows any of this? She and the others
didn't know Spike was back? Why do you assume they know what suits
the argument? And Buffy's credibility was shot in S7, IMHO. And
it IS the topic, when Buffy and/or the Council decides to condemn
someone else's morality when their own is equally questionable.
"Why does anyone trust Buffy or the new Council?"
1) Default.
2) They are one in the same, Buffy wouldn't have it any other
way. Neither would Giles.
"Why SHOULD they, at this point?"
Because Buffy has grown as a person, is listening to the imput
of others as she should.
- And we see this where? "Chosen"? Not in my interpretation.
And whose input, by the way?
"Buffy empowered hundreds or thousands of girls, and Dana
"slipped between the cracks"? Wow, I'm sure that means
a lot to the half-dozen or so people she killed because Buffy
didn't think it through."
Oh god UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES! the AGONY.
In the words of the Cybermen of Doctor Who: IRRELEVANT!
- Really? So Buffy's actions with moral consequences are irrelevant,
despite being potentially poorly thought out and disasterous in
consequence, yet you lambast Angel above for similar compromises?
So Dana's slipping through Buffy's fingers is no big deal, yet
Angel's letting issues slip is? How is this different, exactly?
"When one side cannot show any empathy, they are rarely deserving
of any. Do they have reason to be wary? Yes, to decide someone
cannot be trusted? Not so sure, not when Buffy and the new Council
haven't been straightforward, honest, or particularly moral, either."
It is Irrelevent that they are morally ambiguous as well. How
does that stop them from judging or are you saying that they can't
judge because they are morally ambiguous? In that case, I'd tell
you that you are holding them up to a moral standard they may
not have and thus, is a irrelevant point. They did it. Deal.
- No, it isn't irrelevant IMHO. If you lack the moral high ground,
don't attempt to lay into someone else. Yes, they did it, and
I objected - or am I not allowed to disagree?
"As for the "do good once and be cleansed" take
it up with ME -- Spike had a soouulll now, and that absolved him
in S7 BtVS."
Remember spike at the end of this episode? Incorrect point.
- We'll see how much it sticks. He had Nikki's death brought back
this episode. I wonder if he'll continue to wear the murder trophy
next week? And I said Buffy S7, not this. In S7, his soul trumped
all, you mocked my statement earlier, I demonstrated that ME uses
it when it suits them. In your words. Deal.
"Don't shoot me, shoot the ones that at least partially ried
to sell the message -- Mutant Enemy."
A message which you misinterpret.
- In your opinion, only in your opinion. Hardly set in stone.
"Take it and run -- but not off a cliff, unless you're a
lemming :)"
LEMMING! WEEEEE!
Feel free to continue the dialogue, that is interesting. But please
lose the insults. Thank you.
Masq -- if I'm out of line, let me know. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: One would think
that double-edged sword would HURT, though ... -- Majin Gojira,
06:48:46 01/29/04 Thu
"And it would be wrong, but that's hardly material."
Of course.
"In your opinion. I saw her validated through writer fiat
and Deux Ex Machina, not from learning anything. This is probably
where our problems in interpretation arise, and they only escalate
from here."
Care to provide evidence to back up this claim, or should I just
take it at face value?
"I don't, but was there any actual observation here? And
again, W&H supplied the amulet that saved the world from Buffy.
I don't see that evidence in play."
Exibit A: The Amulet
Exibit B: documents entailing the details of WR&H's attrocities
and alligences
"And truthfully? What does Buffy and the group KNOW about
W&H, anyway?"
They're a multi-dimensional firm, I'm sure Giles would be able
to dig up something. If not, he might have known something beforehand.
It's abig player from what we can tell. Why WOUDLN'T they know?
(don't try to answer this as you would be trying to prove a negative,
which is impossible)
"Unless they've been studying since S7 ended, I'd have to
conclude nothing, aside from what Angel might have told them."
Mostly this hinges on Giles researching abilities. Though having
no evidence for it other than it is extrodinarily in character
for him to do so (probably whislt researching the Amulet).
"What subject? That ME indulges in TELL, don't SHOW?"
The Subject: Why Buffy coudln't Trust Angel working for WR&H.
"And what proof is there that Buffy knows any of this?"
The actions taken are proof in themselves that she knows something.
"She and the others didn't know Spike was back?"
Apparently from earlier in the ep, Andrew at least heard rumers
to this effect (probably from the office).
If their's knowledge of WR&H comnes post-amulet research mode,
this is more than likely.
"Why do you assume they know what suits the argument? And
Buffy's credibility was shot in S7, IMHO."
No hope of redemption. Good to know! :-)
This does not stack up with your earlier statements condemming
the idea that a single insance can clear a name (IE: Spike vs.
Wolfram and Hart. Spike cannot be redeemed 'because he has a soul
now', but WR&H can be because Angel runs them now.) Concession
Accepted.
"And it IS the topic, when Buffy and/or the Council decides
to condemn someone else's morality when their own is equally questionable."
The Topic is Why they would, not if they were right about it or
had the right to. People judge all the time. and don't give me
the "Judge not lest ye be judged" stuff either. They
have good reason for not trusting WR&H. How? Their past.
"And we see this where? "Chosen"? Not in my interpretation.
And whose input, by the way?"
Giles, mainly. Basically she took in all the information given
to them then RAN IT BY EVERONE ELSE TO SEE IF THE PLAN SEEMED
FEASABLE. If they hadn't thought so, they would have told her.
I myself think the plan was not a good battle plan, but a good
idea in of itself.
"Really? So Buffy's actions with moral consequences are irrelevant,
despite being potentially poorly thought out and disasterous in
consequence, yet you lambast Angel above for similar compromises?
So Dana's slipping through Buffy's fingers is no big deal, yet
Angel's letting issues slip is? How is this different, exactly?"
When the topic is whether or not Buffy should have trusted Angel,
yes it is irrelevent. Why? Because it is a Discrediting attack
against them with no firther merrit. Also known as an Ad Hominem
Attack. A Debating Fallacy.
'You're wrong because you touch yourself at night' - Example Ad
Hominem.
'Buffy has no right to judge because he's made mistakes in the
past' - The fallacy used here.
"No, it isn't irrelevant IMHO. If you lack the moral high
ground, don't attempt to lay into someone else."
They did it already. It's not should they have, but were they
right?
"Yes, they did it, and I objected - or am I not allowed to
disagree?"
You are, but stay on topic.
"We'll see how much it sticks. He had Nikki's death brought
back this episode. I wonder if he'll continue to wear the murder
trophy next week?"
It has yet to be seen, though it is doubtfull.
"And I said Buffy S7, not this."
Sorry, That was not clear to me. Aside from which, it did not
deal with the main point of the post.
"In S7, his soul trumped all, you mocked my statement earlier,
I demonstrated that ME uses it when it suits them. In your words.
Deal."
I do. moslty Poker though. care for a hand? :-)
"In your opinion, only in your opinion. Hardly set in stone."
Reviewing Movies is a lot like Palentology. The Evidence is there
but no one seems to agree upon it.
"Feel free to continue the dialogue, that is interesting.
But please lose the insults. Thank you."
Alrighty, I'll try and loose the condescention and replace it
with cheery good humor!
"Masq -- if I'm out of line, let me know. Thanks."
"Insufficient response, LIBRARY DRONE!" - EVIL!GIR
[> [> [> I have to agree (spoilers 5.11) -- CW,
07:08:44 01/29/04 Thu
The episode was fun enough to watch. But, thinking about it afterward,
it just didn't add up.
I've got problems with it besides the ones Earl brought up.
What in the world was the purpose of sending Andrew to meet with
the folks at W&H? This is Andrew the Chameleon. His moral
compass pointer spins in the breeze every time he changes companions.
Sure he'd want to be a watcher if he'd hang around Giles. But
he'd want to drive a mail truck if they sent him to the Post Office
for stamps. Not a great choice to deal with people they didn't
trust on a tricky mission. Wouldn't it be obvious that Giles'
best 'man' would actually be one of the slayers?
Also I found it a bit tacky that Buffy and Willow are 'living
the dream,' 1950's style. Just how much money did the Watcher's
Council have socked away?. They couldn't help Buffy with paying
the bills in season 6. But now they've got plenty to send Dawn
to private school. And please don't tell me she learned to speak
Italian fluently in six months and isn't going to school somewhere
very expensive.
Also I find it a bit annoying that six months after the big day,
General Buffy is still calling the shots. Surely she's the most
experienced of the Slayers. No doubt about that. But, it's tough
to believe she's the smartest, most shrewd, or even the most politically
adept any more. Personally, I accept Buffy hanging around in Italy
more if she's just one of the leaders, not the leader any
more.
This episode begs the question, how inept was the First Evil?
What was the point of killing off potentials? If he hadn't wasted
the first ubervamp on the surface, there were enough Ubervamps
below Sunnydale to kill every inexperienced new slayer one by
one, once he got rid of Buffy and Faith. Besides that, when the
First Evil was done killing of potentials there were apparently
hundreds left. They should have called him the First Evil Bungler.
This is what happens when you revert to comic book plots.
[> [> [> I think Andrew was running his mouth.
-- Casino21, 10:04:09 01/29/04 Thu
Andrew playing the moral high ground was sickening enough, but
I believe he made the situation too personal. He said that nobody
on Buffy and Co.'s side trusts Angel "anymore". By using
the word "anymore", he's no longer referring to Wolfram
& Hart. He's directing their mistrust towards Angel himself. IMHO
that statement doesn't add up. It's hard to believe that the Scooby
Gang no longer believes Angel is doing good or trustworthy. If
that were the case, what would stop the Scoobies from trying to
help him. Buffy went to LA to help Angel when she thought Faith
was a threat. Willow was able to tear herself away from the Sunnydale
chaos to help AI re-soul Angelus. If they thought Angel was playing
for the other side, evil or not, I'd hope they'd be a little more
proactive. I think Andrew was just being a tool to feign his experience
and composure. He ran his mouth to guilt Angel into backing out
of the confrontation. I think Angel read into this as well, but
decided a confrontation wouldn't go well for either side and he
really did have his own problems to deal with. Killing Andrew
to keep a crazy slayer under his own watch would be an ugly blemish
for his rep.
I think Andrew should watch his attitude if he ever decides to
show up in LA again though. His attitude is only forgivable once.
:)
[> [> [> [> Or Maybe Not -- Irene, 11:01:03
01/29/04 Thu
Or maybe Andrew wasn't. Perhaps Buffy doesn't trust Wolfram & Hart
- especially after witnessing what happened to Spike in "Chosen".
And to be honest, not many fans really believe that Angel & Co.
can withstand the corruption of Wolfram & Hart, so why should
Buffy?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Or Maybe Not -- Casino21,
11:42:59 01/29/04 Thu
I what I was trying to explain was that Andrew made the mistrust
more about Angel and less about W&H. Buffy & Co. shouldn't
trust Wolfram & Hart. But why act like Angel switched to the dark
side? What would be the advantage of publically anouncing that
stance? Like I said before, Andrew acted that way to back Angel
into a corner. Andrew was right in taking responsibility for the
troubled slayer, but it was not his place to threaten the welfare
of the people that just helped you accomplish his goal. Andrew
tends to exaggerate everything. I don't think it's right how he
got the job done.
I agree, it's nigh impossible to believe that The Fang Gang will
withstand the corruption of W&H, but I got to believe if anyone
is going to come out it alive, morals intact, it's going to be
Angel. Just my opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Or Maybe Not -- Dee,
14:02:53 01/29/04 Thu
Perhaps Buffy doesn't trust Wolfram & Hart - especially after
witnessing what happened to Spike in "Chosen".
Yeah. I could see how giving you a magical device that saves the
world by bailing out you and your monumentally idiotic plan would
go along the way toward breaching trust.
If Buffy distrusts W&H, the end of "Chosen" would
have precious little to do with it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Or Maybe Not --
Irene, 07:41:57 01/30/04 Fri
[Yeah. I could see how giving you a magical device that saves
the world by bailing out you and your monumentally idiotic plan
would go along the way toward breaching trust.]
I gather that you're referring to the same magical device that
incenerated a close friend of Buffy's in the process. After witnessing
that, I'm sure that Buffy has no reason to trust Wolfram & Hart
- whether Angel is CEO of its L.A. Branch or not.
Why are so many taking Andrew's statement so personally? Is it
because they fear that this really spells the end of a possible
B/A reunion?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's because the
scoobies are still USING people -- Doug, 08:37:58 01/30/04
Fri
I don't know, I'm not any kind of shipper anymore, but doesn't
acting as if the fang gang believe that they were allies, letting
Spike get maimed because their new slayers are too wimpy to do
their own grunt work, and then turn on their allies when it best
suited them, seem incredibly slimy, dishorable and despicable.
You know, I'm not even interested in who could better take charge
of Dana; but Andrew and his slayers committed 3 betrayals:
1) They betrayed their mission to protect humanity by refusing
to help track down a dangerous supernatural killer.
2) They betrayed Angel, Spike, and everyone who was trying to
stop Dana by witholding their help despite the fact they had forces
right in the area. If Dana was their concern then why were they
all too cowardly to face her, instead hiding behind the supposedly
morally corrupt vampires.
3) They betrayed all those above when they used physical threat
against their allies in order to take Dana. Maybe they were right,
maybe they were wrong, but they showed themselves to be nothing
more than bullies, unwilling to take risks against an enemy but
willing to use threats against those who refuse to raise arms
against them (there is a great B5 quote I'll have to dig up about
this)
That's why I take it personally. Because it basicly shows that
the scoobies have lost whatever shreds of heroism they had left.
You can't be a force for good without at least some form of honor.
Betraying people who bleed for you is more than enough to admit
someone into the list of villains.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What makes
you think the Slayers would have been any good at finding Dana?
-- Finn Mac Cool, 09:01:09 01/30/04 Fri
They're great in a fight, but, when it comes to trying to find
one person in a big city, they've got nothing more to offer than
12 ordinary people. As such, they needed Wolfram & Hart in order
to be able to find Dana, and Angel just got to the scene first.
Also, if one goes under the assumption that the Scoobies taking
Dana was the right thing to do, and threats of violence were the
only way to get Angel and Co. to hand her over, then threats of
violence were therefore justified (see most of Buffy's interactions
with Willy as an example).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is betraying
an ally EVER justifiable? -- Doug, 09:23:13 01/30/04 Fri
To answer your first question Andrew could very easily have sent
out a few to folow Spike along with him, while leaving a few other
s back to suport the tactical teams. Can you tell me in all honestly
that Dana could have defeated Spike if it was him and another
Slayer (as it was Dana only managed to drive Spike off the first
time, and the second time she on surprised him only because he
wasn't trying to fight her)? Can you tell me in all honesty that
those slayers would have been no use in anny role of bringing
Dana down?
Even if you can say that with a straight face they still should
have been there. Because Andrew came into town and called on an
old alliance, he shouldn't have held out on ANYTHING that could
have helped. If you don't have a foundation of Honor, then all
morality is nothing but meaningless babble.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:05:50 01/30/04 Fri
I reiterate: the Slayers could help bring Dana down, but not track
her. Considering Spike went off on his own, not telling anyone
what he was up to, there's no opportunity to follow him.
Also, why is honor so important? If I promise a friend I'll help
protect him, then he attacks a police officer, do I still have
an obligation to help him get away? Keeping promises and being
loyal to your allies is only good if you can trust them. However,
if you ally with someone who's recently been making some very
morally ambiguous choices and surrounds himself with at least
a few undeniably evil or amoral people, then keeping your word
to them isn't necessarily the best course of action.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You don't know my opinion of cops, but that's beside the point.
-- Doug, 11:20:01 01/30/04 Fri
Personaly I think a fair percentage of the people in those uniforms
in my are deserve whatever comes to them; and the rest, with a
few wondrous exceptions, cover up for them. So I'm going to remain
silent on your example in the interests of the fine people of
this board being able to sleep tonight. Let's just say bad example,
and you really don't want to know the answer I was typing out.
But you do have a point; what do you do when you want to end an
alliance? You do it openly and make sure you owe each other nothing.
As opposed to leading them on, using them parasitically then dumping
them when you've got what you wanted. You don't stab a your comrade
in the back in the middle of combat, or while he's still recovering
from a wound taken defending you; you wait till the fightings
over and the alliance ended before pulling any of that.
Why is honor so important? Because it's the basis of all human
interaction that's not based on force or threat of force. If you
make a deal with someone could you trust them if the authorities
wouldn't enforce the deal? What motivation do you have not to
cheat him? The idea that your word, given in pact, has some meaning;
and the trust that he holds to the same code and that both of
you place some value on their word.
Honor can mean a lot of things; trust, friendship, the simple
idea that an obligation accepted must be fulfilled, and not simply
discarded when inconvenient. Without that we are ruled by whichever
brute has the biggest stick. Different cultures have different
codes, and different individuals may have different codes, but
the concept is refreshingly the same.
All that is goodness is based on these codes; any attemopt to
serve "the greater good" (whatever that's supposed to
mean) inevitably ends in injustice and much bloodshed. Try looking
up Robert Mugabe, or Fidel Castro, or Stalin or Mao if you don't
believe me. I imagine every one of those men said the words "the
greater good" at least once while discussing how they wanted
to change their homelands. Keep true to yourself and your word
and never use the words "the greater good" and you have
a much better chance of making positive changes to the world (though
admittedly the changes would be less spactacular than killing
anywhere from thousands to millions of people).
So these new slayers consider themselves above those who help
them, above even the value of their own word. Since they weren't
capable of tracking Dana, and didn't have the raw courage to take
her down themselves, they just manipulated old allies then put
the screws on them when it served them best. Doesn't anyone else
smell the slime accumulating? After all they have the power to
change the world, do whatever they want, they are above all laws,
even whatever honor they may have. Everyone's worrying about the
rogue slyers; maybe we should be keeping an eye on the main organization
instead.
This incidentally could explain the Fray timeline; as the slayers
become more egotistical more and more humans wake up to the supernatural
and go to war against the slayers, demons, and anything else that's
trying to lord it over them. They exterminate the slayers and
the (who had mostly been killed by the slayers) demons flee to
other dimensions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Honor only matters if you'll later need the other's help
-- Finn Mac Cool, 19:57:42 01/30/04 Fri
If the person you doublecross may someday be needed in order to
get what you want, then it is best to do the whole honor thing
with them, otherwise you won't get their help again. However,
if making the alliance was a one time deal, the only concern with
breaking this code of honor is that others will hear of it and
no longer ally with you. But, if you can keep it a secret or keep
your word enough times in other places to offset this, then there
is no real impetus to be honorable to someone else.
Also, I'm able to interact with other people with a threat of
force because I don't want to hurt others, and I can assume the
majority of the people I meet don't either. As such, I may keep
a deal with someone, not because it's the honorable thing to do,
but because I'd be doing them harm if I didn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> What if you need someone elses help, and they've
heard you're a lying sack of **** -- Doug, 21:18:08 01/30/04
Fri
Not referring to you of course. I used 'you' because of how your
question was phrased.
>>>>
Suppose I'm running a band of demon fighters out of Fort Hope
in Northern Ontario. We know the local area pretty well but so
do the local werewolves so we're at a bit of a standstill, not
cleaning up the town but it's not being overrun. Now all of a
sudden I've got this bunch of Slayers breathing down my neck,
expecting me to help with some mission and acting like I should
be gratified just to be in their presence. Well fair enough that
they need help since not a one of them knows birch from maple
and their leader is some hobbit-haired Dr. Who-wannabe who's crazy
enough to maintain that Star Trek is better than Babylon 5.
Thing is one of my guys has got some contacts down in the states
and warns me that these new slayers and their council are totally
willing to threaten and betray mere mortal operators like us;
and then he mentions this guy named Angel. Now I've never met
this guy Angel, and what I've heard is kinda mixed. Great fighter,
but he has a tendancy to go nuts every so often if you know what
I'm saying. So I get our Witch to do some scryings and truthsayings
and it turns out that these slayers relied and on this guy Angel's
team to do all of their work and only got off their asses to threaten
him once all the work was done. Apparently they didn't even tell
him they had reinforcements in the area and one of his guys got
pretty mangled-up by their dirty laundry.
Now, I don't like this Wolfram and Hart thing anymore than anyone
else does; one of the previous bosses, Holland something-or-other,
sent some people up here to wreak mischief and it cost us a fortune
to mail all their heads back to LA as a warning. Now this Angel
claims to be trying to turn things around in LA and maybe it'll
work or maybe it won't, but that's just doesn't matter here and
now.
What matters is that these slayers are perfectly willing to sell
their allies up the river and use them as cannon fodder in a way
that would do Bester proud. So why should we stick our necks out
for them? They betrayed a group in LA, what have they done to
prove themselves to me?
So should I let them carry out their business here with neither
help nor interference (and open up a betting pool on how many
the werewolves kill) or do I give them a time limit to get out
of town, before I release a bunch of my guys who have no trouble
killing without being heard (bullet to the back of the head from
300 yards puts the kibosh on any of that super-speed). Just kidding,
I'll only do that if they threaten my people; if they do their
heads will be sent to a Mr Rupert Giles in England, along with
a polite note explaining their transgression.
<<<<
That was Dominic Thorn, a character of mine who I figured might
like to weigh in on why personal honor is all that there is for
marking your reputation. Since law and order do not recognize
the supernatural the Slayers can't launch slander or libel suits
against mister Wyndham-Pryce for leaking some information to some
contacts who are shared by Rachel Johnson (the term 'guy' can
refer to both male and female in the slang of some regions of
Ontario) a member of Thorn's team of demon fighters who has actually
been doing this for longer than he has, and had contacts with
the old watchers. I must admit that Thorn is a bit of a bloodthirsty
bastard, but his heart is in the right place.
But after all, why should this hypothetical character, myself,
or anyone else real or fictional cut a deal with someone we *know*
will betray us if it suits them? Why should Angel, any of the
old Fang Gang, or Spike for that matter help any of the members
of the new SC the next time they come crawling in begging for
help? Why should anyone else who hears the tale (and since all
involved are still alive the tale will be heard) so why should
Thorn (or any oher demon fighter on the planet) stick his neck
out, and risk his crew, to help the SC? Why should anyone?
In any case, why do you not want to do harm to people? Ask yourself
why an action is moral and why it is not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I already covered this -- Finn Mac Cool,
12:42:07 01/31/04 Sat
"But, if you can keep it a secret or keep your word enough
times in other places to offset this, then there is no real impetus
to be honorable to someone else."
I think that, in this case, the Scoobies probably have a good
enough rep that using force once when negotiating with an evil
law firm probably won't make them pariahs in the supernatural
world, assuming such a small event even becomes widely heard of
at all. Think about it: the LA branch of Wolfram & Hart has buttloads
of resources and two executives with close ties to the Scooby
Gang, yet it took half a year before they found out thousands
of Slayers had been activated world wide. This strikes me as evidence
that the supernatural sects of the Buffyverse don't communicate
very well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> That's what John I said -- Doug,
13:17:50 01/31/04 Sat
When he threw a noble family in the dungeon without trial and
they starved to death; no biggie, just a minor incident.
He had a barons revolt as a direct result of that, and the effects
of that revolt caused a host of other problems including his being
forced to sign the Magna Carta. Other such "minor incidents"
caused him a few other problems: he also got excommunicated during
his reign, and he barely managed to weasel out of having a crusade
declared against him. Oh yes, and when he died the French were
staging a small invasion.
It's the little things that nail you to the floor and do a tapdance
on you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Trust
-- Irene, 14:31:36 01/30/04 Fri
"If you don't have a foundation of Honor, then all morality
is nothing but meaningless babble."
Maybe the reason Andrew held out was because he was told that
he could not trust Wolfram & Hart completely - whether or not
Angel was CEO of the L.A. Branch. And Angel's insistence upon
keeping Dana only confirmed the Scoobies' fears.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Then he should have dealt openly -- Doug, 15:12:19 01/30/04
Fri
If you suspect another of being untrustworthy proving yourself
to be untrustworthy is problably among the worst options available.
That's not a quote from anyone famous, but I think it sums up
the situation. Andrew could have been upfront about things. He
could have told Angel that Buffy and the others wanted Dana brought
to them, or that Buffy and the others didn't want anything to
do with Angel and then Andrew could have tried to take down Dana
without W&H resources. Can you really blame Angel for not being
aware that Buffy had constructed a maximum security detainment
facility complete with titanium restraints capable of holding
psychotic slayers? Andrew could have told him that at that first
meeting. And if Angel had agreed to turn Dana over then they would
have known something, and if he'd refuse then the alliance would
be over and they'd also know something. As it is they know nothing
other than their own assumptions. And I think everyone here knows
what happens when you assume something. In any case Angel still
trusted Buffy and the others, and his trust was abused. And Andrew
didn't have to do that, but he took, in the words of Yoda, "the
quick and easy path".
In any case, I would argue that the question of whether or not
Angel and his friends can be trusted while they are in the belly
of the beast is still undecided but the question of whether this
new organization of slayers will respect anything not backed up
with Force or threat of Force has been decided resoundingly. If
Angel has to have more dealings with them he might want to dust
off his "Hyper Death Ray Microwave Cannon" and let them
know that fists and stakes are not the only kinds of force out
there. Just a warning shot you understand, let them know that
2 can play that game.
Additional note: The term "Hyper Death Ray Microwave Cannon"
is not my own; I ran onto it on the TWoP forums referring to Angel's
sattelite weaponry.
Another additional note: As characters go I don't even particularly
like Angel. I mostly watch for the secondary characters and I
don't think I've ever posted in defence of Angel as a character
before. But I can't let this slide and I have to say something,
so here I am.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's because
the scoobies are still USING people -- Irene, 10:51:09
01/30/04 Fri
I have the feeling that I'm detecting a lot of bitterness, due
to Andrew's statement that Buffy doesn't trust Angel working for
Wolfram & Hart. Is this due to a fear that B/A might really be
over?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's
because the scoobies are still USING people -- Casino21, 11:46:28
01/30/04 Fri
Okay, moving back to my original point, if the Scoobies wanted
to retrieve Dana they could have just asked. Dana "is"
the Scoobies reposnibility. I'm even okay with the fact that the
WC sent 12 slayers to do so. Them showing up is proof enough that
they be more that capable of handling her situation. If Andrew
had pointed that fact out and left it at that I'm sure Angel would
have given her over freely to the WC.
But then with an army of Slayers backing him he drew a line in
the sand and said this is your side and this is the good side.
Cross that line and we take you out. Even after he did all the
work for them and safely retrieved the girl, Andrew decided to
spit in his face. He'd even mentioned that none of them dated
Angel which IMHO means if Buffy were here she "may"
and I stress "may" be dealing with the situation differently,
but since I'm here this is how going to get done.
My point is that all of that was unnecessary.
As for the whole B/A thing, I thought that was over for several
reasons at several times in the plot line.
If you must bring that back about how the B/A fans see the situation,
and I definitely respect those fans, know that a lot of them feel
Spike pretty much summed it up before he closed the hellmouth.
But I digress.
What should have been business between the Scoobies and the Fang
Gang turned personal and regardless of whatever the players feel
about each other, it should have stayed "business"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
It's because the scoobies are still USING people -- Irene,
13:27:42 01/30/04 Fri
"Okay, moving back to my original point, if the Scoobies
wanted to retrieve Dana they could have just asked. Dana "is"
the Scoobies reposnibility."
Isn't that why Andrew appeared at the Wolfram & Hart offices in
the first place?
"I'm even okay with the fact that the WC sent 12 slayers
to do so. Them showing up is proof enough that they be more that
capable of handling her situation. If Andrew had pointed that
fact out and left it at that I'm sure Angel would have given her
over freely to the WC."
Even after the 12 Slayers appeared, Angel continued to insist
that W&H act as Dana's guardian. It wasn't until Andrew mentioned
Buffy that he finally backed down.
"But then with an army of Slayers backing him he drew a line
in the sand and said this is your side and this is the good side.
Cross that line and we take you out. Even after he did all the
work for them and safely retrieved the girl, Andrew decided to
spit in his face."
Andrew spitted in Angel's face, when the latter refused to cooperate
and hand Dana over to Andrew and the Slayers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's because the scoobies are still USING people --
Casino21, 23:20:26 01/30/04 Fri
"Andrew spitted in Angel's face, when the latter refused
to cooperate and hand Dana over to Andrew and the Slayers."
So after all the goodwill shown by the Fang Gang, the low blow
was justified? Nice attitude. I say fine. Angel let it slide,
but let's face facts. From what was established in this episode,
the WC needed FG's help. The Council needed Wolfram & Hart. to
help clean up the Council's mess. They weren't organized enough
to locate Dana soon enough. It just seems sad that a "bad
guys" did their job better than the Scoobies.
And if the "good guys" ever need help in the future,
it's lookin' like they're gonna be on their own, or their going
to have to do a whole lot of beggin'. At least that's how I'd
look at it if I were a little ponce who just decided to threaten
the former scourge of Europe and probably would take the situation
to the point of violence. It's a good thing I'm not and I'm more
mature than that. It's a good thing Angel's not like that too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> God forbid!
I always shut off the TV when those 2 are on -- Doug, 12:04:21
01/30/04 Fri
It's not as bad as Buffy/Riley, but seriously. Are you sure this
isn't just you clinging to a theory despite what I said about
not being a shipper these days? I mean, the only ships I ever
rooted for Wes/Lilah, Spike/Faith, Gunn/Gwen, Xander/Cordy, and
Connor/anyone who wold have actually helped him psychologically.
But you're right I am bitter about something. Back in "Seeing
Red" when Xander was condemning Buffy for being with Spike
she pointed out that he'd worked with Spike to, to which he replied
that at least he'd just used him and never felt anything for him.
Some ME writers said that Xander was the most mature character
of the scoobies. So that's what this twisted version of morality
is; it's better to use someone as long as it's convenient while
pretending to be their friend, and then discard them when they
cease to be convenient, than to actually care for someone who
helps you.
I've been used in my own way through a surprisingly large portion
of my life. I'm a big guy, and I also know History and the social
sciences pretty well so whenever someone needed help studying
or a little protection out on the playground (I also have the
temper of a berserker) I would find myself with a new friend,
who would dump me like a bad habit the moment my services were
not needed. When I was about 17 I realized something:
I don't deserve this.
Why the hell was I my entire High School's help desk? Why was
I letting someone who treated me like shit use me as their tutor
just because they'd stopped insulting me for the week. So I stopped
being a doormat. And there went half my social life.
Being used as a cheatsheet for a dumb ditz (I'm not trying to
be sexist, some of the guys at my school qualified as ditzes and
were actually called such in some cases) or a human shield for
a smaller kid is nothing compared to some of the stuff I've seen
on the screen, and I really don't begrudge some small kid for
hiding behind a bigger kid who the bullies were a little scared
of (I usually required adults to drag me away from my opponent).
But it still hurts. It hurt when Parker justified luring Buffy
into bed with misconceptions about what was going on and used
her. It hurt alot more when SR came around and I found out that
the morality that Parker espopused, the morality of using people
then casting them aside, was a Heroic philosophy in Joss Whedon's
universe. And it hurt a whole lot more when I found out Wednesday
night that SR was not an aberration, but was JWs dream of his
Brave New World.
Are you still wondering why I'm a touch bitter on this subject?
Then at least recognize that that who Angel or Buffy are assuming
their preferred position with is precisely the last thing on my
mind. Actually that's not true; the precise last thing on my mind
was whether or not Ed Woods problems were psychological or neurological
in nature. But ships of any kind were in second-to-last place.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm
sorry, that should have been 'when those two are on together'
-- Doug, 12:07:08 01/30/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's because
the scoobies are still USING people - NOT -- fidhle, 12:47:20
01/31/04 Sat
In rewatching Damage, I noticed that Angel tells Spike that Giles
sent his best man to retrieve Dana. Thus, it would seem clear
that the intent from the beginning was to get the rogue slayer
and take her back to the WC. In that sense, it was Angel and W&H who
were the betrayers. Both Angel and Andrew were willing to use
force to enforce their objectives.
It is important to note that the original intent was for Andrew
to retrieve Dana, not to have Dana turned over to W&H.
While Andrew may have been rather blunt to Angel, Angel's own
actions bring forth the issue of trust.
There never was an agreement that Dana would be turned over to
the council. Therefore, the scoobies were not betraying anyone.
I would also note that people use people all the time. There is
nothing immoral about using people. We use people when we take
taxi's or busses or receive any service. If we pay for those services
and follow the moral rule that we treat the person providing the
service as a fellow human and not mistreat him or her, there is
no obligation on either side once the service is done.
[> [> [> Re: One would think that double-edged sword
would HURT, though ... -- radioreverie, 11:49:14 01/29/04
Thu
I don't think that the idea that Buffy might have expressed concern
over what Angel has gotten himself into is necessarily a judgment
on her part, much less a hypocritical judgment. Angel is in control
of one branch of an impossibly large interdimensional corporation
with strong ties to the forces of evil... To see that he might
be a pawn, or that the left hand might not know what the right
hand is doing is just a logical extension, not an indictment...
Why would she want to leave a powerful young woman, especially
one that she feels responsible for, in the hands of a corporation
that seems in any way suspect or that might in any way try to/be
able to exploit the powers of an unstable slayer?
Just because they sent the amulet, it doesn't mean they're on
the side of good. As we've seen time and time again, not even
evil is cut and dry. It's just as competitive as anything else,
and perhaps W&H had good reason not to want the First to win that
particular battle.
Andrew probably overstated the whole "we don't trust you"
thing, but it would be entirely logical for Buffy to be suspicious
and not necessarily trusting, considering the implications of
Wolfram & Hart and everything that it used to represent (or still
does).
Her past actions don't matter. She feels it is her responsibility
to put Dana into the hands of people that she has regular communication
with and are functioning within her group, people who aren't working
for faceless Senior Partners who might have nefarious purposes
of their own.
It wouldn't be anything near logical for Buffy to say, "Oh,
la di da... I've made ill-advised decisions with bad consequences,
and thus that means that I can't be suspicious of the motives
of a very powerful force for evil in the universe, and it means
that I can't think that Angel might be being manipulated into
a position of weakness by invisible forces beyond his control
that have given him a position of supposed power."
Wow. What a good leader *that* would make her.
[> [> [> [> I agree with radioreverie..... (spoils
Damage and Your Welcome) -- Briar Rose, 13:35:17 01/29/04
Thu
Andrew is very likely the perfect person to pass along over stated
"judgements" to Angel from Buffy.
As we saw in Storyteller and practically eveyr ep that Andrew
has been featured in, Andrew is the least likely to state a fact
without embellishment outside of Xander. It's pretty certain that
Angel knows this from the time he did spend in Sunnydale with
the crossovers and the storylines they were related to.
Because the words passed to Angel about Buffy "not trusting
him anymore" were not directly from her, but filtered through
Andrew's own prejudices, it would create a niggle in Angel's subconcious
that will likely relate to the crux of the 100th episode.
Now I don't want to go into major spoilers for that, simply because
I am not sure of exactly how true they are. But I do think that
the question of just how well Angel and the FG are holding up
in maintaining their "Good Guy" status against the demonic
nature of W&H is going to play a huge role in the rest of this
season.
When you look at the big picture of Angel's life (as we know it)
there are relatively few people that he seeks the approval of;
Cordelia, Conner, Buffy and Whistler. He even defies TPTB when
he doesn't like what they tell him, so Andrew wouldn't begin to
cause him to doubt his own judgement if Andrew was speaking simply
for Andrew.
Angel will probably not doubt that Buffy would be leery of him
with the W&H situation. As Radio basically said, "What kind
of leader would that make Buffy?" But Angel will defintely
have to deal with trying to clarify in his own mind how much was
Andrew's own judgement in that statement and just how much was
Buffy's own judgement of him.
Like I said, a niggle that he'll probably be able to blow off,
but brood over UNLESS someone else of that select group that Angel
actually tries to please was to also bring the same judgement
to him.
Can Drew Goddard just write the rest of the season?
Cuz, I'd be OK with that... -- Nino, 19:05:50 01/28/04
Wed
Replies:
[> Me too...definitely. -- dub ;o), 20:50:18 01/28/04
Wed
[> I third that motion!!! -- YesPlease, 21:46:41
01/28/04 Wed
[> He and DeKnight make an excellent team -- RadiusRS,
22:29:57 01/28/04 Wed
[> Goddard is great, but DeKnight is the guy. -- Scroll,
22:35:57 01/28/04 Wed
I love Goddard, I really do. But I have to give props to DeKnight
because I know the dark, dirty, hurtful scenes were all
his.
*Worships DeKnight*
[> [> I agree it's DeKnight -- sdev, 03:34:24
01/29/04 Thu
[> [> [> For the twisted stuff,? Yeah, De Knight.
-- shambleau, 12:27:45 01/29/04 Thu
And sdev, what do you think of the news that Buffy hasn't run
off to private life, that she's still in the thick of Slayer activities?
I believe you were the one who was concerned that she was going
to blow off her responsibilities once there were other Slayers?
[> [> [> [> Buffy now (SPOILERS Angel 5.11)
-- sdev, 14:00:17 01/29/04 Thu
Actually I've not really heard anything to change my opinion.
One, a desk job was not exactly Buffy's forte nor my idea of an
active Slayer. Two, it's not clear to me what if any her level
of involvement is. My impression from the episode was that Buffy
was in private life. Andrew carefully stated Gile's, Willow's
and Xander's active involvement and omitted Buffy's. I'm not sure,
have to hear it again, but didn't Andrew describe Buffy as being
in school in Rome in contrast to explicit references to the other's
direct involvement?
What we know is spotty and the source is Andrew. I think it equally
conceivable that Andrew took his orders on Angel from Giles who
told him to throw in the Buffy comment to get Angel off his back.
It worked did it not? Or that Buffy was consulted on this one
issue out of deference to her relationship with Angel and her
knowledge of him.
One of my big points has actually been confirmed here-- dangers
of the Unchosen ones. Not all Potentials are equal. And lest I
fall into the accusation of misogyny going on in the thread above,
I posit that this is a parallel theme to the Shanshu challenge
between Angel and Spike, a comment I made when I reviewed last
week's episode Soul Purpose. I think the question becomes whether
you can screw around with destiny.
I guess ME can change the rules but both shows were always about
the hero not the populace, THE Slayer, THE Champion. I would need
to see more to decide that the rules have changed and how it works
now. This was the problem I had with the ending of Chosen. It
broke those rules, which is fine, but not as a Season ender without
my seeing how that was possible or what it meant.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy now (SPOILERS Angel
5.11) -- Irene, 14:55:54 01/29/04 Thu
[What we know is spotty and the source is Andrew. I think it equally
conceivable that Andrew took his orders on Angel from Giles who
told him to throw in the Buffy comment to get Angel off his back.]
It's interesting that many people believed that Andrew had lied
to Angel about what Buffy may or may not have said. Is it because
many want to believe that Buffy would never feel that way about
Angel?
And Andrew did state earlier that the Scoobies still kept in touch
via the telephone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> No. Rather, it's that Buffy
would have been more tactful about it. -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:06:05
01/29/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy now (SPOILERS
Angel 5.11) -- sdev, 15:40:33 01/29/04 Thu
Not at all. My post was in reference to a prior conversation with
Shambleau about what Buffy was going to do with her life post-Chosen.
My contention was that Buffy was retiring from slaying. Thus Buffy
now calling the shots on Angel not keeping the delusional slayer
might contradict my view of the ending of Chosen. I was defending
my original position.
Addressing your point now, Andrew from Storyteller was a most
unreliable narrator. Damage deliberately picked up on the Storyteller
motif by Andrew's use of the term "vampyre" and his
recounting of Slayer history. This suggests that Andrew's habit
of embellishing the facts, is unchanged and thus his words must
be questioned here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy now (SPOILERS
Angel 5.11) -- shambleau, 15:55:40 01/29/04 Thu
Except that Andrew didn't embellish the Slayer history. He gave
straight-ahead-exposition. He did, in a typical Andrew way, embellish
on his own role in the events of Chosen, I grant you. But he did
that by diminishing Buffy's. When he can inject himself, he does
so. So, his reliability is most under question when it comes to
giving Buffy, or anyone else, credit. For him to give Buffy the
credit as boss could mean that she runs things even more than
he said, not less.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy now (SPOILERS Angel
5.11) -- shambleau, 15:39:52 01/29/04 Thu
Andrew stated that Dawn was in school, not Buffy. He also said
that Buffy had been in Europe collecting Slayers, which isn't
desk job word. My impression is that she runs the European branch
of the Council directly, and may or may not be involved in active
training of Slayers.
I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy, and the simplest explanation
is that Buffy and the Scoobs WOULD distrust the Fang Gang, now
that thety're working for W&H. Nor do I see Giles trusting
Andrew to pull off a lie about Buffy. If we're going to attribute
Machiavellian tactics to Giles, then he'd use a more trust-worthy
instrument.
Besides, if ME wanted to say that Buffy was doing a little desk-work
on the side for the Council, but was otherwise a civilian, they'd
say so. So, until I hear different, I'm taking it at face value.
YMMV, of course.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy now (SPOILERS
Angel 5.11) -- sdev, 15:50:06 01/29/04 Thu
I did rewatch that segment and it was Dawn who was in school,
but I still have insufficient info to determine what Buffy is
doing Occam notwithstanding. Settling in Rome does not sound like
running around Europe. I hope we get more info.
Also, I still call that a desk job. Who is doing the actual slaying
work? Or is that on hiatus? Since the demons are not on hiatus,
maybe they shoudn't be so quick to question Angel (and Spike)
who is still at it.
The problems and possible problems Wolfram & Hart
- Spoilers up to Damage -- Athena, 01:55:05 01/29/04 Thu
I have a weakness with essay writing so I hope this turns out
alright.
---
In the demon underworld of our dimension (and a few others) Wolfram
& Hart firm is one of the major players. It has almost unlimited
resources of knowledge and power, so with access to these resources,
it seems reasonable to believe that the world could be changed
for the better. This is one of the reason that Angel Investigations
gang joined up with them, but the risks are there some that are
already apparent and others that might be around the corner.
Gunn is particularly disturbing. Since the Wolfram & Hart law
knowledge boost, he has seemed overally attached to his new abilities.
For example: does anyone remember the last time he wasn't wearing
a suit? He has proven in past situations that he isn't an idiot,
but despite this, he hasn't once admitted that possibility that
some more unpleasant stuff might be added in there. Most likely
in out of fear that he might lose his new skills.
His behavior seems very much like the behavior of Cordelia in
"Vision Thing". Despite the fact that her visions were
hurting her, Cordelia didn't tell anybody because she was afraid
it might result in her losing the visions. Both Gunn and Cordelia
have expressed an intense -- if not selfish -- need to be needed,
only the worst that Cordelia's actions could've resulted in was
her own death, while the price of Gunn's actions could be a lot
higher.
It also seems that Wesley and Gunn have declared fighting evil
and saving people is *their* territory. Remember their treatment
of Spike in "Harm's Way"? Angel also seemed overally,
though understandibly annoyed at the Slayers taking Dana.
With Angel as the CEO of the L.A. branch of Wolfram & Hart there
are some new limitations that he didn't have before. While he
has a huge intelligence network, but this also means he's getting
his information passing through many a hand and in the past episodes,
he seems to be depending on it more than his own connections and
sleuthing skills. If the Senior Partners wanted to slip something
past him all it would take is some anti-psychic mojo and a willling
employee (like the stuff used by Dr. Evan Royce or Evil Cordy).
To be blunt Angel's power really only extends to the first employee
who is loyal to his bosses rather than him. The Senior Partners
are the ones who still in charge.
Yes, Angel and co. are doing good things but what is the price
and how long will it last?
a few questions (spoilers) -- buffyguy, 07:05:56
01/29/04 Thu
where did andrew say the rest of the gang was? buffys in rome
and willow and kennedy are in brazil...and the rest of them? they
didnt even mention faith or wood or dawn. so are they saying that
andrew and kennedy are part of the scooby gang but not faith wood
or dawn? are they reforming the watchers council or something?
and what did andrew say buffy was doing in rome? starting a school
or something? BTW...andrew: watcher extraordinaire... lol...that
just tickles me pink. i thought this eppy was great. my favorite
lines are 1. when angel accidentally says "vampIRES"
and 2. when andrew says "where do u think my orders came
from" then seeing the look on angel's face. the only thing
that blows is that we're probably not going to see or hear angel
talk about how buffy doesnt trust him in the coming episodes becasue
u would think that this is major to him...but theyll probably
brush it aside and angel wont even think about it anymore.
Replies:
[> Re: a few questions (spoilers) -- Ultimate Fanboy,
07:20:07 01/29/04 Thu
Giles and Andrew, I believe, are in California still.
Buffy and Dawn are in Rome where Dawn is attending school and
Buffy is assembling all of Europe's slayers.
Xander is in Africa doing the same.
Willow and Kennedy are in South America.
I would presume that Wood and Faith were assigned to Asia and
Australia.
I'd like to know how all of them other than Willow and Giles are
dealing with the language barriers.
Other than that, the ending was, indeed, awesome. I laughed my
arse off when Andrew hugged Spike, but I found it most interesting
that Spike just stood there and let him fawn. This episode made
a Andrew/Spike 'shipper out of me, but, of course, I doubt the
relationship would be healthy just considering Andrew's psychology
alone.
[> [> Re: a few questions (spoilers) -- Irene, 08:28:42
01/29/04 Thu
Judging from the bag that Andrew held, with the Union Jack printed
on the side, I'd say that Giles and Andrew are in London.
[> [> [> Re: a few questions (spoilers) -- shambleau,
12:35:17 01/29/04 Thu
Judging how quickly Andrew showed up, I think he might have been
in the States gathering Slayers. I agree that he's probably based
in London, what with the sack lunch and all, but I find it hard
to believe that he's their "top man". That evaluation
probably came from Andrew, talking to Wesley. Giles or Buffy probably
gave him the assignment because he was already there.
[> how hypocritical is buffy? (spoilers) -- tam, 08:27:27
01/29/04 Thu
did buffy know the amulet came from wolfram and hart? if she did,
but she used it in her fight, why can't angel use w&h in his fight?
chip or soul -- what's the diff?
[> [> Well... -- Majin Gojira, 09:46:20 01/29/04
Thu
It did come with a File. IIRC
Questions about newbie slayers...*spoilers*
-- Corwin of Amber, 13:11:43 01/29/04 Thu
1) What if a newbie slayer doesn't want to join the Scooby
Council? Does she have the option of not joining?
a. What if the newbie slayer is too young to make that decision?
b. What if she is legally an adult?
2) What if a slayer decides to leave the council? Will she be
allowed to?
3) What if a slayer leaves and starts her own slayer group? Would
it be allowed to exist, or would a slayer-on-slayer war start?
4) Does the new watcher's council still have a "wet work"
team?
5) This is the biggie. When each of the new slayers dies, is their
replacement automatically called?
Yes, the answer to all these questions is "we don't know"
but it's fun to speculate. Also kind of scary that none of this
was brought up BEFORE activating all the slayers.
Replies:
[> Re: Questions about newbie slayers...*spoilers* --
CW, 13:41:01 01/29/04 Thu
These are interesting questions. I think I can guess Buffy's answers
for questions 1 - 4 now. But, I wonder if she'd answer the same
way a year from now.
As for 5, I sort of think that there are no more potentials. As
soon as a girl who would be a potential gets old enough, she is
a slayer. I don't think Willow's spell was a one-shot deal. Whether
that needs to be changed or even can be changed without going
back to the old one-in-every-generation model is something the
new Council is going to have to think about seriously.
[> [> Balance of Power: Physical Violence, Magic, Monsters
-- Marcus Aurelius, 14:50:55 01/29/04 Thu
Thinking about the slayers has led me to two concerns about the
Buffyverse. The first is that, insofar as physical strength can
destryo vampires and demons, the new armies of slayers can be
expected to cut a wide swathe through the vampires. Buffy has
killed hundreds upon hundreds of demons and vampires. Multiply
that by a factor of 500 and it seems that every vampire or creature
that can be physically attacked will be obliterated. Why doesn't
this army just sweep through LA and wipe out the entire vamp population?
Second, thinking about the slayers' fighting capabilities reminds
me of the existence of magic. In Angel we have seen more high-powered
magic and psychics, whose powers just slice through the defenses
of Angel and slayers alike. If Amy or Ethan Rayne can incapacitate
a slayer in seconds, and a necromancer can put the bad mojo on
Angel almost instantly, I don't see how physical warriors would
have much value at all. Logically, this situation should lead
to powerful wizards and magicians running everything and destroying
all their foes with sorcery.
[> Re: Slayers, mutants, X-Men -- punkinpuss, 16:16:21
01/29/04 Thu
We don't know any of those answers, but that's why Andrew's X-Men
reference makes so much sense, weak third act notwithstanding.
I'm not sure I can see Giles as Prof. Xavier to thousands of slayers,
but it is fun to think about.
In the comicbookverse for X-Men, there are splinter groups of
splinter groups ad nauseum for mutants, both good and evil. And
sometimes they change sides. Then there are the parallel universes.
Oy. Nevermind. Too confusing. Suffice to say, it's a big ole mess
but it's been the basis for some amazing storytelling.
[> [> Now those are some hearty spinoff possibilities!
-- Sofdog, 16:44:45 01/29/04 Thu
[> #5 is moot - Spoilers, I guess -- Sofdog, 16:41:34
01/29/04 Thu
There are no replacements. All Slayers are empowered from birth.
This means that the survivors of The First Evil's campaign range
from newborn to elderly. (There is no stipulation in the canon
for the removal of Slayer power for any reason, so it follows
that all older Potentials are active too.) Every one born has
the power; no more issue of succession.
The only thing that could have improved that scene for me would
have been if some of those women were noticably older, like in
their late 30s and up. That would have fleshed out the implications
of "Chosen" more fully.
Also, I should think it would be fine if some Slayers refused
to officially join up. Buffy and Giles of all people, being brought
to their vocations against their inital will, would be hypocrites
to compel anyone else. It should be enough to apprise the girls
of what they are and how they came to be that way.
[> [> Re: #5 is moot - Spoilers, I guess -- Corwin
of Amber, 17:03:05 01/29/04 Thu
There are no replacements. All Slayers are empowered from birth.
This means that the survivors of The First Evil's campaign range
from newborn to elderly.
So there are infant slayers crawling around? Eep. I can see it
now...
CRASH OF BREAKING GLASS.
weak male voice from the back yard: Honey! Emma doesn't
want to eat her carrots again! And call 911, I'm losing a lot
of blood!
[> [> [> LOL!!! -- Sofdog, 18:10:25 01/29/04
Thu
I was thinking about all the poor nursing home staffers getting
whooped up with canes. "She says she doesn't want to watch
a magic show in the lounge!"
[> [> [> empowered from birth? good thing it's not
any earlier! -- anom, 21:23:04 01/29/04 Thu
Imagine all those poor mothers-to-be getting kicked from the inside
by fetal Slayers! Lots of internal bleeding.
And no, I don't want to start a when-does-life-begin discussion.
[> [> [> [> Re: empowered from birth? good thing
it's not any earlier! -- Claudia, 09:44:31 01/30/04 Fri
Pre-"Chosen", all future Slayers were born as Potentials
. . . including Buffy and Faith. And even though they weren't
Slayers at the time, they were still slightly stronger and faster
than the average kid their age. Didn't "Potential" establish
this?
[> OK -- KdS, 04:43:44 01/31/04 Sat
Regarding (1-3), I think that all Buffy's and Giles's strong beliefs
at the end of S7 suggest that they aren't forcing all Slayers
to take an oath of alelgiance if they don't want to, though I
would think that they would feel that it would be a very good
idea for them to at least keep in touch. I do think, though, that
if any Slayers started doing stuff they considered actively criminal
they would feel the need to intervene.
As far as (5) goes, I think sooner or later they'll have to deal
with the question of what happens to any Slayers who go criminal
without being "unfit to plead", or other human nasties.
I suspect, given their resources, they'd probably go for containment
and attempted rehabilitation. But I suspect, if there's a serious
question about killing anyone with a soul, that it'll be either
one of the upper level themselves, or the person who requested
it has to do it with no moral distance. Sort of like Giles putting
his glasses on before killing Ben, so that he had to see what
he was doing.
Mussings on Vamp Physiology - help please! (spoils
'Damage') -- Briar Rose, 13:58:55 01/29/04 Thu
Last night I had a problem with the DeKnight/Goddard storyline
where Dana injects Spike with medication to make him sleep and
to immobalize him.
I know that ME writers have used drugs to medicate Vamps before
on both shows, most notably in the Cruxicifaction (spelling? You
know what I mean...) when the wacko Vamp is given pills and in
AtS where Faith drugs herself to get Angelus immobilized.
But in every instance that I have seen on either show, the medication/drugs
have been administed to the Vampire orally!
Now as far as my understanding of Vampyre Physiology covers, that
would be the correct way to administer drugs to a Vampire. A Vampire
has to consume anything that will ultimatly be introduced into
a Vamp's system. Vampires digest, however they do not have a circulatory
system that would allow for blood to be pumped through the heart
and the veins in their bodies to accept a shot or other non-digested
drug to enter their "circulatory system" from my understanding.
It all goes through the digestive system to the brain.
Dana shot the drugs directly into Spike's arms. The problem that
I can see is that by not having digested the drugs she gave him,
how did the drugs ever enter his system to bring on the effects
we were shown?
I loved the ep... But I'm trying to figure out if DeKnight and
DG need a refresher on how Vampire Physiology works, or if I am
missing a clearly obvious way for the forces of good to take down
Vampires in a much easier fashion that having to run after them
and make physical contact at every proposed staking.
Does anyone remember a case of a Vampire being injected with drugs
before Damaged? And if they were, what was the result? I seem
to remember that the Initiative used injections on a couple of
Vamps, but damned if I can remember why and what happened. I know
they used tazers, but that's a little different in the physiological
reaction. They actually work on nerves, not on the blood based
circulation system. Tazers could affect anything with a nervous
system, which we know Vampires have because they feel pain and
can react physically to stimuli chosen and unchosen.
Any thoughts? This kind of ruined my enjoyment of the storyline.
Am I just too retentive or did anyone else notice the incongruity
of this part of the storyline?
Replies:
[> 'Dopplegangland', 'I Fall to Pieces', 'Soulless'
-- Finn Mac Cool, 14:35:33 01/29/04 Thu
Both of those episodes had vampires being knocked out by tranquilizer
darts. My speculation is that, while vampires don't have a pulse,
blood is still circulated through their veins at a steady flow,
not for oxidation, of course, but probably just to keep them looking
alive.
[> [> If Vampire blood didn't flow somehow, they'd have
very swollen feet (NT) -- Pip, 14:52:37 01/29/04 Thu
[> [> Re: 'Dopplegangland', 'I Fall to Pieces', 'Soulless'
-- Jane, 15:34:58 01/29/04 Thu
Well, we have seen that blood does flow from Vampires (remember
Spike dripping all over the Seal?). Therefore there must be some
circulation going on; maybe it's like the tides. ;)
[> [> The Official Answer -- dmw, 17:28:08 01/29/04
Thu
Fortunately, you can find the official answer obtained from the
US federal government's once tireless research at the FVZA.
Reading from their biology
of vampires web page:
The most profound differences between humans and vampires
are found in the circulatory system. These differences enable
vampires to survive massive trauma that would kill a human being.
1. Blood: vampire blood is called ichor (pr. ik-er). Modifications
to hemoglobin in the blood cells makes vampire blood appear black.
2. the Heart: vampire blood is pumped via the contraction of
skeletal muscle rather than the heart, which eventually atrophies
from disuse.
3. adrenaline: this "emergency hormone," which normally
kicks in during "fight or flight" situations, is found
in consistently large amounts in vampire blood. The presence
of adrenaline, along with changes in muscle, bone and connective
tissue, account for vampire's extraordinary strength, speed and
aggressiveness.
[> [> [> Re: The Official Answer -- Vegeta, 09:14:45
01/30/04 Fri
Nice to see someone else out there has been checking out the FVZA.
[> Re: Mussings on Vamp Physiology - help please! (spoils
'Damage') -- Ames, 16:23:40 01/29/04 Thu
Similar problem to the whole breathing thing which came up with
Angel not being able to resuscitate Buffy in Prophecy Girl, but
Spike can still smoke a cigarette.
There's only one possible answer: vamps have mystical blood circulation
and breathing which doesn't depend on physiological processes.
Not very satisfactory, perhaps, but nothing else will work if
you try to get too technical.
So, drugs diffuse rapidly through their bodies and affect them
like a human because the demonic energy which gives them a simulation
of life also simulates this physiological process.
[> Actually, my question about this is . . . (spoils 'Damage')
-- Cheryl, 19:03:37 01/29/04 Thu
Weren't those drugs in the basement around 15 years old? Wouldn't
they have expired by now so shouldn't have had any potency? And
doesn't it take a lot more to knock out a vampire than a human?
[> [> yep to the 1st 2... -- anom, 22:31:02 01/29/04
Thu
I thought the same thing, Cheryl. The drugs' potency should at
least have been altered, if not lost entirely. As for whether
it takes a higher dose to affect a vampire to the same degree
as a human, I don't think it's ever been addressed explicitly,
but it seems to me that vamps have been felled w/a single tranq
dart.
I think the effects of drugs, alcohol, & other substances (no,
I can't think of any examples; anyone who can, let us know!) on
vampires & other monsters or aliens on this & other shows are
really meant to be recognizable signals of what's happening to
those creatures, or what they are feeling. Since the audience
is human, we usually need to see these things in human terms,
or we won't know what they mean to the individual in question.
Using substances or actions that have a given meaning in humans
tells us what's going on w/the vampire without the need for explanations.
manwitch (as usual) put it very well, in his now-archived post
on I Robot, You Jane: "And of course, the thing to remember
about books or movies that depict robots or aliens or monsters,
whether they be about Terminators or Mr. Spock or Vampires, is
that there are no robots, no aliens, no monsters. No real ones.
An aspect of humanity is being shown to be robotic, an aspect
of humanity is being represented as alienated or alienating, an
aspect of humanity is being characterized as monstrous. But it's
always about human beings." So when Spike gets drunk after
Drusilla dumps him or a party drug induces "bliss" in
Angel when mixed into his drink or vamps are shown as junkies,
it's just a way to show the audience what these non-human characters
are going through w/the same indicators that we're familiar with
in human characters.
[> Thanks everyone and the same thing also occured to me
Cheryl... -- Briar Rose, 00:20:20 01/30/04 Fri
I'm right there with you, Cheryl and anom! After I was trying
to figure out how it would actually work with no blood flow to
transport it, then came 'and how long do those drugs retain their
potency? Strong enough for a Vamp after how long?' At least I
now know I'm not alone with having strange commonsense interupptions
while watching these types of shows. I feel almost normal now.*L
So as Finn says, it was tranqualizer darts in Dopplegangland and
the other two eps and it appears to have worked. So why all the
running around and chasing them to fight hand to hand? Geesh Buffy
should have carried a tranq gun along for the Scoobies to use
when she was busy.*LOL
dmw! That's hysterical - but I think that was a definitive answer.
So there is blood flow. It just doesn't work the same way as hmans,
and in fact that WOULD explain the nervous system being affected
more readily in a Vamp through the blood than a human would be.
I have to disasgree with you though, Ames... Blood loss from a
cut/scrape/tear is different than blood flow in the circulatory
system. No pumping is needed, gravity works on liquid of all matters.
So that never fazed me in the Whedon-Verse as even a dead body
can still drip blood after actual death IF there is liquid blood
present and gravity to work on it. But your post also agrees with
that info that dmw (I always want to type dmV for you dmw(: )
on the circulatory system.
I love the way manwitch summed it up though and I am so glad that
anom reposted that about all the monsters, aliens and vampires
being representative of human conditions, so we are shown human
conditions that we relate to.
Okay - now I can go back to the plot and the part it plays in
the arc and stop quibbling about the weirdness of the storyline
versus Vampire bodily systems. Thanks again everyone!
[> Blood flow isn't that important -- Gyrus, 09:11:50
01/30/04 Fri
Many drugs, including the ones loaded into tranquilizer darts,
are designed for intramuscular (IM) or subcutaneous (SC) injection,
rather than venous injection. ('Cause what are the odds that you'll
hit a major blood vessel with a tranq dart?) These drugs diffuse
through the interstitial fluid -- the fluid between the individual
cells -- rather than through the blood. Presumably, they could
also diffuse through blood that isn't flowing.
Also, vamps would still have some blood flow from muscle movement,
like humans do (which is why blood doesn't pool in your legs unless
you're forced to keep your legs immobile for a while, like on
an airplane).
[> [> Thanks Gyrus! I am actually feeling better about
that scene the more discussion takes place. -- Briar Rose,
12:23:51 01/30/04 Fri
Framing the Scene -- mrfh, 19:34:45 01/29/04
Thu
Perhaps this has already been addressed and I missed it, but did
anyone else notice the bad scene framing on Damage? The scenes
in which Andrew shows his weapons in his coat and the reveal of
Spike's missing hands pretty much eliminated the focus of the
shots (i.e. the weapons and the stumps). I realize that the show
is filmed in widescreen but not shown that way, but is it shown
in widescreen anywhere? It was very distracting for us.
mrfh
Replies:
[> It is shown in Widescreen in the Eastern US at least
-- Seven, 06:36:51 01/30/04 Fri
$/L $Cüy that you have to endure Pan and Scan. It makes my
stomach churn. One of the great aspects to Angel is the fact that
it is shot AND presented in Widescreen. I can't imagine having
to deal with a formated viewing.
ICKK. My condolances.
7
[> It's widescreen in Vegas, too -- Tyreseus, 15:25:23
01/30/04 Fri
I suspect the pan and scan versus widescreen format is left up
to the local stations, unless someone has heard otherwise.
[> [> Re: It's widescreen in Vegas, too -- Invisible
Green, 12:01:40 01/31/04 Sat
With the exception of two scenes (in "Birthday" and
"Harm's Way"), "Angel" has been shown in widescreen
on most WB stations since "Heartthrob." They began framing
"Angel" in widescreen with "Judgement," although
they didn't air it that way. The first season was also shot with
a widescreen camera, but it was framed for fullscreen. Two episodes
that look particularly bad in fullscreen are "Birthday"
and "Waiting in the Wings."
[> hi, mrhf--last time, you remember... -- anom, 11:55:07
02/01/04 Sun
...was a long time ago! You were about to get your Master's, right?
I remember wishing you luck...how'd it go?
Sorry to hear the framing was so crappy where you are, but it's
good to hear from you (this is what it takes to get you posting
again?).
Question about the demon power of the Slayers
(up to 'Chosen' spoilers) -- matlack73, 19:51:07 01/29/04
Thu
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but due to the events
of "Chosen", has the presence of the demon spirit been
multiplied by thousands? It seems so, if the power of individual
Slayers has not been diluted by activation of so many Potentials.
Since this power is demonic in nature, it will be interesting
to see how ME will handle the implications of its increased presence
in the world. It seems to me that the challenge the Scoobies face
is to harness this dark power and to use it as a resource against
Evil.
Interestingly, it kind of parallels what Angel is trying to do.
Replies:
[> It has not been entirely made clear.. -- ZachsMind,
21:09:47 01/29/04 Thu
We saw near the end of Buffy season seven that there were three
elders who had somehow harnessed this black wraith-like force
that had been inside a demon at one time. Precisely what comprised
the force was not made clear, but it can be the demonic equivalent
of a soul, somehow converted into a force still as dark and dangerous
as before, but no longer fighting for the bad guys. This is all
left open to conjecture and opinion.
We don't know what kind of demon was harnessed and for lack of
a better phrase, "milked" so that the elders could infuse
the Slayer Power into The Primitive first vampire slayer. Perhaps
it was just one of those uber vampires that we saw in season seven
of Buffy. Perhaps the demon in question was a bit more powerful
than that.
We're also talking about thousands of years between the Primitive
and Buffy. We're talking about generations of slayers and it may
be possible that at least a part of their souls have fueled the
fire of Slayer Power. I do not mean to say that a slayer's soul
becomes one with the Slayer Force. In fact we are led to believe
that when Buffy died in season five, she went to some place that
while not heaven was certainly heaven-like. However, perhaps a
portion of a living slayer's soul's energy mixes with the wraith-like
Slayer Power during that slayer's lifetime, and helps to fuel
this Power and strengthen it further. Thessulan Orb's aside, a
soul is an abstract concept. It looks deceptively small and delicate
when Willow recursed Angel (twice) but it's more resilient and
powerful than it appears.
In "Chosen" when Willow used the scythe as part of a
powerful spell, the ramification granted every Potential access
to the Slayer Force, but that scythe was used to kill the last
pureblood demon that walked the Earth way back when. It was extremely
powerful in its own right, while also somehow connected to the
Slayer Force. Combining the scythe with the Slayer Force in Willow's
magic spell turned Willow into a kind of conduit. In essence,
Willow became a Guardian, able to monitor the efforts of not merely
one but countless Slayers throughout the world. Willow was forever
changed. Buffy showed no signs of lacking strength. In fact she
seemed even more powerful than ever before.
There is not a dilution of power when the Slayer Force was expanded
into all Potentials. Quite the contrary; it seems to be exponentially
more powerful the further it reaches.
We have a dilemma however. If a witch powerful as Willow may be
can use the scythe in this manner, and if the Shadow Elders of
old were able to take an evil demonic force and convert it into
a dangerous but arguably good force for vampire slaying, it's
equally plausible that the opposite can occur. A good force can
be turned evil. An army of slayers could be twisted. We saw Dana
use the Slayer Power for evil purposes.
Angel is a show about vampires with souls, and other people with
good intentions who are presently holding a tiger by the tail.
Because this story's about Angel and not Buffy, it's plausible
that Whedon's going to see the slayers as the bad guys in comparison,
in the future. As Andrew made pointedly clear to Angel at the
end of "Damage," they're no longer fighting on the same
side. None of the people in Buffy's court trust Angel any longer.
Nor should they. Nor perhaps should we.
[> [> Oh yeah.. spoilage in my previous post too. Up
to and including the latest Angel. -NT -- ZachsMind, 21:11:07
01/29/04 Thu
no text =)
[> [> Evil? -- Claudia, 09:33:13 01/30/04 Fri
{an evil demonic force}
Was the demonic spirit used by the Shadowmen to create the Slayer
line, evil?
[> [> [> Yes, Evil.. -- ZachsMind, 11:32:44
01/30/04 Fri
The force that creates the Slayers was inherently evil. That's
the story. From "Get It Done."
http://www.atpobtvs.com/73.html#715
What follows is Masq's summary. Nicely done I thought.
"Back in the womb of time, the Old Ones walked the Earth.
It was their home, their Hell. Then humans came. They spread across
the deserts, the mountains, the plains. Their children made the
Earth their home. So the demons killed them, or transformed them
into demons with their blood. The humans seemed too small, too
weak to survive. Then a group of men created a warrior to fight
the demons. They took a girl and chained her to the Earth. They
beat their staffs against the ground. They set the Spirit of
the Demon upon her. Its black energy writhed through the air
like a snake. It became one with the girl. The girl didn't ask
for this, but it became her sacred duty--she had the strength
to slay the demons and protect her home."
And so in every generation there's a chosen one blah blah blah
blah blah we've heard all that before. However the great concern
is that inherently this force for good that uses Buffy and the
other slayers essentially as its hands is originally evil and
it really probably wouldn't take much to twist it back into evil.
I mean, why did they pick a little girl? Why didn't they give
themselves this immense power? BECAUSE old elders are smart enough
to know that power corrupts, but if you give it to someone who
has not yet been corrupted, then it takes longer for the evil
to twist and morph the vessel. It gives the vessel a chance to
twist and morph the source of the power. So over the millenia
you got this hateful evil spirit, forced into a vessel of pure
goodness and light, and after awhile the evil is tainted by good.
Since most slayers didn't live long enough to get tainted by evil
themselves, we can surmise that this once evil "spirit of
the demon" is not evil any more.
BUT.. Buffy's lived longer than most any Slayer before her. Okay.
She actually didn't cuz the first time she died was less than
a year after she got chosen. Thanks to Xander she came back. Thanks
to Willow she survived the second and third deaths. Thanks to
Angel and Giles and others, she's averted death time and time
again.
So for the first time in the history of the lineage, we come across
a Slayer who's been around long enough AS a slayer to truly figure
out the history of the power, where it came from, and with Willow's
help figured out how to channel it in a novel and more useful
way. Rather than just have one Slayer fighting and endless swarm
of evil entities and generic ne'er do wells, you got an army of
slayers, each one potentially ideal for the power, but also not
particularly the best possible available choice at the time.
It's why Dana's such a glitch. She was not wholesome and good
when the slayer power found her. She had already been tainted
and spoiled by Man. Giving her the power of the slayer isn't any
better an idea than the Shadowmen giving it to themsleves. The
fact some of these Potentials were decidedly not Ideals for the
power of the Slayer, introduces a potential for this once evil
Slayer Force to be once again tainted, and if one Slayer turns
evil, they might could all be so tainted, like a domino effect.
Something that might be explored in Angel someday, but probably
not very strongly, because the slayer force is now outside our
perview. It's not high priority, because Angel is the focus of
the television series. It wouldn't do Angel's ratings much good
to have to suffer through fixing the proverbial mess that Buffy
left behind.
[> [> [> [> Are You Sure? -- Claudia, 12:23:32
01/30/04 Fri
I checked the actual transcript for "Get It Done". The
demon spirit used by the Shadowmen was never described as "evil".
Perhaps you can describe the Shadowmen's actions as evil, but
the actual demon spirit, itself, was never described that way.
[> [> [> [> [> We're perhaps on opposing sides
of the same coin.. -- ZachsMind, 12:58:53 01/30/04 Fri
I do not personally perceive the Shadowmen as evil. Their actions
were, from their perspective, necessary in order to preserve a
greater good. Back in the dawn of Mankind, the only demons which
were running about were evil ones. By evil I mean "out to
enslave, digest or otherwise bring about the extinction of any
hope for mankind." Back then there were no Clems back in
those days. There were no souled vampires or huggable werewolves.
There were weak humans and powerful demons. Period. The Shadowmen
captured a demon and used their magicks to, for lack of a better
more primitive phraseology, 'domesticate' it.
I believe it's a matter of semantics. You are perhaps of the opinion
that all demons are innocent until proven guilty. I believe otherwise.
They're not human. A demonic spirit is assumedly evil until we're
shown its huggable side.
As for assumption and opinion, everything anyone says about the
series is assumption and opinion, based on the fiction derived
from Whedon and Mutant Enemy. So, arguing against my opinion by
calling it opinion is irrelevant and unfair.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We're perhaps on opposing
sides of the same coin.. -- Claudia, 13:56:51 01/30/04
Fri
"There were weak humans and powerful demons. Period. The
Shadowmen captured a demon and used their magicks to, for lack
of a better more primitive phraseology, 'domesticate' it.
I believe it's a matter of semantics. You are perhaps of the opinion
that all demons are innocent until proven guilty. I believe otherwise.
They're not human. A demonic spirit is assumedly evil until we're
shown its huggable side."
I think I'll stick with the opinion that we have no idea on whether
the demonic spirit used to create the First Slayer was good or
evil. Especially since it has not been established in the series.
[> [> [> [> Assumptions -- Claudia, 12:26:09
01/30/04 Fri
After reading your post again, it seems to me that you're making
a lot of assumptions on the details about the Slayer line. This
is just an opinion, right?
Tell me a story, thoughts on Damage (spoilers
5.11) -- Pony, 06:54:07 01/29/04 Thu
Once upon a time Spike told Dawn a story about a family, how he
waited to hear the gasp of a hidden little girl. We never got
to hear the end of that story until now. It doesn't matter that
it was a different time and place and a different little girl.
It doesn't matter because it could have been Spike, with all the
darkness hinted at in Never Leave Me. Buffy had been the one to
argue then that it was a different man who had committed those
crimes, one that didn't exist anymore. Here in Damage Spike tells
Dana, the crazed Slayer, that she had the wrong man. Does he believe
that? Soul, no soul. Monster or victim. There was no third person
reference when Angel spoke of the art of destroying a human life,
no Angelus to distance himself, just a gentle past tense.
How appropriate, how poetic to cut off Spike's hands - he is always
about touch and action. He desired to strongly that even as a
ghost he was able to reach out with his hands. He gets taken to
pieces, just like so much of his identity of late. Taking bits
from various people to try and make a whole.
And then there's Angel who seemed to enjoying slipping back into
an old role. All quiet realizations and three-quarter length coats.
Unlike Spike, Angel knew the language of his victims. Angel was
more confident and sure of himself than he's been in many episodes
- naturally, there's a clear mission and a Slayer to save. Except
in the end when he gets brought up shortand reminded that he is
not what he was. There are pieces missing from Angel too. I think
the knowledge that he is no longer trusted, that he has been judged
(and who is there to judge Angel except Buffy? No one he knows
anymore has the moral authority) and found wanting will stay with
him for a long while.
Andrew, who I think I loved more in this episode than in a half
dozen of late season 7 outings, brought a lot of humour to some
very dark places, and then proved that there was more to him than
any of us could have thought. Suddenly the former AI team aren't
the more worldly older siblings, the only ones who understand
the complexities of the world. The Sunnydale alums are adults
now and their turf is the whole world.
Finally there's the last scene of the episode. There's always
talk of mission statements - episodes that sum up what the series
is about. I think we got one of those last night. The contemplation
of evil, the talk of the past. Spike all in white, glowing in
the light, talking of monsters, while Angel murked in browns and
shadows speaks of innocence, the truth something of both and in
between, all of it wrapped up in what was lost. Once upon a time.
Replies:
[> Re: Tell me a story, thoughts on Damage (spoilers 5.11)
-- Rob, 07:10:35 01/29/04 Thu
And how great was it, character-wise, that just like Wesley at
the end of Lineage when he realized he hadn't killed his
real father, Spike wasn't relieved that Dana's family wasn't a
family he'd killed nor that Dana wasn't a little girl he'd tortured,
when he had done it to so many countless others. For anyone who
thought Spike wasn't feeling the true weight of his soul, this
episode was an excellent answer to that. Spike's character development
has really been fantastic this year, building from "Hellbound"
up to now.
Rob
[> [> Re: Tell me a story, thoughts on Damage (spoilers
5.11) -- Irene, 09:54:48 01/30/04 Fri
[For anyone who thought Spike wasn't feeling the true weight of
his soul, this episode was an excellent answer to that.]
If Spike wasn't feeling the true weight of his soul, what was
his problems in early S7 (BtVS) about?
[> [> [> My reconstruction -- KdS, 04:33:13
01/31/04 Sat
Yes, he was suffering guilt in the first part of S7, but that
was when he was in a very mentally fragile state and the FE was
playing on his mind. After Buffy rescues him in Showtime,
one can see the barriers start to come up again and his capacity
for delusion about himself re-evolve. The big moral disaster,
from Spike's point of view, comes in Get It Done, when
Buffy, in a moment of extreme stress, tells him simply that she
needs the old warrior Spike back again. Unfortunately, he takes
that as a demand for him to totally reassume his old persona,
and the fact that she doesn't react badly to that leads him to
believe (probably correctly) that she's forgiven him for everything
bad he did to her the previous year. Even more unfortunately,
being love's bitch, he assumes that since Buffy, the symbol of
his redemption and his hero-worshipped conscience figure, has
forgiven him, that means he's redeemed and has no further responsibility
of any kind in relation to his past acts of violence and depravity.
Hence comes his more dubious (to put it politely) behaviour in
late S7, until various things this season force him to confront
his past again without Buffy's approval to support his denial.
(Not bashing Buffy here, because she really didn't have the time
to notice just what was going on in Spike's head, and she was
used to Angel, who is much more essentially introspective, and
has a more external philosophy of morality anyway).
And I am really looking forward to this episode, simply because
spoilers strongly suggest that ME have at least made the attempt
to understand and deal with the extreme moral revulsion some fans,
including vocally me, had for Lies My Parents Told Me.
However effective that attempt turns out to be, it reassures me
that they admitted there was a problem, and that one of the same
co-writers wrote the ep in question.
[> Lovely post, Pony. -- Plin, 04:47:27 01/30/04
Fri
Finally there's the last scene of the episode. There's always
talk of mission statements - episodes that sum up what the series
is about. I think we got one of those last night. The contemplation
of evil, the talk of the past. Spike all in white, glowing in
the light, talking of monsters, while Angel murked in browns and
shadows speaks of innocence, the truth something of both and in
between, all of it wrapped up in what was lost. Once upon a time.
Neither can really be whole until they accept all parts of themselves,
past and present, and each other. I think that's one of the big
themes this season.
[> Re: Tell me a story, thoughts on Damage (spoilers 5.11)
-- sdev, 15:54:28 01/31/04 Sat
Good thoughts. And I agree the end of the episode was a mission
statement. Also there appeared to be hope for a new alliance between
Angel and Spike. Watch out Lindsey.
Current board
| More January 2004