July 2002
posts
Deconstructing Buffy (UK broadsheet article) --
Simon, 05:14:18 07/01/02 Mon
an article taken from today's Independent, a UK broadsheet.
Not often you see a good critique of BtVs in the mainstream
media esp. in the UK.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=31093
7
Deconstructing Buffy
They're writing theses, calling conferences and compiling
essays... The academic world can't get enough of 'Buffy the
Vampire Slayer'. But it's a kids' show, isn't it? Not quite,
says Robert Hanks, who knows why Buffy has the critics by
the jugular
01 July 2002
It used to be that a vampire was easy to deal with: you ate
plenty of garlic, you waved a crucifix at it, you stuck a
stake in it – if you wanted to be fussy about it you could
go the whole hog and cut its head off and scatter millet
over the corpse, so that if it should happen to reawaken for
some reason, it would have to count all the grains before it
came after you. These days, though, nobody does anything as
straightforward as just killing a vampire: they have to go
and deconstruct it too.
Specifically, they go and deconstruct Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, the American television series created by Joss
Whedon. In October this year, the School of English &
American Studies, and the School of Language, Linguistics
and Translation Studies at the University of East Anglia
will be playing joint host to a two-day conference entitled
"Blood, Text and Fears: Reading Around Buffy the Vampire
Slayer" (it was originally planned as a one-day conference
but, apparently, interest from academics in Europe and the
US was so intense that it had to be extended). Last year saw
the publication of Reading the Vampire Slayer, a collection
of essays edited by the critic Roz Kaveney, with such titles
as "Entropy as Demon: Buffy in Southern California",
"Vampire dialectics: Knowledge, institutions and labour",
and "'They always mistake me for the character I play!':
Transformation, identity and role-playing in the Buffyverse
(and a defence of fine acting)". You can find out more about
these things at Slayage, "the online international journal
of Buffy studies" (www.slayage.tv), where you will also be
invited to submit contributions for a planned new
collection, Monsters and Metaphors: Essays on Buffy the
Vampire Slayer. The renowned orientalist Robert Irwin is a
fan; so is the anti-science polemicist Bryan Appleyard.
There's nothing new, now, about academics treating popular
culture with a slightly absurd seriousness: large swathes of
North America have been deforested to provide paper for
theses called "Meep! Meep! – Roadrunner, Wile E Coyote and
the Auditory Dynamic of Despair", and suchlike. But nothing
has generated the quantity of commentary that Buffy has, and
in a comparatively short time (the first episode was
broadcast in early 1997).
A little essential background: Buffy is Buffy Summers, a
pretty, fluffy-headed Californian teenager who discovers
that she is the Chosen One, the Slayer – latest in a long
line of young women endowed with preternatural strength and
fighting skills and charged with the task of slaying
mankind's supernatural enemies – chiefly vampires. The town
where Buffy lives, Sunnydale, is inconveniently sited over a
Hellmouth, a portal to other dimensions which acts as a
magnet to all kinds of demon. She is assisted by her
schoolfriends Willow (a computer whizz and, later, trainee
witch) and Xander (whose main qualities are a gift for
snappy one-liners and dogged loyalty); by Rupert Giles, her
English-born "Watcher", appointed to guide her with his
knowledge of the occult; and by a variety of friends, lovers
and allies of convenience – notably Angel, a "good" vampire
who is the love of Buffy's life, and has been rewarded with
his own spin-off series.
Many people are put off by the fact that Buffy is genre
fiction. Some Buffy fans complain that this is snobbery, but
I think it is quite understandable: genres are defined by a
set of expectations, and knowing what to expect is a dubious
pleasure. But Buffy rarely settles for satisfying
expectations. The scripts regularly add ingenious twists;
the expectations are absorbed and transformed. For example,
in "Buffy vs Dracula", the first episode of the fifth series
(the most recent series on terrestrial television in
Britain), Buffy found herself unable to resist the Count's
wiles – seduced less by his saturnine good-looks and his
ability to control minds than by his sheer celebrity.
Knowing what to expect from a Dracula story became the
programme's subject.
Tried and trusted tropes of the horror genre crop up on a
regular basis: werewolves, fish-men, murderous mummies,
human sacrifices; but they are integrated into a larger
drama of characters and relationships. Often, the
supernatural subplot serves as a neat metonym for the wider
drama: when Xander and a group of louder, rougher kids were
turned into human hyenas while on a trip to the zoo, a
comment was being made on the pack mentality of adolescent
boys, the need to get in with the in-crowd. When Oz,
Willow's cerebral boyfriend, struggled with lycanthropy,
wasn't that just the universal struggle with physical urges
writ large?
It's not all just adolescent sex, though. In recent
episodes, Buffy's "darker side" has become a focus of
attention – a sense of kinship with the monsters she
combats, and also an underlying desire to have done with the
fighting and killing, an urge for oblivion that culminated,
at the end of series five, with her (temporary) death: the
tombstone read "She saved the world. A lot". To begin with,
the series rested on the contrast between Buffy's night-time
life as world-saviour and her daytime life as teenage girl,
worrying about boys and clothes and school. But now what is
at stake – the pun isn't easy to avoid – are the larger
questions of what makes us human, how to be good and why we
should bother, and why we should stay alive at all. The
bleakness of the themes puts the series closer to Philip
Roth, even Samuel Beckett, than to Anne Rice.
All this makes it sound pretentious and heavy-going. But the
other point to make about Buffy is that it is deliciously
competent. More than 100 episodes have now been broadcast,
plus 50 or so of Angel (which is somewhat inferior): that's
over 100 hours of screentime now. Over that time, the
dialogue has been unvaryingly slick and witty, often up
there with the best Hollywood screwball comedies; the story-
lines have been brilliantly laid out, within episodes but
also over long spans of time. And the characters have grown
in ways that are recognisable from life, while wholly
unfamiliar to television – Xander has developed from
classroom clown to believable builder; shy Willow, who used
to worship Xander, has turned out confident and gay.
This is what attracts the intellectuals: the fact that Buffy
the Vampire Slayer allows you to choose whether you are
going to wallow in mindless, soapy action, or indulge
yourself in the luxury of thought. Either way, it is
wonderful.
Well, maybe not always wonderful. But four or five episodes
of Buffy would be on my list of the 10 best pieces of
television drama ever made: "The Zeppo", in which Buffy,
Willow and Giles save the world from apocalypse in the
background, while in the foreground a neglected, self-
pitying Xander is thrown into a maelstrom of demon-slaying
and sexual experience; "Hush", in which demons steal
everybody's voices, and most of the dialogue is conducted in
mime; "Superstar", in which a local nerd bribes a demon to
transform reality, turning him into a fearless vampire-
slayer and all-round sex-god; and "The Body", which followed
the aftermath of the death of Buffy's mother – slow-moving
cameras, oddly miked sound and long silences made for the
most acute portrayal of the isolation of grief I've ever
seen. At its best, the intelligence and compassion on
display in Buffy can make you glad to be alive. Or at any
rate, undead.
The first five seasons of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' are
being shown on Sky One at 6pm, Monday-Saturday, from today.
'Reading the Vampire Slayer', IB Tauris, £12.99
[>
Re: Deconstructing Buffy (UK broadsheet article) --
JCC, 11:26:12 07/01/02 Mon
Wow, its great that the show is getting so much publicity at
the moment. Hopefully, it will change people's
misconceptions of "That goofy kids show".
Although, Superstar & The Zeppo wouldn't be in my top 10
episodes. Thanks Simon.
JCC
[> [>
One of the problems of selecting a top episode --
DickBD, 12:27:54 07/01/02 Mon
...is that almost none of them stand alone. Superstar and
Zeppo are more inclined to do that. My own favorites would
include the last one of the first season (I *blush* don't
know all the names!), Passion, and Becoming.
I was interested in the comment that Angel is somewhat
inferior. I'm even less caught up on Angel than I am on
Buffy (which I tape and often re-watch), but at first
glance, I am somewhat inclined to agree. But I am not sure
all of you would--and perhaps Joss Whedon would not either.
It must be difficult to choose among your "children"! I am
reminded of Arthur Conan Doyle. He created Sherlock Holmes,
but wanted to do more serious stuff. The Holmes stuff has
achieved a certain immortality, but the Victorian novels
were laughable. In all seriousness, though, I don't think
Doyle was the writer that Joss is, and I don't think he had
the same grade of intellect either--even if he was a
physician!
[> [> [>
Finally remembered! -- DickBD, 12:41:42 07/01/02
Mon
It was Prophecy Girl that I was referring to as the "last of
the first season." I didn't look it up; it just finally
came to me, so I am not completely senile...yet!
[> [> [>
Angel inferior? -- Masq, 12:46:02 07/01/02
Mon
I think this is entirely a matter of opinioin, and cannot be
taken at all as any kind of objective fact. I enjoyed Buffy
seasons 1-3, but since then have found Angel seasons 1-3
more compelling and interesting and artful than their Buffy
counterparts in BtVS seasons 4-6.
JMO!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- JCC, 14:54:02 07/01/02
Mon
I noticed that too, but forgot to include it in my fisrt
reply. I agree with you Masq. I have been more intrested in
Angel than Buffy.
I think Angel s3 has been the best overall between buffy &
Angel. (Maybe a tie with Buffy s3.)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- Masq, 16:15:50 07/01/02
Mon
It's a matter of what speaks to you personally, and Angel
the Series/Angel the character speaks to me personally in a
way that the characters on BtVS don't.
Not sure why, except I'm a broody socially inept goof-ball
who likes to wear black.
But not a champion, *alas*
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Piffle!!....you are the Champion of Buffy Websites
creators. -- Rufus, 16:58:05 07/01/02 Mon
Of course now I have the visual of a "brood-off" between you
and Angel...;)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- mucifer, 18:33:56
07/01/02 Mon
Actually, I just cant get into that show. Alexis is a great
actor and his character is interesting.But, the writing and
the predictability of the show to me seem very inferior to
the Buffy series. The humor almost always falls flat. But,
that's just my opinion and which show is better is in the
end only subjective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Alexis Denisof rocks! -- Scroll, 21:23:39
07/01/02 Mon
I think you're right in that "Angel" doesn't have the same
slap-stick humour Xander provides on "Buffy", but it is not
without funnies. I think it's simply focusing on different
brand(s) of humour, more play on racial/cultural stereotypes
than pop culture references. And I think the greatest
strength with "Angel" is it's drama and darkness. While
"Buffy" went fairly dark this season, most people had a
problem with it, they felt it was too depressing. But
"Angel" can balance the darkness within its different
characters to create a 'dark' season without drowning
viewers in melancholy. But as you say, it's always
subjective.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- shadowkat, 07:17:01
07/02/02 Tue
"It's a matter of what speaks to you personally, and Angel
the Series/Angel the character speaks to me personally in a
way that the characters on BtVS don't."
I think that's exactly it. I'm the opposite, Btvs speaks to
me personally. Do like Wes though.
But it's odd...in Season 1, Ats...in some ways I
prefered
Angel to Season 4, Btvs. Then in Season 2 Ats - went back to
prefering Btvs. Again I think this is a purely
subjective
thing.
That said - I've discovered this year that if you miss one
or the other - you are missing half the story's
tapestery.
The shows echo and build on each others themes, often
exploring similar themes from different angles.
Example the vengence theme was explored through Holtz,
Conner, Justine, Angel (on Ats) and through Willow,
Xander,
Anya, in Btvs.
Attempted rape and rape and misogyny were explored on
Ats
through Angel's rape of Darla (granted the jury is out on
whether it really was, thought they appeared to refer to it
as such in the episode on Sunday night - where they take
Darla to the hospital) and her subsequent pregnancy, the
whole Billy deal, then on Btvs with Warren and the attempted
rape in SR.
I give the writers a lot of credit for taking a similar
concept and showing it in two totally different ways on two
different shows. One show is the epic hero's journey -
the hero who is propelled by fate and has the gods coming
down and pushing him in different directions or thrusting
stuff on him while the other show is the hero
who finds their own way without anyone providing any answers
or telling them much or even helping out all that much.
PAths aren't thrust upon Buffy's characters so much as
chosen by them. Neither hero is given answers. They just are
pushed and prodded differently.
Comparing them is a bit like comparing an apple to an
orange.
Some people prefer apples to eat. Some prefer orange
juice.
I think we do a disservice to both shows if we try to say
one is better than another, just as we do a disservice to
the fans of both. The same is true regarding the characters
that make up them. Again it is like having a debate over
apples vs. oranges. Nature makes both and they are
miracles.
ME produces both Angel and Buffy and IMHO they are the best
shows on TV.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- Arethusa, 08:43:15
07/02/02 Tue
"One show is the epic hero's journey -
the hero who is propelled by fate and has the gods coming
down and pushing him in different directions or thrusting
stuff on him while the other show is the hero
who finds their own way without anyone providing any answers
or telling them much or even helping out all that much.
PAths aren't thrust upon Buffy's characters so much as
chosen by them. Neither hero is given answers. They just are
pushed and prodded differently."
Well said. Many people prefer the lighter (literally and
figuratively) Buffy, and were distressed to see its
characters go through so much pain. But "Angel"'s all about
the pain, and how it affects the lives and character of the
adults in AI. Like Shadowkat said (and I said a couple of
days ago) they have nothing to guide them on their journey,
and no one to turn to for help but each other. The Higher
Powers they encounter are just as likely to be malevolent or
uncaring as they are to be helpful. But what does that
reviewer consider to be inferior? The gut-wrenching acting
as the characters try to make sense out of life, death and
birth? The smart, strong full-bodied portrayal of women?
The clever, sometimes even melancholy humor that arises
naturally out of the superb writing? The sword fights,
monster beheadings, tarantula rituals, "lawyer beasts,"
princesses in sequined bikinis, ballet, slow-motion demon
bordellos, smash cuts, widescreen, shocking twists and
suprises-I could go on much longer, but time turns kittens
into cats. The *only* thing inferior about "Angel" is some
reviewers' inability to appreciate it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- shadowkat, 09:14:33
07/02/02 Tue
Agree - just a minor clarification:
I see Btvs as more about choosing one's own path and Angel
as more about having the higher powers choose one for you
and thrust it on you. Ex: Angel constantly goes to the
oracles or powers for advice. Cordy gets visions to tell him
how to help people. Angel had the soul thrust on him.
There's a prophecy regarding just about everything Angel
does. Very HErculean mythos in nature. Not inferior,
just
epic story - linear in character. Not everyone's cup of tea.
And BTW - as far as epic's go - this is the best one
I've seen in a long time. They are hard to do.
Btvs - the characters aren't given advice by the PTB, there
are no oracles. Prophecies - well infrequent and Buffy tends
to prove them wrong most of the time and seldom relies on
them. Buffy sort of thrusts her fist in the oracles face and
goes her own way. (Angel follows what the oracles say as
does Cordy. Champions follow their bosses - the PTB, slayers
- do their own thing - chart their own course. One is
predestined or fate, the other a little more existential.)
Yes - I know Buffy is the chosen one, but she was also
supposed to die. And now there are two. So much for
prophecy. Btvs in some ways pokes fun at Angel and vice
versa. It's clever when you catch it. The whole
Holtz/Justine thing made fun of Buffy/Giles as an example.
And Tabula Rasa made fun of Angel and Cordy big time. Also
in Angel - he doesn't choose anything - it's thrust on
him.
In Btvs - Spike goes after a soul, chooses to help the
slayer, falls for her as a demon, and basically ignores
Giles when he tells him he has a higher purpose in
Doomed.
At times I get the feeling the writers poke fun at their
Angel story via Spike and their Buffy story via Cordy...but
that could just be me. ;-)
Both seem to be all about pain. Just shown differently.
Both are valid. I think the critics have troubles
understanding this genre or appreciating it. They've never
given it's due. They never will. Their loss.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with almost everything you said --
Arethusa, 10:17:05 07/02/02 Tue
especially about how Angel has a Seer and the PTB and Buffy
is on her own more. But I definitely see Buffy as someone
who isn't searching for her path, or for meaning in her life-
she's had that ever since she became a slayer. She knows
her purpose in life is to defend the world by fighting
demons and, especially, vampires. When she dies, someone
will step in her stylish yet affordable shoes and take her
place. Since all the Scoobies are growing up, they are of
course finding their place in the world, but not in the same
way as AI.
All the prophesies, Oracles, Hamburger Loa, psychics and
Seers in the world can't help Angel solve the basic riddle
of his life-why a vampire has become a player in the Coming
of Days. He is buffeted by fate, not directed by it. Sure,
the PTB sends visions, but sometimes they are too late (That
Vision Thing), deceptive (Judgement), or ignored in Angel's
despair and confusion (Reprise). Angel is seeking purpose
and meaning to a life that once was a celebration of evil
and corruption, and to me the core of the show is in the
conversation between Kate and Angel in "Epiphany." Quote by
psyche.
Kate: "I just couldn't... - My whole life has been about
being a cop. If I'm not part of the force it's like nothing
I do means anything."
Angel, still looking pretty beat up: "It doesn't."
Kate: "Doesn't what?"
Angel: "Mean anything. In the greater scheme or the big
picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no
big win."
Kate: "You seem kind of chipper about that."
Angel: "Well, I guess I kinda - worked it out. If there is
no great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do
matters, - then all that matters is what we do. 'cause
that's all there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for
so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to
beat the other guy, but... I never got it."
Kate: "And now you do?"
Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna
help because - I don't think people should suffer, as they
do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the
smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the
world."
No meaning of life, no grand plan. Just people clinging to
each other in a harsh world, trying to make life livable,
one small act of kindness at a time. Not Herculean-in
"Judgement" Angel realizes that he's not here to complete
tasks assigned by a higher power and get his reward or
absolution. "Of course. We shouldn't be keeping score.
We're not running a race - we're doing a job - one soul at a
time," Wesley says.
Just a different way of looking at the same thing. And its
very cool that we can both appreciate and enjoy the same
show, while getting different things out of it.
Enough said.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with you on Angel now but not Btvs --
shadowkat, 11:42:27 07/02/02 Tue
Okay...you have a point, forgot that scene. And you managed
to change my mind regarding Angel. Very good.
But I still disagree with you on Btvs - at least regarding
Season 6. Up until Season 6, you're right, Buffy had a
purpose. That's adolescence or childhood - the purpose the
plan. Actually up until Season 4, she had one...Season 4-5
broke it down bit by bit. Then this year - she realized
there were no answers. In the Grave she asks Giles - "why am
I back? I was done". Giles doesn't know.
Angel the Series changed in Epiphany when Angel realized
redemption wasn't necessarily prophesied or in the
stars.
Wesley had it in Forgiving - realizing prophecies can be
changed and can mean nothing. Actually started liking Angel
better after Epiphany, the show got less predictable and
more interesting. I do miss Kate though. Really miss
Kate.
A/K was my ship...sigh.
Btvs changed after Buffy died in the Gift. Why I prefer
Season 6 to any Season of Btvs so far. When she came back,
the rules had changed - there weren't any. The purpose
became less clear. Even Spike's status changed. Willow and
Xander no longer know their roles. Btvs' characters have
jumped into the same existential no man's land as
Angels.
Which was one of the many reasons I got obsessed with
Btvs
this year.
(The reason I'm not obsessed with Angel has nothing to do
with philosophy, and everything to do with actors,
characters and writing - which is purely subjective.
Sort of like someone telling you why they hate Tom
Cruise..
and prefer Brad Pitt...irrelevant and prone to cause flame
wars. ;-))
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
You're right. -- Arethusa, 14:49:45 07/02/02
Tue
You're right-everything changed when Buffy died, and S6 was
existential, especially compared to the earlier years.
Do you remember what Cordelia said about Kate and Angel?
"Mr. and Mrs. Spock need to mind meld now."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Forgot that line. Want Angel epsiode repeats! --
shadowkat, 07:01:58 07/03/02 Wed
Oh, I forgot that line...dang, why don't they re-run the
old Angel episodes??? I don't have any of them and they
aren't available in US and I can't afford a multiregion
DVD player. (Actually haven't been able to afford a
normal
DVD player). Also - I've discovered that Btvs and Ats
episodes are much better on the second viewing. Wisened up
and started taping the repeats of Ats this summer,
because
WB will never show them again.
Unfortunately the actress playing Kate joined Law and
Order,
so my ship never sailed. Dang it! The chemistry between Kate
and Angel was electric. This teaches you not to have
ships for tv characters - it's a lost cause.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Want Angel epsiode repeats too. -- Arethusa,
09:03:29 07/03/02 Wed
The reviews of Rohm's performance in L&A that I've read have
been largely negative, cast turnover is high(ish) and I also
read an interview with Rohm where she said she'd like to do
more "Angel", so don't give up-you might get your wish.
I missed most of S1 and part of S2, so I'm dying for reruns
too. Can't FX play Die Hard and True Lies fewer times, and
show Angel instead?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
I'm making tapes -- Masq, 09:08:53 07/03/02
Wed
Of Angel s 1 and s 2 for Lyonors. Care to put in an order,
either one of you?
Doing my part for Angel appreciation!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm making tapes -- Arethusa, 09:38:11
07/03/02 Wed
I appreciate the offer, but I'm willing to wait for the
DVDs. I have a file box overflowing with Buffy tapes that I
am always tripping over, and I am so spoiled by my DVDs that
I don't even look at them.
(BTW I'm still working on "Black Angel: Noir in "Angel."
With school out, I have almost no free time any more.)
:o(
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm making tapes -- shadowkat,
09:39:50 07/03/02 Wed
Actually...yes. I really want Seasons 1&2.
And entirely agree with Areuthsa.
I think the reason they don't has something to do with their
contract with WB. (This is just supposition on my part, have
no idea what their contract with WB is,
Doc seems to know more about that topic...;-) ). But my
guess is that WB made sure they had first syndication
rights for the term of the agreement, which means WB
can keep FX from televising it. Actually WB's treatment
of Angel has made me hate the WB network.
First, they tease us with reruns on Thurs then don't come
thru, then they give us no reruns during hiatus - all we got
was 7th Heaven (Nothing against the show - it's just not
my cup of tea. too sappy for me.) Then they move the show to
Sundays opposite Alias, forcing me to give up Alias next
year. (yep - Angel and Buffy come before all other shows -
the nature of obsession...sigh.) And since Alias is so
highly rated and will probably get the emmy nods, Angel
may die next year. ugh!
So if you can provide normal US Vcr copies? I'm in. I
want
to see In The Dark, Epiphany, Shanshu in LA, Prodigal,
Dear Boy, the episode he turns human, and A Room
With A View again - dang it! (They were some of my all
time favorites. Actually I liked several of Ats Season 1
episodes better than Season 4 Btvs.) Miss Doyle and
Kate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'll put you on my list -- Masq, 12:28:34
07/03/02 Wed
As a fellow FF-ficer, you need to see those flash-back
episodes again!
Angelus!
Mwah hah hah!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'll put you on my list -- Dochawk, 16:28:32
07/03/02 Wed
Masq,
I just shipped out a couple of sets (see below), I copied my
DVDs, so no commercials. I am in the midst of making
another 3 sets. Not hard for me, but up to you.
BTW do you want the commentary tapes? I have 7 Buffy (season
3 and 4 only) and 3 Angel commentaries if you want them?
A
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
ME would have been smart to base their addiction
storyline on my descent into Commentary Hodom....;) --
Rufus, 17:01:42 07/03/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And that would clear up what happened to Doc, he became
my commentary pimp...;) -- Rufus, 17:02:55 07/03/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not sure what you're offering -- Masq, 21:45:51
07/03/02 Wed
Doc,
I have three people I've offered to make tapes for, Lyonors,
redcat and shadowkat. Are you offering to make the tapes for
them instead of me doing it??
'cause of course, I'll just tape tapes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If I slip you a chocolate Angelus, can I be added to
the list? -- LadyStarlight, 16:18:49 07/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: If I slip you a chocolate Angelus, can I be added
to the list? -- Masq, 20:31:27 07/04/02 Thu
I don't eat chocolate Angelus', but I love to corrupt people
with copious Angel: the Series viewage. I'll email you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I love that quote! -- DickBD, 12:40:52 07/02/02
Tue
That is very well put, and I love that quote. When I first
heard about it is when I first started watching Angel (late
this year). To me, that is an example of good writing by
people who have done some deep thinking.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Angel inferior? -- DickBD, 14:55:39 07/01/02
Mon
Since you and I agree on "Passion" as being the best or one
of the best of the Buffy episodes, I should start catching
up on Angel. I do watch now, but I am as much at a loss to
figure out what is going on as I was when I first started
watching Buffy. (Pregnant vampire? Did Angel not go evil
because the sex was with a vampire or because he wan't
really happy about it?) I do think that Buffy has better
title music, but that may be personal preference, too. And,
of course, Buffy is better looking than Angel. (Oh yeah,
that probably has something to do with personal preference
and our respective gender!)
I guess I will have to resort to ordering the Angel tapes or
DVDs, since FX doesn't seem about to rerun the Angel
series.
[> [> [> [> [>
Perfect despair, not perfect happiness -- Maroon
Lagoon, 15:09:20 07/01/02 Mon
This is why Angel didn't turn, regardless of whether he
expected to beforehand.
I don't think syndication usually starts until there are
about 100 eps or 5 seasons.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Another Angel fan -- Brian, 15:46:30
07/01/02 Mon
I never miss either of them. Season 3 of Angel just rocked
this year. And I love that the two series have so much
counterpoint to each other.
[> [> [> [> [>
Where do you live? -- Masq, 16:13:22 07/01/02
Mon
Angel seasons 1 and 2 are out on DVD and tape in the area 2
region (which is Europe, and I'm not sure where else), but
not in North America (area 1) yet. I'm thinking Angel season
1 may be released here when Buffy season 4 is (its companion
season).
In the meantime, you have to mooch tapes off other fans. I
have it all on tape, but I'm on the list with amazon.com to
get the DVDs whenever they are released (a year from now?
Maybe?)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I hate to disappoint you -- Dochawk, 16:19:49
07/01/02 Mon
But you'll be waiting alot longer for Angel DVDs even though
as you sadi they are available in the rest of the world.
But the rest of the world doesn't pay $600,000 an episode
for syndication rights and neither will FX if they are
available on DVD prior to being syndicated. Means you are
looking at 6 months after season 5 ends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well... -- Masq, 16:48:57 07/01/02 Mon
It's six of one, half a dozen of the other to me 'cause I
have them all on tape. I just wish all the nay-sayers who
didn't watch the first two seasons of Angel can get a chance
to catch up.
*sigh*, but it'll be Season 5 of Angel before we hit the
magic number 100 episodes and syndication begins!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Well... -- Rufus, 17:02:51 07/01/02 Mon
Thanks, I put my e-mail in to be notified...maybe if there
is enough call for the DVD we may see it a bit sooner. Of
course I have all of Angel on tape but can't live without my
commentaries.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
South North America -- DickBD, 21:16:01 07/01/02
Mon
I'm in San Diego, which, of course, is about as far south as
you can get on the Pacific Rim and still be in the US. That
is sad news about the availability of tapes or DVDs, as I am
the only one I know that is fanatical enough to tape these
things. I have got a younger girl at my gym hooked into
watching Buffy, but most people my age simply shake their
heads at my complexity (or baffoonery). After all, I am
also an opera and Shakespearean buff. (Some people who
introduce me to friends say, "This is the guy who thinks
sharks and Pit Bulls are misunderstood by the public!" And,
of course, it is true (both ways).
You're my only hope for copies. I guess it would be
awkward to sell them, but you could at least take the cost
of the shipping and the cassettes. That means I would have
to give up my secret identity to you. Can I trust you?
[> [> [> [> [>
How I caught up with AtS S1 & 2 -- Dead Soul,
00:03:34 07/02/02 Tue
I bought a multi-region DVD player and got AtS Seasons 1 &
2, as well as BtVS Seasons 3 & 4 from the UK. Works a
dream, I'm so glad I spent the $s. Now, impatiently waiting
for UK release of BtVS S5 UK DVD release.
Dead Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: How I caught up with AtS S1 & 2 -- Dochawk,
12:12:16 07/02/02 Tue
Thats how I made my tapes. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sigh..... -- Rufus, 03:09:58 07/03/02 Wed
I didn't even know such a thing as a multi-regional DVD
player existed.....I'm a failure as a techno-geek....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sigh..... -- Dead Soul, 11:40:01 07/03/02
Wed
I learned about them here - somewhere back in the
archives.
Dead Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
Angel Tapes -- Dochawk, 12:08:53 07/02/02
Tue
if you are willing to wait your turn I have a system set up
to make tapes. A couple of people have already got them and
two more sets are going out tomorrow. It will be a wait
though (a month or so).
When you get them I just ask that you donate cost of the
tapes and shipping to Nick Brendon's stuttering foundation
(its the only charity I could identify that is directly
related to the Buffyverse).
A
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel Tapes -- DickBD, 12:25:27 07/02/02
Tue
That would be great. I am patient and reasonably reliable.
Thanks.
[> [> [>
Holmes -- Rahael, 14:01:28 07/01/02 Mon
Would have to disagree with you about Conan Doyle - I love
him. As someone who loves short stories, his are very fine -
The Speckled Band for instance is excellent.
He is popular, and a good writer (not mutually exclusive!
just as not all television is pap).
I would say that he not only achieved a 'certain
immortality' - he has managed to seize hold of the popular
imagination in a way few of his contemporaries did. It would
be very difficult to untangle his influence from our
worldview/culture.
As for his other novels being inferior, he isn't the first
author with a widely varying quality in his body of work.
Thomas Hardy is famous as a novelist, but he saw himself as
a poet. A great many of his poems are superb. Some of them
are very indifferent. He wrote so many, that there is a very
large amount of each.
It's a good point, I should try Conan Doyle's other novels.
It would be worth it for the curiousity value.
[> [> [> [>
Speckled Band? -- DickBD, 15:04:43 07/01/02
Mon
Well, since I read all the Holmes short stories and the
novels, I obviously enjoyed Doyle, too. So much so that I
tried reading one or two of his Victorian novels (his "more
serious work" that he lamented was overlooked because of
Holmes). Doyle didn't see that his Holmes stuff was of
masterpiece caliber, while nearly all the Victorian novels
(of other authors, too) were tripe.
As a young boy, I enjoyed the "Speckled Band," but as a
former biology teacher, I am appalled that Doyle didn't
realize that snakes can't hear air-borne sounds or that he
would think they could be trained to come to a trainer
utilizing a whistle.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Hound of the Baskervilles -- Brian, 15:44:30
07/01/02 Mon
Hey, Rahael, if you are only reading Holmes novels, either
save this one for last or read it first as it is the best
since it really focuses on Holmes and Watson.
The other novels use them as more framework for another
story.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
The Sign of Four -- DickBD, 21:46:41 07/01/02
Mon
My favorite is the Sign of Four. Even its title is
contentious, as it has appeared as THE SIGN OF FOUR and THE
SIGN OF THE FOUR, and fans (most of them mystery writers)
have argued about which is the correct title for over a
century. It is the second novel, and it solidifies the
characters beautifully. Watson gets married at the end, but
in the beginning, he is remonstrating with Holmes about
using cocaine. Then he gets a lesson in Holmes' deduction
ability, a beautiful beginning. And then the mystery
begins.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Will do, Brian! -- Rahael, 08:05:58 07/02/02
Tue
[> [> [> [>
Yet one more thing -- Sophist, 16:50:34 07/01/02
Mon
we have in common. I LOVE Sherlock Holmes. Must have read
them all 15-20 times. dH better watch out!
[> [> [> [> [>
Hehehehe -- Rahael, 06:20:07 07/02/02 Tue
There you are d'Herblay, you've been put on your mettle!
;)
[> [> [> [>
The Lost World -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:43:07
07/01/02 Mon
I too love Sherlock Holmes. Not only are the stories great,
but he has an honorable rank: one of the few fictional
characters that everybody on the planet has heard of.
If you want to read more of Doyle, I suggest a book called
The Lost World. It's neither serious (it's of the pulp
genre) nor Victorian (it was written in 1912), but it is
very entertaining, funny, and the lead character of
Professor Challenger is very good.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Lost World -- Simon, 01:28:05 07/02/02
Tue
the BBC made the Lost World into a two-part TV movie last
Christmas with Bob Hoskins playing Professor Challenger and
Peter Falk was in it as well. It very entertaining and
fairly faithful to the book. It was released on DVD in the
UK and you may be able to view it the US.
[> [> [> [>
Laurie King -- fresne, 07:58:11 07/03/02 Wed
And in vaguely (although I enjoy the originals too)
heretical way, I must admit to loving Laurie King's Mary
Russell/ Holmes stories. They have an incredible sense of
period (1915 forward), you can practically smell the air -
which in London's case isn't always good.
I won't bore anyone with a description of the books, which
always comes off sounding lame anyway. Rather I'll say that
while many Holmes purist hate them with a passion of 1000
firey suns (why becomes clear if you read them), I list them
among my crack cocaine (7% solution) must have books.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Laurie King -- Rahael, 08:09:33 07/03/02
Wed
Have not heard of them, but they are now on my list of
things to look out for.
Crime is probably the only contemporary fiction novels I
actively buy and read.
Favourites are Iain Pears and Reginald Hill. I'm almost
tempted to buy them hardback.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Laurie King -- Arethusa, 08:44:37 07/03/02
Wed
The Mary Russell books are very good, well worth reading for
the mysteries, period atmosphere, and full
characterizations.
And to those who criticize what King did re Russell and
Holmes: When a playwright decided to do the same thing in a
Holmes play he wrote, he cabled Doyle to ask if Doyle cared,
and Doyle said do what you want, he didn't care at all.
Doyle became sick of Holmes, just as Agatha Christie became
tired of Hercule Poirot.
BTW I read The Lost World last month-downloaded it for
free off the web on my e-book. Very dated, but fun (one of
my favorite books as a teen was Jules Verne's Mysterious
Island, and this is in the same vein).
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Laurie King -- Anneth, 06:24:48 07/05/02
Fri
"Rather I'll say that while many Holmes purist hate them
with a passion of 1000 firey suns (why becomes clear if you
read them), I list them among my crack cocaine (7% solution)
must have books."
Plus... you have to love the fact that a young Lord Peter
Wimsey makes an appearance. If you're a Sayers nut,
anyway.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Really? I love Wimsey!! -- Rahael, 06:38:06
07/05/02 Fri
Okay, the really dated class snobbery parts of Sayer's books
can annoy me, but I'm still addicted!
I love Vane and Wimsey (as anyone who was around when we
played 'Tabula Rasa' in Chat will know.) I entered as
"Harriet"
[>
Not just a TV show -- shygirl, 16:47:40 07/01/02
Mon
Thanks for posting this article. I've been reading the
articles on the website that is involved in this conference.
And I must say, I agree with these people. This program is
very deep and touches issues, values, hopes, fears, dreams,
etc. that are relevant to what is happening in the world
today. Buffy is a lens and a focus for some pretty heavy
stuff. But I've felt that way from the very beginning...
otherwise I don't think it could hold my attention. I bore
easily and the simple trials and tribulations of an empty
headed California cutie would not suffice to hold me an
intellectual and emotional prisoner. LOL Its more than just
a cute little blond girl saving the world...and Buffy
herself is more than that too....or on the path to
becoming...
[>
I do prefer BTVS to ATS, but ATS is still my second fav
show. -- Rufus, 17:10:46 07/01/02 Mon
Buffy does speak to me more than ATS does. Maybe it's the
brooding <snerk> or just the fact that Buffy is such an
unconventional super hero. Angel is the type that most
people would consider the hero-type, Buffy blows the premise
of the Hero as male out of the water..well it blows the idea
of the Hero having to have super-powers to a hell dimension.
Both shows I love, it is just a matter of personal
preference.
[>
Buffy is the better show, and I can mathematically
prove it, but the proof is too long to fit here --
Fermat, 01:59:43 07/04/02 Thu
[> [>
Somebody call Andrew Wiles -- Sophist, 07:57:49
07/04/02 Thu
[> [>
heeeeheehee--& fermat buttons -- anom the fermat (&
button) fan, 11:48:50 07/04/02 Thu
1. "I have found a wonderful counterexample, but it won't
fit in this universe --Fermat"
2. "x^n + y^n = z^n has no integer solutions other than 0
for n>2 I have a wonderful proof, but it won't fit on a
button"
There's also a great sf (well, more fantasy, I guess) story
about a mathematician who offers to sell his soul to the
devil...in exchange for a proof of Fermat's last theorem!
Wish I could remember who wrote it. I'll try to check after
my trip this weekend & let you know.
How I (want to) spent (d) my (next) summer vacation
-- LadyStarlight, 07:08:22 07/01/02 Mon
As I broke up the one millionth (by a conservative estimate)
fight between my two angels yesterday, I found myself
thinking "Boy, do I need a vacation!"
Hard on the heels of that thought was "Are we still going to
get together and watch the finale of Buffy?"
Leaving aside any talk of an eighth season for now, I think
the question is still valid. I know I'd love to be able to
get away for a while next May and now might be a good time
to actually plan something.
I'd like to go on record as stating that I vote for
Vancouver as a venue host, for a couple of reasons. 1) I
can afford to fly there and 2) My money is actually worth
the amount printed on the front of it.
So, now what?
[>
Re: How I (want to) spent (d) my (next) summer
vacation -- Brian, 07:36:07 07/01/02 Mon
Hey, LS, sounds like a good idea. But finding a venue to
watch the Buffy final may be difficult. And I also recall
that there was an idea expressed to have a meeting after the
Season 7 finale, somewhere in the middle, like Toronto,
where there is going to be a Sci-FI convention as well.
But I'm up for anything!
[>
Re: S*P*I*K*E*!!!!!.... -- Aquimundi, 08:55:14
07/01/02 Mon
has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of this
thread.
That said, LS, thanks for bringing this up! We'd been
wondering what was up with the "Big Meet". We've bookmarked
a post-finale meeting in our minds and would be open to
Vancouver since we've never been there. On the other hand,
should a more central location be desirable for everyone, we
would love to meet somewhere, almost anywhere, in mid-
CanAmerica.
-Aquitaine & mundusmundi
[>
I'll be there, just tell me where to fly -- Masq,
09:15:13 07/01/02 Mon
But please make it on the North American continent!
[>
I would do my darndest to get there - might wind up
hitch hiking though -- Dedalus, 12:33:16 07/01/02
Mon
My wax wings are in the shop.
[>
May I cast my support behind Vancouver... -- Rufus,
16:54:42 07/01/02 Mon
WW and I mentioned this very thing when I visited her. I'm
unable to travel so Vancouver would be the only place I
could possibly make it to.
[>
Putting my $$ where my mouth is -- LadyStarlight, 16:59:41 07/01/02 Mon
OK, guys, I'm stepping up to the plate here. Drop me a
line, putting in a subject line like 'ATPo gathering' (if I
get an email from an unknown person with something like
'Hi', I delete it) and give the answers to the following
questions:
1) Would you attend?
2) Where should it be?
3) How long should it be? (couple days, a week,
whatever)
If Masq will be so kind to keep this on the board for a few
days, I'll post a tally once most of the answers have
trickled in. Then at least we have a bit of a baseline to
start discussions with.
Sound good?
[> [>
Re: Future Get together -- Brian, 19:13:31
07/01/02 Mon
Vancouver is ok by me. I'll be there.
Needs to be a long weekend perhaps?
[> [>
Why Vancouver? its neither central nor cheap (except
for the few Canadians on board) -- Dochawk, 00:37:06
07/02/02 Tue
If a Canadian city is necessary, Toronto would be more
logical, more central and cheaper from everywhere, including
LA, but central and cheap puts us in Chicago.
[> [> [>
well, you and I anyway.... -- Liq, 01:19:12
07/02/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Doc -- Rufus, 03:44:46 07/02/02 Tue
I put my vote in for Vancouver, the reason I'm unable to
travel. Is my attendance at any meet we have vital, no,
other people here have contributed far more than I could
ever hope to. After all I'm only one of the "few" Canadians
on this board.
[> [> [> [>
Not vital? There is no big-time ATPo meeting without
Rufus! -- The Third Evil, 06:53:32 07/02/02 Tue
We'll come and gitcha, never fear!
:-)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Doc -- Dochawk, 10:26:35 07/02/02 Tue
Didn't realize you wouldn't be able to travel. And besides
if we do it in Vancouver we get it a day early right?
Hey once I get on a plane doesn't matter to me where we are
(well Melbourne for NR would be fun, but a little more of a
need to plan for that one). I was just noting that
Vancouver is not exactly centrally located (but a beautiful
city) and once we eliminate LA, which does have some
advantages, we could do a "Buffy tour", anyplace is a plane
ride, but some are closer than others.
Ded, hitchhiking from Georgia to Vancouver for example.
A
[> [> [> [> [>
Vancouver sounds great, but out of curiosity, why is LA
eliminated? -- Caroline, 11:29:58 07/02/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vancouver sounds great, but out of curiosity, why
is LA eliminated? -- LadyStarlight, 12:10:12 07/02/02 Tue
No city has been eliminated. Vancouver is my & Rufus'
preference, for personal reasons. But if you'd rather have
it in LA, please email me at the above address & let me
know.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: LA - where there is no tomorrow, no yesterday, only
now! -- Brian, 12:54:47 07/02/02 Tue
No wonder Angel moved there.
[>
Vancouver gets my vote! ;o) -- Wisewoman,
13:01:20 07/02/02 Tue
Well, yeah, I live here but hey, we gotta have Rufus at the
big party!!
;o)
[> [>
Re: Vancouver gets my vote! ;o) -- fresne,
10:45:17 07/03/02 Wed
Well, while not terribly fair to the central or East
Coasters, anything on the West coast is doable (then again
last year's vacation was a 7000 mile road trip, so Central
is also possible.)
BTW - anyone know how to post a picture here. Copy and Paste
doesn't seem to work. I have developed the one and only
photo from the little get together in S.F.
[> [> [>
You have to use html, like putting a photo on a
webpage -- Masq--who wants to see the pic!, 13:51:54
07/03/02 Wed
Which means it needs to be online on some server
somewhere.
[> [> [> [>
Please don't mind my presumption -- d'Herblay,
17:45:29 07/03/02 Wed
(front) fresne, Masq, Dochawk (rear) Buffyboy
Stolen from fresne
herself.
I suppose I know what I'm wearing in August (says the person
who always wears his black leather philosophical jacket in
Marin and San Francisco counties, but doesn't know what to
do with it in Alameda and San Mateo counties, and ends up
looking like a sweaty fool).
[> [> [> [> [>
Hmmmm seems to be a leather motif...;)...and Herb
that's "borrowed"...:):):) -- Rufus,
02:14:31 07/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
wow, d'herb, i'm impressed... -- anom, 11:29:01
07/04/02 Thu
...even your jacket is philosophical! @>)
[> [> [> [> [>
Whew! Thanks (NT) -- fresne, 19:50:26 07/04/02
Thu
[>
Just keeping the thread alive <g> --
LadyStarlight, 07:14:11 07/03/02 Wed
[> [>
Vancouver is great with me, LS! (hums "oh
Canada") -- julia, 22:22:02 07/03/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Noted, Julia. Thx for the input! -- LadyStarlight,
06:34:10 07/04/02 Thu
Totally OT I met Magneto, er Gandalf, er Sir Ian
McKellan!! -- Deeva, 09:32:51 07/01/02 Mon
At the Pride parade in SF. I knew that he was the parade
Grand Marshall but didn't expect to actually meet him! Very
nice guy. Extremely well spoken and gracious. Shook hands
with a lot of people and stopped for pics, sadly I had no
camera, curses! Just thought I would tell someone, anyone
who would be able to appreciate it cause my frineds were
like, "Who?"
[>
Darn, missed it! -- Masq, 10:51:52 07/01/02
Mon
That's what I get for thinking, "Ho-hum, another year,
another parade. Seen two, you've seen'm all". : )
[> [>
That's what my boyfriend was thinking, too. --
Deeva, 11:01:05 07/01/02 Mon
When I said, "Come on! It's nice outside and free
entertainment, staged or not, and you know you like all that
deep fried food!" I wanted to see it all but compromised on
just seeing a little and it happened to be when Sir Ian was
coming down the route! ;o)
[>
Ooh and don't forget James Whale! -- julia,
13:54:05 07/01/02 Mon
Deeva:
How lucky you are! Sir Ian is one of my all time favorite
actors. I think I would have turned into "to read makes our
speaking English good" and completely lost my cool. I'm
glad to hear he's as charming and personable as I dreamed.
Sigh....
Julia
[> [>
Re: And Richard III! -- Jane's Addiction,
15:54:41 07/01/02 Mon
His roles in Lord of the Rings and X-Men really have
introduced "Sir Ian" to a whole new crop of movie-goers. I
remember going to see "Rings" with a friend of mine and
trying not to cough up a spleen when he said "This guy
playing Gandalf is really good. Who is he?" After that I
introduced him to "Gods and Monsters" and "Richard III".
[>
Spoilers for every fantasy movie of the last two
years -- d'Herblay, 17:57:36 07/01/02 Mon
I happened to see (finally!) The Fellowship of the
Rings the day after I saw Attack of the Clones. I
must admit that when Christopher Lee's Saruman was spinning
Gandalf around, my gut response was, "What are you afraid
of, Magneto? He got his ass whooped by a muppet!"
[>
Met him at the Kennedy Center after a showing of
RIII -- Mary Ellen, 19:21:41 07/01/02 Mon
Lovely, kindly man! Great raconteur also. His presence
after the film was a surprise (he was in town to get an
award), and he kindly answered a few questions. (I asked if
the ending was copped from Jimmy Cagney's "White Heat," and
he *sort* of admitted that it was).
I even asked for his autograph afterwards. Only time I've
ever done that in my adult life.
Wish he would bring back his one-man "Acting Shakespeare"--
I'd love to see that again, or an updated version. But I
realize he's too busy doing films.
[>
Woe, woe. a badly scheduled camping trip took me away
for the weekend, and I missed so much... -- yuri,
01:53:48 07/02/02 Tue
Sir Ian
Pride weekend in general (I missed it last year too, boo
hoo.)
Renne Harris' free performance at stern grove (any of yall
bay area people see it or know of it? Supposed to be tight
as shait.)
A few mammoth threads that I'd have liked to get in
on!!!
Oh well. I do have to get used to this missing-more-than-one-
day-on-the-board thing. It's damn hard if you're not used to
it!!!
rebroadcast of OMWF -- isis, 10:11:24 07/01/02
Mon
Tomorrow night they are showing OMWF. Sadly, I will not be
watching for fear of my own mental well being. You see,
that music has a strange effect on me. Once I hear it, it
worms its way into my brain and doesn't let go. I hum, I
sing, I dance, and I CAN"T SLEEP because of the noise in my
brain. (well, at least I'm not bursting into flames), but
nonetheless, it is exhausting!
My question is why? Am I alone in my suffering? Has anyone
else been afflicted with this malady? What has Joss done to
me? I love this episode!
I've got a therory. No, I really don't. What is it about
certain music that does this to people? I know that mere
repitition, i.e commercials you hear over and over , can
occasionally cause this. But there is something about these
songs, these lyrics that consume me. Could it be
magicks?
[>
Are they... -- GreatRewards, 11:31:35 07/01/02
Mon
trimming it down to fit in the 1-hour timeslot, or are they
airing the whole thing??
[> [>
As I understand it... -- ZachsMind, 20:12:04
07/01/02 Mon
It's gonna be an edited version, the version which will be
used for syndication. I'm afraid to see what they'll cut. I
don't see where they could cut.
Well, they could zap the whole dance scene with Trachtenberg
but that was her moment to shine. Would be a shame to lose
that. They could drop the scene with Giles, Xander & Anya
where we see the lady singing about her parking ticket.
That's mostly filler, but it's one of the few times when we
see how the spell is affecting all of Sunnydale. They'll
have to cut out over ten minutes to make it fit the regular
time. Those who have already seen it in its entirety may
want to skip seeing it again tomorrow.
Fortunately I have mine on videotape, so I can watch
tomorrow and then if it really ticks me off I can see the
taped version.
[>
Could it be those infectious pop hooks? -- Jon,
11:46:07 07/01/02 Mon
You're not alone. Songs from OMWF have kept me up at night,
cycling over and over in my head. And I know at least one
other person who's had this problem. I'm prepared to take
the risk and watch it again tomorrow, though.
[>
Maybe it's just good stuff? -- ZachsMind,
20:06:40 07/01/02 Mon
I found the mp3s on the 'Net and made a CD for my car. I'm
waiting for them to make an actual album that can be
purchased at a store. I'm assuming the quality is better
than the mp3s I pulled off the 'Net. They're a little rough.
Hopefully someday I'll be able to actually pay for this
music. You are right though. It's quite compelling. I enjoy
singing to "Rest In Peace" while commuting to work some
mornings.
It's very poppy stuff. Purposefully designed to be catchy
and fun. "Under Your Spell" is an adorable little crooning
ballad. "Walk Through The Fire" is more of a power ballad
with some great multipart harmony. "I'll Never Tell" is a
brilliant sendup of the style of late 20th century off
broadway performances.
The voices of Anthony Stewart Head & Amber Benson gave the
overall ensemble a touch of professionalism and style. Emma
Caulfield was a pleasant surprise, like chocolate covered
strawberries. I think Alyson Hannigan sold herself short.
Nicholas Brendan and Sarah Michelle Gellar are not quite as
talented as Benson or Head, but they held their own very
well, and what Brendan lacked in vocal control he more than
made up for in comic timing.
The sheer talent of the cast coupled with some great studio
musician work makes the music easily comparable to anything
that the big record companies churn out, but Whedon's people
engineered something with an added flight of whimsy that
makes the music so much more enjoyable.
I don't think you should feel ashamed or afraid to enjoy
music that is comparable to the best available today with a
unique bent of intelligence and fun. You should embrace the
fact you've found something that speaks to you. Touch the
fire.
[>
Re: rebroadcast of OMWF -- cjc36, 08:54:05
07/02/02 Tue
The music is good and catchy and emotional. Now consider
fact that you, I assume, already love the heck out of these
characters and think they're as close to best friends
fictional characters can get. Good music + Scooby Gang and
you get powerfully addictive experience with the music.
Question: Does that make your VHS player a "Buffyverse
Delivery Mechanism?"
[> [>
Re: thanks for the moral support -- isis,
13:40:36 07/02/02 Tue
Sleeping be dammed. I can't not watch tonight. Infectious
pop lyrics, characters I care about-who could resist?
[>
Should have stayed home to watch OMWF.... -- cjl,
21:29:53 07/02/02 Tue
But no, cjl had a ticket to the Yankee game tonight and
didn't want to disappoint his co-workers by scalping the
ticket and indulging in his Buffy obsession.
And what did my loyalty get me?
At game time, it was 95 degrees Fahrenheit and stiflingly
humid. Heat index = oh, I don't know...105 degrees? I
could feel my precious bodily fluids seeping out of me,
batter by batter.
Fortunately, it was an exciting game, and after a rocky
start, the Yankees came from behind to beat the Indians, 10-
3. There was a grand slam home run from Jorge Posada, and
much haughty second-guessing of the Cleveland manager.
(Hint: never turn a switch hitter around to face the short
porch in left field...)
But I tell you, at about 8:15 p.m. EST, I was thinking to
myself: "Emma Caulfield is singing and dancing in red
lingerie, and I'm here baking my buns off."
Real life is overrated.
[> [>
Re: Random thoughts about this rebroadcast of OMWF
(with spoilers) -- Brian, 06:49:36 07/03/02 Wed
I have seen all three versions of this show. The 1 hour and
8 minute first showing, the second broadcast, and the third
(last night). Last night's seem to have the most cuts. I
assume to slug in more commericals. So, songwise, they cut
the overture,the song after Anya's bunny song, the second
chorus of Spike's song, and Dawn's dance with the puppet
men. Lot's of dialogue got dumped including Dawn's line
about living in this world is the hardest... and most of the
dialogue with Xander and Sweet, which really made Sweet's
line about "you beat the bad guy" make even less sense.
Sidenotes: Even though I've listened to the songs many
times, it wasn't until last night that I caught Anya's line
"there's marriage and betrayal, and I want to run and hide,"
such nice forshadowing.
I also finally realized that in the final song when they
hold hands and then break apart, just what a major
foreshadowing it was of their disintergrating relationships
throughout the rest of the season.
[> [> [>
This doesn't address the major Xander plothole,
but... -- Jon, 11:58:55 07/03/02 Wed
(Spoilers through Hell's Bells)
I found a new bittersweetness in Xander & Anya's retro-
pastiche number this time around. First, knowing that
Xander was responsible for summoning Sweet, I saw an anxiety
and hopefulness in Xander's performance that I hadn't
noticed before as if he was thinking, "here comes our big
number - here comes our chance for a happy ending." And
their number does kind of end with that happy collapse onto
the chair. However, and second, knowing that they DON'T get
a happy ending wedding-wise just cast the biggest shadow
over the piece. I've gotten weepy over virtually every
other song in OMWF (even Marti Noxon's, yes I'm a big sap) -
last night "I'll Never Tell" was the big tearjerker.
And another thing: I noticed on the re-broadcast of All the
Way that after Xander's scene with Giles (is that right?) on
the porch, he rises and approaches the front door of the
house and the manner in which he stops, hand on the knob, to
take a breath before returning to the party totally mirrors
a similar gesture in Hell's Bells before he rejoins the
wedding party to mix and mingle. It struck me: that's
Xander putting on his "game face." Mr. Easy, Mr. Friendly,
Mr. Funny - with a whole bunch of repressed baggage.
And, of course, "I'll Never Tell" is all about repressing
the interior world. Man, Xander's arc this season really
moves me - major Sweet-summoning-plothole or no.
Jon
[> [> [> [>
who was it who tried to fill that plothole by
suggesting... -- anom, 21:08:42 07/03/02 Wed
...that it really was Dawn who summoned Sweet & that Xander
"confessed" to cover up for her? I was out last night but
watched the tape of the original full-length version when I
got home (which, take it from me, is the way to do it!). In
the scene where Tara & Dawn are discussing what the gang has
found out about what's causing all the song & dance, Dawn's
voice inflections & body language make it sound & look as if
she's hiding something (besides all the stuff she's stolen).
She even asks if they know who summoned the lord-of-the-
dance demon Tara mentions.
Of course, this seems to be contradicted by the sincerity of
her denials later. But many guilty parties' protestations of
innocence can be quite convincing. So maybe that unknown
posters' suggestion was right (care to reveal your
identity?): Dawn did it, & Xander isn't responsible for the
resulting deaths. And Dawn, as she pointed out to Sweet, is
too young to be tried as an adult. @>)
Or maybe ME changed its collective mind about who did the
summoning & didn't go back & reshoot Dawn's scene w/Tara so
it wouldn't imply she was the culprit.
[> [> [> [> [>
begging and pleading -- Dead Soul,
21:46:49 07/03/02 Wed
This is me begging and pleading for a saint and a saviour
who could send me a full length copy of OMWF. I only have
the version with the most cuts and am now very sad and
depressed to know how much I missed.
Pretty please with lots of cyber-chocolate (and postage etc.
costs) on top?
Dead (and pining, but not for the fjords) Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [>
A version with cuts? Oh, oh -- Caesar
Augustus, 23:44:32 07/03/02 Wed
I'm a bit worried the version I saw was not the full-length,
seeing as I don't trust Australia's half-assed coverage. Any
kind soul mind mentioning what scenes were cut?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
see Brian's post above -- Dead Soul, 00:19:44
07/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A version with cuts? Oh, oh -- Isabel,
13:14:45 07/04/02 Thu
Brian pretty much covered it, but his description is kinda
vague if you haven't seen it.
Did the episode start with Buffy in bed holding a ringing
alarm clock, followed by an overture blend (No Dialog, just
music) of Scooby activity before Buffy goes patrolling and
goes into "Going Through the Motions"? Did you see Dawn
dance a ballet with the puppet men before meeting Sweet? Did
you see Spike, on his knees, singing to Buffy that he's her
willing slave? Did you see Anya rock singing that it must be
BUNNIES!!! or maybe midgets? If not, it was the edited
version, if you saw them you probably saw the whole
thing.
Those are the highlights of what I remember were cut from
the edited version. And I noticed that they cut the 2nd
verse of Buffy's "Walk Through the Fire," the part with Tara
over-singing her "What can't we face?" It's before Anya's
singing "She came from the grave much graver."
No, I don't listen to it too often.... ;) Actually, I do my
housework to that music.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks guys -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:35:37 07/04/02 Thu
Fortunately, it sounds like I saw the whole thing, although
it didn't take 1 hour 8 minutes, which someone mentioned.
I'm surprised Australia didn't buy the cut version. Yey!
[> [>
Re: Should have stayed home to watch OMWF.... --
shadowkat, 15:54:03 07/04/02 Thu
Have to agree with Brian on this one cjl. I too have seen
all three showings. Taped them too. Actually taped over the
second one, because of the cuts. Probably do the same
here.
This one had the most.
The whole time I'm thinking - okay what happened to that
line? They cut part of Buffy's opening number, the overture,
I've got a theory was horribly cut, Spike's line about being
"you're willing slave, you have thought's you'll misbehave,
until you do stay out of my grave"? Very important line btw
and heaped in foreshadowing. They've cut it from second and
third showing. Also dance sequence and tons of dialogue at
the end.
Take my advice - get a copy of the DVD of OMWF when it is
released and don't rely on reruns. Highly annoyed by it,
because first showing had technical difficulties in some
areas. Not mine so much - just a few jarred areas at the
end.
I'm sure the Yankees game was far more thrilling. ;-)
New wrinkle in the woes of AngelX vs Fox -- Rufus,
17:32:35 07/01/02 Mon
Cross and
Stake
Date Posted: 19:15:26 07/01/02 Mon
Author: AnGeL X
Author Host/IP: spider-ntc-tb053.proxy.aol.com /
198.81.16.173
Subject: Ugh... more drama with Fox! (Legal
people...help!)
I know, you're all dying to hear me rant about Fox,
right?
Okay...but see we have a new twist in the little game now
and I'm really starting to wonder what's up with Fox's
lawyers...
So, I receive a hard-copy version of their "letter" in the
mail today. No big, mostly the same letter and I've complied
with the majority of their requests. EXCEPT this one comes
complete with print-outs from the site to show what sections
they have a problem with.
The twist? They sent pictures from the Galleries (duh!) and
EPISODE SUMMARIES! No spoiler page in sight!
Now, call me crazy... cause I know little about law, but I'm
fairly certain there's no law against episode reviews.
Otherwise, every unnofficial Buffy book and fan site out
there is in a load of trouble. Even the official site has
summaries written by a FAN! Plus periodicals do reviews all
the time and give away detail by detail reports of an
episode. Now I get the potential for "derivitive works" by a
summary but it just makes no sense how a summary of an aired
episode, which is something I don't think any standard fan
site owner goes without is something to fuss over. Plus, I
was kinda under the impression that reviews of
TV/Movies/plays/etc., were protected by journalistic rights?
Free-use clause and all that?
So, maybe it's not the end of Spoilers on the site as we've
known it...or maybe the lawyers lack knowledge of what is a
"spoiler" and what is a "review" and mistakenly sent the
wrong print-outs (although they sent print-outs of the
episode index page, a season index page and a summary from
season 1, so obviously...they're thinking something).
Anyone out there have any more knowledge than me about where
reviews fall within the law?
Sigh... I need to go to law school.
-Michelle
[>
Re: New wrinkle in the woes of AngelX vs Fox --
maddog, 17:58:58 07/01/02 Mon
hehe, I knew they were morons over at Fox. They're fighting
a losing battle. Spoilers are everywhere. Give up now
guys...you can't win this one! :)
[>
Intrepid legal types, to the rescue!...can you go over
to C&S and help AnGeLX out? -- Mary Ellen, 19:14:45
07/01/02 Mon
I remember that this mess, when it first started happening,
was discussed in greater detail on this board than on C&S,
because Michelle wanted to keep the hysteria down.
But now she needs your help!
[>
Didn't we already hear this song with X-Files? --
ZachsMind, 19:31:21 07/01/02 Mon
Several years ago now, Fox's lawyers attacked fansites that
supported The X-Files. I had started a webpage of my own
which featured essays and fanfics I'd written. God that was
back in 1996 I think. I was never approached by Fox. Never
got one of their annoying letters. I shut down my webpage in
protest, and soon after lost interest in the X-Files series.
I felt no reason to support a tv series that didn't support
its fans. I understand the decision to attack fan sites
wasn't officially by Chris Carter. It was by Fox's foolish
lawyers. It seems they're making the same mistakes again.
X-Files fan sites fluorished despite those efforts. Fox's
laywers made an example of a handful of sites, but were
unable to "cease & desist" everybody. Why they're trying to
make an example of AngelX I have no idea. I wish there were
lawyers on the side of fans, who could somehow put a stop to
this insipid stupidity on the part of corporate
muckrakers.
[>
Very odd -- shadowkat, 06:52:02 07/02/02 Tue
Well I've probably said way too much on this already.
But from what I know about reviewing things and episode
summaries? They are okay as long as you don't repeat
copyrighted material in them. Falls under the fair use
clause - which is for journalistic, research and educational
purposes.
Screen-shots - might be an infraction. But summarizing
an episode isn't, any more than summarizing an article and
creating an abstract from it is an infringment.
They can't shut her down over that. If they could - we
wouldn't have book reviews, tv reviews, movie reviews,
student book reports, student essays, scholarly essays, or
abstracts by A & I services like mine. Now there are people
out there who think that it is an infringement if you list
their name in the phone book - this makes me laugh. Sorry,
no. Or it's an infringement if someone wrote and
produced
a tv show based on a vampire slayer - sorry nope, ideas
can't be copyrighted. Or it's an infringement if I summarize
your article and write a paragraph about it - sorry nope. I
can do that. I explain this to publishers
all the time and we got into a heated argument on my
copyright listserve due to it. But the only court cases that
decided against summarizing someone elses work - ie.
said doing so was an infringement - were cases where a
substantial portion of the original work was copied or
used in the summary.
Example - say you read a scientific article and it had tons
of copyrighted formulas (you can copyright a formula) and
you cited those formulas and copied major sections of the
article in your summary? Then yes - you are in violation of
copyright.
But if you just briefly describe the article, state there
are a few major formulas and what they mean to science, then
no you haven't.
Masq's episode summaries are NOT a violation of
copyright.
They discuss metaphysics found in the show and fill in plot
holes. They don't substantially reproduce anything from the
show. I don't know about AngelX - only go there for Buffy
Cross & Stake Spoiler Board - which I've stayed off of
lately because I'm desperately trying to stay spoiler
free.
Rob's site is similarly okay - he annotates, using various
sources. If he substantially cites something - like
reproducing a whole transcript or interview - than yeah
could be a problem.
Copyright is a funky thing. Complicated by the fact that
information is quickly disseminated worldwide. We can send
an email and get a response from other countries in
seconds.
And even though the US Copyright Act was recently updated
to
meet the standards of the Worldwide Copyright Trade
Agreement (can't remember exact name - do have it somewhere
in my office though), we still aren't in agreement over the
digital copyright and internet transactions. The World was
furious with the US' handling of Napster and Microsoft.
Other countries and rightly so, fear US' companies via
copyright are monopolizing the media and entertainment world
and threaten the internet as well. So other countries are
being tough on what they want regarding internet law.
As a result - it is very difficult for US based corporations
to go after websites that come from other countries. So if
you operate out of Germany or the UK you might be better off
than if you operate out of Seattle.
Because copyright is an issue that is still being fought out
in caselaw, legislations, and trade agreements - it is
difficult to determine what is or is not a violation.
The best we can do is use common sense and rely on past
laws.
So what I usually tell people - is treat information found
on the internet like a book you found in the library. If it
is wrong to copy off and sell the book to all your friends
and pretend you wrote it - then it is wrong to do it with
anything you find on the internet. The fact that it is
easier for you to get away with it does not make it
right.
And why shouldn't you do it? Well if you do it, what's to
stop someone else from doing it to you? We don't do things
not because someone says we can't but because by doing them
we set precedents of behavior that hurt ourselves. Karma
is a bitch.
Okay probably more than you wanted to know. Feel free to
email it to AngelX if you want. Hope it helps. And doesn't
just confuse everyone further.
Will shut up now, promise...;-)
[>
Re: New wrinkle in the woes of AngelX vs Fox -- A
different view, 09:36:00 07/02/02 Tue
Cease and desist letters are intended to scare the recipient
into changing his/her ways. They are a relatively cheap
method of enforcing copyright laws, and they don't have any
adverse side effects. Worse case scenario: the recipient
ignores the letter and nothing changes.
It is natural, then, that rights holders would use these
letters to try to get more than they are entitled to get.
This is what is happening here. As 'kat pointed out, reviews
are clearly within fair use, so no problem there. In
contrast, screen shots are probably not permitted.
Summaries are a little different, and I am not sure how they
would be treated. Summaries are different than reviews
because they are a re-statement of the original work, not a
commentary on it. I suppose an argument could be made that
summaries are not within fair use, then.
If you like, and the board is interested, I could look into
this issue and get back to you. But, reviews are definitely
OK and screen shots are probably not.
-0-
[> [>
Summaries -- shadowkat, 11:26:50 07/02/02
Tue
I actually have dealt with this issue before - my company
creates abstracts which are 100 - 200 word summaries of
magazine and journal articles.
Under copyright law you can do this and
the writer of the abstract(summary) owns the abstract
(summary).
According to my worldwide copyright listserve, made up of
copyright specialists around the world:
you can create a summary/abstract as long as you are not
reproducing the actual "expression of words" in the original
article. What does expression mean?
Well if you copy this post word for word you are copying my
"expression" of this idea. However, if you merely state in a
separate post - that summaries are okay under
copyright law for x, y, z reasons and don't use my words -
then you're fine. (not that I care...life is too short to
sue people over copying each other's posts...but you get
the idea.)
Another example - if I was to post that Xander will die
in the next episode and my friend said it would probably be
by a bullet and by Warren. That is permissible. If I
posted
the script, dialogue from the show or an epsiode summary
written by the show's writers or someone else? That would be
infringement. You can write summaries - what you can't
do is copy someone else's summary or someone else's
words.
Or rewrite their article in your words - this is tricky, why
can I rewrite a summary but not the article? May depend on
the article - some articles really are just a relation of
news and can be written in numerous ways, but rewriting a
scientific article or essay providing excerpts based on
someone else's research and experimentation is hinging on
copyright infringement - not that I can see too many people
doing this - it's pretty much a first person out of the
block gets published issue. But an excellent example of
"plagirism" infringement is a scenerio where a romance
novelist literally pulled dialogue and descriptions out of
another novelist's work, just changing the plot and the
character names. But anyone reading it saw it was the same
book. Another example: WB decides to produce Molly the
Vampire Slayer, changes names, locations, but essentially
the same - and it's clearly not a parody, yep copyright
infringement. But if they did a show called The Slayer
and
it was just about someone killing vampires, no copyright
infringement. Just as it would be okay for someone to do a
show about a Vampire in Chicago who ran a detective
agency.
The trick is how close it is to the expression of the
copyrighted material.
Another more on topic Example: Leoff writes a wildfeed
summary - that's owned by
Leoff, his/her expression and opinions of the show are
imbedded in leoff's summary. Leoff may say - "Xander
attempted to rape Buffy in the PAck. He held her on the
ground and she barely got away from him." While AngelX might
state: "Xander held Buffy against a soda machine while under
the influence of hyenas. She hit him with a desk." See: two
different expressions of the same material. What is
copyrightable is the "expression" not the information
conveyed: the idea that Xander would attack is not
copyrightable. How the Btvs Writers, Directors, Actors, etc
chose to express his attack on Buffy - is!
As I said before this is hard to understand. It gives me a
headache just explaining it. Courts fight over it all the
time. But according to the Feist Case - and other cases - it
has been found that you need to have clear "creative
expression" for copyright not just "sweat of the brow." For
awhile the states were split - half said sweat of the brow,
half said clear creative. Feist the deciding case, I believe
it went to Supreme Court, said need creative. Combination of
both is great. Each state varies on the degrees of course.
But the one they all agree on is there must be more than
just a repetition of an idea.
Oh "different view" - agree with everything else you
said.
Particularly on Cease and Desist - old lawyer trick - send
the fear letter first, people really hate to go to court,
it's expensive, labor intensive and a huge bother over
copyright. (They'll do it, but not unless absolutely have
to, seriously doubt Fox will to stop episode
summaries...reposting scripts maybe.)
If you can find recent court cases
disproving any of the above let me know. Can't imagine any -
copyright listserve has been pretty quiet on the topic. As
have all the other business and legal stuff I've read.
But I've been wrong before and so have they...nice thing
about copyright law - nothing's set in stone.
[> [> [>
What shadowcat said ... -- Dedalus, 15:15:55
07/02/02 Tue
[> [>
Harassment? -- Darby, 12:24:42 07/02/02 Tue
Just a hypothetical here, but if the situation at AngelX is
substantially as described, then she's being theatened about
specified activities that are clearly not actionable, making
the letters a form of unfair coercion. I'm sure a case
could be made for lawyer incompetence (that is, to say the
notification letter was in error but there are actual
legitimate complaints), but it seems like in a perfect world
where legal advice wouldn't backrupt her, she could fire
back. David does occasionally get that shot in there.
I know that there is a legal defense fund for comics
creators, mostly for First Amendment Cases, but is there any
kind of similar support for webpersons?
[> [> [>
Could be. -- Solitude1056, 13:06:18 07/02/02
Tue
I once countersued on the basis of harrassment. There are
several laws that define what a lawyer can and cannot do,
and one of them clearly defines (in civil law) that a person
can be restituted a certain amount (I believe set by the
state of suit) depending on the extent of the harrassment.
The original post was clear that this is simply the latest
in a string of letters, and given the questionable legality
of requesting a removal of summaries or episode reviews
based on copyright law, I'd think we're entering the gray
area of harrassment. This particular circumstance was,
unfortunately, not unusual in the legal world. Send someone
letters, call them, and hopefully they'll roll over and do
what you want.
My business partner's ex had gotten the car in the divorce
and then never made another car payment. The car was
repossessed and auctioned, with $4000 still owing on the
note. Unable (or more likely, just unwilling) to find the
ex, Ford Motor Co's legal team turned to my business partner
in hopes of getting their money from the person who'd
actually signed the original loan note. Yes, it's true: if
you sign a loan note, even though you have papers (divorce
or other) saying that someone else is responsible for the
loan, the note predates it and therefore you remain liable.
On those grounds, they had legal right to demand payment
from my business partner.
The problem was that they demanded payment in not one, but
SEVEN letters - all mailed within the space of 30
days. After the third letter (while we were still trying
to figure out how to find the ex and what to do, since all
of our money was tied up in the retail business we owned)...
they started calling the apartment we shared as well as the
bookstore, about once every four days. Each time I, or my
partner, would patiently explain that we did not have $4000,
thank you, and here was the ex's last known address, contact
her. My business partner faxed the divorce papers three
times. Meanwhile, our business' attorney was telling my
business partner to declare bankruptcy as the only means to
escape having to pay the money! My own personal attorney
saved the day. When he got ahold of the situation - and the
twelve letters, and the journal we'd kept of the phone call
dates and times and content - he turned the tables on Ford
Motor Company. When the dust settled, they paid
us $7000.
So I'd say, the person who runs C&S needs to get himself or
herself a lawyer who specializes in civil law. Some
knowledge of copyright or internet law may be useful, but
the real bottom line is whether the Fox legal team has the
right to repeatedly pester a law-abiding citizen... they
don't. If that's what they're doing, a lawyer with savvy
understanding of the law will know how to stop them.
[> [> [>
Re: Harassment? -- A different view, 15:42:43
07/02/02 Tue
There are fair debt collection acts that would explain what
Solitude describes. But, as far as I know, there is no real
legal remedy for getting mean letters in the mail. Maybe
others can shed more light on this?
[> [> [>
My suspicion is that Fox lawyers are using the law to
gain info... -- Mary Ellen, 20:25:04 07/02/02 Tue
They know they have no case, and are making unreasonable
demands (for experienced lawyers). I believe they want to
provoke her into defiance, sue her, and get her under oath
in a deposition. Then they will ask who gave her the
spoilers last year that apparently annoyed Joss/ME so
much.
She couldn't claim any sort of privilege, could she?
[> [> [> [>
Re: My suspicion is that Fox lawyers are using the law
to gain info... -- Dochawk, 02:25:18 07/03/02 Wed
Nope, she has no possible special privilege and my guess is
that she would just tell them if thats what they want,
because she clearly broke copyright law. So what's the use
of going through the expense if you know you will lose (and
the expenses are much bigger on her side, Fox's lawyers
would be paid anyway). if your right, then they'll get the
info they want.
You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- Dochawk,
00:17:29 07/02/02 Tue
You go The Who concert and Roger Daltry is doing an amazing
rendition of Behind Blue Eyes and all you can think of is
the Giles acoustic version.
Any more symptoms?
[>
ROTFLMAO.........poor Roger.....you are a sick man
Doc.....;) -- Rufus, 02:04:14 07/02/02 Tue
Did you notice I put up the latest release date for issue
7&8 of Fray?
I do have to agree I liked the job that ASH did on Behind
Blue Eyes....but I already liked the song.
Other symptoms.....gee....The ritual of Sunday and Tuesday
night where all calls and doorbells remain unanswered.
Finding the first thing I ask a friend when she finds a new
boyfriend is "does he have a soul?" The ritual staying up
all night on Wildfeed mornings to make sure I can corrupt as
many innocents as possible.
[>
you spend hours prepping your room-mate on his taping
duties before you go on a trip -- Caesar
Augustus, 03:56:38 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Buffyitis? Doesn't the suffix 'itis' imply some kind of
Inflammation? -- OnM, 06:47:40 07/02/02 Tue
I prefer to have a Buffy 'Affirmation', myself... ;-)
In any event, I would say that if I were stuck trying to
diagnose a problem in some amplifier circuitry, and a voice
in my head that sounded very much like Xander said, "What
would Buffy do?", then I will have finally gone around
the bend.
So far, this hasn't happened to me.
Yet.
;-)
[> [>
Well, on inflammation ... -- Exegy, 08:06:23
07/02/02 Tue
You could have Carpal Tunnel syndrome from spending so much
time on the Buffy boards!
Not saying that this has happened to me, but I think
shadowkat may be getting close.... ;-P
[> [> [>
Addendum -- Exegy, 08:43:13 07/02/02 Tue
I don't mean to offend anyone who actually suffers from
Carpal Tunnel syndrome ... I was just being facetious. I
joke about this with my boyfriend all the time ... he got
Carpal Tunnel from playing the old video games (the kind
that weren't adjusted for your hands or wrists). So I guess
I'm accustomed to taking the subject matter a little
lightly. Sorry in advance!
[> [> [>
Hey...I'm only frequenting one board -- shadowkat,
08:59:20 07/02/02 Tue
Not really on B C & S so much anymore. Although...there
is something to be said for back aches due to too much
computer usage.
[> [> [> [>
This is also the only board I frequent ... --
Exegy, 19:01:18 07/02/02 Tue
I swear--this board completely spoils any other discussion
forum for me. (Thank you Masq and everyone involved!) I
spend almost all my Internet time here.
I have not had the back aches yet, but I have had the blurry
eyes (of course, they could be attributed to other causes,
such as never getting enough sleep).
Oh well, I will give up a lot of things for my Buffy
addiction.
[> [> [>
When hooked on the best (board) why try the rest?
(NT) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 12:28:58
07/03/02 Wed
nt
[> [>
Re: Buffyitis--Inflammation of the brain... --
yabyumpan, 23:20:59 07/02/02 Tue
...caused by thinking and talking about it waaay to
much.
You find yourself grinning innanely on the bus, remembering
something from one of the episodes.
Someone at work shows you an ad for the Angel:casefiles and
then shrug and say "figure" when you say you got it ages
ago
I have more of a case of Angelitis though, I just have break-
up-blues with Buffy
[>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
shadowkat, 06:58:40 07/02/02 Tue
When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find
yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the
soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice.
Other symptom. I'm braving the traumatic commercials of
Eight-Legged Freaks to watch Buffy and Angel reruns.
I have a spider phobia... and this silly movie has giant
spider leaping at people (actually people throwing spiders
at me as a child, adolescent and in my 20s sort of created
this phobia), and like all silly movies it has trailers
appearing at commercial breaks on all the channels. This has
made tv watching to be somewhat traumatic. Yet I put
up with it to watch my Buffy, how sick is that? (Luckily
Btvs and Angel have veered away from the spider thing, well
except for AYW and Choices - two episodes that are not
my
favorites.)
PS: Feeling very envious of Doc's viewing of The Who, which
is one of my all time favorite bands. ;-)
[> [>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
ponygirl, 10:40:11 07/02/02 Tue
"When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find
yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the
soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice."
Me too!! Last night I rented The Third Man and found myself
thinking that the big reveal of Orson Welles' face suddenly
illuminated in the dark alley would be a great dramatic
entrance for Spike. I had to slap myself a few times and get
back to the movie. It's like my all-consuming obsession is
starting to get in the way of other things...
[> [>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
Cheryl, 16:39:13 07/02/02 Tue
"When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find
yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the
soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice."
Or you see About A Boy and realize that Hugh Grant talks
like Spike and it hits you how realistic Spike's dialogue is
and how well JM speaks it(if you doubted it before). And
then spend the rest of the movie picturing James Marsters in
the Hugh Grant role.
Well, you asked, didn't you? ;-)
Cheryl
[> [>
R.I.P. John Entwistle -- cjl, 21:22:05 07/02/02
Tue
The Ox.
Big Johnny Twinkle.
Thunderfingers.
One of the most influential bass players in rock and roll
history.
I can't see how Townsend and Daltrey can carry on without
him...but what the hey, they carried on without Keith
Moon.
And they going on with the tour.
By the way, I found Giles' S4 song selection interesting.
"Behind Blue Eyes" is a song of rage hiding behind a
relatively placid facade ("no one bites back this hard on
their anger/none of my pain and woe can show through") and
"Freebird," while a rock cliche at this point, gives us a
big hint about Giles' eventual departure.
[> [>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
Isabel, 13:29:18 07/04/02 Thu
"When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find
yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the
soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice."
When I went to see "Attack of the Clones" and during the
fireplace scene where Anakin is telling Padme how much he
loves/worships her and she's insisting it can never happen.
I had a flashback to "Crush" and I thought all we need now
is for Anakin to chain her to the wall. And the dialog in
"Crush" was written better. (Sorry, Dedalus)
[> [> [>
You too? LOL! Mine was Entropy/SR -- shadowkat,
15:39:22 07/04/02 Thu
"When I went to see "Attack of the Clones" and during the
fireplace scene where Anakin is telling Padme how much he
loves/worships her and she's insisting it can never happen.
I had a flashback to "Crush" and I thought all we need now
is for Anakin to chain her to the wall. And the dialog in
"Crush" was written better. (Sorry, Dedalus)"
Had the same problem. In the middle of the movie, during
this supposedly gripping scene, I'm flashing back to Entropy
when she's holding the camera or SR's bathroom scene.
In fact discussed this with a fellow Buffy fan and they said
that the acting, dialogue and development was better between
Buffy and Spike then between Anakin and Padme.
After much thought, have to agree. (Sorry Ded. I still
liked
SW for the myth stuff though.)
[>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
Brian, 10:34:46 07/02/02 Tue
you realize that your job must be on a Hellmouth, or why
else would your colleagues be so weird?
[>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
Purple Tulip, 11:34:06 07/02/02 Tue
...You're at work, sitting at a computer for seven hours,
and spend most of it reading fan fiction instead of doing
actual work, only to close the screen whenever anyone comes
remotely near so as not to get yelled at or be questioned
about your new faveorite obsession.
...When the only things you ever look for on ebay are Buffy
items, mostly tapes of old shows because you just HAVE to
have all six seasons on tape to fulfill your slaying needs
during hours of boredom or summer re-run hell.
[>
your girlfriend is used to answering to the name
Buffy -- Caesar
Augustus, 15:22:51 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Your friends are sick of hearing "You know what
Spike would have done in this situation ..." -- Caesar
Augustus, 04:59:39 07/03/02 Wed
[>
the real reason you fear the Rapture is that you won't
get to see season 7 ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 04:10:54 07/04/02 Thu
[>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
redcat, 09:24:10 07/04/02 Thu
You're watching the amazing (and deservedly Oscar-winning)
performance of Halle Berry as Letitia in "Monster's Ball,"
and when she says, "My bad" to Peter Boyle's character Buck,
your first thought is, "They show Buffy in rural
Mississippi?"
[> [>
That phrase pre-dates Buffy, I'm afraid -- Sophist,
10:06:52 07/04/02 Thu
It's a term from athletics that goes back to the mid to late
80s. I think dH even posted a link about it, which I can't
find right now. But he will, I'm sure.
[> [> [>
Re: That phrase pre-dates Buffy, I'm afraid --
redcat, 12:22:37 07/04/02 Thu
You're right, of course, and I even read the thread
about it, neither of which negates the fact
that, since I don't follow sports and spent most of the 80's
not being exposed to popular culture
(kinda hard to keep up when you're purposely living without
electricity, TV, pop radio, most
mass newsprint media, etc.), my only exposure to the phrase
has been through Buffy and,
therefore, my thinking what I did when Halle Berry said it
IS a sign of my own Buffyitis, which
was the point of the thread, I believe.
Jeez, Sophist, not every joke has to be analyzed...
[> [> [> [>
:) -- Sophist, 16:08:39 07/04/02 Thu
[>
Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... --
purplegrrl, 12:54:42 07/04/02 Thu
You see anything with the word "Angel" on it (T-shirts,
keychains, bracelets, etc.) and immediately think "David
Boreanaz"!!
OT: the full Australian Jedi religion story -- Caesar
Augustus, 04:53:31 07/02/02 Tue
After the census had just come out, an e-mail was
circulating like wildfire (I must have received about 20
copies of it) asking everyone who got the message to put
down their religion as Jedi. The main goal, at least as
stated in the e-mail, was to examine the power of e-mail in
a mass way.
It was a very popular idea, and most youngsters without
strong religious convictions participated. Just to give you
some indication of this, considering people between the ages
of 18 and 30, five times as many people put down Jedi as
their religion as people who put down no religion.
All of my friends put down Jedi. I would have except
I felt obliged to put down my true religion, since we always
like to know our true numbers so that we may gather our
strength until the time is right for our rebellion in which
we will massacre the infidels and take over the world.
But aaaaaaaanyway, just thought people might like to know
the full, rather amusing, story.
[>
Re: OT: the full Australian Jedi religion story --
Kate Wiccham, 06:19:32 07/02/02 Tue
Actually the same thing happened in England during the last
Census
The deal here was that if enough people put 'Jedi' as their
religion then it would have to be recognised as an official
religious following such as Christianity (there is this
thing about proportions of population don't ask cause i
don't know the particulars)
[> [>
It happened here in Canada as well. Not quite enough
to be made a offical religion, but close! -- Wolfhowl3,
09:32:37 07/02/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Australia was easily enough (250 000 odd), so Jedi is
an official religion. It's damn funny. -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:32:20 07/02/02 Tue
Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? --
neaux, 08:21:28 07/02/02 Tue
Dont ask me what made me think of this.. and forgive me if
it has been discussed at length, but could Sunnydale High
have a 5 year reunion?
In Buffy years they have 1 year or 2 till a 5 year reunion
would be possible? and Wouldnt it be peachy if that was the
premise for a Buffy Movie? or maybe made-for-TV movie if the
show ended this next year...
Hell I'm sure its already a fanfict.. but I guess the reason
I was thinking about this.. was wondering of the chances of
seeing Oz again on the show or Cordelia.. (if that is
possible)
anyway.. I'd like to know some fellow posters opinions on
this..
please respond to my post and make my workday less
boring.
[>
Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? --
ponygirl, 08:52:18 07/02/02 Tue
I'm picturing a Romy & Michelle style gathering complete
with interpretive dances to late '90s hits. It'd be a tough
call the award for most changed, what with Cordelia
ascended, Harmony vamped, and Willow possibly showing up all
veiny. Oz could handily get the most unchanged award, and
perhaps Jonathon could redo his Superstar spell for the
occasion just to show everyone up. A sub-plot could feature
Amy studying for her high school equivalency exam so she can
attend the reunion.
[>
Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? --
Finn Mac Cool, 11:08:03 07/02/02 Tue
I've actually never heard this idea before, and it sounds
awesome! I'd love if they did an episode or a made-for-TV
movie out of it. That would be one interesting gathering.
Maybe, in the midst of a reunion, the ghost of Principal
Snyder tries to take revenge on all his students.
[> [>
Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? --
Alvin, 11:53:21 07/02/02 Tue
And the swim team could show up with pictures of their
spawn.
[> [> [>
Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion?
(spoilers) -- leslie,
15:33:38 07/02/02 Tue
Well, I don't see necessarily why they have to wait 5 years-
-if, as is said, the high school is going to be rebuilt for
next season, why not use the rededication as the excuse for
a reunion of the class that blew it up in the first place?
(I can see this going two ways: "See kids, all the wonderful
changes that have been made!" or "See kids, it was all a
waste of time--nothing's changed!")
I do like the idea of the new school being haunted by the
Ghosts of Principals Past--hey, why not bring in Principal
Flutie as well as Snyder? And I cannot imagine that those
two are the only Sunnydale High principals to have come to a
sticky end... hmmm, just occurred to me, both of them got
eaten.... a trend?
OT: Please join me in wishing condolences to our friend
Sheri -- Liq, 09:56:48 07/02/02 Tue
Sheri lost her grandmother last night, so please join me in
sending her family our thoughts, best wishes and
prayers.
Linda
[>
Re: OT: Please join me in wishing condolences to our
friend Sheri -- Dedalus, 11:06:31 07/02/02 Tue
Sure thing Liq. Thanks for letting us know.
Of course Sheri has our condolences.
[>
My thoughts & prayers are with you, Sheri. --
LadyStarlight, 12:06:16 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Our prayers are with you Sheri. -- JCC, 12:38:46
07/02/02 Tue
[>
My wishes for strength to you and your family,
Sheri -- julia, 13:44:03 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Condolences. May you remember all her good with
fondness. -- Caesar
Augustus, 15:15:41 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Condolences to Sheri and her family. -- Rufus,
16:22:48 07/02/02 Tue
[>
My thoughts are with you and your family, Sheri. --
Rowan, 17:06:51 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Sorry to hear of your loss, Sheri. Best thoughts coming
your way. -- Vickie, 18:00:28 07/02/02 Tue
[>
My condolences to you and your family, Sheri. Know that
we will be here for you. -- OnM, 20:57:35 07/02/02
Tue
[>
Sorry to learn of this, Sheri -- Wisewoman,
21:07:24 07/02/02 Tue
Blessed be her passage to the Summerland. My thoughts are
with you.
[>
Condolences to you and yours, Sheri. -- cjl,
21:45:58 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Deepest sympathy and condolences, Sheri --
Wizardman, 22:58:13 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Condolences to you Sheri and your family --
shadowkat, 06:47:11 07/03/02 Wed
[> [>
Re: My deepest sympathy and best wishes to you and your
family -- Brian, 06:54:32 07/03/02 Wed
[>
Sending you my sympathy, Sheri. I hope you have happier
times in the not-too-distant future. -- Rob, 08:40:08
07/03/02 Wed
[>
My condolences to Sheri and her family on their recent
loss. -- redcat, 10:03:27 07/03/02 Wed
[>
Condolences to Sheri -- Fred, the obvious
pseudonym, 12:25:26 07/03/02 Wed
Dear Sheri:
I had the great good fortune to know three of my four
grandparents well -- they are a blessing to have & a tragedy
to lose. My regrets.
[> [>
Thanks you guys -- Sheri, 14:50:57 07/03/02
Wed
Thanks for all the warm wishes.
Our family is doing well; we're sad, of course, but still
doing pretty good.
My big concern was my grandfather, but I think he's going to
be all right. Especially after he started pondering when
the little old ladies in his retirement village were going
to start chasing after him! Apparently those gals don't
wait around ("How long were they married? 64 yrs, eh? He
MUST be a good catch!"). Oy vey. He's really sad, of
course, but has firmly committed himself to continue living,
which I'm extremely thankful for.
A quick side note: His downstairs neighbors at ages 88 and
92 are newlyweds. The two are just cute as can be--always
holding hands and calling eachother "darling"--and proof
positive that things can always get better :)
[> [> [>
Very belated condolences - so sorry! -- Marie,
04:34:07 07/04/02 Thu
Unfortunately, it's true that nothing in life is certain but
death and taxes. You know it's got to come eventually, but
it's still horrible when it does.
Marie
[> [> [> [>
So sorry, Sheri -- Ete, 08:14:21 07/04/02
Thu
I've also lost my grand-mother recently... all my
condoleances
[> [> [>
what a wonderful way to take it all! -- yuri,
10:13:13 07/04/02 Thu
A level of peace and maturity I hope I am able to reach. And
the downstairs neighbors sound lovely. Heartening. Live
every moment, no? Every damn one. I send you even more warm
wishes.
Two-part article on Padme Amidala up - OT --
Dedalus, 14:57:06 07/02/02 Tue
Yes, I'm once more making all your analytical dreams come
true. Feminism, prequel-style. What's not to like?
The second part also officially jump-starts the Month of
Love at the Star Wars suite.
Maybe I can do this link right ...
Suite
101
[>
Thanks Ded. -- JCC, 15:38:39 07/02/02 Tue
[>
Re: Two-part article on Padme Amidala up - OT --
aliera, 15:44:49 07/02/02 Tue
Thank you, Dedalus. I have to tell you that I am liking the
movie better through your eyes than my own.
sarvasam eva mayanam of all the forms of illusion
strimyaiva visisyate woman is the most important
(she is)...the ferry and the goal in one. JC 1962
[> [>
Re: Two-part article on Padme Amidala up - OT --
Dedalus, 18:52:07 07/02/02 Tue
"I have to tell you that I am liking the movie better
through your eyes than my own."
You're probably not the first person to think that.
And just for the record, I consider myself very analytically
dangerous.
[>
Hehe -- MayaPapaya9, 19:16:28 07/02/02 Tue
In Hindu mythology, all duality in the phenomenal world is
"maya," an illusion.
Duality, really? I had no idea. Neat!
anya's wishes -- LozzieB,
15:48:30 07/02/02 Tue
In season three, The Wish - when giles breaks anya's
necklace - he says it should cancel all the wishes she has
granted. So why then in Season Six the wedding episode - is
a guy she cursed still a demon - why didn't he go back to
normal?
[>
Re: anya's wishes -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:28:58 07/02/02 Tue
Hmmm ... ummm ... well ... you see ...
I don't specifically remember him saying it would cancel out
all her wishes, but if you're right, then I would think it's
a minor plothole.
It is minor though. It really wouldn't trouble me at all.
The important thing to remember is that it is symbolic of
Anya's past as a demon catching up with her. She caused a
LOT of pain and suffering ... The other thing to remember is
that it doesn't affect the storyline much. The fact is that
those were Xander's fears for the marriage, and knowing that
the visions were not the true future, he still couldn't go
through with the marriage. He had issues, and those issues
did not arise from Stewart Burns. If not Stewart Burns,
there are plenty of other ways ME could've trigerred off
Xander's panic attack.
[> [>
Giles could have also been misinformed... --
ZachsMind, 18:03:59 07/02/02 Tue
He may have thought destroying the power center would undo
the entire millenium of pain and suffering she caused, but
because the power center was in the alternate reality at the
time it was destroyed, it only affected that wish, and
didn't undo the damage done in Buffy's standard universe.
He may have been right under normal circumstances but these
were not normal. What I wanna know is, why would a demoness
who's been around for a thousand years give her power center
to Cordelia like that. It was obviously not a requirement
for getting the wish granted. You'd think a powerful
necklace like that, Anya'd never let anyone borrow. She
wouldn't even let Dawn try on her engagement ring, and being
from Xander that was obviously not mystically enhanced
jewelery.
[> [> [>
Re: Giles could have also been misinformed... --
LozzieB, 21:51:13 07/02/02 Tue
i think that cordelia had to be wearing the necklace when
she said her wish - although that wasn't the case with Dawn
and season 6 - but giles had the necklace after taking it
off cordelia - but then anya is wearing it again when giles
summons her. I think the engagement ring thing comes from
her human side - the old human sentimental attachment and
the greed thing.
[> [> [>
Re: Giles could have also been misinformed... --
LozzieB, 21:54:56 07/02/02 Tue
I get the whole symbollic karma thing - just wondering if i
had missed the explanation somewhere along the line. In the
wish Giles says "In order to defeat Anyanka, one must
destroy her power center. This should reverse all the wishes
she's granted, rendering her mortal and powerless again"
[> [> [> [>
Sophist, where are you? -- Caesar
Augustus, 22:14:59 07/02/02 Tue
Yeah, as I suspected, you were right. As far as I'm
concerned it's a plothole, but as I said, it's not the kind
of plothole that I would lose any sleep over, unlike
Xander's OMWF goof, but let's not get into that again
...
It's one of those plotholes that, if avoided, would simply
stand in the way of important thematic issues, which are
more important than all the little details. For example, in
"Innocence" Buffy's birthday lasts over two clear days,
since we see daylight when she accosts Jenny. To remove the
plothole, you'd have to take out that scene, which was
priceless. Despite the plothole, Innocence is still one of
the best hours of television ever. I didn't notice it in the
show, and after people told me about it, I was like "who
cares? the episode was perfect."
But anyway, where's Sophist when you need to make up an
explanation quickly ...
[> [> [> [> [>
goof? -- LozzieB, 22:19:11 07/02/02 Tue
Probably since OMWF is one of my all time fav episodes - i
don't know what the xander goof was - wanna share?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: goof? -- Caesar
Augustus, 03:35:04 07/03/02 Wed
There was a fairly involved discussion about a week ago (see
archives) about Xander being the one who summoned Sweet.
Motives? Out of character much? As well put by cjl, "the
thing about magic: there's always consequences, always"
(except for Xander in OMWF). There are long-term
consequences but these are very indirect.
Perhaps goof is a strong word, but it definitely
seems inconsistent and a bit non-sensical. Still one of my
favourite episodes though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Magic and consequences. -- Darby, 06:53:00
07/03/02 Wed
What goes up must come down.
Crime doesn't pay.
All things come to he who waits.
Magic always has consequences.
Except when they don't.
Just because all of the characters spout the proverb doesn't
make the proverb true. Sometimes the most widely-
disseminated cautionary sayings are the least likely to be
reliable (see crime, above).
Or, like the "up" and "down" one, the proverb may be
basically true but not always apply in a meaningful way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Magic and consequences. -- Dochawk, 09:24:23
07/03/02 Wed
Not only the characters spout it, even Joss does. At the
recent ATAS event he went so far to say that the actions of
the characters always have consequences, but points out
Giles killing of Ben as the one we haven't heard from. I
would say no consequences for Xander from OMWF is a pretty
large plothole.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Magic and consequences. -- Darby, 10:06:22
07/03/02 Wed
Yeah, he'll be 80 and trying to resolve Buffy magics
on the 8th incarnation of Firefly.
[> [> [> [> [>
Buffy's Birthday -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:58:50
07/03/02 Wed
Actually, I think the Scooby Gang celebrated Buffy's
birthday the day before the actual thing so she could have
time with her mother on the actual event.
[> [> [> [> [>
LOL. Sound asleep. -- Sophist, 08:34:02 07/03/02
Wed
Sorry, this is a plothole; can't fix it. But you're right --
it's one of those minor details that really doesn't matter
to the story line. These are the kinds of things we should
just ignore. Like Cindy Crawford's mole or the gap in Lauren
Hutton's teeth.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: LOL. Sound asleep. -- Arethusa, 08:49:56
07/03/02 Wed
Good comparisons! Sometimes a flaw makes something even
more beautiful. From Rm w/a View: (Quote by Psyche)
Cordy points at a wall: “First thing hire someone to take
out that wall.”
Doyle: “I though you said it was perfect.”
Cordy: “Yes, and part of being perfect is that there being
one tiny flaw for me to fix.”
Doyle: “Ah, must be why you find me so fascinating.”
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not all "flaws" should be
"fixed"... -- redcat, 09:56:43 07/03/02
Wed
I am reminded by your and Sophist's comments of Nathaniel
Hawthorne's cautionary tale, "The Birthmark," particularly
since I find the space between Lauren Hutton's teeth one of
her most endearing physical traits, and the fact that she
refuses to either hide it or get it fixed among her most
admirable personal characteristics. And while Cordelia --
our glorious angel of healthy egotism - clearly believes
what she said above, I suspect Joss & ME might have had
their tongue a bit in cheek when they wrote that scene.
Least I hope so...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Love that Hawthorne story -- Rahael, 14:09:51
07/03/02 Wed
I do love my short stories. But then I also like the Scarlet
Letter!
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's Birthday -- LittleBit, 08:22:05
07/04/02 Thu
Maybe I'm being simplistic and unquestioning, but I had the
impression that because of her work schedule Joyce was
celebrating Buffy's birthday with her on a different day,
and that Buffy was spending her actual birthday overnight at
WIllow's house. That morning they talk about going to the
mall on Saturday, Willow tells her "Happy Birthday, Buffy! -
-- not-happy-birthday Buffy?" and they have her surprise
party that night. The following night Joycve indicates that
they have cupcakes because dhe didn't have time to bake a
cake.
Never seemed like a plothole to me (JMHO).
[> [> [> [>
But Giles isn't Joss. -- Darby, 06:44:53
07/03/02 Wed
There are some "exposition" things given to Giles that make
less sense than this as a plothole.
How would anyone know whether all of a vengence
demon's wishes had been nullified? They'd probably only
know about wishes with direct impact on them, and even that
wasn't true with alterna-Giles. Any speculation about what
else might have changed would be speculation, and any info
gleaned from demons - well, as Ethan said, they do lean
toward hyperbole.
The problem here is fundamental reading of the Script(ure) -
anything stated in the script must be true, so help
us Joss. But in the hands of good writers, anything a
character tells you is limited by what the character knows,
understands, and believes. This wouldn't be the first time
that Giles believed something that turned out not to be
true, and it probably won't be the last.
[> [> [> [> [>
character vs. exposition (S6 spoilers) -- tim,
09:08:59 07/03/02 Wed
"But in the hands of good writers, anything a character
tells you is limited by what the character knows,
understands, and believes. This wouldn't be the first time
that Giles believed something that turned out not to be
true, and it probably won't be the last."
I posted on more or less the same plot hole a couple of
months ago, and got basically this response, though you've
stated it more eloquently than anyone else I've seen. I'm
sorry, but it's wholly unsatisfying to me.
You're right, Giles isn't Joss, and occassionally he gets
things wrong. However, there's a distinction to be drawn
between Giles speaking as Giles ("Buffy will be better off
if I'm not here") and Giles speaking as Expository Guy
("This demon can be killed in thus-and-such a manner.") The
former is prone to error, as any human being is. The latter
is part of the narration of the story, and so has to
be free from error if the audience is to follow the story
(unless it's a Memento-like situation in which poor
narration is part of the story). In other words,
Buffy is, first and foremost, a TV show that must
resolve the immediate problem in 42 minutes. Spending
copious time postulating various methods of killing bad guys
and failing, as would happen IRL, would take too much time
(and make for pretty boring television). What to do? Make a
character an expert in demonology. Have a bunch of books
that tell all the answers. All we have to do is find the
right book, and voila! Sure demon death! It's part of the
deal we make with the writers: sacrifice a little realism
for better story flow.
As you point out, this doesn't always make sense. After all,
how would they know? Other examples: in What's My Line,
Xander discovers that the Bug Guy can only be killed when
broken down into "his little buggy parts." If there's only
one of him, and he's still alive, how does the book's author
know? In WTWTA, Giles informs the groups that when the
repressed sexual energy has sufficiently drained Buffy and
Riley, they'll die. This isn't the poltergeist he was
expecting; it's something entirely new. How does he know,
then, that death awaits?
He knows because he has to know; otherwise the story
can't move forward. Similarly, his comment in "The Wish,"
while nonsensical, must be correct so he can confront
Anyanka and save the day. If we allow Expository Guy to be
wrong, then we as the audience lose all sense of direction.
How do we know, from then on, when Giles is right and when
he is wrong? Maybe the stakes weren't really that high in
WTWTA. Losing a source of dramatic tension isn't worth the
convenience of being able to blame such plot holes on
Expository Guy's errors.
Moreover, on rare occasions when they do decide to re-write
the canon, my feeling is that they should deal with the
change head-on. It doesn't take much; some throwaway comment
of Halfrek's in OaFA to the effect of how the effect of
losing one's power center gets blown out of proportion would
do the trick. (I admit, this is clunky as is; I'm sure ME
could make it more elegant.) The fact that they left this
open sticks a bit in my craw. (But then, I'm still annoyed
that S3 Vengeance Demon Anya looks nothing like S6 Vengeance
Demon Anya.) I hope this was at least slightly coherent.
It's the mental gumbo of several weeks worth of stew-
age.
Obsessing over details,
tim
PS: My apologies if this comes off as patronizing. It's
genuinely not intended that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you. -- Sophist, 09:54:33 07/03/02 Wed
I completely agree with the distinction you make. In fact, I
made it myself (or intended to) in a thread just a couple of
weeks ago arguing that Angel/Angelus were separate entities
because Giles and Buffy said so in an expository
way.
Since you did so well on this point, I offer a free plothole
filler: Giles' knowledge of Anya in the Wishverse was true
for that reality. In other words, all the wishes she
granted affecting that reality were reversed.
And for those worried about the necklace, just imagine that
Anya had 2 necklaces, one she gave to Cordy and one she
kept. But don't ask me why and don't bring up OAFA.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sophist comes through again! Well done! -- redcat,
10:12:17 07/03/02 Wed
This is exactly the explanation for Giles' statemet that
I've always accepted, but expressed so much more clearly
than I could have. Thanks!
Don't agree with you about the necklace, though. I suspect
that in different universes, the rules might be different in
slight but meaningful ways, and that vengence demons, who
must certainly be adept at crossing between dimensions quite
regularly, are probably also adept at shifting between
dimensional rule-sets without too much brain stress. Anya,
no doubt, knows the exact explanation. I wonder if she
would, perhaps, be willing to accept a reasonable fee in
return for providing Expository Services to the plot-hole
impaired?.....
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: character vs. exposition (S6 spoilers) --
Darby, 10:04:31 07/03/02 Wed
Totally right about the exposition requirements, but it's
the longterm effects that we're discussing, and it's only
the within-a-story effects that have to be reliable. So
Angel is Spike's sire, and later when that becomes an issue
(Spike, like Anya, was supposed to have a very limited shelf
life) they expand the meaning of "sire," and when the Mayor
is going to Ascend we find out that what everybody calls
"demons" aren't really, but that distinction since has so
far has not been important. The show's "canon" is whatever
they need this week and loosely what they've saddled
themselves with in the past - when they hit a wall, Joss
likes the, "Hey, It's magic!" escape clause, while I kinda
prefer the, "Hey, the books/demon/glowy stick-
thingy/Watchers' Council was just wrong about that
detail!"
I mean, what part of a rocket-launcher is NOT forged?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well said. Either way of thinking about it is
valid. -- tim, 10:21:31 07/03/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I like Buffy's explanation -- redcat, 10:28:20
07/03/02 Wed
YES!! I agree with your light-handed approach to the show's
inconsistencies. I think Joss often winds up laughing at
himself and then asks us to laugh along with him as he
creates this thing we've all grown to love so much.
And LOL about the rocket launcher not being forged. That
was my first really big "HEY, wait just a *** minute, that
doesn't make any SENSE!!" with the show. But immediately,
Buffy gave me an "out" which I've found to be quite useful
over the last few seasons in a variety of episodes and
scenes --
Buffy to Judge: "That was then. This is now."
Repeating this like a mantra works almost as well as
shadowkat's magic interpretive spackle..
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, -- Sophist, 10:56:46 07/03/02 Wed
use of the rocket launcher isn't necessarily inconsistent.
The statement was that the judge "cannot be killed" by any
weapon forged. However, somehow he got taken apart by an
earlier army (using flint axes, perhaps?). Anyway, assuming
the earlier army used swords to dismember him, the explosive
merely did a more efficient job at that. He is now
dismembered ("keep the pieces separate") but not dead.
Alternatively, the explosive powder itself was not "forged".
The tube was, and the container was, but not the actual
explosive which blew him into little bitty pieces.
As Willow said to Xander in the same episode "You've thought
way to much about this."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You rule, Sophist! -- ponygirl, 09:41:24
07/04/02 Thu
Am I the only one who found it an anticlimax that Buffy
was "normal" in Dead Things? -- Caesar
Augustus, 22:03:57 07/02/02 Tue
I was hoping for more serious "consquences of magic"
relating to Willow's spell bringing her back. That weird
spirit thing in Afterlife wasn't much of a serious
problem.
I realise that the main point of Buffy being normal was to
force her to take responsibility for her own actions. But
nonetheless, I thought it's been a long time coming for
Buffy to be a vampire/demon. Maybe next season.
[>
Re: Am I the only one who found it an anticlimax that
Buffy was "normal" in Dead Things? -- luvthistle1,
01:57:03 07/03/02 Wed
The first slayer and Drac, have both told her that her
slayer powers are rooted in "darkness". So, maybe next
season,she would find out why. I think she is part
demon/vampire.
[> [>
Re: anticlimax (a bit of s6 spoilerage) -- Caesar
Augustus, 17:14:49 07/03/02 Wed
More of the "all roads lead to Spike" phenomenon.
But anyway, I guess after season 5 pretty much put on hold
the "you think you know who you are, what's to come, you
haven't even begun" storyline, I was hoping for it to get
picked up in season 6. It seemed that the chance had finally
come around in "Dead Things" - but once Buffy was revealed
to be normal, it meant that the theme was definitely delayed
until season 7. I would have probably liked it better if
Buffy was the Big Bad than Willow, mainly because I feel all
squirmy inside when I think of season two Willow, the cutest
person ever, acting like that.
[>
Question answered: Tabula Rasa and a preview of Spike?
(spoilers season 6) -- darrenK, 09:14:44 07/03/02
Wed
Actually, the question to what Buffy came back as was
answered even before it was asked.
In TR, all the characters were stripped of memory, so that
only their essential natures were apparent.
Resurrection Buffy stripped of her essence was the self-
proclaimed female hero archetype, Joan. Joan kicked ass with
all the grace and aplomb Buffy mustered during the high
points of seasons 1-5.
Buffy with her memory back was flat on her face with
despair, easily bested by a vamp.
Can we assume from Anya and Gile's vigorous cleaning that
the characters remember their memoryless selves?
If so, then Buffy should have been able to answer the
essential question, "If I'm normal why do I feel this
way?"
On a side note, and as a matter of purely personal opinion,
I think Joss and co. should have always had Buffy immune to
the power of the chip. This would have preserved the
ambiguity presented to us in Restless and Bvs.Drac. (Yes, I
do realize that if the chip didn't work on Buffy then Spike
would never have been fully tame.) Here's a question for the
more observant among you, has Spike's chip always worked on
Buffy with the same power as every other human? I can't
remember.
An even more interesting Tabula Rasa foreshadowing is that
of memoryless Spike giving us a preview of besouled Spike.
Why, if the gang remembers their absence of memory, does no
one speculate on Spike's strangely non-vampiric essential
nature? If he can't remember the gang or the chip, shouldn't
his vampire want to feed?
Notice that 'Joan' chooses Randy as her companion even
before she knows he has greater-than-human- strength?
She knows that he's a hero too.
[> [>
In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against Buffy
... -- Exegy, 10:09:39 07/03/02 Wed
He leaps on her and attempts to bite her, but the intense
pain of the chip prevents him from following through. He's
still "neutered" to Buffy.
Same in FFL ... Spike can't touch Buffy. If he does, then
pain ensues.
As for the implications of Spike being able to hurt Buffy
only after her resurrection ... he can only "touch" her so
after all the trauma that she has experienced. The Buffy of
Season 5 would have never allowed him such access. Only
after her rebirth, when she feels wrong, does she consort
with the vampire ... everything she should be against. The
outer metaphor reveals the inner development of the
characters.
I agree with you on the foreshadowing of TR. The writers
definitely knew what the cliffhanger of the season would be.
And they also knew to say goodbye to Tara.
[> [> [>
Re: In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against
Buffy ... -- leslie,
10:56:33 07/03/02 Wed
"Same in FFL ... Spike can't touch Buffy. If he does, then
pain ensues."
Actually, there's an interesting distinction made there--if
he tries to hit her with intent to hurt her, he experiences
pain; if he goes at her without intent to hurt, it doesn't.
Despite Tara's explanation that Buffy's has returned with a
slightly altered molecular pattern, I still believe that the
real reason he can hit her is that, as a result of his love
for her, the real intention to hurt--as in, cause physical
damage to the object of the act--has disappeared. Coupled,
of course, with the equally metaphorical, if somewhat
contradictory reason that he can hit her physically because
he can hurt her emotionally--i.e., she *does* love him, even
though she refuses to allow herself to see it. After all, he
only discovers he can hit her after she has clearly begun to
develop an emotional dependence on him.
[> [> [> [>
Re: In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against
Buffy ... -- shadowkat, 12:55:52 07/03/02 Wed
"Despite Tara's explanation that Buffy's has returned with a
slightly altered molecular pattern, I still believe that the
real reason he can hit her is that, as a result of his love
for her, the real intention to hurt--as in, cause physical
damage to the object of the act--has disappeared. Coupled,
of course, with the equally metaphorical, if somewhat
contradictory reason that he can hit her physically because
he can hurt her emotionally--i.e., she *does* love him, even
though she refuses to allow herself to see it. After all, he
only discovers he can hit her after she has clearly begun to
develop an emotional dependence on him."
Interesting perspective. So is it the "intent" that chip
prevents? This would explain why he can drink from the
already dead girl in Crush and also why he can fight with
Buffy in Fool For Love. It also explains why the chip goes
off when he points the gun at Xander in Yoko Factor (not
realizing of course it's not loaded.) On the other hand
this explaination does not explain the manipulation he uses
in Yoko Factor to hurt them? Well wait, maybe the intent has
to be "physical" harm not emotional or mental? After all the
neural transmittor would have to be awfully superior to act
on that level - and Spike would be the puppy dog, Joss
wished to avoid. Personally I think Joss lifted the whole
chip idea right out of Stanley Kubrick's
A ClockWork Orange - which I'm pretty sure he saw. If this
is the case - he tempered the chip to only affect the intent
to do physical harm. (IF it worked to the extent
that Alex's conditioning does in Clockwork Orange - Spike
would be the helpless bunny rabbit Buffy refers to him as in
the beginning of Doomed and in Something Blue. Which would
have been boring and taken away the whole pt. of not
going with a soul early on.)
Now that we've established the boundaries of the chip.
Assuming you are right and the chip still prevents him from
harming her and the only reason he could hit her back
without pain - is he didn't intend to really hurt her?
How do you explain: The Seeing Red Attempted Rape Scene?
That he got carried away and was renacting Smashed?
Then how do we explain Smashed? They beat each other up.
He seemed at the beginning of that fight, truly pissed
and wanting to harm her? Or did I misread that?
Don't get me wrong - I don't think Spike wanted to
actually
hurt Buffy. But he is an emotional demon and things get out
of hand and there are times even people you love make you
want to blast them into the next county. And it seemed
to
me that even though he may not have intended to hurt her
in SR (on the fence on that one), he definitely seemed to
during their battle in Smashed, just as she intended to hurt
him.
More than willing to be convinced otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against
Buffy ... -- leslie,
14:34:42 07/03/02 Wed
Well, honestly, this is one of those explanations that a)
really only work on a metaphorical level and b) therefore
gives the chip--a physical piece of hardware--some kind of
sentience. On the other hand, trying to work out the
workings of the chip only in terms of some kind of rational,
real-world, physically and technologically sensible mode of
operation invariably leads to a mess, so what the hell--
let's get metaphorical! The chip seems to read Spike's
unconscious and makes its determinations of intent based on
his unconscious feelings--feelings that may be completely
inaccessible to him at the time he is committing the action.
Thus, the chip, like many of us in the audience, reads the
attempted rape as resulting from Spike's frustrated love for
Buffy rather than from a sincere desire to injure her--the
physical injury is a side effect, not his primary intent.
(Which is a reasonable reading, since his remorse and self-
disgust, despite his attempts to rationalize by blaming her,
directly follow on his realization that he *has* physically
hurt her.)
The chip does seem to be solely concerned with *physical*
harm, which is why Spike's sole amusement, in his first
months of chipdom, is in screwing with people's heads.
Nothing to stop him there. But the chip, in turn, is
screwing with Spike's head. Initially he's reasonably self-
aware of his motivations, but over time, and the more he
loves Buffy, the more inaccessible his motivations become to
him. He perceives his own actions and tries to reformat his
self-image in order to incorporate them ("I've changed," "I
can be good") but everyone around him refuses to accept this
new image ("You're just a dead thing," "You're evil").
Finally, after the attempted rape, he just gives up on
trying to figure out what his motivations are and trying to
incorporate them into his self-image, and falls back on his
old image of The Big Bad. This is when he goes off to
Africa, and this is the state he is in when he undergoes his
trials, but by now there is a complete disjunction between
image and reality. The demon, *like the chip,* reads his
unconscious motivation rather than his conscious statements,
and gives him back his soul. Interesting that the bit of
technology and the primordial demon *both* act out of
Spike's unconscious, suggesting that they are (again,
metaphorically) one and the same. At the same time, while
the chip is responsible for monitoring Spike's physical
actions, the demon, in restoring his conscience as it were,
is monitoring his spiritual actions. The chip and the demon
are therefore not so much identical as complementary, as one
would expect from a piece of hardware and a supernatural
entity. Body and soul, in other words--together making a
whole. However, we have seen that the chip, by modifying
Spike's physical actions, has had an effect on his
spiritual/psychological state; the question that remains to
be answered is how the modification of Spike's
spiritual/psychological state will effect his physical
state. Because what I find really fascinating about all of
this is how it illustrates that you can't completely
separate mind and body (or mind and brain).
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, leslie and 'kat, for the additional points.
Nice posts. -- Exegy, 22:20:01 07/03/02 Wed
[>
I know that the season's over...but that's still a big
ol' spoiler in the subject line! -- Rob, 11:43:40
07/03/02 Wed
[> [>
Sorry *slaps himself on wrist* (mutters to himself
"Bad Emperor!") -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:57:14 07/03/02 Wed
Let's clear this (Dawn) thing up! -- Magus777,
22:10:36 07/02/02 Tue
Isn't it possible she was just held back to Freshman year? I
mean c'mon, with the Glory thing, and all the absents. I
figure this is Joss's excuse, or what he planned along.
[>
Don't be surprised... -- Darby, 06:35:00
07/03/02 Wed
...if Dawn's a sophomore, like Buffy was when she came to
Sunnydale. Wasn't the Joss' quote something like, "She'll
be starting at Sunnydale High?" That would be true no
matter what year she is, since the school's just re-
opening.
And, at any rate, you gotta figure that at some point the
Continuity Police will point out that she was confirmed as a
Freshman this past season. They can't really flunk her
without invoking the dreaded Social Services Storyline, so I
expect to see Dawn in the 10th Grade.
[> [>
Re: Dawn's a Sophmore, just like Buffy was - Let the
hijinks begin! -- Brian, 07:00:55 07/03/02 Wed
I imagine that while they were rebuilding Sunnydale High,
the city officals had assigned the ninth grade students to
be part of the middle school which was still standing (7th,
8th, and 9th). Those students in the 10th - 12th were
probably bussed to nearby regional schools as a stop gap
measure.
[>
I've been thinking a lot about Dawn (Speculative
Spoilage) -- shygirl, 07:15:16 07/03/02 Wed
I know some think Joss writes himself into corners, but I
actually think he knows exactly what he is doing with his
characters and it only looks to us at times like he wrote
something a certain way and was then stuck with unexpected
consequences. I believe he didn't want us to notice Dawn too
much this year because it was so important to deconstruct
all of the other characters. He made her so bratty and
whiney that no one wanted to pay attention to her.
In a very real way, all of the characters underwent tests
this year… not just Spike at the end. We can say it's part
of growing up, which is the easy and obvious answer, or
perhaps it is part of a greater plan in Joss's head. Dawn
is still the key. I'm not even sure how complete a human
she is, but someone else may be able to enlighten me
there.
But here are some elements that everyone knows, but are
continuously glossed over: There are so many unanswered -
Whys?
1. Dawn has never ever been afraid of Spike. He even tried
to scare her and she laughed at him. She has always felt
safe with him. I know some will say that she won’t feel that
way anymore because of the bathroom scene, but I’m not
convinced of that… her connection with Spike has been
consistent over time. I don’t think one incident, no matter
how horrible will destroy that… although I do believe that
she will look at him with a greater awareness. Dawn has
been an innocent up until now and I think that will end this
coming season. She is a primordial force manifest in human
form… and I vaguely remember that the Knight’s feared that
force becoming human.
2. Spike has always consistently been protective of Dawn
and in Masq’s character description the word paternal was
used. He has never, to my limited knowledge, threatened her
in any way. He certainly does use the kind of affectionate
paternal nicknames one would expect from a parent toward a
favored child. It easy to say he only takes care of Dawn
because of Buffy and perhaps that is true and I’ve just not
read enough and seen enough episodes to know it. But what I
have seen indicates a connection to Dawn that goes beyond
Buffy… not a romantic one though he wants her good opinion.
He would die to protect Dawn and not just because Buffy has
charged him with protecting her, at least not anymore. I
find that very interesting. They have a very complex
relationship. And then there is the fact that Spike is not
like other vampires and apparently never was… he still seems
to retain some kind of memory of humanity that causes him to
be fascinated by humans.
3. Buffy trusts a monster to keep her sister safe over her
friends. Even after he attacks her, she still trusts him
with Dawn. There is also the consistency that she will not
kill him, nor will she allow anyone else to kill him. That
also is very interesting. It may not be love, but it may be
an awareness of Spike’s connection with the Key and an
importance we don’t yet understand.
So here we have a kind of “unholy trinity” that doesn’t make
any sense on the face of it and doesn’t seem to have any
connection or integration into the storyline that is
obvious. Then there are the Scoobies. They have been tested
this year most strenuously, and guess what, they aren’t
perfect. But, they have looked into the dark corners of
their own souls.
Now, I don’t know a lot about the Watcher’s Council… in the
two seasons (5 & 6) that I am familiar with (still catching
up on early stuff) they don’t seem to be much in evidence.
My limited understanding though is that they are supposed to
be advisors of some sort??? And this makes sense. A Slayer
would need all the wisdom at her disposal that was
available. But I seem to remember an episode where she sort
of fired them??? Am I right? Well, even if she fired them,
she may still have need for good advice… and it’s obvious
Giles is not always going to be around. It also seems to me
that without a council to advise her, things are out of
balance. But in order to have a wise council, the members
need to have an understanding of themselves and the world….
Thus this season of deconstruction… they have earned a hard
won wisdom through their personal failures and shortcomings.
They can now advise Buffy from a place of compassion, and an
understanding of human weakness. It is also interesting
that this new council is made up of a witch, a demon, and a
human…. Kinda brings all points of view to the table.
Like everyone else I have hunches about where Joss is going,
but I don’t really want to dissect them… I want to hold them
close and see what unfolds. But I think the storyline of the
Key needs to be resolved and a balance brought back to the
mission of the Slayer…This may not have been what you were
looking for as a response, but it’s been on my mind for a
while and I appreciate the opening to get it out of my mind…
Now perhaps it will not obsess me so much! LOL Thank you
kind readers for your tolerance and patience with the newbie
who is just learning the ropes.
[> [>
Re: I've been thinking a lot about Dawn (Maybe a bit
more than, Speculative Spoilage) -- Dochawk, 09:20:51
07/03/02 Wed
A few comments:
1. "Dawn has never been afraid of Spike" - Dawn has never
known anything but a neutered Spike, by the time she was
made Spike was chipped. In fact, besides a few things with
her sister she really hasn't seen the killing machines that
vamps are (until Halloween this year had she met any other
vamps than Spike, other demons yes, but vamps?)
1a. (Hard speculation coming up) At least three writers
have talked about the difficult nature of the Dawn/Spike
relationship in the next season. She doesn't forgive Spike
nor really should she.
2. Spike would die to protect Dawn. You are speculating
that this is anything more than his obsession with Buffy.
Altho I tend to agree with you, there is no direct evidence
that he would do so after he learns of Buffy's resurrection,
previous to that there is his "promise to a lady" which was
part obsession and part guilt.
3. Spike is different from othr vampires. Clearly other
vampires have shown the ability to love and to have
obsessions. And as Rufus et all will explain much better
than I can, being a vamp reflects on the human you once
were. Spike was a romantic poet, so he has much of that
human characteristic remaining in his vamp nature. Dalton
for example was a bookworm in real life and the Judge senses
the humanity in him and kills him. Also, we know more about
Spike than all other vamps combined (except Angel, Darla and
Dru) so its hard to say he is different than other vamps
without that kind of knowledge.
[> [> [>
What's interesting about Dawn -- Sophist,
09:38:44 07/03/02 Wed
is that, of course, she didn't exist prior to S5. The monks
implanted in her memories of the SG and of Spike. They also
implanted in Spike memories of Dawn. Who knows where those
memories came from or what they might mean. But those
memories -- whatever they are -- will certainly color the
relationship between the two.
[> [> [> [>
Maybe the monks made *everybody* want to protect
Dawn. -- Arethusa, 09:41:24 07/03/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
ahh the implanted memories... forgot about that. --
shygirl, 11:19:34 07/03/02 Wed
yes, I agree that the implanted memories will definitly
color how Dawn deals with Spike and his behavior at the end.
Only people who really love each other can hurt each other.
Spike can hurt Buffy emotionally and she can beat the crap
out of him physically or even kill him if she feels like it.
How the affection between Dawn and Spike holds up after the
bathroom scene will be interesting and dependent on their
entire relationship, not one moment of it. I am betting on
the human capacity to forgive... not forget, but forgive.
I've been where Buffy was and you can get past it if you
choose too and if you work at it...it's not easy and
shouldn't be, but at least to some extent we can choose our
viewpoint. I think they call it free will.
[> [> [>
The Spike/Dawn Relationship -- cjl, 10:30:06
07/03/02 Wed
While I agree that Spike's protectiveness of Dawn could be
construed as an extension of his obsession with Buffy, I
think it has more to do with the unique relationship between
Buffy and Dawn. Buffy said the monks "made her out of me,"
and given Buffy's track record with intuition, I'm going to
take that at face value. So Spike might actually be
responding to a quality in Dawn that he's responded to in
Buffy. Given Spike's nature, this is probably entirely
instinctive.
Of course, the $64,000 question is: exactly HOW was Dawn
"made" from Buffy? What is the ephemeral quality that
brings out the protector in Spike? Did the monks break off
a piece of Buffy's soul? Did they incarnate Buffy's
innocence/inner child? Or was Buffy merely a genetic
blueprint? (Nah, ME wouldn't be that prosaic.) There's so
much we have to learn about Dawn and her origins; once we
get some answers there, we might understand Spike's
motivations a bit better.
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Spike/Dawn Relationship -- leslie,
10:45:05 07/03/02 Wed
Given that Buffy's blood is an acceptable substitute for
Dawn's blood in The Gift, I think we have to assume that the
monks literally used some part of Buffy's body to generate
the flesh of Dawn as a vessel for the Key--the ever-popular
nail clippings, perhaps--there's a REASON folklore tells you
to be careful when disposing of your nail clippings, people!
I also wonder if they stole a little of Joyce while they
were rummaging through the Summers trash cans--it would
explain Joyce's own protectiveness toward Dawn, expressed
when she realizes that Dawn is not literally her
daughter.
[> [> [> [> [>
Greater minds than mine explained this before --
Vickie, 11:47:51 07/03/02 Wed
As Dracula being some kind of sending by the monks and not
the real deal. He tasted Buffy (getting some of her blood).
When he returned to the monks, they got the blood to make
the key into Dawn.
Explains why the prince of vampires was so lame. Remember,
Anya and Spike (the only ones who could have identified
Drac) didn't meet up with him.
Current
board
| More July 2002