July 2004 posts
Next Round: Who wants
to dance? -- Lunasea, 08:51:22 07/24/04 Sat
My worthy opponent, Random, would probably concede that there
are elements of Angel that could be considered existential
and that is a lens the show can be viewed through. This does not
necessarily mean that the show itself is existential or that Angel
can be considered the existential hero. There are other elements
and lenses that the show can be viewed through which negate this
conclusion. Such is the nature of a show that can exist on multiple
levels, if such a nature can exist. Ran even contended that Angel
was too "philosophically confused" to be an existentialist.
Which brings up the question: Can an existentialist be anything
but "confused"? Can an existentialist be an existentialist?
Is there such a thing as the existential hero?
There are several problems inherent in philosophy. The first is
that it is often taught by people that don't believe it, let alone
live it. Instead these people attempt to be "objective"
and say philosophy/philosopher X states Y. Another problem is
that the actual philosophers (as opposed to those that attempt
to "objectively" teach what philosophy is) are trying
to describe and explain their thoughts logically. That is why
we get things like Kierkegaard's leap of faith to the religious
stage of life. How do you logically explain what you yourself
don't understand logically or is not accomplished through logic?
The attempt to be "objective," both from professors
stating X means Y and philosophers stating Y is true, imposes
on it what Franz Bretano called intentionality and therefore
cannot be objective. The attitude of objectivity results in an
"objective" reality that has the human significance
stripped away from it. This works when talking about Locke's An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding and British Empiricism,
since that is the intentionality of the philosophy. It doesn't
work on phenomenology, existentialism or absurdism. Each of these
things are reacting against this and talking about them through
the lens of "objectivity" should not be confused with
actually talking about them, as if such a thing could happen.
Existentialism and absurdism cannot be easily labeled or discussed
because the very act of attempting to do so negates them. Ask
a Frenchman to define what it means to be an American, and chances
are you'd get some definition. It could rely on any number of
things depending on that individual's focus in life. Ask an American
the same question and good luck in getting an actual definition,
though he can give you one about what it means to be French. The
only one really qualified to state whether the show or Angel is
existential would be an existentialist. Such a person wouldn't
label himself existential, let alone negate or affirm the contention.
The show may be dead, and as such can be evaluated. That doesn't
mean that I can make any objective pronouncements affirming or
negating anything about it. This sentiment is often stated on
the board, logically in an almost self-deprecating way, as if
an "opinion" was somehow inferior. The letters IMO are
dashed off to say that I realize I'm not all that. In stating
this, though, the purpose often is to say "I logically realize
what I am saying is just an opinion, so really I am all that and
a bag of chips." Such is the bizarre circumstances of the
human condition.
An ardent defense of the show as existentialist can only be followed
by one thing. Actually, it can be followed by several things,
but only one thing has me giggling this morning. Well, several
things have me giggling, but only one is really appropriate for
an essay...at least an essay on a public family-friendly message
board.
After everything I've said there is only one logical place (logical
meaning fun for me) to go next, German Idealism, specifically
the work of Georg Wilhelm Fredrick Hegel. If you understand why,
come dance with me. This really isn't about the dancers, but the
dance itself. Let me see if I can show a few steps. I have to
admit that I like bringing the board back to the confusing world
of philosophy.
All Things Philosophical on so much now. What is the topic of
the board? It is all those new letters that now follow ATPo or
is it those first three letters, ATP? Do we explore all those
letters through the lens of philosophy or are we exploring philosophy
by using those letters to write essays? Not that the two are mutually
exclusive, but it is an interesting exploration IMO ;-)
I'll write the essay I promised, about the evolution of Angel's
self-image using Hegel's dialectic. It's a fairly easy essay to
write, even if it is a bit long. The dialectic provides a structure
for it, thesis-antithesis-sythesis repeat as synthesis now becomes
the new thesis. The purpose in that essay may get obscured in
the essay. The dance may be lost in the dancers.
I do not wish to move "toward enabling it to shed its name
'love of knowledge' and be a real knowledge" as Hegel proposed
in Phenomenology of the Spirit. Instead I wish to reverse
this trend and go back to the philia that stirs men's hearts
and moves the pen. It isn't just the love of the Buffyverse that
causes me to write lengthy essays. How that love manifests itself
is because I love wisdom. I love the futile puzzle that human
existence is. I was never content to just read about the thoughts
of dead men. Those were springboards for my own explorations.
Reading Kant or Mill and my thoughts went off on their own. They
are quite difficult to catch. My debate coach in high school said
I should write down my thoughts. HAHAHAHAHA. He was such a cute
man.
How do you convey love? The most you can hope to do is inspire
it in others. That is what Socrates did. That's what I hope to
do. I am a philosopher. I don't wish to tell you how to look at
something. I just wish for you to look at it and see the beauty,
wonder, simplicity and complexity that is the human condition,
even if it is through the tiny corner of a pair of television
programs.
And to dance. Always dance.
Replies:
[> I know you wanna dance! -- David
Frisby, 10:49:02 07/24/04 Sat
After 30 some years 'with' philosophy, I've come to some opinions
about some of the more important things about philosophy. I mainly
draw from Plato Bacon Nietzsche, and more recently, Strauss Grant
Heidegger, but am intimate with many others such the Greeks and
the early moderns.
Philosophy, the love of wisdom (the highest wisdom of which is
the wisdom of love), is what makes humanity human. The heads/tails
of philosophy (from a reading of Plato's _Phaedo_) is philology
(meaning in the original sense the love of the logos, or reason
and order) and philanthropy (meaning in the original sense the
love of the human). Some stress heads and others tails but both
are always involved, such as when Aristotle calls the rational
animal. Philosophy is (to use the words of Strauss) humanity's
highest interest. It is what got us to where we are on this planet
in the midst of natural history, and it still holds the most promise
for what we can yet be.
As for existentialism, there are so many angles or perspectives
possible to take. Plato's battle of the gods and the giants (or
the friends of the forms and the others) (or those who give priority
to universals versus particulars) can be presented as a battle
of the idealists versus the existentialists, wherein the latter
always insist on the necessity of the case over against the rule.
For example, 'this' divorce as opposed to any divorce in general;
rules or laws always are second best compared to the rule of the
wise simply, which can consider unique cases in the context of
the particular circumstances and given all extentuating conditions.
Heidegger, whose _Being and Time_ is often called the true bible
of existentialism (even though he disavowed the term after Sartre
started his 'existence precedes essence' and all that), would
most simply present existentialism as what remains after Nietzsche
declares his word 'god is dead' meaning (for Heidgger) that the
entire supersenuous world is not, leaving only the sensuous world.
This is however not really all that different from Machiavelli
when he declares 'history' the only real world, consigning all
other 'republics' and such to the imagination. Or again, in Nietzsche's
jargon, the existentialist says body am I entirely, and soul spirit
mind and so forth are nothing or at most aspects of the body.
But of course, for Nietzsche, it is hard to speak of the existentialist
without conjoining the nihilist philosophical position, which
itself has both a modern and an ancient formulation. For the modern
nihilist the world as it is ought not to be, and the world that
ought to be will never be. For the ancient nihllist, the second
best thing is to die as soon as possible, and the best to not
have been born. But Nietzsche does not leave it at that, of course,
and there is room for the existentialist hero in his thought.
Sartre perhaps (or was it one of my professors offering his own
rendition of Sartre?) -- perhaps not -- presented it best with
the image of the existentialist hero as the one who trudges upstream
against the current, fighting for every step into the open random
future, and resisting the river's current which would sweep into
the past, into essence, into inauthenticity, into time's desire.
Heidegger resists such, but one might read his human being unified
in care within the horizons of temporality as the existential
hero, expecially when one adds his resoluteness in the moment
of vision, projecting the potentiality of being a whole. But surely
Heidegger's new beginning of the foursome of mortals before gods
on earth under sky is not existentialist -- its as least post
existentialist.
As for Buffy, I read her as Nietzsche's ubermensch, which again,
is really a reading of the philosopher, which again, is really
a reading of human nature, or the human.
The next move is to Buffy/Spike, but I sense that such matters
are scorned around here in favor of Angel/Connor. I wonder if
Levinas's notion of paternity might open any panoramas regarding
Angel/Connor?
Anyway, there's a step or two Lunasea, to begin the dance. By
the way, I now know Random, but I'm not sure whether I met you
in Chicago or not. I think not. Let me know though.
frisby
[> [> Re: I know you wanna dance! -- Lunasea, 07:47:54
07/25/04 Sun
We just moved mid-June and my husband had just gotten back from
patrol (he's in the Coast Guard) end of June. Independence Day
is a big family holiday for me as well. All those reasons combined
to make attending the Gathering not something I could do.
I would have responded yesterday, but family obligations combined
with working on the essay that uses the show to illustrate the
Hegelian dialectic gave me time to think about my response. As
much as I love responding, there is something special about standing
in the shower and thinking about responding. I do my best thinking
in the shower.
Recently I wrote about how important the lurkers are to how this
board functions. It's much easier to write knowing that at least
someone is reading it and getting something out of it. One of
the reasons lurkers lurk is they don't think they have anything
to contribute. Not only do they provide an audience, but I'd bet
everyone on them is a philosopher or why would they bother reading
the stuff here, often with a separate window open to Google things.
It's fun to talk about the "official" philosphers, typically
guys that died a long time ago. Being around people that know
what this dead guy said or that particular philosophy means can
be intimidating. I remember my first debate team meeting in high
school. I don't remember the topic, but I remember hearing names
like Mill, Kant and Locke being thrown around. All these big words,too
some of them not even in English. It was daunting. Luckily for
me, I raised my hand and asked a question.
I don't even remember what the question was. I remember the result.
Nobody laughed at me. Nobody thought I was stupid. On the contrary,
the Seniors decided to take me under their wing and taught me
so much. They not only directed which dead guys I needed to read,
but they listened to me expand on said dead guys. I learned the
basics I would need to handle myself in a round and then kept
going, both with more dead guys and my own original thought.
That to me is what a philosopher does. She doesn't just learn
dead guys names and what they said. She takes that and runs with
it. She combines one dead guy with another and adds in a sprinkle
of her own experience and comes up with something that is both
personal and beautiful.
But the truly beautiful thing in all this is dead guys aren't
necessary. If you can think, you too can be a philosopher. That's
really all that is required. It makes it easier to talk to frame
things with a certain vocabulary and the well thought out ideas
of dead guys, but it isn't necessary.
Post such as yours are the dance, here's what I believe. Is there
anything more beautiful in life? The dead guys serve as shorthand
to make the discussion easier, but what is important is how YOU
put them together. That is something that often gets lost when
we talk about dead guys and their thoughts. What is important
is OUR thoughts. We aren't dead.
Thank you so much for sharing things.
[> [> [> Re: I know you wanna dance! -- JudyKay,
18:59:36 07/27/04 Tue
As one of those lurkers who recently de-lurked, let me throw my
two-cents in. Yes, conversations with about dead people
intimidate me. When I took Philosophy in college, I barely got
by. (OK, I think I ended up with a B-, but it was a struggle to
understand everything.) Most of what I know about dead philosophers
comes from the Monty Python song!
What I find fascinating (and why I continue to read this board)
is taking a TV show like Buffy or Angel and finding
meaning (intentional or accidental) in them.
About 15 years ago, I took a graduate-level course in Critical
Media Theory and it really opened my eyes. It encouraged us to
look at television programs as if they were literature. To actively
interact with a program instead of passively watch it. I know
this is pretty common in academia nowadays, but in the mid-eighties,
this was pretty radical thinking, at least here in the U.S (and
in my limited experience). My research in communications prof
didn't understand it. He wanted quantitative data, not qualitative.
Anyway, I had been active in fandom for a few years and had always
been fascinated in why some people got so darned obsessed with
certain TV shows, while other TV shows might be popular, but didn't
inspire the passionate following that these few did. So, this
class gave me a forum to investigate this question. (Unfortunately,
personal reasons prevented me from continuing my post-graduate
studies. Otherwise, I'd probably be contributing to Slayage.tv
today!)
Searching for meaning in TV shows is the fun part for me, whether
it be philosophical, political, economic, or just why is there
a cheese man in Restless. (It also helps to justify the hours
I've spent in front of the tube since childhood.)
Manwitch above, in another thread (http://www.voy.com/14567/12862.html),
touches on this when talking about how shows with long story arcs
are more like literature and hence more interesting to people
like us, who like to think about things:
There's an underlying coherent structure not just to each season
arc, but to the series as a whole. It's a very sophisticated and
finite piece of literature that just happens to be presented visually.
Which I think is also why it has the depth it has and sparks such
things as "Buffy studies" when other long arc shows
do not.
OK, I'm getting off the point here. Lunasea said:
One of the reasons lurkers lurk is they don't think they have
anything to contribute. Not only do they provide an audience,
but I'd bet everyone on them is a philosopher or why would they
bother reading the stuff here...
I'm not a philosopher, but I like to search for meaning in TV
shows. (Maybe that means I am a philosopher!) I think you'll
find there's a lot of people like me reading this board who are
intellectually stimulated by the discussions here, but don't necessarily
need to join in the discussion. So, I think all you writers should
just keep on writing, and we'll come!
(Sorry this was so rambling)
JudyKay
[> [> [> [> Re: I know you wanna dance! --
Lunasea, 15:56:34 07/28/04 Wed
Searching for meaning in TV shows is the fun part for me, whether
it be philosophical, political, economic, or just why is there
a cheese man in Restless. (It also helps to justify the hours
I've spent in front of the tube since childhood.)
It's the same as the search for meaning in life. We just projecting
in onto a harmless TV, thus it is safer to explore things.
The cheese guy to me was one of the easiest symbols to figure
out. In Joss' own words regarding "The Harvest" when
refering to Willow's computer skills, "We use it all the
time to access things that could never be found on a computer
back then, let alone now. It's the element of cheese we can't
get around, because it makes life so much easier."
That cheese is what makes the show Buffy and why it wasn't taken
seriously by so many people. I love that symbol, the one thing
that connects all the dreams other than the slayer. That IS the
show. The slayer and the cheese. What more do we need?
I'd say you are a philosopher. I'm one, so I can say you are too.
Your official philosopher kit will arrive in a few days. It hasn't
been updated in a few decades, so ignore [insert appropriate sexist
object here]
[> Saving this thread to post response tonight -- frisby,
10:10:56 07/26/04 Mon
Will post response tonight (Monday pm)
[> Again, saving thread (convention on c-span sapped me)
-- frisby, 08:41:16 07/27/04 Tue
[> [> Very good reason -- Lunasea, 15:59:27 07/27/04
Tue
I'm in New England for this and far enough away from Boston that
I get all the excitement with none of the hassel. Tonight's speeches
should be fun. Take your time. We can always ask to bring the
thread back, if we need to or, you can respond to whenever I get
the Hegel thing done, since I'm more interested in the philosophy
of philosophy right now any way (which makes it harder to write
about any one particular philosophy, but I'll get it done, since
it is more about following existentialism with Hegel than Hegel.
I like to keep my brain intact).
Have a wonderful night, day, week, whatever.
And SEND JOHN KERRY!!!!!!
[> [> [> Good idea! Thanks. -- frisby, 17:29:36
07/27/04 Tue
Yes, I'm glued to c-span for the evening again it seems. I did
compose most of what I want to say but need to polish it yet.
I'll look forward to commenting on your Hegel essay and will post
my thoughts on these earlier pieces later.
Yes! Time to send John! (& john)
[> [> [> [> I still need to finish mine --
Lunasea, 13:24:54 07/30/04 Fri
I'm only up to Angel's life as of "Amends." He's had
a long life and there are lots of triads to cover. Miss one and
you miss the next thesis.
Hopefully I'll get a chance to finish and polish it this weekend.
I could put up the introduction to get discussion started, if
you want. Once you know what a triad is, they are pretty easy
to figure out. The elegance of this is one of the things that
attracted me to it in the first place.
And to take even more of my time, we were at Best Buy last night.
The kids wanted to know which Buffy season I don't have yet. I
laughed and said I have all the Buffy/Angel DVDs that are out.
Then it hit me, I didn't have everything ME had out. My poor husband
can't resist my cute face, so now we are the proud owner of the
critically acclaimed and asshat canceled series, Firefly.
[> Lightheaded from the dancing -- Tyreseus, 15:29:30
07/30/04 Fri
After roughly two years of hanging around this board (wow, going
on three), you guys still manage to make my head swim. Great essays,
although it may take me days to digest them all.
[> [> Thank you muchly -- Lunasea, 15:50:17 07/30/04
Fri
The next one is on its way
i never got that buffy was
a "superhero" until... -- ghady, 09:30:49 07/24/04
Sat
... i saw sanctuary and some police dude said that "u heard
the rumors.. this girl's got supernatural powers" (he was
talking abt faith).. i always assumed that a slayer is merely
"strong", but i never linked it to anything paranormal..
i guess it was bcs i never saw her do anything SPECTACULAR, like
the kind of stuff that xena would do.. but then i realized that
she does do backflips (a bit) and things of that nature.. speaking
of: if xena and buffy were to fight, who do u think would win?
(i dont usually like such questions, but still..).. i'd say xena
definitely..
Replies:
[> Moments of super-abilities -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:52:21
07/24/04 Sat
"Welcome to the Hellmouth" - Leaps over the six or seven
foot tall school fence and lands gracefully on her feet; balances
on top of a steel bar several feet above the ground with only
her palms for support.
"The Harvest" - Throws a cymbal with enough force and
precision to decapitate a vampire standing on the other side of
the room.
"The Witch" - Easily opens a heavily sealed crate (without
tools) that her mother was unable to open with a crowbar.
"Anne" - Gets hit by a car going at least 30 mph, I'd
say, and is perfectly fine; lifts a up a large, steel gate (albeit,
not too easily).
"Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Lifts a large wooden beam,
and not only doesn't seem to struggle, but is able to drive it
through a vampire's heart.
"Beauty & the Beasts" - Buffy holds her own against
a guy who casually tore a steel cage off its hinges.
"Bad Girls" - Kicks the wire mesh of a police crusier
off its hinges and knocks police officers in front of it unconscious.
"Graduation Day Part I" - During the Buffy vs. Faith
fight, they are able to snap the handcuffs binding them together
off when they pull in opposite directions.
"Fool For Love" - Heals from a stab wound to the stomach
without need for anything beyond basic first aid and some bandaging.
"Crush" - With one punch, is able to send someone flying
ten or twenty feet through the air.
"The Gift" - Falls fifty feet off of a tower onto bare
ground, then gets up and keeps on fighting against a hellgod.
"Once More With Feeling" - Not only kicks the door to
the Bronze in, but sends it flying a good ways in as well.
"Two to Go" - Bends the steel bars to a prison cell.
"Help" - Catches an arrow in mid-air.
"Showtime" - Gets slammed through a piece of concrete
and still keeps fighting.
And these are just examples that are fairly obvious: it doesn't
even include all the times Buffy has fought and beaten vampires
and demons who have super-human strength. Her abilities probably
don't seem as noticeable as some super-heroes because usually
she doesn't fight normal humans, but instead other super-powered
beings, so it doesn't stand out as much.
P.S. I've only watched a few episodes of "Xena", but
I was under the impression that she didn't actually have any paranormal
powers, rather she existed the slightly less realistic world where
enough martial arts training can let you do almost anything (such
as movies like "Kill Bill" or "Crouching Tiger,
Hidden Dragon")?
[> [> yea xena has no super powers.. she's just incredibly
strong and acrobatic (ala crouching tiger...) -- ghady, 12:02:47
07/24/04 Sat
[> [> [> Well, for a while... -- Rob, 15:31:24
07/24/04 Sat
...they were teasing that Ares was her father, and that is where
she got her strength (particularly in the third season premiere),
but they toned down on those references as their relationship
heated up in later seasons, because with all the sexual tension,
it would have been too icky.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Like a little incest is gonna stop
those Greek gods;) -- BrianWilly, 00:08:51 07/25/04 Sun
[> [> [> You're not the first person to have this
confusion, either -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:14:30 07/26/04 Mon
I once visited a "Charmed" forum, and one of the topics
was who would win in a fight: Buffy or the Charmed One Phoebe
(keeping in mind that, at the time, Phoebe's powers were simply
the occasional premonition and levitation, mixed in with some
non-magical martial arts training). A prevailing opinion on that
board was that Phoebe's levitation would give her the edge over
Buffy who, in the words of several posters, "doesn't even
have any powers". I have to wonder: is the idea that Buffy
has no real powers, just some training in martial arts a lot,
really that common? I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm beginning
to have doubts.
P.S. I still stand by my evidence of Buffy possessing super-human
abilities, but will acknowledge that she would lose in a fight
with Xena if both had the fighting abilities their shown to have
in their respective shows. However, I got to thinking, if there
were a real fight between the two, Buffy might have a chance,
and here's why: the fight would probably either occur in the Buffyverse
or the Xenaverse. In the Xenaverse, the limitations regarding
how powerful humans can become through training is loosened, meaning
that if Buffy were in Xena's world, she might very well be able
to use her Slayer powers and battle training to an extent she
couldn't in her own world. Likewise, if the fight occured in the
Buffyverse, Xena might not be able to use the full range of abilities
she uses on her own show, since the natural laws of the Buffyverse
make it impossible for a non-powered human to perform such feats.
This is just one theory, though.
[> Buffy's been superhuman since the first season --
Majin Gojira, 23:18:17 07/24/04 Sat
Most notable, throwing the Zookeeper into the Hyena Cage. There
are many other examples, but I'm too tired to dig out my Buffy
Quantified notes, but rest assured, Buffy's quite strong: A Shooting
Script has her running up to 35mph in "Two to Go".
[> [> Re: Buffy's been superhuman since the first season
-- ghady, 04:17:33 07/25/04 Sun
yea i get.. but i think u mean 35 km/h not 35 mph, cuz the latter
is VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY slow.. 35 km/h would be equal to about
1 mps.. oh.. thats slow too.. oh well.. buffy's strong (if only
they made her fight an entire human army like xena did in "one
against an army".. literally, she took down the ENTIRE persian
army.. ALONE.. w/ NO help.. and HARDLY any weapons.. ooh but it
always pays to see buffy fight those initiative guys in that ep
where they were trying to track her down at the beginning for
practice.. AND when she kicked riley and "held back a little.")
[> [> [> ooh sorry.. calculation mistake.. 35 km/h
is abt 10 m/s which is SUPER fast.. yey buffy :) -- ghady,
04:18:55 07/25/04 Sun
[> [> [> I think that was 35 miles/hour not meters/hour.
35 miles/hour is very fast for a human to run -- aka miss
k, 04:59:25 07/25/04 Sun
[> Xena would win... -- Sofdog, 09:34:42 07/26/04
Mon
Buffy lives in our world, but Xena doesn't. Many crazy feats accomplished
by both, but Xena's are usually way, way over the top. Remember
the vine fight with Najara? Don't think Buffy could roll down
a vine, clutch a dagger in her teeth and roll back up the vine.
[> [> Xena at one point cartwheeled her way from land
to a ship out at sea... -- Rob, 19:46:59 07/26/04 Mon
In One Against an Army, she singlehandedly defeated an entire
army who had put her under siege in a house.
She'd beat Buffy in a heartbeat. Sorry, Buffy, love ya. But it's
true.
Rob
[> [> [> If Buffy relied on "Three Stooges Physics"
instead of Near Real World Physics... -- Majin Gojira, 10:07:31
07/29/04 Thu
I've seen this debate brought up a hundred times. And each time,
it gets more annoying due to incredibly vauge references on the
Xena-Camp's part and their seeming inability to site specific
examples.
It's further compounded by the fact that Xena and Hercules run
on what I lovingly call "Three Stooges Physics". Sam
Raimi (The Producer) is a big stooges Fan and this shows up in
a lot of his works. In Xena and Hercules this is very evident.
Buffy, by contrast, operates in something similar to "Real
World" physics. Gravity is constant (In Xena, it relies on
the a seemingly "anime law of physics" where once a
person is airborne, the effect of gravity is apparently quartered),
blows do damage to normal human beings beyond Knock Out, etc.
Humans can train themselves to be on par with demigods like Xena
(RE: Callisto, etc).
When normal humans are showing physics defying feats of agility
and strength, something is wrong out there.
Futhermore, Xena is NOT THAT superhumanly Strong. Agile, Maybe.
But has not (as far as I can recall) come anywhere close to duplicated
the lifting and breaking feats that Buffy has.
For Example: The Porcullis in "Anne" (Season 3), The
door in "Once Moor with Feeling" (Season 6), ripping
off wood from a solid church pue (Season 4: "This Years Girl"),
Every time Buffy snaps a Demon's neck, arms, legs, Ribs, etc.
This is often done without much effort.
The best examples Xenites have is her jumping really far and high
(in which case I refer back to the Airborne Law). Buffy has duplicated
that feat in Season 4 "This Years Girl", leaping up
through a second story window. Or in "Buffy vs. Dracula"
where she performs a similar feat.
Then there are what I refer to as "heavy Blows". Sure,
Xena will punch someone and they'll be knocked off their feet,
Buffy sends them flying at times:
Hittings Mrs. Maddison in "The Witch", Kicking a vampire
into a tree in "When She was Bad", kicking Riley in
"A New Man", hitting another initiative guy in "The
I in Team", hitting a vampire in "Into the Woods",
Hitting Spike in "Crush", hitting a pool table with
Darla on it, making it slide across the Bronze in "Angel"...
I can go on for hours, including instances of Durability (it takes
a lot of Blunt Force Trama to hurt her)and Agility (Buffy can
outrun the scope/targeting of of a rifle at 15ft). But It's been
a while since I've seen Xena in action, so my memory is a little
rusty.
As for a VS. fight in of itself It depends on how they are armed.
If Xena has her usual weaponry, Buffy needs the Scythe in order
to accurately compete. In HtH, Xena is shown to be Less Efficient
outside of the presure point strikes. How they will work against
someone with the durability of Buffy is unknown, but it is not
likely to be that effective.
In short, Like any good Comic Book Crossover not Involving Superman,
They would fight to a standstill until The Real Threat (tm) is
discovered.
[> [> [> [> I'm planning on rewatching the old
"Xena"s soon... -- Rob, 13:36:58 07/29/04 Thu
...once all the DVD sets come out (4 out of 6 have been released
thus far), so I'll be sure to check if I can find any specific
arguments.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Xena doesn't need proof, she just is...
-- Sofdog, 13:42:53 07/29/04 Thu
I already stated that Xena's world is free of the rules Buffy
has to live by. That doesn't make her any less spectacular. Flashy,
sure, and spectacular. Buffy swung around a pole and kicked a
guy one time, Xena swung round poles and kicked every man in a
circle at least twice the last being - for citation's sake - "Last
of the Centaurs."
"When normal humans are showing physics defying feats of
agility and strength, something is wrong out there."
Xena's not about being normal, and the whole premise is fantastic
to begin with. Xena is about pushing yourself to cultivate every
last drop or your own potential. Xena isn't just an exceptional
warrior, leader and miltary strategist. She's also an excellent
sailor, singer, sewer and healer. Cooking is the only thing she
is completely lacking. A fact which I always gathered was by choice.
"Futhermore, Xena is NOT THAT superhumanly Strong. Agile,
Maybe. But has not (as far as I can recall) come anywhere close
to duplicated the lifting and breaking feats that Buffy has.
For Example: The Porcullis in "Anne" (Season 3), The
door in "Once Moor with Feeling" (Season 6), ripping
off wood from a solid church pue (Season 4: "This Years Girl"),
Every time Buffy snaps a Demon's neck, arms, legs, Ribs, etc.
This is often done without much effort.
The best examples Xenites have is her jumping really far and high
(in which case I refer back to the Airborne Law). Buffy has duplicated
that feat in Season 4 "This Years Girl", leaping up
through a second story window. Or in "Buffy vs. Dracula"
where she performs a similar feat. "
:Gasp: The blasphemy! Why a king in Season 1 specifically referred
to Xena as having the strength of ten men in disgust. And if hacking
down a forest and hauling tall trees together to build a dam *overnight*
(S6 "The Abyss) isn't THAT superhumanly strong...well, perhaps
we'll go out to the woods and let you have a go at it.
I think necks, arms, legs, and ribs are easier to break than you
think. I took a regular self-defense course that taught me how
to kick with enough force to break a man's knee. How much effort
Buffy seems to put in is sketchy best. Quite often (according
to my screencap screensaver) she is pretty stressed out. And we
can't excuse the evidence that Buffy's little effort is quite
a lot given her tendency to mismanage her strength from time to
time (I cite the time Riley watched Buffy break all the machines
in the dining hall trying to get breakfast and the time she hugged
her mom's surgeon too hard and cracked his ribs.)
All these little things aside, Buffy hasn't seen war or the world
on anything like the scale Xena has. "The Destroyer of Nations"
ranged far and wide, honing her abilities and acquiring skills
from the world's greatest warriors, rulers and spiritualists.
Buffy trained up in the high school library and led mini-campaigns
of inexperienced teenagers.
I'm not saying Slay Gal doesn't have considerable skill. That's
why I loved the show. But Xena's way more seasoned, wise, skilled
and resourceful. The *only* time she stayed tied up was when she
wanted to be ("Locked Up and Tied Down" vs. "The
God You Know"). Buffy's record just doesn't compare. I've
actually always that she was more comparable Gabrielle as both
were coming into their skills and destinies. But that's another
thread.
[> [> [> [> [> Addendum -- Sofdog, 13:45:26
07/29/04 Thu
"Futhermore, Xena is NOT THAT superhumanly Strong. Agile,
Maybe. But has not (as far as I can recall) come anywhere close
to duplicated the lifting and breaking feats that Buffy has.
For Example: The Porcullis in "Anne" (Season 3), The
door in "Once Moor with Feeling" (Season 6), ripping
off wood from a solid church pue (Season 4: "This Years Girl"),
Every time Buffy snaps a Demon's neck, arms, legs, Ribs, etc.
This is often done without much effort.
The best examples Xenites have is her jumping really far and high
(in which case I refer back to the Airborne Law). Buffy has duplicated
that feat in Season 4 "This Years Girl", leaping up
through a second story window. Or in "Buffy vs. Dracula"
where she performs a similar feat. "
:Gasp: The blasphemy! Why a king in Season 1 specifically referred
to Xena as having the strength of ten men in disgust. And if hacking
down a forest and hauling tall trees together to build a dam *overnight*
(S6 "The Abyss) isn't THAT superhumanly strong...well, perhaps
we'll go out to the woods and let you have a go at it.
JUST ADDING: that time Xena held up that entire wooden arena on
her shoulders in "Dangerous Prey." Now, come on. You
gotta how crazy that was.
[> [> [> [> [> Let the Weirdness Commence
-- Majin Gojira, 16:40:41 07/29/04 Thu
"I already stated that Xena's world is free of the rules
Buffy has to live by."
So no matter where they meet, they rely on their own universes'
Physics? Sorry, but most vs. arguments require that the opponents
meet on an equal plane.
"That doesn't make her any less spectacular. Flashy, sure,
and spectacular. Buffy swung around a pole and kicked a guy one
time, Xena swung round poles and kicked every man in a circle
at least twice the last being - for citation's sake - "Last
of the Centaurs.""
Not comparable. Buffy had one target, Xena had many, relying on
the many to push her along.
"Xena's not about being normal,"
I never said that. Non Point.
"and the whole premise is fantastic to begin with. Xena is
about pushing yourself to cultivate every last drop or your own
potential. Xena isn't just an exceptional warrior, leader and
miltary strategist."
And a Demigod, and apparently a Paragon as well.
":Gasp: The blasphemy! Why a king in Season 1 specifically
referred to Xena as having the strength of ten men in disgust."
Dialogue is no good for a vs. discussion. Otherwise we have the
Millenium Falcon doing .5 past light speed when it would take
him years to reach ANY other starsystem...
Use Visuals. Dialouge is often contradicted, and besides, I doubt
the king was being scienfically accurate.
"And if hacking down a forest and hauling tall trees together
to build a dam *overnight* (S6 "The Abyss) isn't THAT superhumanly
strong...well, perhaps we'll go out to the woods and let you have
a go at it."
Do you know how heavy the trees were? That would be more applicable.
Secondly, it's such a fantastic scenario, I refer you back to
the 3 Stooges Physics statement.
"I think necks, arms, legs, and ribs are easier to break
than you think."
Bone can handle a lot of preasure and, if I remember my "Bill
Nye the Science Guy" correctly, can support more weight than
Aircaft Aluminmum. ;)
Secondly, a lot of the bones broken were of non-humans who obviously
have greater mass and likely denser bones due to that. (this of
course, applies to demons only).
"I took a regular self-defense course that taught me how
to kick with enough force to break a man's knee."
Because a joint is just as easy to break as a solid bone...
"How much effort Buffy seems to put in is sketchy best."
Effort nothing, she did it, it can be timed, the distances measures
and the effects discussed.
"Quite often (according to my screencap screensaver) she
is pretty stressed out. And we can't excuse the evidence that
Buffy's little effort is quite a lot given her tendency to mismanage
her strength from time to time (I cite the time Riley watched
Buffy break all the machines in the dining hall trying to get
breakfast and the time she hugged her mom's surgeon too hard and
cracked his ribs.)"
And I can site other examples where Buffy obviously doesn't try
very hard ("The Harvest", "Ted", Etc). Yes,
sometimes, at hightened emotional states, she overdoes things,
but other times, under other sources of Stress, she is seen not
trying that hard.
"All these little things aside, Buffy hasn't seen war or
the world on anything like the scale Xena has. "The Destroyer
of Nations" ranged far and wide, honing her abilities and
acquiring skills from the world's greatest warriors, rulers and
spiritualists. Buffy trained up in the high school library and
led mini-campaigns of inexperienced teenagers."
Are you claiming that Xena with her Army is greater than Buffy
and her small tactical force? No duh! Numerical advantage. Besides,
it's usually a 1 on 1 vs. So this statement is Pointless.
Besides the fact: Small Squad Tactics bear NO RESEMBLANCE to Large
Army Tactics.
This isn't war Combat, it's a one on one duel, so why are you
bothering to mention this?
"I'm not saying Slay Gal doesn't have considerable skill.
That's why I loved the show. But Xena's way more seasoned, wise,
skilled and resourceful."
That's what helps decide the vs. Skill, unfotunately, is unquantifiable
for the most part. However, Other things are, so lets stick to
them.
"The *only* time she stayed tied up was when she wanted to
be ("Locked Up and Tied Down" vs. "The God You
Know"). Buffy's record just doesn't compare. I've actually
always that she was more comparable Gabrielle as both were coming
into their skills and destinies. But that's another thread."
Remember, 2 universes with different sets of physics, it makes
an unbaiased, even comparison almost impossible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> No, the real question is...
-- Tymen, 18:01:37
07/29/04 Thu
who is stranger Gerard or the Hulk?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, the real question
is... -- Tymen, 18:02:47 07/29/04 Thu
Sorry about the error.
[> [> [> [> [> [> (Corrected) No, the real
question is... -- Tymen,
18:04:08 07/29/04 Thu
who is stronger Gerard or the Hulk?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (Corrected) No,
the real question is... -- LittleBit, 09:16:13 07/30/04
Fri
I liked the first version. [grin]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: correction: xena isn't
a demigod (there was a thing w/ ares being her dad, but it wasnt
true) -- ghady, 09:53:36 07/30/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks---that was
a very confusing episode -- Majin Gojira, 15:20:01 07/30/04
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What happened
in that one was... -- Rob, 13:48:48 07/31/04 Sat
...that, 9 months before she was born, Xena's mother had sex with
Ares. So when the Furies went after her mother for killing her
abusive husband (it is against their law for a woman to kill the
father of her children), Xena saved her life by arguing to the
Furies that this man might not have been her real biological
father after all. In truth, though, unless her mother slept with
anyone else, this man was. But the affair with Ares gave the benefit
of the doubt, particularly with Xena's strength that was referred
to in that episode as "god-like," if I recall correctly.
Also to add to the argument, whether or not Xena was part-god
before, she certainly was superhuman later, when the God of Eli
gave her the power to kill all other gods.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Buffy does rely on "Three Stooges
Physics" -- dmw, 16:16:25 07/31/04 Sat
Take it from this physicist, the physics of Buffy isn't that close
to that of the real world. In fact, you point out a couple of
the obvious problems:
When normal humans are showing physics defying feats of agility
and strength, something is wrong out there.
Yes, like killing vampires with pencils or even with shot jabs
using handheld stakes.
Sure, Xena will punch someone and they'll be knocked off their
feet, Buffy sends them flying at times
This isn't a matter of strength; it's a matter of Xena and not
Buffy following Newtonian mechanics. Most of the momentum of Buffy's
enormous strength directed through the tiny area of her fists
would result in broken bones and internal injuries of her victim
instead of almost all of it being directly transferred to the
other object (i.e., it's an inelastic collision, not an elastic
one.) If she picked someone up, she could send them flying, but
depicting that just by hitting them is heading to the absurd zone
of superman picking up a 747 by the tail with one hand, when in
reality he'd just tear the piece of the tail that he was gripping
off.
In either case, they're both fantasy so I give them a pass on
their physics as long as they're reasonably internally consistent.
I do have to give kudos to whoever did the research and board
work on the episode Supersymmetry though. I'm more rigorous about
science fiction and I still get the giggles every time I remember
the "baryon sweep" episode of Star Trek.
By the way, I love the term "Three Stooges Physics."
[> [> [> [> [> Of Laws, Sci-fi and Suspension
of Disbelief -- Majin Gojira, 22:37:51 07/31/04 Sat
Let me start with a fun link:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html - Cool
link with stuff on how to analyse sci-fi.
Whilst I agree with your second example (outside of the rarely-used
uppercuts for such instances), the first one doesn't work out
as well as it applies to the obseverd properties of an entity.
We don't know WHY wood goes through a Vampire's chest like a hot
knife through butter, it just does. Using that as an example is
like using the vampires themselves as proof of nonsensicality(sp?).
And sadly, they have concocted a method for Superman to do that:
Tactile Telekinesis. I kid you not. It may explain the "Toss"
effect from a straight punch, but the explination is so...clunky,
IMO, that I just don't like it.
And feel free to use the phrase "Three Stooges Physics"
whenever you want.
Humans whip divine ass
-- Solomon, 22:45:13 07/24/04 Sat
Something lots of people seem to miss when they make power heirarchies
for the buffy verse is this. The powers that be lost when they
were challenged by old ones and demons, they fled this world.
Humans have been fighting demons for at least 30,000 years now,
and we seem to be slowly winning.
Part of that may be that the PTB could run, but humans had no
place to run to so we had to give the fight our all while they
did not, but that alone is not a sufficent explanation.
Humans it would seem have some kind of innate superiority over
gods. The dialogue in the series (statments by Illirya and Knox
and Adam) would seem to indicate that humans are by nature more
creative than mystical beings and this makes a large difference.
Fire was specifically mentioned by knox and given that most demons
are highly flameable one can see how that would be something of
a superweapon.
Another adavtage may be love, The PTB have a benevolence towards
all of creation which would make it difficult for them to quickly
determine wheather the vamp or his meal is more worthy of life,
the old ones each stand alone. Only humans and impure demons develop
the kind of strong passionate bonds with others that allows them
to stick up for one another against hostile outsiders.
Finally their is the ability to compromise. Humans can make deals
with devils, getting one to help them against another. We can
assume they used this to great effect because the series implied
most of the old ones killed eachother. With the exception of Jasmine,
none of the powers that be showed even the slightest willingness
to get their hands dirty, let alone deal with any devils.
I am a free man; let gods tremble.
Replies:
[> Re: Humans whip divine ass -- Wizard, 23:42:26
07/24/04 Sat
I would disagree on some levels. Yes, humanity is horribly underestimated
by the demon population at large, but we are not above the Old
Ones or the PTB.
The Old Ones wiped each other out, and the greatly weakened survivors
did not react to the attacks of beings they considered lesser
until it was much too late to stop them. We were like mosquitoes
to them, and some of us spread the West Nile virus.
As for the PTB, it has been very strongly implied that they keep
their interference to a minimum in order to prevent humanity from
mindlessly attaching itself to them. Look at Jasmine, and how
humanity (well, human California- minus Sunnydale) reacted to
her. The PTB want us to develop on our own. They will be there
to help us when we need it, but they feel that we are past the
handholding stage. We are growing up, and a large part of doing
that is making mistakes and learning from them (to be fair, they
probably do err on the side of caution far too much). The PTB
surely lament how long we're taking to mature, but they let us
screw up anyway because they love us enough to let us be free
to grow up and make up our own damn minds. Jasmine just didn't
get that.
[> [> Time Scale -- dmw, 08:48:48 07/25/04 Sun
The Old Ones wiped each other out, and the greatly weakened
survivors did not react to the attacks of beings they considered
lesser until it was much too late to stop them. We were like mosquitoes
to them, and some of us spread the West Nile virus.
I suspect you're right about the Old Ones, and time scale is important.
I don't think humanity ever did or could have successfully taken
on the Old One civilization at its height, but if the Old Ones
are as ancient as Lovecraft's, they had time for many civilizations
and species to rise and fall before the advent of humanity. Humanity
likely met the demon equivalent of the dinosaur remnants after
the Chicxulub impact, not a globe spanning civilization of higher
(lower?) beings.
[> I do think that you're on to something -- BrianWilly,
02:20:09 07/26/04 Mon
Like Angel said, if the elder powers are so cool and awesome and
amazing and awesome and cool, why is it that they're doing nothing
at the moment except waiting? The dominent sentient lifeform
on the BuffyEarth is human, and no "hell on earth" speechifying
changes that fact. Mankind holds the cards; they may have stacked
the decks, but ultimately everything in the cosmic chess game
between the Powers That Be and the Senior Partners rests upon
whether the humans lean to good or to evil in the very end.
"The final score can't be rigged. I don't care how many
players you grease, that last shot always comes up a question
mark."
Why is it that every plan for conquer by the Big Bads have invariably
been foiled by very human means? No matter how much mystical dark
demonic heart energy is stuffed into her, if the series has shown
us anything in its seven years it's that the Slayer is just as
human as everyone else...and it was she, a product of humanity,
that "dropkicked the last demon out of this dimension"
and it was she who still successfully repelled the pale remnants
of the Old Ones: The Master, Acathla, Mayor Wilkins, Glorificus,
Proserpexa, The First.
The Powers That Be may wax poetic about allowing humans to fix
things for themselves, and yet they have inarguably played games
with the LA crew from the very beginning. Still, not even they
could stop Doyle and Cordelia's free will from messing with their
grand schemes. Jasmine used this free will to her advantage, to
crush it, and yet was eventually undone by it. Wolfram and Hart
controlled everything that the gang had except for their will,
and so ultimately controlled nothing at all. Again, the great
powers of the Buffyverse go on and on about how great they are
and how insignificant we are, and yet the two shows have shown
us again and again how we puny mortals are holding the real cheat
codes.
What car did Xander drive
in "Lessons"? -- Finn Mac Cool, 00:21:55 07/25/04
Sun
Normally I'm not the nit-picker type, but I'm currently writing
a fanfic, and the scene as I want to write it requires mentioning
the brand of car Xander drove. So, if anyone could just give me
a quick answer to that query, I'll be much obliged.
Replies:
[> Front end was a Chrysler - either a Concorde or a 300M
-- dlgood, 06:46:03 07/25/04 Sun
[> [> Thanks! -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:59:16 07/26/04
Mon
Destiny jack (Spoiler season
4) -- Kana, 07:52:39 07/25/04 Sun
This may seem like a simplistic question but so far no one has
given me a satisfactory answer. What exactly was being hijacked
in 'THAW'? Can you really take someones destiny? Aren't peoples
destiny's inextricably linked? As Lorne says to Angel, his friends
are part of his destiny, isn't true of others as well, it seemed
true of Buffy. She wouldn't have got as far she did without her
friends so her fate is subject to an extent of those around her.
Is there one force that be taken away so you don't have any direction?
Maybe i just didn't understand the episode, could someone explain
it to me?
Replies:
[> I wouldn't worry too much about anything in that mess
-- KdS, 08:33:41 07/25/04 Sun
[> Two theories on this -- Masq, 14:53:55 07/25/04
Sun
Are in my THAW
analysis
Book Melee - choose the next
selection thread -- Ann,
08:05:51 07/25/04 Sun
Hi everyone:
Here are the books/plays that have been suggested for the Aug
1 beginning read date of the second melee.
Book suggestions in order of posting and any seconding by posters:
Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh - dmw 16:40:39 07/07/04 Wed also Jane,
Sara TCH
Lord of the Flies - SaraJ aka Sara, 20:09:25 07/07/04 Wed also
Rob
Waiting for Godot - El Linchador 08:28:54 07/08/04 Thu, also CJL
Patricia Sullivan's 'Maul' - MsGiles 02:42:15 07/09/04 Fri
Reading Lolita in Tehran - Vickie. Authors discussed include:
Nabokov (Lolita and Pnin), James (Washington Square and Daisy
Miller), Fitzgerald (The Great Gatsby), and Austen (Pride and
Prejudice), among others. 21:43:18 07/10/04 Sat, also CJL
WAITING FOR GODOT - Samuel Beckett and/or
SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR - Luigi Pirandello
THE AMAZING ADVENTURES OF KAVALIER AND KLAY - Michael Chabon
THE LIFE OF PI (soon to be a major motion picture by M. Night
Shyalaman), (also Jane)
HOUSE OF SAUD, HOUSE OF BUSH - Craig Ungar (the source of a large
chunk of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11")
FAST FOOD NATION (for the Doublemeat Palace lover in all of us)
cjl 07:41:41 07/11/04 Sun
Anom "1984" 15:36:53 07/18/04 Sun
Masq Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment Wed, 21 Jul 2004 06:40:48
UT
Lunasea July 22- Sartre's play "No Exit, Camus' "The
Myth of Sisyphus," "The Stranger", play "Caligula."
Ann: Foucault's Pendulum by Unberto Eco (it is time for a reread
and it is hugely funny), Nausea by Sartre, Julian Barnes: A History
of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters (1989)
These are the books that have been suggested so far. Please choose
the one you would like to do next and list a few more for future
melees. I will tally votes and we will have the next choice and
perhaps the one after that. Since we are in play mode that may
or may not be a pattern to follow. A suggestion I do have is that
we consider cost. Not everyone can afford to spend money on a
hardback. Libraries probably do have copies but it may need to
be a consideration.
Let me know what you would like to read next and continue to post!!
Thanks everyone.
Ann
Replies:
[> "Lord of the Flies" -- Sara, who's planning
on voting early and often..., 17:42:52 07/25/04 Sun
oh wait, I'm not in Chicago anymore, am I?
I'll read whatever people choose, unless it's about a serial killer,
but I'd like to make a caution against political books. The quirks
of this form of communication makes political discussions somewhat
dangerous. If we do choose a book with strong political content
we should be very sensitive to other people's views and sensitivities.
I can't wait to see what we pick! I always look forward to a good
melee!
[> Lord of the Flies -- ladyhelix, 16:32:18 07/28/04
Wed
They all sound great - and I look forward to reading whatever
is picked, but a guy I work with is constantly comparing our workplace
to the island in the Lord of the Flies - and I've been meaning
to read it.
Reading it as part of the Melee would be even MORE fun!! Maybe
I can get him to join us!
Thanks again Ann!
[> Lord of the Flies -- LadyStarlight, 05:27:48 07/29/04
Thu
I can't think of any others for later -- but would like to cast
a runner-up vote for Reading Lolita in Tehran.
[> FYI / Update -- Ann, 05:40:20 07/30/04 Fri
Hi all: I guess we are going with Lord of the Flies unless you
all want to continue voting while I am on vacation for the next
two weeks.
Am I rushing you along?
I had assumed a Aug 1 start read date for the next selection but
if that is too quick, we can wait. I am a very benevolent dictator
queen of the melee I believe!
So unless I hear otherwise in the next three hours, we will go
with LotF.
[> [> Ummm -- Tchaikovsky, 07:41:05 07/30/04 Fri
Well I have a love-hate relationship with 'Lord of the Flies',
but I'd like to explain at further length, so I'd be happy for
the Queen to 'declare' the choice!
TCH
[> [> [> Declaration !! [posted on the board doors]
-- Queen Ann, 09:37:49 07/30/04 Fri
Declaration of the Melee Queen:
We declare the next installment of the 2004 Book Melee to be [da
da da daaaa] "Lord of the Flies"!
Now I am going to tour one of the Dominions and will return forthwith.
Read on! (And post too!)
[> [> [> [> Incidentally, -- Tchaikovsky, 16:54:08
07/30/04 Fri
you Republicans (British not American usage), do realise that
Queen Anne died in 1714 don't you? So arguably the Book Melee
has been bereft of a monarch for near 300 years. Though it's only
one and a half years old, so figure that one out.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Queen Sara....? -- Masq,
18:36:05 07/30/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> Queen Elizabeth... -- an_old_one,
19:38:39 07/30/04 Fri
although not having participated in the melee so far, will be
pleased to address the issue of Piggy in the next installment...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> To address both these issues
-- Tchaikovsky, 16:37:07 07/31/04 Sat
The Queen Sara is a no-brainer. Sara was the original Book Melee
Goddess! I'm told some Republicans are theists!
Perhaps Elizabeth is monarch elect or summat.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> heehee, some of us get
it, o majestic dubdub! -- anom, 20:43:07 08/05/04 Thu
Dru and Angelus -- Kana,
08:09:45 07/25/04 Sun
As part of my Fan fic about the former CoW student, i was planning
to do a flashback displaying the way Angelus tortured Drusilla
back in the day. Is there anything signifcant I should know about
the two between the time Dru was vamped and the time Spike was
made(Speaking of Spike I've got a rather strange question about
him which i'm going to put in a another thread.)
I'm planning to have Dru translate some of that torture on to
my character (His name is Cam).
Replies:
[> What we know... -- KdS, 08:24:44 07/25/04 Sun
We haven't seen a great deal of this period on the show. We know
from The Girl in Question that there were no Aus/Dar/Dru
threesomes (very disappointing for some people). In Darla
Dru complains that Angelus never pays her any attention, which
makes some sense (Angelus quite possibly wouldn't enjoy it if
the other person was getting off.)
Spike -- Kana, 08:24:16
07/25/04 Sun
I can't imagine how William the shy poet working out so i was
wondering can Vampires work out to get their body defined?
Replies:
[> I'd have thought so -- KdS, 08:35:56 07/25/04
Sun
Spike talks about turning into skin and bone in Pangs and
Angel's figure certainly seems to fluctuate a bit.
I know that some canons describe vampires as physically utterly
"frozen" after their turning, but there's no hint of
it in the Jossverse.
[> [> Re: I'd have thought so -- LittleBit [laughing],
14:49:02 07/25/04 Sun
Thank heaven they aren't physically 'frozen' at the time of vamping.
If they were we'd have to see bad Liam hair and bad William hair!
[> [> [> Re: I'd have thought so -- s'kat, 15:19:33
07/25/04 Sun
The whole physically frozen at the time of vamping idea may have
come from the Anne Rice novels, which Whedon seemed to get a kick
out of making fun of. Buffy did start at the height of Rice's
vampire series popularity, the mid-nineties.
[> [> [> [> Some freezing does happen in the Buffyverse...
-- SS, 16:03:27 07/25/04 Sun
What about that kid in the beginning of Buffy...what was he called,
the annointed one?
Wasnt he a frozen vamp kid?
:)
SS
[> [> [> [> [> Vampires should freeze --
dmw, 16:45:30 07/25/04 Sun
Since Initiative patrols measured vampires as being at room temperature,
vampires should freeze if kept at temperatures below 0C for any
length of time. It probably won't kill them, but it would effectively
disable them. They'd make interesting statues if you could store
them in a transparent freezer for display.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires should freeze
-- Ames, 08:12:40 07/26/04 Mon
Ha ha, very funny. But yes, vampsicles would be interesting.
What about Angel's appearance when Wes dredged him up from the
bottom of the sea after months with no blood to drink? He didn't
look emaciated. Even if he were in some sort of low-metabolism
trance state, he should be pretty much wasted away if vamps could
show such an effect.
I guess we have to admit that it's more about the practical realities
of working with real actors. Although personally in the above
situation I would have gone with a Lifeforce-type
CGI showing Angel as a horrific emaciated living husk who immediately
siezes the first available human and drinks to restore his body.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires should
freeze -- dmw, 14:20:03 07/26/04 Mon
Although personally in the above situation I would have gone
with a Lifeforce-type CGI showing Angel as a horrific emaciated
living husk who immediately siezes the first available human and
drinks to restore his body.
That would've been exciting and verify Spike's living skeletons
comment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> vampires ARE
dead, but., biologically speaking... -- ghady, 10:27:08
07/28/04 Wed
... they function as though they were alive. They heal, which
involves mitosis (cell-division), which--since they're dead--could
be maintained by the demon inside them. They also FEEL, which
shows that their nervous system (and thus neurons) function normally.
So: their skin cells function and grow, their never cells function,
and even the cells of their visceral organs function (healing),
so it makes perfect sense that their muscle cells should also
grow and become more active like ours do upon exercise.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some freezing does happen
in the Buffyverse... -- LadyStarlight, 18:57:14 07/25/04
Sun
I think what the "freezing" entails is in terms of aging
and growing. So that body size (musculature, etc) could change
but not the appearance of a child vamp.
Theories on Andrew --
Katie, 06:18:54
07/26/04 Mon
I was watching reruns of Buffy season 7 and realized that Andrew
is always complementing Xander on, well, everything. He lip-sank
Anya's parts on the tape in "Storyteller" and went all
teary-eyed after it was done and Xander had said some touching
things, then rewound it again to Buffy and Prin. Wood barging
in on him and he quickly turned it off. He always seemed so smitten
with Xander....is there a chance Andrew's gay, or am I just crazy?
Replies:
[> I think rather -- Seven, 07:37:21 07/26/04 Mon
There are other explanations. Andrew envied people quite a bit.
This wasn't your normal kind of envy, though. He more likely saw
what some real people werel like and wanted to be them or began
to love them very much. For example, Andrew worshiped Warren because
he simply had a mischevious, criminal mind, something Andrew apparently
at the time aspired to be. He genuninly respected anyone with
authority (Willow, Buffy)
I think that Andrew's "attraction" to Xander was more
attuned to the fact that Xander was what Andrew was aspiring to
be, or at least what Andrew thought that he was capable of being.
While in all honesty, the semi-gay undertones were only done for
comedic effect, it could also be because, to be Xander, to help
out in the completly human way that he does, was Andrew's most
viable option to him at the time. Storyteller was mainly about
where Andrew was at the time. He had to stop creating stories
and start looking at life realisticly. He no longer aspired to
be a Warlock (fighting darkwillow) or an evil trio member, he
wanted to help in any way, and Xander showed a way to do that.
Also, Andrew is extremely emotional. that was part of his charm
(if you liked him) Seeing Andrew realize that he is an adult was
his story.
Although, if there was to be more of the Buffyverse, I would love
a reveal that Andrew is gay, with him saying something like, "Duh,
yeah OBVIOUSLY I'm gay."
[> [> Andrew the role-player (minor spoiler for AtS S5
Damage) -- Pip, 09:26:05 07/26/04 Mon
I think that Andrew's "attraction" to Xander was
more attuned to the fact that Xander was what Andrew was aspiring
to be,
I'd go with that. Andrew's a role-player. He picks other people
as role-models, and tries to copy them. Sometimes the people he
picks are imaginary creations. Look at him copying Tom Cruise
in Mission Impossible in S6 Smashed. As well as
Xander, he also hero-worshipped Spike in BtVS S7 and AtS S5 Damage.
Spike was another role he could play; the person who'd done evil
things but had now turned good.
Not that learning by playing a role is bad; watch small kids -
they play 'let's imitate the adults' all the time. But there were
a couple of hints in BtVS that Andrew was something of a lost
boy - the in-joke of Andrew being Tucker's brother, the only relative
he can call in jail being an Aunt who doesn't even bother to return
the call. Plus Buffy's comment in S7 that Andrew wasn't evil,
just absorbed the flavour of those around him. They suggest a
situation where Andrew's parents are either dead, or he's been
taken away from them for some reason. Andrew's looking for role-models
to show him how to be an adult, but the ones he finds first are
the bad ones.
Once he finds these male role-models, he hero-worships them for
a time, imitates them as far as he can. Not necessarily quite
the same as being gay. Though like Seven I'd love to get a reveal
that Andrew is gay.
[> [> [> Excellent Point on Andrew -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
11:56:08 07/26/04 Mon
[> [> [> I'd say it's conclusively proven -- KdS,
14:09:36 07/26/04 Mon
By the fact that he totally ignores Willow and Kennedy making
out on the sofa in favour of Xander's woodwork, without missing
a beat in his pan. OK, there's politeness, but that would be superhuman.
[> [> [> [> Dude, half the people on this board
turned away . . . -- d'Herblay, 21:57:40 07/26/04 Mon
. . . whenever Kennedy was on-screen.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dude, half the people on
this board turned away . . . -- Katie, 06:07:45 07/30/04
Fri
I loved Kennedy though, I believe her relationship with Willow
was just what Willow needed to really get over Tara's death (RIP
to Tara)..... I still think Andrew's gay, though. I guess it's
one of those things that we'll just never know.....
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, another Kennedy lover,
er... liker -- Masq, 16:08:51 08/02/04 Mon
I think Kennedy's hot, personally, but then I have atrocious taste
in women. I prefer Willow with Tara, but dead girls are so much
less fun than the living.
I suppose it would have been better if Willow had taken a little
more time out to grieve Tara (sob!Itwastruelove,I'mtellingyou,TRUELOVE!),
but I don't dislike Kennedy.
I'm glad Willow has her now, later, after the fact.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, another Kennedy
lover, er... liker -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 12:54:01 08/03/04
Tue
That line about dead girls being more fun than living is both
funny & truthful.
I agree about Kennedy. Yes, it would have been better to have
Tara back (Why Amber Benson? Why? Note to be read in voice of
mock horror) and yes, it would have been better to spend more
time with Willow's grief but that pesky end-of-the-show thing
was coming up.
My wife once remarked how much Kennedy (& Rhona, the two most
hated of SITs) remind her of the young Buffy. As she said, do
you really think the high school sophmore Buffy would really listen
to this strident & remote twenty-one year old Buffy? It's a nice
point on perspective, I think.
[> Re: Theories on Andrew -- Greg
Deocampo, 11:15:22 07/26/04 Mon
I think it is implied if not explicit that Andrew is closeted
(indeed he may not be "out" to himself, let alone his
community). His reaction to Warren's ditching of him and Jonathan
was that of a jilted lover, not a betrayed co-conspirator. He
also seemed more interested in Spike than Anya when discovering
their unintended webcam porn. In addition to his effinate mannerisms,
he wound up living with all those super cute potential Slayers,
and yet, no obsessive crush, no hooking up, no Slayerette fantasies...Andrew's
gay. Personally, I like the character quite a lot, hope he's doing
well. That's my $0.02.
[> Re: Theories on Andrew -- Tyreseus, 14:49:40 07/30/04
Fri
I was certainly one of the people who loved Andrew's ambiguous
sexual orientation, and I was always kinda hoping he'd come out.
But I'd have to agree with the other posters here who suggest
that this was mostly done for comic effect. Unfortunately, the
last we ever saw of Andrew was during "The Girls in Question"
and he seems pretty darn straight...
Unless you suppose, as I did, that the two gorgeous girls on his
arms at the end are his "fag hags." In which case, the
question is still open.
The P.C. in me compells me to point out that Andrew may, in fact,
be bisexual with a slight tendency toward men but perfectly capable
of being in relationships with women.
what shows, other than B&A,
focus on... -- ghady, 11:32:04 07/26/04 Mon
...long story arcs? i cannot think of any, though i'm SURE there
are.. how do these arcs differ (conceptually) from those of B&A?
Replies:
[> The big comparison -- KdS, 14:01:43 07/26/04 Mon
Is Babylon 5, which was plotted from the beginning as a
five-season story, although it didn't entirely work out (a delay
in authorising the fifth season meant that more was included in
the fourth than planned, and the fifth was a little threadbare.)
[> 24....different because everything is supposed to happen
in 24 hours....:) -- SS, 14:09:13 07/26/04 Mon
[> Re: what shows, other than B&A, focus on... --
Gyrus, 14:10:40 07/26/04 Mon
24 comes to mind; each plot lasts a season, and plot elements
frequently carry over from one season to the next.
[> [> Jinks, Gyrus! :) :) :) -- SS, 14:16:02 07/26/04
Mon
[> [> [> I guess I owe you a cyber-Coke. :) --
Gyrus, 06:53:55 07/27/04 Tue
[> B5, 24, Alias, ... -- dmw, 14:18:26 07/26/04 Mon
KdS is right that Babylon 5 is the ultimate long story arc. Several
episodes that seem unconnected in season 1 (and one in particular)
have big payoffs as late as season 3.
24 is a counterterrorism series offers year long arcs that are
more closely connected than any other series, since they all happen
within a single day.
Alias is an espionage series with year long arcs with about Buffy's
level of cohesion, but with stronger connections between seasons.
Some series have used long arcs for only part of the series, like
Charmed, which improved by adding good season long arcs in seasons
3 and 4, then gave up them up afterwards. Deep Space 9 attempted
to emulate B5's arcs with its war against the shapechangers, but
would introduce irrelevant standalones at random times, so I was
never able to maintain enough interest to follow it (and it was
before I had TiVo, where I can keep a season of TV to watch after
the year's over, deleting the bad episodes.) Farscape has some
great 3- and 4-part episodes, which are often connected to each
other, but doesn't make the entire season an arc.
I'm not sure that anyone else follows the Buffy
Formula in its entirety.
[> [> Actually, re: Farscape, there are long-term story
arcs... -- Rob, 14:49:04 07/26/04 Mon
Each season has a main story arc, and although there are standalones,
if you look at each season as a whole, they are very meticulously
plotted, perhaps with the exception of the second season, which
was mostly composed of mini-arcs, with one major one mostly hiding
in the background until the end.
Other story arc-driven shows: Xena, Twin Peaks, Dark Angel, X-Files
(although there are a lot of unconnected standalones), Now and
Again (great superhero/scifi/comedy/family drama though it only
lasted a season), and the aforementioned Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine.
Rob
[> I think The 4400 is this way -- Lunasea, 16:11:56
07/26/04 Mon
Each week focuses on one of the 4400 (similar to Buffy's monster
of the week), but I'm getting the feeling that there is this wonderful
arc over/under it all. It has the same theme as Buffy/Angel (alienation),
but instead of one superhero that is misunderstood, there are
potentially 4400. Francis Ford Copolla is executive producer and
the production values equal, if not surpass, Buffy/Angel. Since
it is on USA and not a netlet, it has a better chance of not being
canceled quickly.
It's my new Buffy and I wasn't really planning on replacing the
Buffyverse with anything.
[> [> Would agree 4400 is a good show. So is Nip/Tuck.
-- s'kat, 18:25:54 07/26/04 Mon
Both are my current quilty pleasures.
The 4400 is on USA at 9pm on Sundays, sort of the X-Files meets
Taken, and I don't tend to like alien abduction stories, but this
one is very character driven, with an arc and a stand-alone combo.
Also very morally ambiguous, it doesn't preach to you, you make
up your own mind. Followed by The Dead Zone, also quite good,
I actually enjoy it as much if not more than the original film.
Nip/Tuck is on F/X, an adult show, R-rated, at 10 pm.
Very dark and gritty. Great anti-hero in Christian Troy.
And an excellent set of four characters. Also a combo of standalone
and serial.
[> [> Space channel will show 4400 this fall. --
Jane, 17:41:21 08/09/04 Mon
Just saw it on the fall lineup. Think I'll check it out.
[> [> [> Just watched the whole series the other day...
-- Rob, 18:41:09 08/09/04 Mon
Excellent show. Really lived up to its potential, IMO. I'm hoping
it gets picked up as a regular series, or at least a sequel miniseries.
Rob
[> Let's not forget... -- Seven, 19:24:01 07/26/04
Mon
The Shield.
I've talked about the show before and even gave a brief description
of the main characters and thier arcs in an archived post from
a couple months ago.
The season arcs are different, mostly pushed by the characters,
but there is definatly some seasonal arciness. The show could
be argued to be about numerous things, but the first thing that
comes to mind right now would be power. Who has it and how do
they go about acquiring, keeping and using it? Who's method is
best? Macky's bending the rules till they break? Acevada's political
aspirations? or Claudette's by-the-book mentality? those are the
extremes, the other characters lie somewhere in the middle.
[> Don't forget just about anything anime -- Finn Mac
Cool, 20:48:08 07/26/04 Mon
Japanese cartoons, with very few exceptions, rely heavily on the
arc structure. Many have a really large story that stretches throughout
most, if not all, of the series. And. even those that don't, still
often use multiple episodes even when telling standalone stories
(for example, they might spend four episodes on one storyline,
then five on the next).
"Smallville" also has, in my opinion, a pretty strong
arc going: it concerns the rivalry and twisted relationship between
Lex Luthor and his father, Lionel Luthor, with many of the little
battles in their fight centering either around Clark (a.k.a. the
teenage Superman) or the villains he faces. While the series does
use a lot of stand alone episodes, since the second season most
of these have at least included two or three scenes which develop
the Luthor arc (plus, when the arc does get episodes devoted to
it, they tend to be above par in quality).
Personally, I don't place quite as much value on arcs as you seem
to. My general preference is for characters and their interactions
to develop across a series of stand alone episodes (take the "Buffy"
episode "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" for example; the
threat of the invisible girl is introduced and dealt with entirely
within the episode, but the relationships between the characters
aren't the same at the end of the ep as they were at the beginning,
and this change carries over into the next episode). There are
three occasions where arcs tend to appeal to me, though:
1) An arc which heavily ties into a character's development (such
as the Angelus storyline, or the Mayor arc after Faith joined
him).
2) A mystery. Keeping the audience guessing as you dole out clues
and revelations over the season is one area where arcs have the
definite advantage over standalones.
3) Sub-plots leading up to a big episode. For example, great episodes
like "Prophecy Girl" or "Graduation Day" probably
wouldn't have been nearly as good if the situation had to be entirely
set up within the episode. Taking a few scenes out of some episodes,
and maybe even one or two whole episodes, to establish a situation
can be good if the event they set up is worthwhile.
The sort of arc I don't like is one that really only seems to
be one story stretched out across more episodes than it deserves.
I'm currently watching the anime "Wolf's Rain", and,
while the storyline is intriguing and there are several good episodes,
a lot of the time I wait a week to see a new episode only for
almost nothing to happen. If you can tell a story in six episodes,
don't spread it out over twenty two, just make those six episodes
and then either move on or stop where you are.
[> [> character relations -- ghady, 05:14:46 07/27/04
Tue
I completely agree with you. I generally like arcs much more if
they have this IMMENSE effect on character development and the
like. The Buffy and Angel arcs have that, but, IMHO, no season
arc affected characters more than that of AS4; there was not ONE
happy moment in that season, and the effect of that darkness on
the characters was brilliantly executed. Also, AS4, to me, was
like a big mystery the viewer always knew as much as the Angel
Investigations team did, and almost NOTHING was revealed to US
alone and not to THEM; we were always on the same page.
The reason I tend to appreciate arcs more than standalones is
that I feel that having a looming threat hanging over your head
for a long time greatly affects characters; it brings the entire
experience to a whole new level, and augments the realism; actions
DO have long-term consequences in arcs, something that we see
much less of in standalones, where the plot is USUALLY resolved
in 40 minutes.
But still there are shows that, albeit MOSTLY standalone, develop
characters w/ such skill it's admirable. Xena comes to mind, which
is why I was instantly hooked on it; the main characters were
REAL and developed and evolved in VERY real ways even though there
was no big story; the villains, however, with the exception of
Callisto, were usually very one-dimensional and were defeated
in one episode, which is a downside. There was still intense moral
ambiguity, which, thankfully, added to the appeal of the show.
The only time I will NOT like a story arc is if it's just there
for no reason, replete with all these plot devices, and if the
writers throw all these events at us without them affecting or
being affected by the actions of the main characters. I also tend
to cringe when the writers just come up with things on the spot,
whereas they could have easily used an already established plot
device: for instance, Willow s apocalypse and the whole Satanic
Temple thing. I LOATHED that idea, for the mere fact that if there
were a way to end the world OTHER than opening the hell mouth,
DEMONS WOULD HAVE TRIED IT BY NOW! I HATED the writers for coming
up with THAT idea. To make the events seem more realistic, they
just should ve said that Willow s gonna open the Hellmouth, or
that she s going to make Glory s portal open again. But I digress.
So: arcs are good when they affect characters; arcs are bad when
they seem too stretched and have barely any (or unrealistic) impact
on characters (IMHO).
[> [> [> Sure there was -- Lunasea, 08:48:29
07/27/04 Tue
that of AS4; there was not ONE happy moment in that season,
Or else we wouldn't have had Angelus. Where would the fun in that
be? He looked like he was having a blast taunting The Beast and
Faith.
Also I'm pretty sure Connor was happy a few times while bopping
Cordy. You don't get that puppy dog look if you aren't happy.
And EVERYONE was happy while under Jasmine's thrall or else leaving
it wouldn't have been so painful.
There were tender moments between Fred and Gunn in "Deep
Down." Gunn got to shag Gwen. I'd say that was pretty happy.
Faith found her place in the universe. Wesley got to kiss Fred.
Angel was happy at the end seeing his son happy.
Lots of happy MOMENTS, just not sustained for long.
[> [> [> I don't think that the Satanic Temple thingy
-- BrianWilly, 18:31:16 07/29/04 Thu
...Was that much more of a plot-stretch than Acathla swallowing
the world in season 2. Sure, it was a pretty last-minute twist,
but in a way it was a lot "harder" than Acathla because
not just any old demon could have done it...she had to unearth
the whole temple from completely below the earth and then channel
the lifeforce of the planet through herself and into it. No simple
parlor trick, that.
[> Pretty much any hour-long drama . . . -- d'Herblay,
21:55:32 07/26/04 Mon
. . . produced on the model of the early '80s pacesetters Hill
Street Blues and St. Elsewhere will have long story
arcs, or at least character arcs, which reward vigilant viewing
and leave casual watchers confused. I think at one point St.
Elsewhere had a very important moment that made sense only
to those who remembered a character that had appeared four seasons
earlier. Now some of the story arcs could last as few as three
or four episodes, but there were often elements that played out
over multiple seasons -- and the growth and change of the individual
characters was always stressed. So many quality dramas qualify.
I'd say that ER, NYPD Blue, The West Wing
all contain long plot arcs; I wouldn't say the same for Law
& Order though. My general definition for arciness is whether
or not one can watch the episodes of a series out of order without
losing one's place. It's important to remember who Nurse Hathaway
is dating during any given point in ER; I never have to
worry about this with Lennie Briscoe.
Several shows have even implemented the Buffy/Angel
plot arc with a "Big Bad" who is defeated in the season
finale. The Shield, 24 and Alias have all
been mentioned. I would throw in Wiseguy as a notable (perhaps
originating) adherent to this formula. The first season of Murder
One followed a single murder trial from crime to punishment.
Homicide introduced big bads for each of its fifth and
sixth seasons -- much to its detriment, in my opinion.
Of course, Hill Street Blues was known as a "soap
opera with cops," and a history of shows with plot arcs would
be incomplete without mentioning that genre, whether we're talking
about prime-time or daytime shows. (Soap parodied this
technique relentlessly, having long arcs involving murder trials,
child-custody battles, alien abduction, etc.)
And since we're on the subject, more and more comedies
these days have long plot arcs. I've always thought that Friends
made a better soap opera than it did a sitcom. It's probably easier
to point to shows that don't use arcing plots -- I'll kick
things off with The Simpsons . . .
[> [> Re: Pretty much any hour-long drama . . . --
Mr Bananagrabber, 22:32:03 07/26/04 Mon
David Greenwalt & (I believe) Joss Whedon have both talked about
Wiseguy as influening the seasonal arc nature of Buffy. The first
season of that show is absolutely amazing.
Good mention of Homicide, as well. I agree that the intro of the
Mahonneys as 'Big Bads' was a detriment to the show.
[> Just a quick driveby to add another one -- manwitch,
11:38:44 07/27/04 Tue
Joss has also specifically mentioned as a strong influence on
him Masterpiece Theatre. I believe particularly Upstairs Downstairs,
but the whole ilk. Obviously, they have strong extended arcs because
they're a single story.
In a way, this connection is one of the strongest, not just because
of the allusion in Storyteller, but because Masterpiece Theatre
is dramatizations of works of literature, and Buffy is written
much more in that way than as a TV series. Even most of the other
shows that have extended plot archs tend to evolve from the start,
but not really with a set direction. When dramatizing a work of
literature, by contrast, the end is known, at least in general
terms, when one begins to write. One knows exactly where one is
taking the audience. Not only are Buffy's season arcs very strong,
but all of them together make a single arc whose destination is
foretold throughout the series and was always the ultimate goal,
even if the realization of it was not defined at the outset. The
Shield, for example, has no idea where it wants to be in Season
7, or how many seasons its story arc will be. That's not meant
as a dig. Most shows just run along, remembering plot points that
came in earlier episodes. They know what kinds of characters or
themes they want to explore, perhaps. But Buffy knows its characters'
entire journey at the outset. At least to the degree that the
authors know where they want Buffy to end up, and what lessons
they want her to learn. There's an underlying coherent structure
not just to each season arc, but to the series as a whole. Its
a very sophisticated and finite piece of literature that just
happens to be presented visually. Which I think is also why it
has the depth it has and sparks such things as "Buffy studies"
when other long arc shows do not.
Personally I just see Buffy as a single story that took seven
years to tell. Its like a 144 episode Masterpiece Theatre. I think
shows other than miniseries or Masterpiece Theatreses will always
be at a disadvantage when compared to Buffy. When a show is just
unfolding it is inevitable that there will be characters, episodes,
perhaps whole subplots that ultimately make little or no contribution
to where the series ends up. A single story with a planned end
will waste less space. An argument can be made that Buffy contains
no superfluous episodes. And I can only think of one episode about
which it can be argued it detracted from the story, and that's
Amends. Not my argument, but I get it. There might be others.
Even the episodes you don't like very much, by and large you have
to admit they are part of the story. There's a lot of Xena episodes
that, while entertaining, are just extra.
Well, whatever. Just some thoughts. Don't take them too seriously.
Gotta go to an appointment. I'll post this anyways. Not meaning
to bash anything.
[> [> Six. Feet. Under. *dies of love for show* --
AngelVSAngelus, 14:02:42 07/29/04 Thu
Alan Ball is one of my screenwriting heroes I want to be like
when I REALLY grow up.
[> [> [> "Six Feet Under": The only show
on television that I love completely equally to "Buffy."
-- Rob, 07:19:56 07/30/04 Fri
And it even beats "Buffy" in one respect: as of it yet,
it still hasn't had a single bad episode. Some are better than
others, but there has never been one that you would be embarassed
to show to a non-fan. "Buffy," unfortunately, has had
a few of those.
Also have to mention re: story arcs that SFU has meticulous plot
continuity. In fact, it has never had a single continuity error,
which I can say with some authority, since in doing transcripts
of the episodes for my website, I have cross-checked every episode
of the first two seasons and the first five of the third (so far),
and noticed no problems with the rest of the third season or beginning
of the fourth. One example: In the latest episode, episode 6 of
season 4, Nate mentions having had a dog when he was a child,
but that when the dog died, his mother never got another one.
This was a reference to information learned in the third episode
of season three, "The Eye Inside." Like "Buffy,"
it will drop references to events from other episodes that will
go over the non-hardcore fan's head, but make the insane fans,
who pay attention to every detail, very happy.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: "Six Feet Under": The
only show on television that I love completely equally to "Buffy."
-- Mr Bananagrabber, 15:26:05 08/01/04 Sun
While I disagree with you on SFU (the recent David plotline strikes
me as breathtaking in it's narrative desperation), I think it
should be said that SFU has shown around 42 episodes at ths point
to BTVS's 144, and that SFU is made under remarkably different
circumstances (not so much language/nudity but the ability to
complete a whole season before screening & such) that I think
make comparing cable & broadcast TV kinda dicey in general.
Gotta love the run-on sentence.:)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Six Feet Under"
(S3/S4 spoilers) -- Rob, 16:17:25 08/01/04 Sun
the recent David plotline strikes me as breathtaking in it's
narrative desperation
I thought it was bold, daring, horrific, and brilliant, and particularly
adore not so much the attack itself, but the fall-out from that.
And what it is saying about each character, and the themes of
the show in general. Each season, the characters of the show are
forced to deal with death on a personal basis, beyond the numbing
effect the job can have on them. The first season had them coping
with Nathaniel, Sr.'s death, the second had Nate confronting his
own mortality with his AVM condition, the third had them coping
with Lisa's disappearance and death, and in the fourth the main
driving force of the season is David's near-death experience.
The most important scene in the entire season thus far (and arguably
the entire series) was where David's life flashed before his eyes
at the end of that episode, a theme which carried into the next
in the brilliant scene between he and Claire, where he, a very
religious man, is distraught that he forgot to pray when his life
was in danger, and Claire, an atheist, tells him that God saved
him anyway. It's moments like that, where the characters can bring
out the humanity in the other characters, that are the series'
most sublime, and what make me adore it so much. Also, again the
main theme of life in the face of death is underlined. Personally,
I think the David storyline is the smartest thing the series has
done since the second season finale. But you're not alone in disliking
the episode, which was the show's most polarizing in its fourth
season. Response at all messageboards I went to was split pretty
much 50/50 right down the middle, with one side leaving "Best
Episode Ever!" posts and the other side "Worst Episode
Ever!" posts, and with people arguing passionately on both
sides.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Six Feet Under"
(S3/S4 spoilers) -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 09:36:39 08/02/04
Mon
Nice paragraph. I will have to see how the season unfolds to see
if you have swayed me on this one. I was probably trying to be
too cute with the whole 'breathtaking' line but as I watched the
David-gets-tortured sequence, I was torn between admiring it's
wonderful excruciating queasiness & thinking that if you need
random pyschos to attack your cast in order to jump-start storylines
then you may be out of ideas. This probably comes out of my general
frustration with SFU which is it's slackness in dealing with it's
major theme of (as you nicely put it)'life in the face of death'.
I have no idea what Rico's now epic portrait of male passivity
has to do with it or what the remarkably smug portrait of Claire's
artistic quest has to do with it. The plotline that has held me
this season is Nate's herculean battle with grief which is tied
directly into the show's theme.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Six Feet
Under" (S3/S4 spoilers) -- Rob, 22:27:59 08/02/04
Mon
I have no idea what Rico's now epic portrait of male passivity
has to do with it or what the remarkably smug portrait of Claire's
artistic quest has to do with it.
No time to really write at the moment, but in short-hand, Rico's
current situation has to do with his religious background. As
it was revealed earlier in the season when Rico visited the priest
and his strange dream where Sophia and he traded places as Jesus
and Vanessa appeared as a mix of both Marys, it's a major heap
o' Catholic guilt, compounded with his sexual feelings for Sophia,
and so the guilt continued. In a less direct way, this deals with
life in the face of death, or more particularly his religious
feelings conflicting or messing with his everyday life.
Claire, who had been floundering, was arguably the Fisher most
affected by the attack on David, on a personal basis. Even before
she learned the full truth about his "carjacking," she
was the most empathetic, and was inspired to create artwork, and
to write "Terror Starts at Home" (also the name of the
episode) on her wall. The full discovery of what had happened
to him and her time spent "babysitting" him even more
inspired her to try to live life to the fullest. Had David not
been attacked, I wonder whether she would have been experimenting
with Edie to the extent that she is. Claire's artistic journey,
though, I have always seen as being about life in the face of
death. After all, she started her photography hobby by taking
photos of the corpses in the funeral home, inspired by this with
the need to have a meaningful, full, artistic life, to make a
difference in the world.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Six
Feet Under" (S3/S4 spoilers) -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 11:30:59
08/03/04 Tue
First thing first, you may want to grab a copy of this week's
New York magazine as there is a column in it concerning "That's
My Dog". It is written by the always great Emily Nussbaum
(her 'Re-Run' column in the Sunday Times is a true must-read)
and features a couple of quotes from the show's director & writers.
Solid points on your part but much as I wish I could, I can't
go with you on them. Rico's plotline is barely teethered (if it
all) to what the show's about and by now, it's just gone on forever
(it's too shallow emotionally to have dragged on for half a season)
although it looks like we may finally be getting somewhere with
it.
Claire. Oh, Claire. Love the character. Adore the actress. Haven't
enjoyed anything Ball & Co. have done with her. Claire's artistic
journey seemed like a great idea but it's mostly been used for
taking endlessly cheap & snide shots at young artists' pretentions,
which is like shooting whales in a barrel (get it, they're bigger
than fish). I do see your point about the artisitic journies connection
to death (her funeral home photos obviously signifying that) but
I never bought the plotline because the writers seem more interested
in smug, albeit accurate, jokes for all us former liberal arts
majors. I want to see Claire struggle. I want to see Claire breakthrough.
I want to see Claire meet a real artist. I want everyone she meets
to stop being a complete jerk (although Edie may break that up).
But mostly, I want to feel the show be as interested in her as
it is Nate & David.
In a lot of ways, I think how we (as in anybody) feels about SFU
comes down to whether you feel that the Fishers & Co. businesss
connection (interestingly suggested by HBO & not Ball) death gives
all the plotlines a heightened meaning and signifigance or if
you think this is a high-tone soap opera dressed up with a death
fetish to give it depth. I watch the show every week torn between
those two point of views.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Six
Feet Under" (S3/S4 spoilers) -- Rob, 16:29:33 08/08/04
Sun
I personally like Claire's journey and how it is being depicted,
but obviously that's all subjective.
But just to be a tad bit nitpicky:
I want to see Claire meet a real artist.
She has, or at least she has met real artists, in the world of
the show. Billy Chenowith was the first. Besides that, she met
Olivier Castro-Staal, his friend (can't remember the character's
name, but he is the one who had homeless people wipe their asses
on the American flag), and the painter Fiona Kleinschmidt (the
woman who "deflowered" Nate when he was 15.) Unless
you meant "real" artists as in actual, living artists
playing themselves. In which case please ignore this post. :)
Rob
the other day i imagined this (PLUS ideas
for a story i'm writing after the imagination thing): -- ghady,
12:57:56 07/27/04 Tue
i was the slayer.. yes, yes, i am well-aware that i'm a guy, but
it's my fantasy, so scew the whole "slayers have no Y chromosomes"
stuff (slayers can be BOTH over here!!). and there was also another
slayer, cuz it's my fantasy, and in my fantasy there are LEGIONS
of slayers, not bcs of what happened in Chosen, but bcs i don't
belive that a chosen "ONE" would work in reality. so,
i acted this out w/, er, the air (note: these are just the "key"
pts):
So, i'm at this clothes store w/ a couple of my friends. Suddenly,
i stop and hold them back. I close my eyes, and almost immediately
i jump back and catch an arrow in mid-air. I flip it in my hand,
i throw it in the direction it came from, and i run to the attacker.
the arrow goes through the attacker's left palm.
A salesman at the store comes up to us to stop us from fighting,
so i shove him away from the scene only to send him flying like
50 meters away from me and crashing into a wall (my friends are
SHOCKED cuz they don't know abt my slayerness)
the attacker punches me and i fall backwards, head-first, but
i manage to support myself w/ a table. he approaches me and i
give him a back kick and he falls away. I flip around in the air.
i'm facing him now, when.........
.......the elevator door opens. it's the security ppl. in slow
motion, i run towards the attacker, jump on him, and we both crash
through the window and fall three stories onto the ground (ala
faith/buffy in graduation day)
The cops start shooting. We get up and i begin to chase him. I
stop for a second and remove a stop sign from the ground. I run.
This is around 2 pm-ish, and there are a lot of ppl over there.
the attacker jumps to the sidewalk by a construction site, and
i'm on the road. i jump over the cars (in slow mo), then i leap
towards him and we both fall down like 50 meters into the builiding
site. naturally, we're both undamaged.
I grab my pole (not *that* one) and he finds another metal rod
on the ground. Big fight. In the end, since i'm "stronger"
and "have been doing this for way longer", i end up
winning. the final blow is when i strike him in the stomach and
he sky-rockets into the wall and falls, unconscious and bruised.
well, that was a waste of time. however, it DID lead to my brain
coming up w/ a backstory to a certain tale abt some hero. i like
the way it's truning out. i wanna make it like a harry potter
thing. 7 books. oo that would be super cool! obviously, i'm influenced
by Buffy and Angel, but i'm usually steering away from anything
that could be interpreted as stealing. i don't have a real story
yet.. more like immense backstory.. ie all the revelations that
will be unveiled in the later books of the series (ala harry potter)..
can i share some ideas? NO?? ok i will!
As i said before, i don't really believe in the whole chosen ONE
to save mankind (though i DO end up coming up w/ a chosen One
cuz i have to have a main character, but anyway).. so basically
there are a chosen MANY. They are called Powers, among which are
the Slayers, Champions, Heroes, Paragons, etc... these Powers
are chosen upon conception by the High Council (very corny name,
i know, which is why it's only a working title.. i have yet to
find a REAL name). The HC are like the divine forces of good,
and are apparently morally unambiguous (i say apparently cuz,
as later series will show, they are just as confused and morally
corrupt as we are). The HC are afraid of being overthrown by humans,
who, as the prophecies say, will play a HUGE role in the "real"
apocalypse. Anyway, each of the Powers made by the HC attain their
abilities upon birth (there is no "activation"). And
each line of Powers has certain abilities that differ from those
of other lines. For instance, some are blind, while some have
superior eyesight, and others have normal human eyesight. So jump
better. Some are faster yet less strong. Some are stronger yet
less fast. You get the jist. So anyway, NO Power has the package
deal, which the HC DELIBERATELY did so that no Power would ever
overthrow them. Also, not Powers are not born w/ any magic or
things of that nature for the same reason. They also are unable
to practice magic. BUT there's a twist: the Chosen. He/She/They
(could be twins, havent decided yet, so i'm gonna refer to the
Chosen as It) will have the package deal, but still no magic.
the HC does NOT want It to be born, and neither do the "bad
guys" (again, morally ambiguous) called Babylon. There are
legions of powers alive when the Chosen is born, so It is not
the only power. Ooh also, each line of Powers exists in a certain
race. The HC did that ON PURPOSE to pevent any unity of the different
lines and mutiny against them.
Well ok im gonna stop now. Hope you weren't bored and hope my
ideas weren't too lame.
Oh something i forgot: i was reading a book called "a history
of God", where the author was talking about Plato (i think),
and how he believed that God is an unmoved Mover, unaware of our
presence, but we exist as a NECESSARY effect of his own existence.
that gave me the idea of how the Chosen came to be. You see, the
HC would not create anything that they don't even want living.
However, there were SO many Lines of Powers that a convergence
HAD to happen to produce the Chosen, as a NECESSARY effect of
the existence of those numerous Lines in out universe. You get??
Any questions??
Replies:
[> My idea. (That got ruined by Buffy, or that's what i
tell myself) -- Kana, 02:52:16 07/28/04 Wed
In about '97, I came up with the idea of a half demon. He was
born as result of a demon raping a human woman. He was endowed
with many abilties but also felt a call from darkness. He was
created by demon kind, to intergrate the flesh of man and hell
itself, unfortunately he used his power for good, yet the more
he used his power, the more good deeds he was able to do, but
the closer it brought him to his demon side. He tried at first
not to get involved by neither fighting demons nor giving into
his demonic urges. Unfortunately the more he cut himself off the
more he needed to satisfy his demonic desires. At least when he
fought demons he could satisfy part of his demonic desires, so
that's what he did. He found in his existence a great deal of
ambiguity. Was he fighting to stop himself becoming a beast or
was it because he always will be a beast, and that is why he is
cursed to fight.
Oh by the way the character was called Ace.
Layos (not Laos the country), was his supposed best friend. He
was another half demon with similar abilities. He simply used
his power for his own gain believing, if it is in you then you
must give in, perhaps a metaphor to giving in to human desires
Layos had a point to a degree. There was no way that human society
as a whole would openly embrace them, so he thought why not kill
them and satisfy my desires, why should? We have the power, we
have the desire, so of what consequence would it be to us?
It got me thinking about reason for existing. Is there ever a
clean cut reason for being or is it something we have to define
ourselves. To say that we are here because because God wants us
here is almost hypocritcal because we don't know that. We don't
really know for sure what the meaning for our existence is, we
can merely speculate or failing that rejecting completely a common
reason for our collective being, believing existence and morality
to be purely subjective. Anyway going back to Ace, he is a metaphor
for the ambiguity of all of our existences, showing that a 'calling'
is something someone *believes* they have.
Second part of my ramble is a fantasy i had about being a vampire.
I am killed then brought back with a soul. I struggle with redemption
much in the same way Angel does. I fall in love but it is not
reciprocated confirming my complete rejection from human society.
I imagine everytime I help a human or demon in need, there is
an instance where i wonder why i am helping others. Seen as there
are a large proportion of humans who are selfish and do not believe
in helping and often believe in hindering others, it gives me
little reason to help those who i believe are in the minority,
ie. the good guys. So even though i thought perhaps i was brought
back for a reason, i didn't think it was my duty to find out what
for.
So the idea of someone being a chosen was never something I could
write, largely because as a human being I can't relate to that.
I like the idea of not knowing what exactly you are chosen for
or if maybe someone wants you to believe you chosen for something
for there own gain.
I'm not sure what I've rambled on about here or how it relates
to what you were writing about but I think it had someting to
do with reasons for being or what someone is chosen for.
Also, Ace seems similar to Angel in alot of respects so i abandoned
that idea. You see he fell in love with a government operative
called Carey Madison, working for a demon monitering inititive
called Blue Phoenix. Yeah, yeah, Inititive, demon falling in love
with a demon hunter, I was screwed I tell you. I swear, I came
up with all of this before Buffy came to our screens, and also
before i heard about the 92 movie as well.
I'm not sure what I've written here but I'm sure you aand the
other posters can tear it to pieces.
[> [> Re: moral ambiguity -- ghady, 06:45:21 07/28/04
Wed
I should have made one thing clearer: the immense moral ambiguity
found in the Powers of my tale. Some of the Lines (power lines..
haha.. lame) have accepted their "gifts" (i'm trying
to stay away from the word destiny), thus recruiting any other
Powers and adding them to an army. However, there are a LOT that
couldn't give two shits about the fate of the world cuz they honestly
have nothing to hold on to. So, maybe, if they see a damsel in
distress, they'd help, but they wouldn't go searching for bad
guys to fight. Some may even use their gifts for evil. Now when
the Chosen is FINALLY born "in the last chapter of the last
century", It's mother will most probably abandon it (or be
absent at least. i decided to make the mother a Power who couldn't
care less cuz her life has been so f***ed up that she doesn't
see the pt of being a "hero" if there are no rewards.
she didnt WANT the baby to be born cuz she was raped in an alley
by someone she couldn't fight off (obviously another Power gone
bad)). So the life of the Chosen will NOT be pretty, ie more moral
ambiguity.
[> [> [> Re: moral ambiguity -- Kana, 07:57:21
07/28/04 Wed
That sounds pretty cool actually. Remember with great power comes
great responsibility
[> [> [> [> ooh changed my mind about how the mother
got raped -- ghady, 08:16:37 07/28/04 Wed
see i thought it was too tacky to have a Power get raped by another
Power. so i had this idea: the mother was drunk and stoned. THAT'S
why she couldn't fight back a mere mortal. and she remained drunk
and addicted to drugs even THROUGHOUT the pregnancy, but the baby
survived, not bcs it was the Chosen, but bcs certain members of
the HC and of Babylon were secretly magically protecting (and
thus violating a lot of pacts) ALL infants born in a certain window
of time (based on the prophecies). The other members of the HC
and Babylon were actually trying to KILL all the babies born/conceived
in that window, not thru magic, but thru STDs, drugs, alcohol
etc... (they have offices on earth and have a tendency to subtly
ruin things for us if and when they can, should it be in their
favor).
is this making any sense to you???
[> [> [> [> [> Re: ooh changed my mind about
how the mother got raped -- Kana, 09:12:01 07/28/04 Wed
Is there a board where we can talk about these ideas, because
I've got a few and I would like to set them out a little more
coherently. My new idea is Blue Phoenix which is a cross over
from a few vampire stories I came up with. It takes a while to
explain becaue i have to give you a short synopsis of each character
for it to make sense, but the main players are:
Agent Nia Syprong
Empath, Ladem Marshell
and vampire Ice/Francis Gala.
[> [> [> [> [> [> hmm i dunno of any boards..
but we could email or sthg -- ghady, 09:48:42 07/28/04
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> oh btw i posted an
answer to ur spike question (biologically spekaing).. lol
-- ghady, 10:28:23 07/28/04 Wed
Current board
| More July 2004