June 2002 Archives

June 2002 posts

Previous June 2002

More June 2002

The "Seven Deadly Sins" in the Buffyworld -- Carol, 02:34:52 06/20/02 Thu

I got to thinking about how the "Seven Deadly Sins" fit into the Buffyworld.
I kept my thoughts simple mainly to get your thoughts and save on typing.
I wrote down the sins (in order) and the virtues that one uses to fight off the vice.
Or in other words examples of how the villain (vice) was defeated (virtue)

1) Pride/Humility: Adam certainly had his share pride. He thought he was the perfect being; he played God with other species. Buffy fought this by humbling herself and accepting help from Giles, Xander and Willow. She let her three friends become one with her strength.

2) Envy/Love: Faith was envious of everything Buffy had to the point of taking over her body and life. What brought Faith back was the love she was shown by Buffy and also Angel.

3) Wrath/Kindness: Willow was taken over by her anger (righteous or not) over Tara's death. What brought her back was Xander and his kindness and patience with her.

4) Sloth/Zeal: Glory wasn't exactly lazy but she had others do the work for her. Buffy showed zeal by knowing the right path was to sacrifice herself for the world.

5) Greed/Generosity: Angel wanted the world for humans destroyed. Buffy thought she had control over the situation but realized that she needed to let go of the responsibility she felt in Angel's turning evil. When she battled this she was able to do what needed to be done.

6) Gluttony/Temperance: The Master wanted everything his way and was unforgiving when it came to failure. Buffy accepted her natural limits by facing her eminent death and defeated him in spite of her fear.

7) Lust/Self Control: Spike lusted after the power of the Slayer. At first he wanted to kill her then later the lust uncontrollably turned as a way to show his love. Buffy could see that it wouldn't last and had to break it off or be consumed.

I am open to any thoughts you have on the subject. Please add villains that you think fit the vice and relate it to the virtue.

A Little Bit of Soul - S6-S7 Spoilery Speculation -- Darby, 07:48:17 06/20/02 Thu

I read with interest the thread on the soul in the Buffyverse, but what really got me to thinkin' were the comments made by Joss at the TV Academy thing this past weekend. I've got some points to make to set up a conclusion:

1 - Joss' mythologies are self-contained with influences that are wide-ranging and often details that are unlike any religious interpretation of our world. This opens up the definitions and capabilities of a "soul."

2 - According to him, the soul is at best "a moral compass" that can be defaulted either for us or agin' us ("good" or "evil" seems very human perspectivey here, which fits with recent developments on the shows).

3 - In the case of vampires, we have been shown repeatedly that broad aspects of the original human - memories and such - remain, and many people have pointed out that the vampires may be a dark reflection of the original personality with that "compass" reset. Angel was vengeful where Liam was resentful, cautious where Liam was fearful, and showed aspects of the additional experiences of Angel, the passion turned sadism, etc; Spike showed aspects of William the B-A Poet with the internalized rage at his mockers externalized. But the "essence" of the original persons remained.

4 - The only case we know of up 'til now of a vampire being resouled was Angelus-Angel, and the assumption was that Angel got his soul back. But did Liam reappear, even a Liam-Angelus persona hybrid? No, Angel seems a completely distinct personality from the original human, who would not likely have become a Champion.

Okay, here we go - I believe that the Buffyverse system involves some psychic energy called a "soul" that is automatically a part of humans from birth through death, but which holds little actual identity (vampire-demon souls may again be a flip side of this). When Angel, and now Spike, received a "soul" they have not been given their old part of this empathetic continuum (I guess this fits the "group soul" concept that was discussed for demons in the soul thread), but just had their connection reestablished in a way that, in Angel at least but less so in the maybe-incomparable Darla (I'm assuming that she was physically human but with a trapped demon soul, which may be a radical interpretation of the text), has allowed them to subvert the demon influence of callousness (unless they have a bunch of evil lawyers confined to a room). Piece of evidence: the device used to trap "Angel's soul" for Willow's spell is a very common piece, very nonspecific for what seems a pretty specific job if it's supposed to snag Liam's soul from wherever for transfer. Problem: what happened to Buffy in "Heaven" may not correlate well. At least I can say that we don't really know what happened to her there, or what form she was in, so it can't really contradict.

Joss says that Spike won't be Angel, and that James will be playing a part unlike any he has ever played before. This will work if he becomes Spike with a soul better than if he becomes Spike with William's soul. And of course the question is, how much of a change will that be over the Spike we know and sometimes love?

Questions? Comments?

[> Hmmm....interesting...I'll have to give this one a while to sink in! -- O'Cailleagh, 08:37:47 06/20/02 Thu

[> Re: A Little Bit of Soul - S6-S7 Spoilery Speculation -- Wisewoman, 09:04:45 06/20/02 Thu

Joss says that Spike won't be Angel, and that James will be playing a part unlike any he has ever played before. This will work if he becomes Spike with a soul better than if he becomes Spike with William's soul. And of course the question is, how much of a change will that be over the Spike we know and sometimes love?

Interesting...I interpret it the opposite way. I think the reason that Spike won't be Angel is that Angel got a soul from the gypsy curse and Spike got his soul from the cave demon. In fact, the demon's exact words were, Your soul is returned to you.

I agree that Angelus with Liam's soul would not have become a champion. I think Angel consists of the Angelus demon, Liam's memories, and an unidentified soul (which I think of as the essence of what makes him "Angel").

However I anticipate seeing Spike with William's soul in Season 7 and I believe that will create an extremely interesting character and plot line.

;o)

[> [> Re: A Little Bit of Soul - S6-S7 Spoilery Speculation -- Darby, 09:29:40 06/20/02 Thu

I hadn't connected the quote - that does create a hole...

Maybe it was a New Yawk cave demon? Y'know, a figure of speech, "I gotcher soul right here -!"

This leads to another biting question - how would this cave demon, apparently on the Dark Side of Life, be able to get William's soul? Willy seemed a decent guy (he thought so) and presumably his soul would have been some heavenly sort of place if that's the way it works (oh no! this won't be Angel Again, it'll be Buffy Redux, and Spike'll be all sulky next season!). But can anybody put in a magical requisition for a specific soul if they fill out all the paperwork? Maybe all the Skip-level security is reserved for the bad guys...

[> [> [> Evil Demons -- shygirl, 09:46:13 06/20/02 Thu

I agree that Spike is going to get William's soul... but here's my question. Over and over I've read that Joss and the others lie to protect the storyline and throw everyone off track and into deep discussion. Question: Do we KNOW that just because the script say's "evil demon" that Lurky is truly an EVIL demon or does he just LOOK like one and the term "evil demon" is merely a descriptor of his appearance and purposefully left in the script in throw everyone off track? Maybe in reality he's a neutral demon and collects all the souls stripped from the vampires! That would allow him to give Spike a specific soul.

[> [> [> [> Soul Collector -- dream of the consortium, 10:42:50 06/20/02 Thu

First off, that sounds like a great name for a funk album...

Okay, so if there were a big weird green-eyed neutral demon who holds all the vamp souls - could Buffy make him give them all back? Buffy the Soul-Restorer?

It seems appropriate that the souls should not be in heaven - after all, that kind of takes the tragedy out of it. Hell seems a little unfair for those who did not choose to be turned (oh, but is there anyone who does not choose to be turned on some level? Drusilla, arguably, having been driven mad.) A demon-controlled limbo makes sense - after all, these were people who died before their "time."

I definitely agree with Wisewoman that Spike is going to get William's soul. How that will paly out (same old Spike or completely William or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Big Bad) is another question. I am pretty sure whatever I bet on will not happen. I have had exactly zero luck with predictions.

Which reminds me - wasn't there a contest for season six predictions back in September? Has anyone gone back and looked to see if anyone got anything right?

[> [> [> [> Soul Collector -- dream of the consortium, 10:51:58 06/20/02 Thu

First off, that sounds like a great name for a funk album...

Okay, so if there were a big weird green-eyed neutral demon who holds all the vamp souls - could Buffy make him give them all back? Buffy the Soul-Restorer?

It seems appropriate that the souls should not be in heaven - after all, that kind of takes the tragedy out of it. Hell seems a little unfair for those who did not choose to be turned (oh, but is there anyone who does not choose to be turned on some level? Drusilla, arguably, having been driven mad.) A demon-controlled limbo makes sense - after all, these were people who died before their "time."

I definitely agree with Wisewoman that Spike is going to get William's soul. How that will paly out (same old Spike or completely William or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Big Bad) is another question. I am pretty sure whatever I bet on will not happen. I have had exactly zero luck with predictions.

Which reminds me - wasn't there a contest for season six predictions back in September? Has anyone gone back and looked to see if anyone got anything right?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul Collector -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:54:42 06/22/02 Sat

First, Buffy couldn't restore every vampire's soul because it took VERY difficult trials to win one soul. It would be impossible to do that for even one clan of vampires, let alone all in existance.

2nd, what fate is worse than death?

3rd, very few choose to be turned. While William and Liam seemed to be willing, they didn't have a clue what was going on. They probably just thought it was very weird sex.

4th, why does it have to be a force for good that returns a soul? The cave demon was like many traditional demons in that he must honor a bargain, even if it goes against his desire for evil. He promised to give Spike his soul back if he compleated the trials, so he was forced to do so. In fact, the demon may be kind of like the vengeance demons, in that he has no powers outside of granting wishes.

[> [> Re: A Little Bit of Soul - S6-S7 Spoilery Speculation -- Tymen, 13:27:33 06/20/02 Thu

I agree that Angelus with Liam's soul would not have become a champion. I think Angel consists of the Angelus demon, Liam's memories, and an unidentified soul (which I think of as the essence of what makes him "Angel").
----------
I disagree. I believe Angelus had Liam's soul returned to him. For the first 90 years of souled unlife. Angel felt sorry for himself and stayed below the radar. That would appear to be the Liam soul at work. He didn't start on his path to becoming a champion until he saw Buffy and wanted to help her, because he fell in love with her.

[> Several different kind of souls -- Ete, 12:39:56 06/20/02 Thu

I propose on this topic another angle of analysis. Lots of cultures believe the human being have several kind of "souls". Ancient egyptians said five, vodooo practicers IIRC believes in two. What about this is the case in BtVS ?
At no point we can observe that the soul-as-a-moral-compass serves also at a core of identity, quite the contrary. So what if there's at least two kind of soul, the conscience-soul that Vampire loose when they're being turned, and the essence-soul (that's what Willow called it in WML If i remember correctly, Buffy's essence) that holds the personnality ? There could be others, like the kind of soul Willow sends into the neither realms and that tara needs to anchor, for exemple.

thoughs ? comments ? questions ? :)

[> [> correction : i meant Who Are You, not WML -- Ete, 12:42:28 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Several different kind of souls -- O'Cailleagh, 16:07:36 06/20/02 Thu

Its not so much that there are different kinds of souls, its that there are several subtle bodies, the soul being one of them. Different cultures have different names for these, and other ways of describing them, hence the confusion.

[> [> [> obviously I used the word "soul" as meaning "subtle bodies" -- Ete, 08:16:58 06/22/02 Sat

Noxon Interview. Season 8 spoilers. -- LeeAnn, 11:10:09 06/20/02 Thu

9:00am ET, 20-June-02
Noxon Confirms Buffy Season 8

Despite rumblings that next season will be Buffy the Vampire Slayer's last, executive producer Marti Noxon told SCI FI Wire that she thinks an eighth season of the UPN show is likely, even though its star's contract expires after season seven. "I think that it's very likely there will be [a season eight]," Noxon said in an interview. "I'm not sure if Sarah [Michelle Gellar] will come back or not, but it's really up to UPN and 20th Century Fox if the franchise continues. It would be very hard to continue the show without her, but they might try."

Buffy the Vampire Slayer begins its seventh season in the fall-its second season on UPN, after five years on The WB. Noxon took over as executive producer in 2001, when creator Joss Whedon focused attention on the upcoming SF series Firefly, which debuts on Fox in the fall.

[> How could they? Season 8 Spoilers. -- LeeAnn, 11:26:44 06/20/02 Thu

If ME, UPN and Fox decided to continue Buffy the Vampire Slayer without SMG, how could they do it?

I realize that many people feel the show should end if Gellar leaves. No surprise that Spike is the irreplaceable element to me but if she leaves and they continue the show how could they do it?

1) Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Sister Dawn?

2) Buffy the Dead Vampire Slayer?

3) Buffy the Vampire Slayer's friends?

4) The Darin Stevens Ploy: Replace Gellar and hope no one notices.

5) Buffy and Someone switch bodies a la Buffy and Faith in "This Year's Girl" and "Who Are You?" This has the advantage that if Gellar wanted to come back, even just occasionally, they could do the switch again. Buffy would still be the Vampire Slayer, she would just look different. Everything else would be the same.

In recent interview shows Geller has made some remarks about how the producers of Buffy should pay her more. I think that she and ME must be DEEP into negotiations right now. I don't think she will come back because with Scoobie Doo doing so well right now her negotiating position is so strong that she probably wants more money than ME can pay. I think Noxon was sending a message.

But if she does leave, can BtVS continue?
What do you think?

[> [> Well they can't. Not under the same name at least -- maddog, 13:47:19 06/20/02 Thu

That's just that. You don't have Buffy the Vampire Slayer without Buffy herself. And if Fox and UPN even TRY to replace her no one will bother watching the show. I think Marti's trying to be hopeful they can pull Sarah back in, but if you listen to the actors(and let's face it, they are the ones that run that show) all I'm hearing is done at 7. And with the way the current story is going and what we hear about season 7...that's the best way to end it.

[> [> [> Time will tell... -- LeeAnn, 14:20:20 06/20/02 Thu

You're probably right. I can't remember any show replacing the lead and still being successful. No wait. NYPD Blue did. More than once. Three's Company lost one of their leads and was still sucessful for a long time and I didn't hate it any more than I did originally (ie, a lot).

If Marsters was still on it, I would watch. I'm sure all of his fans would. I sure most of SMG's fans wouldn't. Donno if it would work or not. I think that would depend on how much time and effort Joss put into it. It might be good just to continue it as "The Vampire Slayer Chronicles" or something equivalent. Then they could show more than one Slayer and could replace any of the cast that wanted to leave.

[> [> [> Re: Well they can't. Not under the same name at least (um..spoilers for Taggart!) -- O'Cailleagh, 15:18:23 06/20/02 Thu

We had a show here (in Britain that is) called Taggart, a gritty (!) Scottish police detective type show. Well, the actor playing Taggart (Ian McManus I believe) died and they continued the show without him, not replacing the character and without a name change, for a good few seasons...they may even still be doing it.
So, ME could carry on without SMG...course that'd be tacky. They could drop the Buffy part of the title though, just call it The Vampire Slayer....maybe even get ol' ED back in....

[> [> They could continue, but they probably shouldn't... -- ZachsMind, 00:16:33 06/21/02 Fri

I'm reminded of the BBC's approach to Doctor Who, where they created the 'regeneration' process where the same character could be played by up to twelve different actors in its lifespan. They kill the character off and he comes back looking remarkably different with a new personality but it's still the same Doctor Who. "This Year's Girl" and "Who Are You" set a precedent that in Buffy's reality, a person can change bodies and still be Buffy. They hire a new actress, write SMG's body out and the new body in, problem solved.

However, the audience would most likely be up in arms about this and very upset. The new Buffy would have to be exceptionally phenomenal to win over the audience. It would be the beginning of the end for the series and two or three years later if the show was still on the air, they'd wish they'd just quit when SMG did. A better idea would be to create a spinoff series for UPN using Spike, and then let any actors from Buffy migrate to either Spike's new series or Angel over at WB, or leave to do movies or other projects with the option to guest star in the future.

Bottom line? They should give SMG whatever she asks for in order to do season eight, OR just write season seven as the final season and let that be the end of it. Seven years is a great run for any tv series.

[> [> [> They could call it... -- GreatRewards, 14:05:54 06/21/02 Fri

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Next Generation.

and we could all start refering to it as BvTS:TNG, like the Trekkies do for ST:TNG!

OR they could just call it "Fray". :-)

[> [> [> [> "Hellmouth R.F.D." -- cjc36, 06:14:35 06/22/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Tales of the Slayers? -- MaeveRigan, 06:52:56 06/24/02 Mon

I've got to agree with ZachsMind--they probably shouldn't continue BtVS without Buffy. Or, if SMG goes, everyone should go--thus my "Tales of the Slayers" suggestion, taking plotlines from the comicbooks and/or novelizations, maybe, though you'd probably have copyright problems all over the place. But it could be fun--a Buffyverse anthology series. I like it.

[> Glad to hear an eighth season is possible, but... -- Rob, 11:28:55 06/20/02 Thu

I'm not sure I'd want to see one with SMG. She's the glue that holds it all together, and I really don't know how enthusiastic I'd be about watching the show without her.

So, fingers crossed on an eighth season...and even more crossed on SMG renewing her contract, should an 8th season happen!

Rob

[> Anything but the show-that-wouldn't-end X-files syndrome -- Masq, 12:32:03 06/20/02 Thu

You lose the main character, you lose the soul of the show. Star Trek always knew when to take a bow, and the franchise is a masterpiece because of it.

Joss should put down his paint brush and let Angel carry on after BtVS season 7.

The gang (including Spike) could always do cameos or join the cast.

[> [> Re: Anything but the show-that-wouldn't-end X-files syndrome -- grifter, 13:47:57 06/20/02 Thu

Some cast members switching over to Angel sounds neat...I�d like to see some Spike/Angel interaction again...AND I always thought Cordy and Willow would make a much better couple then Cordy and Angel. ;)

As for Buffy going on without SMG...I don�t see how they could make it work. But since it�s in the hands of ME, I wouldn�t be surprised if they actually did make it work.

[> [> Another option (and a question for those with a good imagination))... -- Dichotomy, 13:59:53 06/20/02 Thu

I agree that using Buffy cast members on Angel would be a good way to continue to enjoy our favorite characters.

Or what about another spinoff? What happens next season could really set up one or more of our favorites to helm their own series. Hey, look at "Angel"! I think if "Ripper" turns out well, (if it ever gets going), we could see others.

Who would you like to see get their own series (as the character they currently play on Buffy, that is), and what would it look like? For example, Alyson Hannigan could protray a powerful witch who marries a mortal and must try not to use her powers in her day to day life as a housewife. But of course, she cannot resist from time to time and wackiness ensues...wait a minute, that sounds familiar. Anyway, what do the more creative minds out there think?

[> [> [> Re: Another option (and a question for those with a good imagination))... -- redcat, 15:12:11 06/20/02 Thu

At the farthest edge of my imagination, I could never imagine Willow as a housewife. Not even a wacky one.

[> [> [> Re: Another option (and a question for those with a good imagination))... -- O'Cailleagh, 15:31:49 06/20/02 Thu

I posted a very similar idea a little while ago, except with Anya and Xander in the Samantha and Darrin roles, D'Hoffryn and Hallie taking the places of Endora and Serena, Clem as their nanny (for their half-demon kids), and a resurrected Principal Snyder as their nosey neighbour.

Willow could join the cast of Charmed as another long lost sister (the power of how many now?)....
Ooooh! And Spike could get his own spin-off about a vampire-with-a-soul working towards redemption as a detective in LA...;)

[> [> [> not creative, but... -- Arethusa, 15:37:16 06/20/02 Thu

Andrew and Johnathan return to Sunnydale, where they become roommates who drive each other crazy because Johnathan always leaves his dirty clothes and dishes around, while Andrew is obsessively tidy, in the Freudian sense. No-that sounds familiar too....

[> [> [> [> I Love Anya? -- O'Cailleagh, 15:44:17 06/20/02 Thu

A zany comedy wherein Anya tries endlessly to be able to sing at her husband Xander's nightclub, while getting into bizarre and unlikely situations involving pies with her neighbour, and best friend Ethel...I mean Willow.

[> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO...Great idea! :o) -- Rob, 17:21:58 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> [> And here's another! -- O'Cailleagh, 15:53:19 06/20/02 Thu

Picture it, a condo in Florida inhabited by Willow, Faith, Anya and Cordelia, all in their senior years and getting into amusing situations involving men. (One should be slutty, one dumb, one sarcastic with an klutz of an ex-husband, and one should be Sicilian)
After a number of successful seasons, one of them should leave and the rest should open a very unsuccessful hotel with the guy from the Cheech and Chong movies.

[> [> [> doesn't have to be all that familiar... -- anom, 21:47:58 06/20/02 Thu

"Alyson Hannigan could protray a powerful witch who marries a mortal and must try not to use her powers in her day to day life as a housewife. But of course, she cannot resist from time to time and wackiness ensues...wait a minute, that sounds familiar."

Heehee....Yeah, but if she's still playing Willow, & Willow is still gay, that mortal would be a woman...& the only place they could get married would be Hawai'i! Hey, & then they could go to Mt. Kilauea & celebrate the solstice with redcat! Um, in one of those ever-popular Realverse crossovers, yeah, that's it!

Happy summer solstice to redcat, O'Cailleagh, & all the other pagans out there! And to everyone else--after all, it's the solstice for everyone, whether or not you observe it as a holiday.

[> [> [> [> Why thankyou Anom, and a big ol' mazel tov to you...or something! ;) -- O'Cailleagh, 22:07:15 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> [> I'm Becoming Worried About the Amount of Spin Off Reports... -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:33:21 06/21/02 Fri

Apparently Noxon is working on ANOTHER. Personally, I think having more than one spin off is a bad idea. I was about Angel's show not just because I love the character and think his issues can carry one, but also because it spread the ensemble cast from Buffy a LITTLE BIT. Having more spin offs than that, especially two more, could spread the cast thin. Not to mention the fact that it gets redundant.
A relevant analogy, that works for those of you familiar with any Marvel comics (I stopped reading them and started reading Vertigo when I was ten, but anyway) would be the MULTITUDES of pointless X-Men spinoffs featuring characters that work better as part of an ensemble than solo. Who wants to read a comic following the solo exploits of ICE MAN?! Why is there a Gambit series? Wolverine, Storm, they've run down the whole damn list, and it ends up being a redundant tirade for more cash.
I don't want that to happen to Buffy.
Some might hate me for saying it, but I think ending at 7 is a great thing. Means it ended on a high note, something Joss Whedon should send Chris Carter a memo about.
If Buffy's ever in its tenth season, with our fav Slayer "missing" and the Scoob Gang spends an entire season searching for her, I'll have a heartattack and a seizure simultaneously.

[> [> It won't be Joss' decision, not ME's but Fox's -- Dochawk, 17:38:40 06/20/02 Thu

Remember this series is owned by Fox TV and Kuzui Productions. Fox Television can make the series without anyone if they want, but remember also, they have Marti Noxon signed on for three more years to write whatever they agree too. It may have been Joss' creation, but he doesn't own creative rights. I agree though, tough to call it Buffy the VS, how does Dawn the Vampire Slayer sound (or Faith the Vampire Slayer?)?

[> [> [> Oh, great... -- Rob, 19:40:34 06/20/02 Thu

FOX has no idea when to let a great show go out in dignity.

X-Files...they kept that chugging along long after it passed its peak, until it literally dropped dead...

Simpsons...okay, still a great show...but 15 seasons!! No matter how great a show is, that's still way too much.

I really hope they don't do that to "Buffy"...drag the carcass of a formerly great show, on year after year.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: Oh, great... -- Robert, 11:29:20 06/21/02 Fri

>> "FOX has no idea when to let a great show go out in dignity."

I'm not convinced we can attribute the perfidy committed by the FOX tv network to the FOX studio. They seem to be separate enough entities as to have their own characteristics. Regardless, the evil which FOX network has committed is enough to scare anyone. I greatly fear for "Firefly", especially given the rumors we are hearing about how FOX doesn't like the show. FOX isn't the only network to have milked a show long past it going dry, though do seem to do it to absurdity.

What really scares me about FOX is their propensity for killing shows in the middle of cliff-hanger episodes. They've done this to three sci-fi shows in their short existance as a network. FOX has zero loyalty to the viewers.

[> [> [> [> [> good Point, they are run by different people... -- Dochawk, 13:28:57 06/21/02 Fri

and if the brilliant person who runs the network hadn't truned Buffy down the first time, it probably would have been cancelled at the end of its first season. So we should be greatful.

but remember profit runs deep in the minions of Rupert Murdoch.

[> [> [> Hi Doc! -- Masq, 21:15:26 06/20/02 Thu

That's really sort of depressing. I suppose this is how Chris Carter got in the pickle he got into.

[> [> [> Sorry Dochawk...I think you're wrong. Why inside. -- shadowkat, 11:58:24 06/21/02 Fri

Actually I think he does own creative rights. Fox owns distribution rights. Which means Joss can stop it if and when he wants to.

I remember reading that when they did the initial contract, Joss insisted on retaining creative rights, while Fox could hold onto all distribution and derivative/reprint/reproduction rights. I'm in the rights business sort of...so know the difference. (Derivative is books, novelizations, action figures, comics,
scriptbooks, posters, t-shirts)

Distribution is the big money maker. Followed closely by Derivative. People who want to make tons of money are careful with these two. Joss and ME and if the actors were smart, all get a percentage, but Fox gets the big money. This is why they leaped to UPN. It was not so much Joss' decision as it was Fox's, because WB/TNT wanted to control syndication rights and limit reruns to TNT and WB. Fox wanted to show reruns on FX and Fox. UPN was the best deal because they were willing to give Fox control over syndication, all they wanted was to have first rerun distribution on four key episodes from Season 5 and Season 4 (HUSH, THE BODY, DRACULA VS BUFFY, THE GIFT - that they could rerun in year six) and they wanted control over Season 6-7 reruns for
the period of the contract. It's a two year contract btw.
not three. So, whether they have a Season 8 depends on several factors: 1. Joss Whedon. 2. If a network wants to distribute it. 3. PRoduction costs and values. 4. Actors
renewing contracts - all run out on year 7.

Now creative rights - means you control casting, scripts, production values, story, basically the nuts and bolts of the creative and artistic development of the show. Joss Whedon insisted on this after the horror that was the movie, a movie that he is still embarrassed about. That movie is an example of a writer not owning/retaining creative rights. He wrote the script, sold it, they could do whatever they pleased. After that fiasco, Joss told Fox, I'll only do the series if you let me retain total creative control - ie. creative rights. Artists who don't retain
creative rights live to regret it.

X-files - Chris Carter may not have retained Creative Control.

Now MArti works for ME, she is under contract to Joss.
Fox may have contracted her under a separate deal, I don't know. But from what I've read - she can't do anything with BTvs that he doesn't okay. She does not own the rights, he
does. At the beginning of year 6, she stated that he just extended her contract and gave her a promotion.

A good corollary is Stan Lee and Spiderman, Stan owns creative rights to Spiderman. MArvel can't change it without his okay. Since Stan is pretty much MArvel, doesn't really matter. But Joss Whedon an old comics fan learned from Stan Lee - you retain creative rights!!! There was a big skirmish a few years back when Claremont and Jim Lee
were writing and drawing for marvel. They created all these cool new characters only to discover Stan Lee and marvel owned them and retained creative control not Claremont and Lee. Pissed they took off and created WildStorm Comics where they could retain the rights.

It's a cool issue...that I've been following for awhile now.

That said I could be wrong about the Joss/Fox contract, haven't seen the actual document of course...but I doubt it, this fits with most of the interviews I've read over a four year period where Joss tells how he insisted on creative control. (He's not a lawyer so he'd use control over rights.)
Some of these comments appeared on Bronze Beta, some on Herc's site, some from magazines. Also independent articles on UPN/WB deal with fascinated me b/c I'm in the rights business.

Hope this assays some fears. Not that I mind MN. She just needs to polish her interview style, she has a tendency to
piss people off. ;-)

[> [> [> [> I hope your're right, SK -- Masq, 12:35:22 06/21/02 Fri

I stopped taping X-Files at the end of season 8. If Buffy goes on and on and gets bad like X-Files did, I would probably not do episode analyses for it.

Being kind of anal, I'd like my site to be a finished product, covering all of the Buffyverse eps/shows, but it's too much effort over bad material.

[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry Dochawk...I think you're wrong. Why inside. -- Dochawk, 13:23:50 06/21/02 Fri

yup you are right there is a difference between creastive rights (and cretive cotnrol) and distribution rights, unfortunately Joss doesn't control creative rights either. Kuzui Productions put up the money for the movie and retained creative rights for the product. Thats why Joss had no control over what happened with the movie. When it came to television, Joss and ME got creative control, but not creative rights (its extremely rare in tv or movies for the studio to give away creative rights, George Lucas is one of the few who can get away with it). In the end Fox and Kuzui own Buffy, not Joss. As for percentages Joss may get some, but the actors certainly don't yet. SMG was drilled about this insistantly by Howard Stern and she continually denied it. The Friends actors don't get percentages, but Kelsey Grammar does for Frazier.

As for why WB lost Buffy, had nothing to do with syndication rights but everything to do with not coming up with enough money. WB offered Fox 1.6 million an episode and would only guarentee one year. UPN offered 2.25 and a 2 year minimum committment. Lots of money different. And since Fox owns FX and they were already being sued by David Duchovney (and lost millions in the suit) because of abusing their position regarding syndie rights, their would have been an awful lot of risks for both sides to tying them together. And most syndie rights are sold 2 years in advance (for example Angel is currently being considered), but I wasn't a Buffyphile then.

[> [> [> [> [> Actually...off on that figure -- shadowkat, 08:52:06 06/22/02 Sat

"WB offered Fox 1.6 million an episode and would only guarentee one year. UPN offered 2.25 and a 2 year minimum committment. Lots of money different. And since Fox owns FX and they were already being sued by David Duchovney (and lost millions in the suit) because of abusing their position regarding syndie rights, their would have been an awful lot of risks for both sides to tying them together. And most syndie rights are sold 2 years in advance (for example Angel is currently being considered), but I wasn't a Buffyphile then."

Actually you're wrong on the money. According to the Variety article and two Wall Street Journal Articles the
WB came back with 2.1 million and that's why they were so pissed at Fox. It was the last part in the negotiations. All the
articles said the reason Fox went with UPN was distribution.
The money amounts were too close: 2.3 and 2.1??
Early articles said that it was 2.3 and 1.8. But later ones
revealed the final figures.

As for creative rights and control - you're right there's
a difference. But a slight one. They can do what they want, but what that is spin-offs. So for instance,
Joss leaves (and I know from what NB, JM, and SMG have said they'd probably go with him) MArti could do Dawn the Vampire
Slayer - this would be spin-off territory. Or they could
do a show featuring Spike, as they did with Angel. Or another Buffy movie with whole new actors playing the parts.
We probably wouldn't watch it and they'd make no money...but
hey, that's a risk they take.

Must be careful with these risks - b/c have to sell to advertisers and prove fans will continue to watch. Carter and X-files ran into this problem, when they lost Duchvony and tried to do spin-offs, none lasted more than a year.

The problem with cult genres is the people who own the rights to them - like Fox, those network exec's don't understand the audience who reads, obsessively watchs, and loves them. They don't respect the genre. As a result they don't always handle the propertries right. Examples: star trek got cancelled b/c of low ratings. Yet, later it has been found to have more marketability than any of the highly rated shows at the time. This genre is a gold mine, if you understand it and respect it. If you don't? It can be a money hole.

Not sure if you're right on the creative rights. I think Joss may have bought them back, but I could be wrong on that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually...not, but its a different kind of arguement -- Dochawk, 09:23:41 06/23/02 Sun

Shadow,

The WB conducted their negotiations with Fox like idiots. They came back with an offer that was 8% lower, which is not the same as a full offer. In real terms it meant about 6 million dollars. Even to corporations like Fox and AOL not chump change. And the offer came at the 11th hour, 59th minute. if they had made the same offer during their exclusive negotiating period they would have had two more years of Buffy and we would have had crossovers.

[> [> [> [> Syndie Rights, Just for the record -- Dochawk, 13:56:29 06/21/02 Fri

Syndication rights for Buffy were bought for the 1st 5 seasons btw) in Spring 1999 by Fox for $600,000 per epi ( a bargain considering the FX ratings for them). So they were sold during season 3. Thats from a NYT article.

[> [> [> [> I think Fox owns it outright. -- cjc36, 06:49:23 06/22/02 Sat

I think when the Kuzui's and Sanddollar and Fox, etc decided to do Buffy on TV, they contractually had to give Joss a pass at doing it. If he'd said no, they would have still done the show (shudder at that thought for a moment!) Since he was big-time movie scribe, they figured he'd pass. But he didn't.

The copyright is under Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. No ME, nothing else. If Joss left, Fox could do Buffy 'til the bovines go domestic.

[> It should end big -- darrenK, 13:45:23 06/20/02 Thu

They can't do Buffy the Vampire Slayer without Buffy.

They should end big at Season 7 like SMG has suggested and Joss has mentioned.

Even though I hate the thought of the show ending, I'd rather have it end at a designated point that the writers could spend the season building towards. Then they cap the series with the same care that they've always written it with.

For them to get rid of Buffy in some random or, worse, insignificant way would dilute the integrity that's always been the show's power.

The only thing that would make sense is for them to change the show to a general show about Slayers. Or in a twist on the old-actor-plays-young-character cliche they could have a show featuring Dawn, set 4 or 5 years after Season 7, when Dawn's at college. That way, SMG could make guest appearances and have it be perfectly normal. Other scoobies could be recurring characters and Spike or Willow could be the show's other principal character, taking care of Dawn while she's at college.

Or they could just pay enough for SMG to do season 8, but, as long as they leave it up in the air, it doesn't benefit the story or the fans.

[> Who cares if SMG is still in as long as Joss is -- Ete, 14:26:10 06/20/02 Thu

For me that's the only thing the show would never survive in quality. If it's only MN in command, i don't think i'd be really interrested anymore.

Oh, and wouldn't be great if they had Faith to replace Buffy ? I would love a Dawn spin off too (but they would have to find a good Key concept to make it work, not very easy, I don't want a Dawn's a slayer plot!)

[> [> Re: Who cares if SMG is still in as long as Joss is -- maddog, 14:32:20 06/20/02 Thu

Well sure, a parallel type show might work...but you can't have "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with out it's namesake. Doesn't quite make sense. :) All are good ideas, I'm just saying you'd have to change the name.

[> [> [> Re: Who cares if SMG is still in as long as Joss is -- Ete, 14:37:18 06/20/02 Thu

But Buffy the vampire slayer isn't fighting vamps since a while now, they could drop the Buffy part too :)

yeah yeah, I'm afraid you're right. Why couldn't Whedon forsee that and name the show something else ? grrr Argh !

[> [> [> [> Re: Who cares if SMG is still in as long as Joss is -- maddog, 16:39:20 06/20/02 Thu

What I don't get is why people need to push for a season 8. You know if they try to push too far that an eventual final season will be crap. I mean, do we need another Saved by the Bell where they had like 4 different sub shows after the original cast left? Why not go out on top? Remember folks, all good things must come to an end.

[> [> [> [> [> Bravo, clap, clap, clap -- Masq, 16:56:54 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> I second that emotion! ;-) -- OnM, 17:23:32 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> Re: Who cares if SMG is still in as long as Joss is -- Robert, 11:18:08 06/21/02 Fri

>> "But Buffy the vampire slayer isn't fighting vamps since a while now, they could drop the Buffy part too"

Where have you been? As recently as "Entropy", Buffy dusted a couple of vampires while on patrol.

>> "Why couldn't Whedon forsee that and name the show something else ?"

The title has served the show for six (and soon to be seven) years. How long does a TV show have to last to make you happy? It was the campy title which guaranteed that I watch the episode "Welcome to the Hellmouth", six years ago. I missed the whole first season of "The X-Files", because I originally thought it was some kind of supernatural/reality show.

If Geller elects not to renew her contract after season seven, that is no disaster. The show has had a long and honorable run, and Whedon is well capable of giving us a suitable series closing episode. The disaster would have been if Geller had dropped out mid-season due to illness or death.

[> The one thing I truly dread in this type of situation... -- cjl, 14:44:27 06/20/02 Thu

...is what happened to the X-Files in Seasons 8 and 9. Duchovny whined, bitched and moaned about wanting to move on and do films and get away from full-time Mulder. Chris Carter and Fox begged and pleaded and threw money, and Duchovny said "Oh, all right--I'll come back for 11 episodes."

At that point, Carter had to rewrite his series, and somehow find a credible reason for Mulder to disappear for half of Season 8 and then for all of Season 9. It distorted the characters beyond all recognition, and when Duchovny finally came back to close out the series, almost nobody cared.

Over on the BC&S board, I entertained a nightmare scenario of Buffy disappearing into another dimension at the end of Season 7. The Scoobs spend 21 episodes of "Buffy" Season 8 trying to fish her out. SMG shows up in ep 22, picks up her paycheck, kisses her old buddies on the set, then heads back out to film-land...

If SMG leaves after Season 7, I hope Fox lets it go at that. Don't try to bring her back for 2, 3, 5, 7 episodes and force Joss and Marti to write a sham season of "Buffy" around her. Pick up the spinoff right after the Season 7 finale and let things develop naturally....

[> [> Re: The one thing I truly dread in this type of situation... -- aliera, 14:59:44 06/20/02 Thu

Somehow, I just can't see Joss doing this...shall we share fears? Joss leaves instead, or with Sara...after Spoke sacrifices his life...sorry, now we're into nightmare territory...bad, bad aliera....

[> [> [> Re: The one thing I truly dread in this type of situation... -- shadowkat, 12:09:20 06/21/02 Fri

Agree FAR More worried about losing JM's Spike than Sarah's Buffy. YEs, I admit it, I'd stop watching if JM left wayyyy before i'd stop if SMG did. I also think if she leaves on the basis
of Scooby Doo popularity - then she is about to find herself in the same young superstar graveyard as Michael Keaton after Batman, Troy Donahu, Sandra Dee, and numerous
others. If I were SMG and thank god I'm not, I'd play it safe and wait and see what happens in Season 7 which btw is exactly what she's doing. Smart girl! She wants to end the show well, not flicker out like X-Files, Ally McBeal, and
countless others. She's proud the show is still strong and challenging. People like to feel proud of their work, feel challenged when they stop feeling that way they want to leave, (can identify that's me at this very moment). X-Files started flickering out wayyy before Duchovney wanted to leave. That's why he wanted to leave. It wasn't challenging any more. His character wasn't growing. It got boring.

Oh to reassure you: SMG recently said she didn't think it would make sense to do a movie. Then someone asked Whedon, echoing her sentiments, "Would you do it without her?"
Whedon: "Nope. Never. It wouldn't work."

Enuff said!Stop worrying. Let's see Season 7 first.

[> A S8 would be wonderful, if they have JW and SMG. -- Ixchel, 17:22:01 06/20/02 Thu

And all the others, I really don't want to lose anyone else (_Tara_). I'm sure JW still has plenty of ideas for BtVS and SMG _is_ Buffy, so if everyone was willing it would be great. But, if not, I would prefer BtVS end spectacularly in S7, hopefully with an origin of the Slayer arc (I'd be disappointed if this wasn't part of it). Also, again just my preference, Buffy _not_ die at the end, but maybe a (mostly) positive ending (not saccharine, of course). The occasional cameo in the remaining seasons of AtS would be nice too.

Ixchel

[> [> That will be interesting to see... -- Rob, 17:24:00 06/20/02 Thu

...how Joss will end "Buffy" on a positive note, while still upholding his "no happy endings" policy. Unless (hopefully) he makes an exception and has everybody end the show happy.

Rob

[> [> [> Well, doesn't he like to subvert the expected? -- Ixchel, 17:37:25 06/20/02 Thu

Maybe he could do that for the ending to a sublime show (my irrational hope)? It doesn't have to be _happy_, just somewhat positive. At least not abject misery? :)

Ixchel

[> [> [> Happy Buffy ? Season 7 spoilers -- Dochawk, 20:54:35 06/20/02 Thu

Well Joss seems to disagree with you:

"Overall, Joss and Marti said that while pain and horror will be always part of the series, next season will be much happier"

He also said that this will be the "biggest" finale ever and the season will end on a much more positive note (whatevber that means in Jossspeak)..

So I think he is planning for the end this season and Buffy will end somewhat positively. And then Marti gets to try to ruin it, Season 8.

[> [> [> [> Re: Happy Buffy ? Season 7 spoilers -- wiscoboy, 06:59:55 06/21/02 Fri

Giles once said the prophecies concerning the role of the slayer during the end-times is unclear. I still think that they could end this(in whichever season) by showing Buffy reaching an age(which no other slayer has achieved) by which she is given release from her role and responsibilities as the slayer, allowing her to resume a "normal" life.

[> [> [> [> [> Buffy doesn't really want to be normal. Spoilers Season 4 -- LeeAnn, 07:29:21 06/21/02 Fri

Buffy didn't like being normal. Remember Helpless when Giles drugged her so she lost her superpowers. Some CoW test. She hated it.

Buffy: When I hit him, it felt like my arm was broken, it hurt so much. I can't be just a person. I can't be helpless like that. Giles, please, we have to figure out what's happening to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy doesn't really want to be normal. Spoilers Season 4 -- Robert, 11:03:01 06/21/02 Fri

>> "Buffy didn't like being normal. Remember Helpless when Giles drugged her so she lost her superpowers. "

LeeAnn, this is a very good point and I interpreted it in a slightly different way. I saw Buffy as frightened at the prospect of being helpless while still fighting vampires and demons in Sunnydale. I didn't see this as evidence that Buffy would rather be the slayer (with an uncertain future) over being returned to a life of normality (no powers and no villians). Regardless, your interpretation is at least as valid as mine.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy doesn't really want to be normal. Spoilers Season 4 -- wiscoboy, 11:23:00 06/21/02 Fri

I have to agree with Robert...she was speaking under terms that still included the ongoing battle. She had consistently maintained throughout high school that she wanted to live a normal life. This thread of thought has sort of gotten lost within the writing of last few seasons(especially since the emergence of Dawn), to the point of not being referred to whatsoever except in the concept of Buffy's deathwish(in absence of the possibility of a "normal life", she wants to permanently escape/exit it.).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Normal or Superhero. Which do you choose? -- LeeAnn, 12:58:16 06/21/02 Fri

She said she wanted to be normal but the one time she was faced with the reality of normal she freaked and not just when she had to fight vampires. When some guy was hasseling Cordelia, she tried to stop it, and instead got knocked down and hurt. She got treated like a weak, helpless woman who could be pushed around. She didn't like it.

They hear a boy raising his voice and look in his direction. He's talking to Cordelia.
Boy: (upset) You don't do that to me! I waited for you at the Bronze all night!
Cordelia: And the big deal is?
Boy: You made me look like some kind of dork in front of my posse!
He grabs her arm. Cordelia is offended, and slaps his arm away.
Cordelia: First of all, 'posse'? Passe'! Second of all, anyone with a teaspoon of brains knows not to take my flirting seriously. Especially with my extenuating circumstances.
Boy: (confused) What circumstances?
Cordelia: Rebound! Look it up!
She tries to leave, but he grabs her by both shoulders and pushes her against a tree.
Boy: Hey! I'm not through here.
Buffy immediately moves in and grabs the boy's arm.
Buffy: Oh, I beg to differ.
She tries to yank at it, but finds she has absolutely no strength. He scoffs at her and nudges her away rather hard. Buffy falls backward, stumbling onto a bench and rolls off onto the ground. Cordelia is incensed, and shoves him away from her.
Cordelia: What is wrong with you?
Boy: Ow.
She starts pounding him in the chest with girlie punches. He quickly backs away, but Cordelia keeps up with him and won't let up.
Boy: God, the chick started it!
Willow gets down to her knees to help Buffy up.
Willow: (very concerned) Are you okay?
Buffy slowly sits up, very confused.
Cut to the hall. Giles is heading toward the library with a stack of magazines. Buffy catches up with him.
Buffy: Okay, I just got swatted down by some no-neck and rescued by Cordelia. What the hell is happening?

Later, talking to Angel she wonders what she is if she isn't the Slayer.
Buffy: Before I was the Slayer, I was... (leans on the table) Well, I, I don't wanna say shallow, but... Let's say a certain person, who will remain nameless, we'll just call her Spordelia, looked like a classical philosopher next to me. Angel, if I'm not the Slayer, what do I do? What do I have to offer? Why would you like me?

Angel tells her he loved her before she was the Slayer. Buffy believes him. I don't know if I do because she might not have been a Slayer but he knew she was about to become one.

When she finds out Giles has poisoned her she rants at him:
Buffy: (sobbing angrily) You bastard. All this time, you saw what it was doing to me. All this time, and you didn't say a word!

Maybe you're right and Buffy does want to be normal but I think she wants to be normal because she has a fantasy about what normal is. Give her a day of normal and she's desperate to go back to having superpowers. Who wouldn't?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Normal or Superhero. Which do you choose? -- Robert, 15:30:09 06/21/02 Fri

>> "Give her a day of normal and she's desperate to go back to having superpowers."

There was very little that was normal about that day.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Normal or Superhero. Which do you choose? -- wiscoboy, 06:47:38 06/22/02 Sat

One constant in this series is that when Buffy "feels" vulnerable, she emotionally and mentally freezes up. In the first scenario, this causes her to distance herself from everyone, even her closest friends. In the second, she always reacts the same by forgetting that she has and how to use her fighting skills. She seems to equate physical strength with the ability to overcome physical obstacles. If and when she comes to understand that skill and mental toughness are just as important to her ability to fight back, then I believe there would be no question that she would want back a "normal life"

[> [> [> [> [> [> The down side of being a superhero -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 21:02:31 06/22/02 Sat

"You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game."

If Buffy stays as a Slayer, she is doomed to die young. Every one's luck runs out eventually.

Aging is hell, until you consider the only alternative (and it's NOT staying young forever.)

Of course, in the Buffyverse, she could live forever -- but only come out at night . . .

[> PLEASE NO! -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:15:58 06/20/02 Thu

I've been looking forward to an awesome Season 7 with tons of character deaths, a massive, apocalyptic ending, and a solid ending. I don't want it to drag on for another season when they can go out with a big finish.

However, I would love to see the Buffyverse live on in a spinoff. I'm thinking one starring Spike and Dawn. Dawn, being the Key, must not fall into evil hands. Spike becomes her Guardian, sworn to protect her until the end of the world.

I'm hoping next season will be Buffy's last, but that her universe lives on in many other shows.

[> Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- PatHawk, 19:37:59 06/20/02 Thu

That's something I would watch. I've always found Faith's deeply disturbed and conflicted character far more interesting than Buffy, who has become chronically jaded lately, and prone to neurotic fits of navel gazing.

Don't get me wrong, I like Buffy, but I love Faith who has much more depth.

And Eliza is by far the superior actress to SMG(who is exelent in her own right).

So, what do you think? Buffy dies/whatever and Faith then has no choice but to assume the full responsabilities of the Slayer, while travelling the rocky, uphill road to redemtion and dealing with the SG who for good reason hate her...
hmm.. then again we already have Angel..

Ah well.

[> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- Dochawk, 20:58:42 06/20/02 Thu

Hmmmm, interesting handle.

As for your saying ED is a better actress than SMG. You are comparing apples and oranges, ED has had a much easier load (being a lead is much tougher than a supporting actress) and SMG is pretty much a phenomenal actress. its also much much easier to play the bad girl than the good girl. (they were girls in season 3). The "navel gazing" which seems to bother you was exactly what she was supposed to be getting across, that she had lost her affect and nothing made her care. It was in fact such a good acting job that people totally missed that she was acting.

[> [> [> I digress. -- PatHawk, 21:26:59 06/20/02 Thu

Your right, I withdraw my comment about whose the better actor.
I realize that the "navel gazing" is part of the character, what bothers me is that 'Buffy' the character herself is being writen that way.
I guess that'll change next season with the return of 'fun, quippy Buffy'.

[> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- Robert, 10:55:23 06/21/02 Fri

>> "And Eliza is by far the superior actress to SMG(who is exelent in her own right)."

Can you please expand upon this? I haven't seen enough of Eliza Dushku's work to form an opinion either way. In the last six years, Sarah Geller has shown us an incredible array of well performed emotions. What have you seen of Dushku that allows you to conclude that she is "far the superior actress"? I would like to see it also.

[> [> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- wiscoboy, 11:40:49 06/21/02 Fri

IMO Pathawk is sadly mistaken on the quality of ED's acting vs. SMG's. Sure she looks good ripping clothes off guys, but if you really look at her performances, she can appear a little lost and unconvincing(especially in the earlier appearances..she did get better as time went on).

[> [> [> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- Robert, 11:54:40 06/21/02 Fri

>> "IMO Pathawk is sadly mistaken on the quality of ED's acting vs. SMG's."

I don't think we've seen enough of Dushku's acting to know either way. I presume that Pathawk has seen additional work by Dushku to form such a strong opinion. If Dushku is that good, then I also would like to see it.

Regarding Dushku's work in BtVS, I believe that she did the job she was hire to do, and she did it well. However, Faith as a tertiary character exhibited a range of emotions that was very limited compared to that of Buffy. Thus, Dushku really didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate the full range of her talents.

[> [> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- LeeAnn, 13:04:53 06/21/02 Fri

>> "And Eliza is by far the superior actress to SMG(who is exelent in her own right)."

Can you please expand upon this? I haven't seen enough of Eliza Dushku's work to form an opinion either way.

ED may not be the better actress but, from the heterosexual girl POV, I think she's prettier and sexier than Gellar and...she has breasts.

[> [> [> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- O'Cailleagh, 02:13:53 06/22/02 Sat

>>"ED may not be the better actress but, from the heterosexual girl POV, I think she's prettier and sexier than Gellar and...she has breasts."

Which would be great if we were discussing entrants in a beauty pageant....but we're not. What exactly do T+A have to do with either a) acting, or b) vampire-slaying?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith The Vampire Slayer? -- VR, 11:12:06 06/23/02 Sun

They serve as a distraction if one sucks at either.

Buffy Conference -- Masquerade, 14:14:35 06/20/02 Thu

I think this has been posted before, even twice before, but I got an e-mail so here it is again:

Blood, Text and Fears: Reading Around Buffy the Vampire Slayer
19-20 October 2002
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

For details please visit:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~r036/buffy_conference.htm

Hey beautiful people - can you do me a favour...? -- NightRepair, 02:44:15 06/20/02 Thu

This is my problem. As many of you (well, everyone in chat) may know, I work in a primary school. Sometimes I have no trouble accessing the board, but for about the last month, there have been days on end when I have been denied access because the school's filter system finds the site 'inappropriate'.

My request is that people be extra careful as to what they out into the subject lines. I'm only assuming that this is the reason why I can't access the board. (If anyone has any other theories I would love to hear them). I am currently on a friend's computer because I am still denied access at school (and don't have internet access at home).

I just feel out of the loop when I can't check the board on a regular basis! Thank goodness for chat (which I have no problems accessing), you guys give me my Buffy fix!
See you in the future... (it's already tomorrow in Australia!)

[> No problem NR, except.... -- O'Cailleagh, 06:25:47 06/20/02 Thu

I don't think that there has been anything objectionable in the subject lines (unless you count mentions of Spike every two words!). The only one I've noticed of late is in your betrothed's post down below, where he mentions sex. Hmmm....not sure what else would be causing it though....

[> [> I thought it would be appropriate. Masq doesn't seem to like porn. -- VR, 06:58:25 06/20/02 Thu

But there's barely anything in it, though.

[> [> [> Re: I thought it would be appropriate. Masq doesn't seem to like porn. -- O'Cailleagh, 07:08:07 06/20/02 Thu

I agree, it was a necessary use of 'sex' in the subject line...I was just using it as the only example of possible 'unsuitable' content....

[> [> [> [> umm -- Rahael, 07:15:27 06/20/02 Thu

If any word in the subject line is going to stop this site being accessed I'd have thought it would be "porn"

[> [> [> [> [> Good point Rah!!! -- O'Cailleagh, 07:21:22 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Re:Perhaps it's the word "vampire" -- Brian, 07:27:33 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Yesterday.. there was the word.. -- neaux, 07:44:30 06/20/02 Thu

Sexual Innuendo.. could that have caused a block?

[> [> [> [> [> The word "sex" can mean many things -- VampRiley, 10:02:09 06/20/02 Thu

I have 8, count 'em -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, different definitions of the word sex in my dictionary and it is a couple years old.

O'C? Guess what?

I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!!

There are only three books stores where I live and I had no luck until I went to Borders. And there is was. Sitting there in all its lone book lonesome in between two other graphic novels. It was the only one in the store and I GOT IT!!!!

Sadly, there is only one comic book store anywhere near my house. It's in a mall nearby, but there was none on the shelf. And the clerk said they were all out. Humphh.

But, I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!! I got Tales!!!

I'm off to read now before class. Oh, O'C? that 8 or 9 was EST.

The magnificent one

[> [> [> [> [> [> Woohoo! I knew you could do it! -- O'Cailleagh, 11:41:39 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> Wait a minute! -- dream of the consortium, 07:42:00 06/20/02 Thu

Another betrothed? How did I miss that? How many ATPoBtVS romantic pairings does that make, anyway? Shoudl we start a personals page?

Oh, and congratulations!

[> [> [> Re: Exactly... -- dubdub, 09:07:51 06/20/02 Thu

Who's betrothed to who now? Inquiring minds want to know.

;o)

[> I doubt it's the posts. -- Solitude1056, 08:38:14 06/20/02 Thu

If you look at the advertising headers on some of the pages, they're definitely for porn. Not much we can do about Voy's sponsors, unfortunately, although I must admit there's been a few times that I find the whole advertising-for-porn-while-I'm-writing-about-buffy thing just a bit crass. Uh, well, I find all banners rather crass, but those especially so. Anyway, it could be that if that banner is the one pulled up in the random drop, then your nannyware is alerting on the keywords in the banner and hence the random difficulty.

[> [> I have never gotten a banner ad here that could be vaguely associated with pornography . . . -- d'Herblay, 14:28:52 06/20/02 Thu

. . . and I'm starting to wonder why. Has Voy's spyware progressed to the point that they are able to target the ads to the poster? Do they have Sol demographically pegged as a consumer of pornography, but they know that I would be more interested in "LendingTree.com" and "Red Cross Blood Donations" and "Fund Free Mammograms! www.TheBreastCancerSite.com: Click Here!"

Or is it simple naivté on my part? A failure of imagination on my part? That "Automotive Accesories" ad then does intrigue; don't get me started on the "Club Mom Driving Club." And the everpresent "California DMV complaints" sounds like it could be fertile grounds for a porn movie. Unfortunately, due to another project of mine, the dialogue of the porno in my head is all in haikus:

INT. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES - DAY

The buxom DMV complaints officer Savannah greets customer Bryce who seems to have ignored the clearly posted "No Shirt, No Service" sign.

SAVANNAH
What is your complaint?
Satisfaction is our goal.
Put it in the slot.

BRYCE
The lines are so long,
and the forms are very hard,
and so is this, babe.
CUE BASS LINE

Ummm . . . where was I? Oh, yes. I have seen a lot of ads here, but I have never seen one that I would associate with pornography in any way. Am I alone in this? And, if so, why do I have to be Gallant to all you Goofuses?

[> [> [> Snerk! at your script. And: there was an ad... -- Masq, 15:02:00 06/20/02 Thu

for a while at the top of the board that showed buxom babes in bikinis and something about them dancing around a pole and I forget what it was an ad for--exotic dancers, an exotic dancers voy discussion board, who knows. It disappeared.

I have nothing against exotic dancers or buxom babes over even porn (VR), but I hate being forced to stare at ads for it while I'm on the board. These are things I'd rather see at the strip club or in private.

[> [> [> [> I missed that one. I too would rather see them in private. -- d'Herblay, 15:05:48 06/20/02 Thu

Ummmmm . . . ok, this is starting to sound like there's a new plan for the Bay Area Get-Together . . .

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I missed that one. I too would rather see them in private. -- Masq, 15:20:07 06/20/02 Thu

Huh?

Are you suggesting we all meet at a strip club?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Of COURSE not! Rah would have my head! -- d'Herblay, 15:27:31 06/20/02 Thu

Ok . . . there's a double entendré in there, and this isn't doing anything to help Night Repair anyway!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of COURSE not! Rah would have my head! -- O'Cailleagh, 15:58:06 06/20/02 Thu

I'm glad you noticed it...'cause I didn't want to point it out!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> O.K., then I'm confused -- Masq, 16:15:20 06/20/02 Thu

That reference to new plans for the August meet seemed to come out of nowhere. What did you mean?

[> [> [> [> That's good to know. -- VR, 17:34:57 06/20/02 Thu

[> Every filter is different, but if your school filters "occult content" that could be a problem. -- Dyna, 09:47:38 06/20/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Every filter is different, but if your school filters "occult content" that could be a problem. -- O'Cailleagh, 11:47:22 06/20/02 Thu

Very true...my last college had an occult filter on their computers which included aromatherapy in its occult definition (which is actually correct but thats besides the point!). Problem was, I was at the college studying aromatherapy!!!

[> [> [> Thanks guys it's just that... -- NightRepair, 15:45:13 06/20/02 Thu

It's just that sometimes I can access it and then other times I can't. It doesn't seem to be a problem with something that is permanently on the page (that's why I thought it was possibly the subject lines). Nevermind,. thanks for your input.

Highlights of the Saturn Awards on the Space Channel -- Rufus, 00:54:17 06/21/02 Fri

On Space, a Canadian channel devoted to Science Fiction and Fantasy, there was an hour devoted to the Saturn Awards. From BTVS there was Joss Whedon and Michelle Trachtenberg. The show wasn't linear and went back and forth from the ceremony to outside to clips of the shows being featured.

I'll leave out the rest and focus on the section that Joss and Michelle were in. Don't ask me what they looked like.....they looked clean and presentable.....Michelle that bit more so (could be the eyeliner). In the first bit Joss was being honest, if less than serious sounding.

Joss was outside signing autographs and there was a clip of him answering a question about season six...

Question: How would you describe the season of Buffy this year? What do you think the major themes were?

Joss: Ahhhhh......get really depressed. I think that's what we were going for with Buffy uhh and I think we hit the mark. I think we made people want to kill themselves and avoid our TV show, and I'm proud of that.

Question: And is that a trend that's going to continue next season?

Joss: No. Every season is different and in this season we really wanted to go to the dark place and really talk about power, and talk about sexuality, and really explore some very dark themes. And a lot of people sort of didn't really want to go there with us....at least not for twenty-two episodes.
Next year is going to be different, next year actually is going to be a kind of a turn around. We want to explore the joy of girl power, as it were. So, it's umm a lot more, like, early Buffy...than the more twisted later Buffy.

(There was a short chat with Michelle)

Question: What did you think of the season this year? Was it a little dark perhaps?

Michelle: Nothing is ever too dark, that's what makes it so exciting. Umm it was very interesting because each character kind of got the chance to revel in the dark arts, and..umm..it was just, it was a good season on the whole. But, next year will be better...less dark.

The show then cut to Malcom Jamal Warner announcing the Saturn Award for Best Network TV Show.....Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Joss went up to accept the award..

Joss: Thank you..very much.....I'm so used to just saying that it's an honour to be nominated.
I've been to a lot of award shows, and this is cooler than any of them...for a few reasons. Emmys, Oscars...umm......no Storm Troopers.....uhhh.....and I really looked. Also, I didn't win, so that wasn't as cool. And...uhhh..most importantly because their award comes from a different group of people than those people. This comes truly.....from a bunch of Nerds, and when I say that I mean....I mean smart people, I mean people who understand what Science Fiction and Fantasy mean. But, whenever I go to any other awards show, it's always "in spite" of what I do. It's always....they always talk about transcending the genre, and I don't believe in transcending the genre....I believe in the Genre.
I believe, I honestly do think there is no better place to talk about anything..myth..human interactions...social interactions..history, any of that and all of that all at once, than in Fantasy and Science Fiction.

(They went to a clip of Giles and Buffy in the magic shop leading to the Walk through the fire number in OMWF)

Joss: This year was about sort of entering the adult world and ahh...really making a poor job of it, and you know bad and rather turgid relationships were part of that. Also, you know there was....because we've done so much metaphorically, there came a point at which...well...let's do something literally just to see what's different. I mean, especially with Willows relationship...eventually if we didn't show some physicality, we'd have been just too Coy.

(Back to a OMWF clip of Willow and Tara in the park before the Under your Spell number) they again went back to a short clip of Michelle speaking.

Michelle: I feel that every episode we do we're trying to work to a greater model of something...because I think the moment you stop striving to do your best, that's when you fail. And, I think the reason why Buffy has been so successful is because no one's ever stopped working hard.

(Back to a OMWF clip of Buffy and Spike in his crypt pre- Rest in Peace number) then to a last comment from Joss at the awards.

Joss: When I was ten years old, I got my very first autograph at a convention, and it was from a man who has probably influenced my work more than any other single person...and that was Stan Lee. And it is an honour to be here in his presence tonight....Thank you very much.

Is Xander a "Rescuer"? By Helping the Scoobies, Avoiding his Own Issues...? -- K-Dizzy, 12:33:16 06/21/02 Fri

Either by deliberate action or unconscious denial, Xander has developed an uncanny ability and strong tendency to avoid working on his own personal issues by helping, "rescuing," and "being there" for his surrogate family, particularly Buffy and Willow. This doesn't seem wrong to him or anyone because, well, he's being a hero! But isn't this actually psychologically unhealthy for him? Such efforts enable him to (indefinitely) avoid confronting his own demons. This happens in two main areas:

Issues with Relationships:
Rather than address the bitter legacy of his own "monstrous" upbringing, his basic denial of Anyanka's evil-doing past, and his (relative) hypocrisy in being romantically involved with her, "white knight" Xander apparently invests vast amounts of mental energy obsessing about Fair Maiden Buffy's love and sex life�. Case in point: instead of beginning the overwhelming task of figuring out why he couldn't explain his fears to Anya, and how he might fix this, Xander elects to focus on the more "obvious" problem of Buffy being (emotionally and physically) with Spike, the soulless monster she surreptitiously "let in" to Fortress Buffy. Some argue this is because Xander still wants her, but there's another logical explanation: he KNOWS why Anya did what she did. So that leaves two real mysteries to probe: his own behavior and Buffy's. And WHY begin the painful process of self-examination when it's just SO much easier to dig into your hero's/friend's issues...??

Indeed, going back, it's not coincidence that it's only when Buffy had been 'safe' up in her ivory tower with Prince Charming Riley that Xander was able to bond with, connect to and have his wonderful "You make me feel like a man" epiphany regarding Anya�. he finally has the free operating space/speed on his internal PC's psychological hard drive to do so! It is precisely because he is NOT expending his resources running around, engaging in pissing contests, marking the perimeter trees of his Buffy territory to keep out "strong, mysterious, well-muscled" demon males of the vampire persuasion, that Xander has the time, energy and resulting insight to realize and express his own heart's desires to the woman he loves.

Issues with Insecurity/Power:
Rather than examine his inclination and apparent need to constantly correct, manage and otherwise "control" the outspoken Anya (who will never be a victim like his mother?) and/or confront the possibility of his becoming like his abusive father, Xander chooses to focus on the practice- not the causes- of Willow's abuse of magic/power. In fact, much like he doesn't acknowledge his own little "control" or boundary issues, he lets Willow off the hook any number of times for abusing magic and Tara (e.g. Tabula Rasa); maybe because she doesn't seem to be 'enjoying' her power (he missed the Bronze scene), because she seems very sorry, and because he doesn't really register the depth/roots of her problem (Older and Far Away). He knows better now. And with the loss of Tara, Xander (the Heart) is going to have to work a LOT of overtime to help a shattered Willow rebuild her confidence, life and oh-so-wounded Spirit after the events of last season.

All of which makes Xander a supportive, loyal and generous friend. But for his own happiness, it seems that Xander really needs to spend some quality time working on his OWN issues. In his whole life, Anya is the only person who has ever considered and put HIS needs above all others, and now he's driven her away. Buffy has Dawn and her slaying as her main focus; Willow has her intense grief and immense guilt to occupy her. But when these two suck Xander's energy and strength into their causes; when Xander spends all of his time either helping Buffy protect the world or helping Willow recover, who is going to fight for him like Anya did? After the wedding fiasco and vicious, apr�s "solace" argument, he can no longer deny his personal demons- they've moved front-and-center. They're pretty obvious now. But who's going to encourage him to tackle them, when there's so much other 'noble' work to do...? When and how will Xander ever realize that charity begins at home??

[> Love this and completely agree -- Dead Soul, 14:14:15 06/21/02 Fri

R vs J, pt 5 -- VampRiley, 13:08:55 06/21/02 Fri

I didn't feel like doing my final three reports for class. So, I wrote this up instead.

I've decided to expand on this beyond the original paramiters. I got bored with just writing action. So, I decided mix and match a few things.

Previously on Robert vs. Joey...

The grip of Joey's left hand loosened on his bat, but he still held it. Robert stood up and grabbed Joey by the back of his hair. He raised his left knee and smashed Joey's face into it. His nose broken, Joey extended the claws of his right hand and slashed deeply into Robert's stomach. He grabbed his bat with both hands and shoved Robert backward. The bat was pressing into where Joey slashed him. He tried to push back, but it was too painful. They crashed through the window. They fell through the air. Robert looked at him and saw a smile. Robert turned them over and the smile left Joey and appeared on Robert. They landed on the road with a loud crack. Robert looked at Joey and saw he was passed out. Robert smiled, but he got very tired. He rolled off of Joey to his left and passed out.

Now, on R vs J...

Joey woke up to pain. His brow furrowed, he felt around with his hands. He felt something warm and hard. It felt like a street, but there were cracks around his body. There were some pebbles pressed into his hands. As he opened his eyes, he found the sun had gone down. He painfully rolled over to his right. He got up to his hands and knees. The street was warm as was the air. He took a deep breathe and moved his shoulders around. He felt really warm and took off his jacket. He stood up and turned around. He looked at the broken window he and Robert came out of. Then, he looked around himself on the street.

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

Robert walked down a street down the middle of it. He was in a suburban area and came upon a house on his right. The ground slopped down behind it while the house stayed level. He stopped in front of it. It was a two story house with the garage on the left. The front door was in the center and there were two windows on the right side. As he looked at the house, the sword was absorbed into his hand with a metallic ringing. He walked across the grass and stopped at the front door. He looked at the door knob and grabbed it. He slowly turned it and the door opened. He stepped inside and saw a window in front of him inside another room at
the end of the hallway he was in. Inside it, he could see a breakfast table coming from the left. There was the back of a chair facing him, a chair on the other side of it and another chair was tucked under the other visible edge. Behind that chair was part of a counter. Through the window, there was a wooden deck and beyond that was the backyard that was basement level and very far away. He could make out the basic shape of trees in the distance. Between him and that room was a closet on the right. In the hallway and the room with the table, there was tile on the floor. Between him and the closet was an open doorway that lead to a large room with two couches. On the left side of the room was another open area that lead to a dinner room table with chairs perpandicular to the front of the house. Behind the table was a large china cabinet. Both the front room and the dinning room had dark green carpeting on the floor.

To Robert's left was a carpeted staircase that lead upstairs. There were three stairs then a flat area. The stairs continued as they moved upwards perpandicular to the first three. He went up the stairs. The carpeting continued onto the second level. He passed a bathroom with the door open after he turned left at the top of the stairs. He then passed a bedroom that was small on his right. There was another bedroom at the end of the hall in front of him, but there was a third bedroom right before that one on the left. He went into that one. The door was opened to the left. There was a dresser on his right with a mirror that ran the whole length of it. On the other side of the dresser was a closet. Coming out of the opposite was a bed with a light blue comforter on top. The bed was made up. There was a nightstand on either side with a lamp on each. There was a smaller dresser between him and the back wall that was up against the left wall. Directly in front of him was a small window. Between that window and the dresser was a door that lead into another bathroom. Between him and the smaller dresser was a small closet. On the wall on the opposite side of the room was a larger window. The walls were painted white and there was dark green carpeting.

On the left nightstand, there was a picture in a light brown wooden frame. He walked over to it. He picked it up and turned left as he sat on the bed. He put his left foot uder his right knee. He leaned back against the head board. In the picture were two people -- himself and another woman with long red hair that was just below shoulder length. She had a small mole on her top lip on her left side. They were looking happy with smiles. He sat behind her, his arms around her waist. She was turned around to him and looked at him with a kittenish, lopsided grin. He looked back at her with the right side of his mouth turned up. The picture was taken at night with a full moon high in the sky in the background. The sky was full of stars. They looked so completely in love. Behind and below them was the rooftops of suburbian houses. They all looked done in a spanish style. It wasn't one of those where they take the picture and put a background behind you. They were actually there. He looked at it with sad eyes as he lightly ran the fingers on his right hand over it, while he held it with his left.

Tears started welling up in his eyes. He looked up and saw his reflection in the mirror in front of him. He got angry and vamped out. He took the picture in his right hand and threw it again the wall on his right like a frisbee. Right before it hit the wall, it stopped and hovered in the air. It floated slowly back to him. It stopped in the air in front of him. He reached out with his left and grabbed it. He looked at it and his face shifted back to human. He got up and tossed the picture onto the center of the bed. He walked out the door and turned right.

He came down the stairs and turned left, heading toward the breakfast table. As he entered the room, he could see another large opening leading to another room with off-white carpeting. There were two steps that lead down into that room. Facing him was the back of a love seat with an end table on the left. On the right side of the room was a sliding door that lead to the wooden deck. On the left side of the the door was a three-seater couch. On the left side of it was another end table. In the back, left corner was a large TV. Opposite of the sliding door was an opening to another hallway. Before those two stpes was and open door that lead to a staircase leading downstairs. To his left was the right side of a fridge. The counter in the kitchen was shaped like a sideways "U". On the other side of the kitchen was a stove connected into the "U". Opposite the fridge was the sink. On the right of the stove was an open door way that lead to the dinning room. He went to the
fridge, pulling on the right door. He reached in with his left and pulled whole milk out. He reached above the fridge and grabbed a box of Cheerios with his right. He took one of those fruit bowels out of one of those cabinets behind him. He went over to the stove and grabbed an semi-transparent container with a vanilla colored top off the back of the stove. When he walked back to where he was, he poured the cereal and the milk into the bowel. He opened the top and poured some sugar on top with the small scoop that was inside. He put the stuff back and went to the dining room.

As he went into the room, there was a cabinet about the size of the dressers up stairs with a really oversided brandy snifter that was obviously not for drinking from.
It had the word "Datis" frosted on the front with a large, plastic handle sticking out of it. On the wall on the left was a small window. Out of the small corner on his right as he went into the front room was a small display case with a single doll in it. It was dressed in a kimono. It had jet black skin, white eyes with no irises, long white hair that stopped at the center of her lower back and long pointed ears. Her chin was as long as the breads on egyptian pharoahs. It ended in a forked edge. At her feet were burnt green colored flowers. They were tied together with a yellow ribbon around the stems. The flowers sat facing away from her. Her mouth was open and there was a row of sharp, connical teeth, like that of tarsiers, on her bottom and top jaw. Through the whole display were twoi mirrors that acted as backings for the case.

As he entered to front room, there was a large mirror on the left wall and a three-seater couch underneath it. Across from him were two windows with three small coffee tables underneath them They were cut with a waving pattern like that of the yin/yang symbol so they would fit together, but there was a little space between them. Each of them had two levels on them. Against the wall on his right as he faced the hallway was a love seat. Out of the corner on the left side of the opposite wall was another big screen TV with a VCR on top of it. There were tapes strewn about the floor around the TV and on top of the VCR. Some had labels on their side while others didn't. While holding his bowel from underneath with his left hand, he knelt down on his right knee and found one. He got up and put it in the VCR. He hit play and sat on the love seat. On the screen, there was this girl with bleached hair asleep in bed. Then, various images appeared on the screen. He reached for his spoon and realized he didn't get one. He went through the hallway to kitchen and opened one of the drawers. He found no spoons. He looked in the drainer on the right side of the sink and found one. He went through the dinning room and sat back on couch. On the screen, the blonde girl slowly moved through a library. She looked over the counter on the right and pulled back. She was tapped on her right shoulder. Spooked, she turned around and saw a man dressed in a tweed suit. He put a mouthful of food into his mouth and began to chew.

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

Joey walked up to a sidewalk with his baseball bat in his left and his jacket in his right. In the distance, he saw a one level building. To his right, he saw the words "St. Catherine's Elementary school" on a stand in the middle of the field.

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

Joey pushed open the front double doors and walked through them. There was an office in front of him and chairs and couches on his left and right. He walked further in and saw a hallway that went left and right. He moved left and saw a glass door in the far left corner facing left. To the right in the far corner were double wodden doors that had their kick stands down, holding them open. Through the doors, the hallway immediately turned left. As he continued, he passed classrooms with small chairs. The second grade classes on he left and the first grade ones on the right. He made his way down to the kindergarden classes. Right before those classes was another double door made of glass on the left and another hallway that went to the chorus room on the left side with the door in the far left corner and the door to the auditorium that was on the right, which wasn't as far as the chorus room. At the very end of the corridor was a double door made of glass that led to the outside where gym and recess were held. On the left past the intersection was the door for speech class and the door for the music room was opposite that room.

He finally made it to where the kindergarden classes were. He entered the first room on his right. There were several finger paintings and other drawings of crayons and markers all along the wall. There was a small girl, about ten, sitting at a round table in the center of the room. She had long red hair. She was wearing blue jeans, white sneakers, which were dirty, and a yellow button front shirt. There were several empty chairs around the table. He walked over to her and she looked up. He though she looked really cute. He could see a small mole on her top lip on her left side. She smiled at him and he returned her smile. She pulled the chair on her left out and offered it to him. Before he could sit, other kids came in. One of them had his shirt off. "Hey, Joey" said the kid. As he past him, he put on the white t-shirt in his right hand. But, before he put it on all the way, Joey could see the tatooe of a black raven on left upper back.

He went to sit in the pulled out chair, when the red head growled at him. "That's his."

"He's not using it now."

"I saved it for him. So, stay away from it!"

"Damn. Fine." he scoffed and sat at the chair on it's left.

Joey saw a girl in a dark red dress come up to him. She was holding a doll that was burnt. "You don't belong here. You left us a long time ago."

"She wants me here." he said turning to the red head.

"She always wants you with her. Always has. Always will, no matter how much pain and misery you put each other through. She wants to live the fairy tail." She moved past him and sat down two seats over from the tatooed boy.

"Hey, baby." he said looking at her with a sweet smile. "Why don't you come over here and sit next to me. I can show you a few things I can do with certain body
parts."

"Hey!" said a boy with medium brown hair. He sat in the chair bewteen them. "She's mine. So, stay away from her."

"Not for long, you idiot." The brown haired boy hit the dark haired boy with a right cross. The got up and started fighting.

"Huh hmm." Everyone turned to the door way. There was a girl about their age, maybe a little older, with shoulder length brown hair. "Having to see you two fight gives me a headache. So, stop it." The dark haired boy smiled at the other boy. The non-smiling boy let go of him and sat back in the chair. "Why are you here?" she said walking up to Joey. He tried to say something. "You're different." She smelled him and growled. "Stay away from us."

"Hey!" said the red head. "He's mine! If I want him here, he can be here."

"Mister Christoph is not gonna like him here. You know that."

"I don't care, you jerk face! I want him here."

"Ooohh, you're gonna be in trouble when he finds out. He's gonna have to discipline you. I like it when he disciplines me." She walked to the table and sat down in Joey's seat. She growled at her. "He won't be staying. So, he won't be needing it." She turned to Joey and he saw her face turn to fear. Joey turned around and saw a tall man standing in front of him. He was in a black suit with a white suit, shiney black shoes and a blood red tie. He had a crew cut and was vamped out. His cheeck area were extremely defined. his forhead was very bumpy and a nose that looked like a feline's. His ears were pointed. He had 6 short whiskers and a very slight fuzz on his skin. He glared at the boy with yellow eyes that glowed, like dim flashlights.

He grabbed Joey by the throat with his right with his claws extended. He picked him up and slammmed him up against the door of the closet right next to the door to the hallway.

The red head ran up to the adult. "Please, Mister Christoph! Please, don't hurt him! He's like us!" He reached in front of him and grabbed her by the front of her shirt with his left. While Joey was struggling in pain, he held the girl up. Joey tried to hit his arm with the bat, but it didn't faze him.

"He's nothing like us. Nothing!" He threw her backwards to his left. She hit the black board and fell to the floor. Mister Christoph's claws dug further into his neck. He leaned in closer. "You should have know this would have happened if you came back."

"Kill him!!! Kill 'im!!!" cheered the dark haired boy and brown haired girl next to him.

He tried to say "no", but it came out as a gurgle.

"Never show you face around here again." he said menacingly. He let him go and Joey dropped.

The red head looked up. "No." she said softly, tears in her eyes. Joey looked over at her.

"Don't even think about." said the adult looming over him. Joey looked up at him, then back at the red head, the tears threatening to break for her. Joey was about to say something when he heard Mister Christoph growl. He looked up. He grabbed his bat and his jacket and ran out the door.

"NO!!!!!" screamed the girl. She started to cry. "You can't leave me. Not again. I need you." She sat up, hugging her legs to her chest and started sobbing. Mister Christoph went over to the table. "Now, kids." He clasped his hands together. "Let's start with our math." The red head continued her sobbing.

Joey bolted from the front door and kept running from the school. He stopped and looked back. Then, he turned back and ran away.

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

The credits were rolling on the screen. Robert got up with his empty bowel and hit the stop button. He headed to the hallway when he ran into someone. He moved back and saw a woman a little shorter than him with shoulder length brown. "What are you doing here?" He looked curious, but didn't say anything. "Is this the life you want? You don't even know if it's possible." He tried to say something. "Oh, don't even try to give me that "hope" crap. You don't even know if she really exists. How do you know you didn't just make her up to calm your own mind down. That you didn't create someone that you can love completely just because you were lonely. If you continue thinking like this, you life is going to be miserable. You should get out there and live, but what are you doing? You're are staying the loner in hopes that what you want to be true is actually true. Then, none of the recent past will be the same because you can go back and change it. Do you really think those groups exist?"

He just looked at her. "Oh, god. You do. You are hoping against hope that they really exist and you can have the life you want." She walked to the other side. He turned with her. "Have they come yet. You've been wanting this for long time, praying everyday it will start. It's all you think about. God, you're pathetic."

"There's nothing pathetic about it."

She smiled at him and invaded his personal space. "Alright then. Tell me. When you're old and feeble...when you're on your death bed, lying up in a hospital...you're not gonna think you wasted your entire life waiting for something that never happened. You're gonna die a bitter old man with no friends...no one to take care about you. And I don't mean those that work at the hospital. They are paid to care about you. I'm talking about those that care about you because they want to care about you. Those that really love. Those people that are up here..." she tapped his left temple twice, "...don't actually exist. They can't actually be there to comfort you when you're hurt or scared or in pain. And they won't be there when you're lying there with tubes sticking in you every which way.

He growled and grabbed her by the throat with his left. He threw her agianst the wall on his right. "Shut up."

"Why? Because I'm saying what you don't want to hear? Because what I'm saying is what you know is true?"

"Shut up!!!" He ripped her throat out and she fell to her knees. Blood fell from her neck as she grabbed her throat. He reached down and pulled her head off with both hands.

To be continued...

VR

[> ok. I'm thinking this Robert guy has some issues. :-) -- GreatRewards, 14:12:45 06/21/02 Fri

[> Keeping the thread alive -- Your friendly neighborhood web hostess, 18:52:54 06/22/02 Sat

[> Fic Corner ? -- VR, 21:44:37 06/22/02 Sat

I've been asked to post my Robert vs Joey segments in the Fic corner by several posters. So, I figured, what the hell. Thing is, I don't know if there are any rules that would prohibit me from sending them and I forget what you need for submissions. Everytime I try to use the addy to send this question, I get a "failure to deliver" response. Can anyone let me know either way.

Thanks.

[> [> use this addy to send... -- Liq, 23:19:44 06/23/02 Sun

From Entertainment Weekly...'Buffy Revamps' season seven spoilers -- Rufus, 15:41:35 06/21/02 Fri

EW June 28/July 5, 2002
ONtheAir The latest news from the TV beat
by Lynette Rice

'Buffy Revamps'

No more downer days in Sunnydale. Look for Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon to inject a little Prozac into the UPN drama when it returns for season 7 this fall. "Last season was about getting everyone so depressed they wanted to kill themselves, and next season's about bringing [the show] back to life", says Whedon. "I want to get back to where we started and to the theme, which is girl power." The action resumes at Sunnydale High with Dawn (Michelle Trachtenberg) becoming a freshman and Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) starting...a new job! (Whedon won't divulge her profession, but wouldn't it be fitting if she replaced Anthony Stewart Head's Giles as the Librarian?). Whedon says a new villian, "everybody's worst nightmare," will wreak havoc in town while witchy Willow (Alyson Hannigan) will be off for a spell with Giles in England. "I'm shooting scenes with Alyson and Tony in his [real life English estate] for the Buffy premiere that involve Willow trying to deal with the magic in her that she can't get rid of." Oh, that old black magic. by William Keck

[> "Back To The Beginning" -- ZachsMind, 04:20:29 06/22/02 Sat

To me, "back to the beginning" means trying to salvage the old formula for story telling. In the first three seasons the problems that occurred usually resolved around the school in some way. They walked away from that in the "Graduation Day" two parter, when they effectively destroyed the high school. Three years have passed. Apparently more than sufficient time for the construction of a new Sunnydale High School on the same spot where the old one was. The Hellmouth is still there. They've closed it but they haven't found a way to remove it completely from the Earth.

Though she's not the Next Slayer, I strongly suspect Buffy will try to train Dawn in the ways of fighting vampires. If Dawn's going to insist on being a part of Buffy's life, and vice versa, Buffy's going to want Dawn able to defend herself. Instilling Dawn with knowledge is the best way to protect her baby sister. So in essence, Dawn will be at the start of season seven, where Buffy was with Giles at the start of season one. Back to the basics. Back to the beginning.

Dawn is starting her freshman year of high school next season, most probably at the new improved Sunnydale High. However, all the other regular BtVS characters have grown past high school. On the surface it would appear Dawn's going to be alone. There is a way for them to put Buffy and the Scoobies inside Sunnydale High - make them teachers. There's only one problem with that. Technically they're not qualified. Buffy dropped out of college. Xander never went. Willow had continued college after Buffy left, but there hasn't been enough time for her to graduate, and if Tara's death happened before the semester ended, odds are Willow never completed her junior year. She surely hasn't a diploma or the criteria for real teaching. At best she'd qualify as a substitute teacher. She also won't be in any condition to join the workforce until after she and Giles resolve things in England.

IF Giles returned permanently to Sunnydale, he could regain his position as school librarian, or he could get a position as a history teacher. OR since ASH's contract is still only a recurring character, the position of librarian could fall to Buffy or Willow, after a fashion. Xander is qualified to run a shop class - he's a carpenter after all. If failing that, he could work there as a janitor. Anya could get a position as guidance counselor or even principal. Halfrek proved last season that vengeance demons have the ability to slip in posing as faculty and no one questions it. Buffy would be ideal as a P.E. instructor. She may not have credentials but she could still do the job. Just imagine: Coach Buffy.

It can be argued that because of Sunnydale's history, the school board may have to stretch in order to get anyone even remotely qualified to come to work in that school. Besides the history of student and teacher deaths, the school itself blew up a few years back. The writers could make it very easy for our Scooby gang to infiltrate the school as its faculty. Which will in essence bring us back to square one. The visuals will be a little different, but the basic formula will return.

Big bad evil brews in Sunnydale High, and only the Scoobies can stop it. Back to the beginning.

[> [> Re: "Back To The Beginning" (S7 spoilers!) -- cjc36, 06:12:30 06/22/02 Sat

ZM, Great road map to possible writer-solutions on how S7 may break. I, personally, can't wait.

Rumors (according to AICN, I believe), that Mark Metcalf (the Master) has been contacted by ME. Wonder why?????

[> [> [> About The Master... -- ZachsMind, 10:25:48 06/22/02 Sat

Interesting to point out that when Buffy killed The Master's cronies who were trying to bring him back in "When She Was Bad," Collin was there. Buffy took a sledgehammer and beat The Master's bones to dust. After she saved her friends and left, Collin "The Annointed One" was in the last scene of that episode. I seem to recall a broom in the shot. It's very plausible that Collin collected The Master's dust together, and bottled it. Kept it somewhere for safe keeping. Admittedly, Spike killed Collin soon after that, but "The Annointed One" probably told someone where he kept The Master. The ritual to bring The Master back was only temporarily postponed.

Of course, in order to finish it, they'd have to bring together the four people who were closest to The Master at the time, and drain their blood to revive The Master. One of those people is dead (Jenny Calendar) and another is on another network (Cordelia Chase). Giles & Willow are still alive. Odds are the writers can't bleed two of the lead roles in order to bring The Master back. So they'll need another plan. Shouldn't be difficult to write up a different ritual that an audience would believe. Or they could go a different route completely.

When Anya lost her power center initially in "The Wish," she had created that Bizarro World where The Master was in charge of Sunnydale. It's possible now that Anya's got her vengeance demon's powers back, she might be able to return to that world and get back her necklace. She may only need it for sentimental value at this point, but while doing so she could accidently unleash The Master of that Bizarro World on Buffy's world. Either way, let the mean old Master festivities begin. I'll bring the salsa.

[> [> [> [> Re: About The Master...I came up with a possibility (spec) -- shadowkat, 15:01:48 06/22/02 Sat

Well I heard that rumor too and came up with a couple of possibilities:

1. Spike. He gets a soul. But the Lurker gives him an "extension" or "hitch-hiker" buried beneath that soul - the Master's essence which can hitch and infect only one of his line (spike is - since Darla was made by the Master, and Spike is three down). So instead of the demon soul currently inhabiting Spike, he now has the Master's and William's soul.
As a result we have split personality Spike. In Vamp form, he's The MAster, in human form - he's William.
Dr. William and Mr. Master.

2. The Master's ashes are connected with the energy of the hellmouth - all someone has to do is a resurrection spell to give them life and rebuild the highschool. A powerful
witch could do it.

3. On witches - have we forgotten Catherine Madison whose
soul is still trapped in that statute which was lying on the floor of the high school in the Doomed shooting script??

Just some ideas. Personally can't see them going the Spike route. But who knows.

[> [> Re: "Back To The Beginning" -- Penguin, 08:26:50 06/22/02 Sat

Buffy doesn't have the qualifications to be a teacher or librarian but she could be hired as a school security guard. Principal Snyder would be rolling over in his "grave".

[> [> [> School�s have security guards? -- grifter, 08:41:31 06/22/02 Sat

School�s have security guards? Whoa...you wacky americans!

[> [> [> [> Re: School�s have security guards? -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:40:52 06/22/02 Sat

The ones with lots of gang activity do. And, given that killer monsters are usually hidden as PCP dealing gangs, Sunnydale High would probably want guards.

Actually, for Buffy's new job, I suggest that the whole Scooby Gang pitch their money to buy the Bronze. (I'm also hoping the Summers' house will burn down, providing insurance money and Buffy's chance to move into an apartment across the hall from either Xander or Anya).

[> [> Isn't Dawn going to be a sophmore? -- aurelia, 09:38:03 06/22/02 Sat

Unless she has to repeat 9th grade, which would really suck beyond the telling of it.

[> [> [> I thought she was gonna be a freshman... -- ZachsMind, 11:08:56 06/22/02 Sat

But then I suck at math. =)

Well let's see.. Buffy turned 18 in season three (Helpless) and turned 20 in season five (Blood Ties) so at the point of "Real Me" Buffy is 19. In that same episode (Real Me) Dawn admits she's 14. I know not when Dawn's birthday is. Well since she was technically never born she might not have a birthday. It should be safe to say there's a five or six year difference between Dawn & Buffy's ages. This means even when Buffy started in high school, Dawn was only ten years old and attending fifth grade. Well, if she wasn't a green ball of energy at the time. So if Buffy was 15 in season one, she'd be 22 in season seven, that means Dawn is either 16 or 17 now. So okay. She would be a sophomore. I think.

Some American high schools are 9-12th grade, but some districts put 9th graders in with the junior high school. It depends on the overcrowding, teacher resources, city tradition, bussing factors and a whole lot of other things. Putting 9th graders in junior high also seems to curtail hazing a bit, because seniors in high school don't have the freshmen to haze, and have to pick on sophomores. It's just not as fun. =)

[> [> [> Dawn will be a sophmore. -- Liana, 11:55:49 06/22/02 Sat

[> The Big Bad -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:36:35 06/22/02 Sat

I'm hoping with all my heart that Season 7's Big Bad is a vampire. That would be getting back to the roots. I've come up with some possibilities:

1) The first vampire ever made.

2) A Slayer who was made into a vampire.

3) Someone Buffy cares about is vamped.

4) Spike does a Faith. Unable to handle the guilt of his actions, he becomes worse than he ever was.

Btvs Actors Tease S7 -- Jane's Addiction, 06:40:40 06/22/02 Sat

"Will Little Dawney date? Will Willow recover? Spike the Big Bad CrackerJack Boy. And other vexing mysteries of Season 7..."

Sort of an interesting little article on Sci Fi Wire with comments from AH, JM and MT about Season 7.

MT must really hate wearing those sneakers. But isn't she already the tallest woman in the cast? "...We love that you're happy with the heels, Michelle. Now let me show you the trench we're going to have you walking in all this season..."

[> Re: Btvs Actors Tease S7 -- shadowkat, 14:52:31 06/22/02 Sat

Once again...they tell us about all the characters that we can predict, but nothing on the one we can't (ie. Spike).

Oh - poor AH, she thinks we hate Willow? How many people
have forgiven her? I forgave while she was doing it.

One wonders what they're planning with Spike, they really are working hard to keep the lid on that aren't they? LOL!

[> [> Re: Btvs Actors Tease S7 -- Jane's Addiction, 19:13:46 06/22/02 Sat

Yeah, since the writers have talked about how they really don't want to tell the Angel story over again (just with really high cheek bones!), I tend to think this "Re-Soul Man" isn't exactly going to be brooding hugs and puppies boy. I am looking forward to a bloody awful haiku or two, but I'm just twisted that way.

And, call me amoral, but I too had no trouble forgiving Willow.

[> [> [> Forgiving Willow (Spoilers for S6) -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 20:09:09 06/22/02 Sat

Umm, guys . . .

yes, I understand why Willow did what she did; I don't even object too much to her killing Warren.

What terrifies me is HOW she did it; Hannibal Lecter would have applauded. Immense willingness to inflict pain and serious lack of humanity -- "Bored now."

Now, maybe she can put the fuzzy-sweater, sugar & spice lid on that but that particular savagery needs REAL WORK to send away -- and until it does Willow is more Little Miss Dangerous than Faith ever was.

Interesting article I found about Domestic Abuse and Gender Role Reversal in Season 6. -- VHF, 08:56:17 06/22/02 Sat

By Kristen Smirnov

Since this issue has come up again recently, I thought I'd share the letter I recently sent to Marti and Joss regarding different kinds of sexual abuse as portrayed this season. I'm aware that this might anger some people, and that's truly not my intention. I'll just say that, as a college student on a liberal campus, I've been exposed to a staggering wave of excused or ignored domestic abuse doled out by females that seems to increase with every semester. I'm hyper-sensitive to it, and that's the stance where I'm coming from with this.

I've been letting this letter stew for a while to see if my feelings changed. I knew this would be a long letter, addressing a touchy and uncomfortable issue. But it was one raised by the show throughout the season, and was one approached from increasingly unsettling ways. Thus, I felt compelled to write in the hopes that my viewpoint, even if it's not shared by anyone on the writing staff, might at least have its validity considered.

I read interviews done by the Mutant Enemy writers and have noticed a disturbing trend. To say that Buffy's treatment of Spike was not domestic abuse is disingenuous at best and dangerous and immoral at worst, and to see it excused the way it has been turns my stomach. The gender roles were so thoroughly reversed this season that the stereotypical "bad boyfriend" actions were nearly drowning me as they rolled off Buffy. Yet, we were constantly told that she was simply coming from a confused place, not a bad one, and that there was much angst from her resurrection that she was trying and failing to deal with.

While trying to explain this to a friend who had a hard time visualizing a female as an abuser, I used the following analogy. A man is in a bad place in his life, the points of which have arisen from his friends' actions. There is a woman, one with a dangerous past who is now of rapidly greying morality, who he knows to be deeply in love with him. After brushing her off when she attempts to talk seriously with him about their having kissed means, they get in a fight. It ends with him shoving her up against a wall and taking her, correctly assuming she would want to begin physical relations... but assuming. The morning after the sex he initiated, they get in a verbal fight which ends with the man telling the woman that if she tells anyone of their encounter, he'll kill her.

It was at about this point that my friend began to develop a furrowed brow over this new angle upon which the occurrences of the season could be viewed from. I went on past the man setting an "alarm system" to keep out the evil temptress who was obviously working her evil wiles on him. Now he again seeks to distract himself from his day to day problems. He goes over to the woman's house, storms in, throws her against the wall, and rips open her clothes before she even processes who's there. The moment she does so, she's thrown to the floor and he initiates sex once again.

Here's where it gets seriously dicey. The man is considerably stronger than the woman (she couldn't lift something--the Troll Hammer--that he was swinging around like a badminton racquet) and has pressed her into sex that the audience has seen she wanted. After he has fun humiliating her in front of an acquaintance, she realizes she's being used and tells him to leave. In short, the person who's never said no says it loud and clear. The man promptly ignores her clear wishes and initiates sexual contact. When she finally manages to shove him away, he isn't remorseful; he's annoyed and petulant that he didn't get his way.

In my world, overriding someone's clear and unquestioned revocation of sexual consent is rape. The gender of the attacker doesn't matter, nor does the gender of the victim. How upsetting was it, I thought as I watched this, that clear sexual assault was being presented as nothing more than a throwaway joke?

The same issue arose when Willow wiped Tara's memories of an argument in All The Way, only to engage in sexual relations with her in Once More, With Feeling. This was clearly a blatant and purposeful bending of someone's wishes in order to keep the target in line with their own desires. Later, Tara would say that her mind had been violated; no, it was more than her mind. She did the right thing and separated herself from her attacker, but then returned to her later in the season with a desire to get "right to the kissing." This was, to say the least, highly distressing.

I watched two women not only commit sexual assault this season, but have it excused either in the show or in writer interviews. Worse than that, it was never even acknowledged as anything akin to rape, it was just another vague "bad thing" they'd doled out that seemed to be beyond their control.

Now we come to the events in Seeing Red. Suddenly the audience is expected to forget everything they've been shown up until that point in the season. Ignoring clear revocation of sexual consent was a joke; now, a situation that develops out of that fact that there can no longer be clear communication of any sort is sold as rape, and the audience is expected to buy it. To say that, well, Buffy said "no" is coy and self-defeating... all it does is reinforce the fact that she was annoyed and showed no remorse when Spike had to physically prove to her that no did indeed mean no.

Going back to my earlier analogy, the man is obviously ashamed of his relationship with this morally questionable woman. He takes advantage of her being willing to take his abuse to work through issues created by others, and takes advantage of it frequently. A consistent and systematic pattern of abuse develops out of his treatment of her, where he not only physically beats her but also decries any and all attempts she makes at improving her moral lot in life as futile from the start. When she asks him to explain these questions of ethics, he hits her again.

Most distressing of all, he does not ever let her approach him for sex the way he feels free to do with her. When he feels like a go, the woman gets easily tossed around; when she wants it, she has to "overpower" the person who is much, much stronger than her. So convinced is the man that the woman he chose to initiate a relationship with is below his moral standards that he forces this person who loves him to "make" him have sex. After all, he would never willingly allow this "disgusting, evil thing" to touch him of his own volition. It's absurd to watch, knowing that he could throw her free at any moment. But so convinced is he of her utter lack of redeeming qualities beyond sexual prowess that he forces her into believing that the only communication he'll allow is through sex, and that if she wants to open up these lines of communication, she must "overpower" him.

It has been said that Spike and Buffy cannot be compared to a real life couple, being supernatural creatures, yet that seems to be exactly what the audience has been encouraged to do through the events of this season. The issues faced by them may have had their supernatural origins as catalysts, but are based in simple human emotions. We're seemingly invited to bring our own interpretations to the table for their interactions, and I have obviously done so above. By making two simple changes (gender and humanity), my friend suddenly changed his tune about whether or not Buffy had been a cold-hearted, remorseless abuser; now there seemed no question of it.

That this so easily changed in his head is what worries me about what the audience is expected to take from this season. Buffy knew Spike wanted to talk about what was going on and that he'd never said no; her overpowering him was presented as a joke. Spike attempts to stay away from Buffy after being dumped by her, is twice made to feel guilty for daring to direct his attentions towards another woman, tries to rip out his own emotions so he can stop hurting so much, and then attempts to "communicate" with the person who has denied him any other means of doing so, and we're expected to see rape.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't buy that Buffy directing abuse towards someone innocent of her resurrection was just a sign of her "wrongness" and nothing more to be concerned about. I don't buy that she didn't force Spike into actions and roles he didn't want to play. I don't buy that forcing someone weaker into patterns of behavior and communication carries no weight when it ultimately results in a terrible moment between the two.

If sexual assault had been presented in a consistent manner throughout the season, perhaps the scene would have been believable as what it's promptly labeled as... but this falls firmly in third place behind the sins perpetuated by Buffy and Willow in the same arena. More than that, Xander immediately assumes rape... why? As far as he knows, Spike can't hurt Buffy. All I can see is a sign of a mindset that men rape while women are victimized. And as Buffy was portrayed as the victim during it, all I could think yet again was that this was absurd. She's supposedly injured enough to compensate for her much greater strength, yet this incredible injury is gone by the time she goes to fight Warren in the next scene. The drama of the moment is emphasized by a complete lack of background music, yet Buffy ignoring his "no" was accompanied by a wacky score.

That fingers have been pointed at Spike while Buffy and Willow are excused has put me in a terribly uncomfortable place with people who have indeed bought into the idea of "men rapists, women victims." Looking at it from a gender neutral stance, I clearly see two successful sexual assaults this season and one violent encounter that developed out of the toxic communication patterns laid out by one partner. Yet, thanks to the stances assumed by Mutant Enemy in their interviews, I have people asking me how I can "excuse rape" and that I'm obviously attempting to "cloud the issue" by bringing up Buffy and Willow overriding their partner's clear wishes.

Everything I've seen from interviews says that Buffy will have to deal with her actions, but nothing that says she will ever be called on them by others. This selfish, abusive little girl, who was annoyed when the man she left for dead in a sun-exposed alley dared to bring up the beating, who acknowledged that she was using him and promptly turned it away from any effects to him with the statement that it was killing her, will get off scott-free. More than that, she's hailed as the conquering hero in the finale, climbing to the sunlight with her sister. Why? Why should someone who has shown no remorse for her sins to a man who loves her find joy and forgiveness?

Meanwhile, Spike is convinced he's committed a far worse crime than he did, and this soulless creature felt so much remorse than he sought to change his entire metaphysical structure to avoid a repeat. This is amazing: we've been told time and time again that vampires cannot feel guilt without a soul, that his shiny soul is how Angel realizes his crimes and seeks to make amends for them. Spike did so without one... this is epic stuff. He's far better than he should be, while Buffy is far worse. But he'll return to a group of people convinced that he did indeed victimize this "helpless" girl, in actuality a dangerous abusive user whose sins they know nothing about.

Some fans have raised the question of how these two could ever get back together with an attempted rape overhanging them; I have a different question. How can this dramatic work show a person changing themselves for the better for the sake of someone who abused and assaulted them without one moment of demonstrated remorse, and then return to them? It was distasteful when Tara did so with Willow, and would be just as much so if Spike does so with Buffy. I can only hope that these issues will indeed be addressed next season, that Buffy's staggering patterns of emotional and physical abuse will be addressed so the audience is not expected to root for a supposed hero who is in actuality morally bankrupt.

I know what I've seen presented to me in the show, and what I hope most of all is that we will not see abuse excused in interviews, that we will not be told abuse victims are "bad boyfriends." In short, I hope to see the true hero of the show that has emerged over this past year be given the respect that he deserves, and that the actions of the villain whose name the show bears are not brushed aside as nothing.

link
http://www.btvs-tabularasa.net/essays/DomesticAbuse.html

[> Re: Interesting article I found about Domestic Abuse and Gender Role Reversal in Season 6. -- shadowkat, 09:45:53 06/22/02 Sat

Actually the issues you raise bothered me as well, so much so that I've raised similar questions in numerous essays, for a peek see:

www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs/

Essays are: S/T - Self-Respect (about victims of domestic violence), Scooby Gang vs. The Troika - Respect,
Robot Metaphors - Creating Mr. & Ms. Right - should still be on ATP board about Buffy treating Spike like her own
personal slave. Anya, Buffy, and Angel - Theme of Vengeance.
Buffy/Willow - Violence and Magic as Coping Mechanisms.

Basically I think ME wanted to take you there. To make you think exactly what you are thinking. Joss Whedon states in several recent interviews that he wanted to show the dark relationships we get into - the horrors of those - where two people have real feelings for each other but no good foundation and treat each other horribly. Neither is good or bad in the situation. No good guys. That is real life.
In most domestic violence and violent relationships - the victim is not clearly identifiable, it's a train wreck.
Gawd - I can't tell you how many I've seen...too many, it's why I got out of Domestic Violence work. It's painful to watch. They did an excellent job - but as Joss noted at the Saturns - they probably went a little far, took the audience into a place not all of us wanted to go, some of the actors didn't either, SMG had major problems with it.
Can see why - it's very risky to do, particularly for a young actress at the beginning of her career.

Was Buffy morally bankrupt in doing this? I don't think it's as black and white as you paint it. Yes, she was wrong.
Horribly so. I think she acknowledges this. But she is also 21 years of age and just brought back to life and horribly depressed. They did not redeem her in the final act, they showed her crawling out her maliase and the horrible place she was in. Spike - well, he hated himself by the end of the year and went to change that feeling. He was slowly losing all respect for himself. Was she partly responisble?
Yes. Was he? Also yes. The attempted rape was hard for me - because
dang it - no one deserves that, but I could see why he lost control and if I was him, would I have done the same thing?
Auuughhh!!! Don't want to go there. (Being female and all and for women, rape is our worste nightmare - a physical and emotional violation that leaves deep scars) But my mind can't help it. Particularly if i was a demon who was feeling all these emotions I can't stop. Watching the attempted rape - which the boards more or less prepared me for - was like watching two close friends pull their insides out in front of me.
I can't watch it again, I think I turned away the first time. It was a scene from a nightmare. It was meant to be.
This, Me said, is what happens when you enter a violent relationship...and treat someone with no respect - it fires back up on you. That does not mean you deserve it. Do we deserve the things karma thrusts upon us? Did the innocent
people in Afganistan deserve to be bombed? Did the japanese
deserve the nuclear bombs? Did the US deserve pearl harbor?
No, of course not!! But violence breeds violence. Hate breeds hate. Abuse breeds abuse. Until someone stops it.
Buffy did by kicking him off her and saying this is why we can't be together and Spike did by going to africa to get a soul. They stopped their cycle. Could the writers have stopped it in a better way? Maybe. Don't know. But I respect and applaud their effort in trying to do it. Haven't seen any other show even make the attempt. And they made us all think about it without telling us what to think.
That I applaud as well.

Granted MN needs to work on her interview style. Personally I hope if she learned one thing this year - it's when to keep her mouth shut. I'm sure Joss may have gotten this across if 1000 of nasty emails didn't. But if you read between the lines and look at the other writers interviews you'll see what I said above is what they were going for.

Hope this helps...JMHO. Good article by the way. I
saved it.

;-)

[> Re: Interesting article I found about Domestic Abuse and Gender Role Reversal in Season 6. -- X, 10:10:35 06/22/02 Sat

There is the fact that Spike is an "evil, soulless thing". One thing that throws the entire Domestic Abuse analogy out of whack is if the victim is unrepentently evil.

When Buffy threatened to kill him, you must remember that she CONSTANTLY threatens to kill him. It's been part of how they interact from the very beginning.

Also, one key factor:

From "As You Were":
BUFFY: I'm using you.
SPIKE: I'm not complaining.

Ciao.

[> [> Re: Interesting article I found about Domestic Abuse and Gender Role Reversal in Season 6. -- VHF, 13:51:46 06/22/02 Sat

Then why should Spike be forced to apologise to Buffy and beg her for forgiveness if he was just a evil soulless thing, that Buffy could beat half to death unrepentantly in DT and never apologise.

[> Re: Interesting article I found about Domestic Abuse and Gender Role Reversal in Season 6. -- yuri, 15:42:10 06/22/02 Sat

I'm going to ignore for a moment the aspect of Spike and Buffy being supernatural beings, though I do think makes a difference, because I think I'm more equipped to adress just the general gender issue you bring up.

Now, I have pondered this question in and out, up and down, for many many hours both by myself and with other people who agree and disagree with me. (disclaimer: I'm focusing only on heterosexual relationships here.) Is there a difference between a girl who forcefully and unapologetically initiates sex, and a guy who forcefully and unapologetically initiates sex? Is there a difference between a girl pressuring a guy in to sexual relations which he has stated he does not want, and a guy pressuring a girl in to sexual relations which she has stated she does not want? Well, there shouldn't be, but I think there are.

I think that any personal interactions are not really as personal as we'd like to believe. I think that everything we do and say and feel has a whole lot to do with how our society does and says and feels stuff. Whether or not our actions mimic that of the "average," they are influenced in some way by them. When a guy -friend or no- yells at me or any girl to bring them something or clean something up for them, I feel uncomforable. I don't when the opposite happens. You could say this is because I am a girl, and to a certain extent this is true, but I think I am somewhat sensetive to similarly archetypical situations for guys. When a guy is upset about something and another guy tells him in some way to stop critical way to stop being so emotional, I am more upset, or I guess just upset in a very different way, than when the same interaction happens between two girls, even though both situations are, I think, very very bad.

So I'm not saying that what Buffy did is right, I am just refuting the suggestion that reversing the gender roles of any abusive situation should necessarily render the same emotions and reactions, because I think that all that cliched archetypical dredge that we all are aware of is attached to everything we do, and it affects how much we are hurt and affected by things. I really do believe that, on average, (and I'm aware it is wierd to make averages out of things like this) a girl will be more deeply affected by a guy pushing himself on her than a guy will by a girl pushing herself on him.

[> [> Thank you, yuri. I agree. -- Sophist, 16:14:15 06/22/02 Sat

In fact, I would make the point even more broadly.

The original post contains unstated assumptions -- that everyone's sexual response is contained within the same boundaries, and that the behavior here violates those boundaries. These assumptions are simply not true. They're not true in 2 different ways, at least.

One, there is no way for the author to know if they're true of Spike. There is, literally, no reason on earth for us to suppose that his notions of appropriate sexual conduct are the same as ours. There are, in fact, good reasons to be sure they are not.

Two, even if Spike and Buffy were human, the author assumes that Spike (or men generally) would react the same way as women do to certain behavior. As you correctly point out, this is simply not true.

I also have to say that, while Buffy's conduct was far from admirable, the summary in the letter was so one-sided that it's hard to treat it seriously. And I say that as one who has defended Spike regularly here.

I don't agree with the W/T parts either, but that's for another day.

[> [> [> Agreed -- Earl Allison, 17:15:08 06/22/02 Sat

[> [> Then, I guess I'm not part of the average. -- VampRiley, 18:41:18 06/22/02 Sat

For me, personally, I would say I would be just as effected by it as any woman would.

You'll have to forgive any misspellings I'm making. The actual thought running through my mind at the moment is so undesrcibable to me. Here goes.

Fine. Maybe some men wouldn't be as effected as some women if they were forced to have sexual relations with a woman. But I can't speak for them 'cause I'm not them. And I realize that you're only talking about some men. There are some out there that are so lonely that they'll take it and just let a woman force herself on them. They don't care if they are "used". Some of those men only want sexual gratification without any commitment beyond the night or few hours or whatever. But for me...just even the very idea that it would at any time have been forced on me when I have explicitly stated that I don't want to, gives me a feeling of revulsion that I can't even begin to desrcibe with words because there aren't any words in any language that would be adequite enough to describe what that feeling is.

Now, I do get in regular exercise, but I'm not a body builder. There some people, both men and women, who could probably rip off my head as easy as I can crush a beer can. And the thought of a stranger, who also happens to be a body builder (either female or male) subjecting me to that repulses me to no end. But, what's even worse, is if it was done to me by someone that I had actual feelings for. No matter what they may have gone through, (dying, going to heaven and being brought back to life several months later or whatever) I could never forgive them. Ever. If they were not effected by drugs, illusions, etc. and all they had were emotional problems and other issues, that would not be an excuse for how I was treated.

Thankfully, this hasn't happened to me. And I hope it never does.

Just wanted to give my view.

And just so there is no confusion, for those who don't know what gender I am -- I'm a guy.

VR

Who's Watching the Watchers? -- ZachsMind, 09:58:55 06/22/02 Sat

I believe it is very plausible and perhaps even probable that the writers of "BtVS" can and will show the Watcher's Council (CoW) as bad guys. That their hidden agenda is to observe and manipulate The Chosen One(s) not to wage a war against good, but to insure a state of neutrality between good & evil, or perhaps to insure that evil thrives despite the presence of the Slayer. I'm not saying Giles is evil. In fact Giles is completely oblivious to this. I suspect a conspiracy that starts with Quentin Travers and permeates throughout the history of the CoW.

First, what do we know about Watchers? They are an organization of humans who devote their lives, at least in part, to observing Slayers and the Slayer mythology. Watchers are specialists of demonology and the supernatural. Allegedly in generations past they focused only on studying theology, and researching obscure occult books. Very recently they've turned to more emphasis on field work, but their efforts are still easily decades behind modern technology and science. Most of them dress and act as if they belong in Victorian England rather than the 21st century.

Their base of operations is in England, but they also have offices in South Africa and probably many other parts of the world. The actual numbers are uncertain, but it's highly suspect that an organization so large they have annual retreats is necessary for a tradition that normally only brings about one Slayer per generation. As Buffy herself once pointed out, without the Slayer the Watchers are just watching Masterpiece Theater.

The CoW has a review delegation and at least one special ops team which focuses on interrogation, smuggling and assassination. They have been known not only to kill vampires & demons, but capture some and attempt to utilize them for field work under controlled conditions. Despite all this, individual Watchers and the CoW as a whole show utter incompetence in their procedures and execution of orders. It is actually uncertain when humans felt a need to take a young Slayer under their wing, but it was certainly some time after the Powers That Be invented The First Slayer. The CoW claims to have been at this since the beginning, but The First Slayer never had a Watcher ("Restless") nor did she probably feel there was a need for one.

The actual origin of the CoW is shrouded in mystery. Basically, the writers have never delved into it for purposes of the series. It is pure speculation, but one must assume the original intentions were wholly courageous and sincere. Perhaps some time in Victorian England, a young woman found herself with these remarkable powers and sought out the most intelligent people she knew to research why. Once the pieces were put together, those she befriended in confidence started from scratch and over a period of generations, the CoW was put into action. As they are the only organization willing to devote resources to the Slayer prophecies, there's no competition. They've also managed until recently to keep it a secret from the world, so at one time they cornered the market on the power of the Slayer, and had her in their hip pocket. Those days are no longer, because Buffy's got a big mouth.

We know that Giles' comes from a line of at least three generations of Watchers. His father was one as was his grandmother. Odds are Watchers are enlisted due to circumstance or bloodlines. They probably prefer to keep it in the family so to speak, or otherwise turn only to people they could trust to keep their secrets. Giles rebelled in his youth from joining the CoW, and joined them comparatively late in life, so Giles' never truly ensured the ultimate trust of the Council. Giles has cowed to practically every other Watcher who's ever crossed paths in Sunnydale. This indicates he's very low on their pecking order, and tries not to make waves. Why would they entrust a man they obviously don't trust, someone so low on the totem pole, to care for the Slayer? If they truly felt Buffy was the valuable item which was the center of the Council's purpose, they'd either forcibly remove Buffy from her life and take her to Britain, or they would put their best Watchers in Sunnydale to work with her. They did neither. They're aware that Sunnydale is like a manhole cover for the Hellmouth, but make no active effort beyond leaving the Slayer there to fend for herself. Again, if the key purpose for the CoW to exist was The Slayer, you'd think they'd focus a bit more on her existence.

For Buffy's 18th birthday, the Council insisted Giles help them perform a test. The test involved drugging Buffy in secret until her Slayer Powers were nullified, then they were to lock her up in a room with an insane powerful vampire. They claimed this was to prove her worthiness, but there was no indication of backup plans if she failed. It was a kill or be killed scenario. No sweat off the Council's nose, if after three years the Slayer couldn't handle herself with all her limbs proverbially tied behind her back, she'd be dead and the Council would get a new Slayer. Sounded more like a way of helping to insure the prophecies involving Slayers dying quickly held true.

Other rites and trials and tests the Council puts the Slayer through seem to either be laborious busy work or intimidation tactics to remind the Slayer who's really the boss: i.e. the Watchers. Which is actually incorrect. The Slayer's the one with the powers. The Watchers use browbeating tactics to try and keep control and manipulation of their charge. Perhaps this worked on previous Slayers, but Buffy's always been wise to such tactics, and has never had much affection for authority figures that don't prove their worth.

They purposefully sent a rebellious and nosy Watcher to think he was doing the ultimate service for the Council, but it was just to get Giles out of their hair. When Giles stopped showing signs of catering to Quentin's orders and showed a backbone, Quentin fired him, and tried replacing him with a new yes-man: Wesley Wyndham-Price. Then there was the rogue Watcher Gwen Post whom the Council disavowed *after* she proved to be evil, claiming there'd been a memo..

In the fifth season episode "Checkpoint," Buffy found herself up against Glory, and asked the Council to help her with a little information. The Council responded by putting her, Giles and all their friends through embarrassing interrogations and gruelling tests, all again to attempt to browbeat the Slayer & her friends into submission. It backfired, because Buffy figured out their modus operandi.

BUFFY: "You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether or not I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives some semblance of meaning."

She appeared to have Quentin Travers on the ropes, but he may have just played into her game in order to continue hiding his own, biding the time of the Council due to some hidden plans and agenda of its own. What that agenda is depends on the BtVS writers of course. I have a few ideas. The point is this: At one time the Watcher's Council worked to assist Slayers, but over time they managed for awhile to manipulate and condition Slayers to do their bidding, which does happen to be a war against evil. In most recent years their intentions seem to have changed. Perhaps most Watchers still wish to thwart evil, but there's some kind of conspiracy in its upper ranks which distracts the lower levels of the organization, so that nothing remarkable is accomplished and the status quo is maintained.

I think it would be ideal in season seven for the BtVS writers to explore the history of the Council and entertain us by turning this conspiracy within the Council into a really neato Big Bad that Buffy gets to thwart. It'd also be neat if just once, Giles gets to punch Quentin Travers in the face. I'd pay money to see that. =)

[> I'm not certain about the Watchers as BB for S7, but... -- cjl, 10:22:32 06/22/02 Sat

You raise a lot of interesting points. Personally, I believe the Watcher's Council developed far, far earlier than you theorize. I think it's existed for millennia, perhaps not in it's current form, but centered wherever civilization is centered, and where vampires and demons can do the most damage. (Hypothetically, the Council would have been headquartered in Rome two thousand years ago, then moved to England at the height of the British Empire.)

I've got a post coming up with my own theories about the Watchers and their role in S7, but I'll leave you with this: When the Council came to Sunnydale in "Checkpoint," I don't think they were that interested in Buffy....

[> Since before civilization -- Maroon Lagoon, 12:12:12 06/22/02 Sat

In Graduation, Wesley tells Buffy, "We're talking about laws that have existed longer than civilization."

[> Re: Who's Watching the Watchers? -- Dead Soul, 16:05:14 06/22/02 Sat

I've always thought the CoW is very like the Talamasca.

[> I think the Watchers are writing for that Journal Buffy mentioned before....;) -- Rufus, 17:03:27 06/22/02 Sat

The Council of Watchers is more of a bureaucracy than a sinister group of Masterminds. These people, like the Slayer were born into a role that they are trained to fulfil for the rest of their lives. In Fray issue number three there is a short history lesson for the later day Slayer, Melaka Fray. Fangirl

Aaand so while they wait for the funny bleeding to stop, Urkonn continues the history lesson, some of which might be of particular interest to "Buffy" fans...
Melaka: "Good. Good. Tell me aboud the Slayers while I beed to deff. Dey made dat first one..."
Urkonn: "She fought, and died, and was succeeded by another, throughout time. Always a woman. Always a warrior...They were trained. Sought out and guided by Watchers, descendants of the shamans who created the First Slayer."
Melaka: "... Why don't you tell me what happened to the last one?"
Urkonn: "Because I don't know. It was some hundreds of years ago, in the twenty-first century. What we do know is this -- there was a battle. A Slayer, possibly with mystical allies, faced an apocalyptic army of demons...and when it was done, they were all gone. All demons, all magicks, banished from this earthly dimension."
Melaka: "And the Slayer? Did she..."
Urkonn: "I do not know if she lived. But, the demons being gone, she was the last to be called. The line continued -there were girls with the power, but they were never called, never trained. Which may be why you have no memory of your heritage. The Council of Watchers fell to ruin, held together only by fanatics and fools. You met your Watcher yesterday."
Melaka: "I did? I didn't!"
Urkonn: "Did not one come to you, call you the chosen one?"
Melaka: "Nobody ever called me any oh my god you mean that guy that one that set himself on fire!""
Urkonn: "As I said, fanatics."
Melaka: "But he set himself on fire!"
Urkonn: "Centuries of useless, obsessive waiting. Makes a human--"
Melaka: "He set himself on fire!"
Urkonn: "Maybe he was cold."
Melaka: "Okay, I'm supposed to fight the coming onslaught of lurks and I'm being taught by a sarcastic goat-thing whose idea of training is throwing scrap metal at me because the actual good guys all went crazy waiting for the monsters to come back."
Urkonn: "Yes."
Melaka: "Just checking."
Urkonn: "Do not discount the Watchers completely."
Melaka: "Right, 'cause if we need someone to light themselves on fire..."
Urkonn: "They're insane, I grant. But they were also right."

The Watchers made a big mistake when they took themselves out of the fight and set up shop a, very archaic, convoluted, bureaucratic shop. They were less Watchers and more disapproving schoolmasters, the only thing their charges end up dead. Travers sums up the attitude of the Council of Watchers the best in "Checkpoint"

TRAVERS: Buffy ... I can sense your resistance, and I don't blame you. But I think your Watcher hasn't reminded you lately of the resolute status of the players in our little game. The Council fights evil. The Slayer is the instrument by which we fight. The Council remains, the Slayers change. It's been that way from the beginning.

GILES: (scornfully) Well, that's a very comforting, bloodless way of looking at it, isn't it?

The Council had been the top dog for many centuries, but it's arrogance led to them losing touch with not only the evil they fight, but the fact that they became evil when they decided to consider the Slayer an implement to be discarded and replaced without much regret or consideration for the girls or their families. Just like in other bureaucracies, the Council has lost their humanity, and in that continual callous disregard for human life, they lost the right to be respected or be the people giving out vital orders in this fight with evil. Buffy put the Council in it's place in Checkpoint..........

BUFFY: You're Watchers. Without a Slayer, you're pretty much just watchin' Masterpiece Theater. You can't stop Glory. You can't do anything with the information you have except maybe publish it in the "Everyone Thinks We're Insane-O's Home Journal." (Pauses, addresses Travers again) So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. (resumes pacing) You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory. The magic shop will remain open. Mr. Giles will stay here as my official Watcher, reinstated at full salary...

BUFFY: Now. (addresses the Watchers) You all may be very good at your jobs. The only way we're gonna find out is if you work with me. You can all take your time thinking about that. (turns back to Travers) But I want an answer right now from Quinton, 'cause I think he's understanding me.

Buffy did a little reorganization on the Council, and they had no choice but to go along with her orders. Unlike the Council, Buffy has considered the stakes and is willing to work with the Council, but on her terms, not according to any rule book. In Fray there is an indication that all the Watchers went mad waiting for another Slayer to be called, I think that descent started in "Checkpoint" and I back that up by a comment made by Giles in "Grave"....

GILES: I came as soon as I heard...
BUFFY: Did the Council--?
GILES: The Council hasn't a clue. About much of anything, really.
(then) There's a powerful coven in Devonshire. They sensed the rise of
a dangerous magical force here. A dark force, fueled by grief.

I don't see the Council as being as much all evil, as much as they lost touch of why they existed, and that's to help the world, help people. Once they closeted themselves up inside a bureaucracy, they lost touch with everything.....the world, people, the Slayer. Over time they lost sight of the fact that, though the most powerful instrument, the Slayer is a girl, one that deserves to be treated with respect. If the Watchers ever did a thing against Buffy, they know that she would be the one that could put them out of work in a permanent way.

[> [> Cleaning house on the Council -- Scroll, 19:29:48 06/22/02 Sat

Completely agree with your assessment that the Council is nothing more than an out-dated bureaucratic system. I don't consider them to be evil, just out-of-touch with Real Life. It takes real life experience to snap Giles and Wesley out of their book-ruled existences. They learn quickly that researching demons won't do you much good if there's nobody around capable of fighting them. And clearly the Council is dedicated to fighting the forces of darkness, even if they are fairly incompetent in how they go about it.

What I want to see happen, either in S7 of 'Buffy' or some time later in 'Angel', is for Giles and Wesley to really shake up the Watchers Council, to make them accept new changes, new ways of training Watchers, and to treat Buffy and Angel with the respect these heroes deserve instead of them always being 'the Slayer' or 'that vampire who doesn't deserve to live'. And possibly have the Council pay the Scoobies and the AI team for all their hard work saving the world those few times! Also, if we could finally meet Wesley's father, and have Cordelia give him a real tongue-lashing and Angel to go fang-face on him so that the man wets his pants. (What, I can dream, can't I?)

[> [> Mad Council.. -- ZachsMind, 00:13:15 06/23/02 Sun

These added points are all well and good, but they only reinforce the potential for the Council to become the Big Bag. Be they an evil conspiracy or a bunch of rag tag loonies, they could attempt to regain the power of *A* Slayer, be it Faith or her replacement, and possibly try to artificially conjure up more than two, and in that way regain their right to claim power over the Slayers.

Meanwhile. Buffy's already got her own Council. The Scoobies. Personally, I'd like to see her formalize it in some way. She should start referring to Giles, Willow, Xander, Anya, and anyone who opts to stand by her side in the fight as her "Slayer's Counsel" and officially denounce the Watcher's Council as a bunch of lunatics.

I'm not suggesting the entire Council is corrupt. I think most Watchers are sincere in their efforts and goals. It would only take a few corrupt individuals, high up in the Council's hierarchy, to gum up the works for everyone else. A secret conspiracy inside the secret organization. Once discovered this could cause the Council to schism or even have a civil war. Some Watchers could see the portent of doom inside their own group and jump ship. This could be how Buffy & the others learn about it. A CoW deserter could flee to Sunnydale to warn them of the conspiracy's plans.

Admittedly, the idea's not foolproof, but it is workable. =)

[> [> [> Re: Mad Council.. (SPOILERS for Fray) -- Robert, 14:16:49 06/23/02 Sun

>> "... they could attempt to regain the power of *A* Slayer, be it Faith or her replacement, ..."

I believe that this will not happen. In Fray, a future history is provided which indicates that Buffy (or someone else in the 21st century) will be the last slayer for hundreds of years. This last slayer will abolish nearly all the vampires and demons from this dimension. Consequently there will no longer be a need for slayers and, thus, none are called. Melaka Fray is called hundreds of years later because the vampires are on the rise again. In the meantime, the watchers' council decay into insanity and uselessness.

[> They might save these issues for Ripper -- Maroon Lagoon, 12:08:05 06/23/02 Sun

I'd like to see such momentous issues be played out over the course of more than one measly season. I thought that Buffy was going back to more of a MOTW/standalone format, anyway.

And whatever happened to Ethan? What mysterious fate befell him in the secret govt. facility in Nevada? Tune in next fall -- er, next year -- um, whenever Joss loses interest in Firefly -- to find out!

Flatliners -- neaux, 10:08:18 06/22/02 Sat

I'm sure this has been discussed at length..

but as I'm watching season 2 on DVD.. and the introduction of Kendra as the slayer, I couldnt help but think of the movie Flatliners (1990 featuring Keifer Sutherland and Julia Roberts) and how this concept could influence or completely distroy the buffyverse.

Ok.. so lets say some scheming watcher decides to create an army of slayers to fight off vamps. That's a good thing right? All you have to do is have your one true slayer clinically die for a minute and revive her right? Then a new slayer will emerge somewhere on the planet or universe. Find that new slayer... clinically kill her for a minute.. create another and another.. till you have an army.

I guess the hard part is actually finding the new slayers once they are "born". But they all seem to drift towards sunnydale anyway.. so It seems possible... right??

any comments questions.. anyone want to shoot my theory to holes?

[> Re: Flatliners -- ZachsMind, 10:52:01 06/22/02 Sat

I have considered exploring a similar theory in my fan fiction. At first I was going to try and establish that the Watchers had been doing this since Faith was incarcerated. The Council may have found some way to release Faith into their "care" through some complicated red tape, they coulda taken her to England, killed her under controlled conditions, and instigated a new Slayer. It's plausible that most potential Slayer candidates worldwide are already under the Council's thumb, and Buffy was just a fluke. The Council could have anywhere from five to twenty Slayers in their hands right now.

However, the fanfic didn't work out right. It's hard to explain why no one's seen these other Slayers before now. So my latest attempt was to show that they just got hold of Faith over the summer, and some time in season seven they do the death & resurection thing. If the writers chose to go this route they'd probably not want to have more than three slayers other than Faith before Buffy & Giles found out about it, because why would M.E. want to hire more actresses than that? Twenty slayers would be a bit excessive, but three new slayers, plus a mentally aberrant and CoW brainwashed Faith could be quite a battle against our Buffy.

Buffy's a liability. She keeps letting the cat out of the bag about her Slayerness. I mean, who in Sunnydale doesn't know she's the Slayer? If word got out, the Watcher's might lose their control over Slayers to some government organization or worse. So I think they'd want to see her dead.

[> Re: Flatliners -- grifter, 10:54:09 06/22/02 Sat

The source that gives the Slayers their powers seems to be pretty determined that there should only be one Slayer at a time. If there are two of them by chance, that�s ok, but maybe it�d piss them off if someone was to abuse this little loophole.

[> [> Re: Flatliners -- ZachsMind, 11:15:56 06/22/02 Sat

The only thing that we know pisses off the primeval force of The First Slayer is that ritual that Willow, Giles, Xander & Buffy used to take down Adam at the end of season four. And all The First Slayer did was try to scare them in their dreams. If there was a finite amount of Slayer Power, one would think that when Kendra came into being, Buffy would have noticed her power cut in half. However, I've always assumed that Buffy has no clue the extent of her powers, that she could be much stronger than she is. I think the episodes "Primeval" and "Restless" sorta proved that. Tara was cautioning Buffy in the dreams that she hadn't tapped the full extent of her abilities.

Again with Faith, Buffy noticed no weakness to her abilities, having to share them with another Slayer. You may be right that after two, The primeval slayer force would start gettng uppity, but there's no precedence for that. I think if there were three or more Slayers, the worst that would happen would be Buffy'd start seeing strange women in her dreams calling her sister and wearing slices of cheese on their heads.

[> [> [> Re: Flatliners -- Yellowork, 16:42:43 06/22/02 Sat

I think this idea is based on a misunderstanding about the kind of tv series we are dealing with here. Buffy revolves around a certain amount of mystery and uncertainty: it does not pretend to belong to a Star Trek style mechanistic universe. What goes on does not do so under laboratory conditions. It is often suggested that events are being influenced by unseen forces connected to stars or other 'mystical convergences'. And we still don't really know what the slayer is. I doubt that the events of 'Prophecy Girl' could be repeated; the movie 'Flatliners' ignores the danger that once someone flat-lines they will never regain consciousness. Why does eveyone equate the 'powers that be' with goodness / god / salvation? Surely an inherently coservative view? And it is often implied that the PTB has only one, albeit mysterious, agenda. So how come powersss? Could the powers not include the force of evil as well as the forces of good, rather than being a synonym for good, which is then ranged against evil?

[> [> [> [> Re: Flatliners -- ZachsMind, 23:53:03 06/22/02 Sat

"Buffy revolves around a certain amount of mystery and uncertainty: it does not pretend to belong to a Star Trek style mechanistic universe."

I fail to see Yellowork, what this proposal has to do with the Star Trek universe. What's being suggested is not out of the sphere of possibility for today's technology. We're not suggesting something that hasn't been accomplished in the real world.

"the movie 'Flatliners' ignores the danger that once someone flat-lines they will never regain consciousness."

I disagree. In the past half century, there's been an uncalculable amount of accounts of someone being revived through resusitation or CPR after they've been unconscious for anywhere from less than one minute to as many as seven minutes. There may be doctors in an emergency room somewhere on the planet even as you read these words who are resusitating a body that has flatlined. Sometimes they are successful. Sometimes they are not.

The closer to seven minutes the more of a chance of brain damage or "brain death." The rest of the body can survive perhaps even longer and then be revived, but then you have a vegetable. The brain is perhaps the most delicate organ in the body and requires oxygen within five to seven minutes or the damage to it will be permanent.

Under controlled conditions, the Watcher's Council could strap Faith down on a table, stop her heart through modern medical technology for less than five minutes, and then with the proper trained professionals and required equiptment, they could have a pretty good chance of bringing her back. The procedure is not without great risk, but it could be done. It is an absurd notion under normal circumstances. The movie Flatliners was equally absurd. The thought that there might be medical students that would even contemplate doing this to one another, well it seems farfetched and sickeningly disturbing, but it's not outside the realm of possibility for today's medical knowledge.

[> Re: Flatliners -- Doriander, 13:12:25 06/22/02 Sat

Interesting you brought this up because fanfic delved into this idea, and I've read one really good one. I'm talking the sixth sense caliber chilling.

The Twelth Sister
and the sequel
The Twelfth Sister Revisted

The author is Rowan, and I'm curious if this is the same Rowan that posts here. If so, dude, I'm in awe.

[> [> Agreed. Absolutely some of the scariest BtVS I've read ... -- Earl Allison, 17:23:45 06/22/02 Sat

Two of the most chilling fanfics I've ever read, more so because I love Faith so much.

"I'm Buffy, not Faith,

I'm Buffy, not Faith,

I'm Buffy, not Faith."

Chilling.

[> [> Very well written... There's just one problem... -- ZachsMind, 02:31:39 06/23/02 Sun

In order for the Slayer multiplicity to take effect, each new slayer must be killed and then resusitated. It only works once per Slayer. Buffy's died twice, but only Kendra came after her. Faith didn't appear until after Kendra's passing. When Buffy died the second time at the end of the fifth season, there was no 'new' slayer called after her.

Rowan's work is written excellently, but it functions under the incorrect assumption that it would be sufficient to kill Faith once every three months and that would bring about a new slayer each time. It wouldn't. Faith would have to be killed and resusitated for a third Slayer to appear. Then the third slayer would need to be defibrilated, flatlined, and resusitated, before a fourth slayer could appear. Killing the third slayer a second time would only anger her. The flatlining would have to be done to the fourth slayer in order to get a fifth one.

Now if the new Slayer were one of the many candidates that the Watcher's Council conditions from near birth, this wouldn't be a problem. I'm sure the new Slayers wouldn't mind being killed and brought back to life. The Watchers would explain it to them carefully in such a way where they couldn't help but agree. It's for a greater cause. However, the next time the Slayer was "rogue" (meaning the Slayer was not under the Watcher's Council's watchful eye until after she showed signs of her powers), they'd have to recruit her and THEN convince her. That would take a bit more doing.

Eventually they'd come across a Slayer who didn't want to do it at all, and eventually she'd have to escape the Council and try to make it on her own, with them always hot on their heels. It's one thing to have people (or demons) who want you dead, but to also be chased after by a bunch of people in tweed suits who want you dead and then brought back to life, that would be disturbing for any fifteen year old to withstand without some mental anguish.

[> [> [> Re: Very well written... There's just one problem... -- Doriander, 03:09:40 06/23/02 Sun

I think this was written prior to the S5 finale, or before JW declared that line now runs through Faith, no new slayer will be called. Yeah, it's been jossed, I believe the term is. Nonetheless, excellent premise.

[> [> [> [> Re: Very well written... There's just one problem... -- skpe, 07:09:40 06/24/02 Mon

I can't see Faith going along with this as the WC has tried to kill her permanently several times. The WC has bungled their attempts to capture her. As Giles pointed out they're not very good at the rough stuff. So I would think they would be reluctant to try such a risky operation

[> I don't have to shoot holes in this theory-- Joss already did. -- OnM, 13:47:55 06/22/02 Sat

This has been discussed at length, and I think it's generally the reason that Joss enacted the one-replacement-per-Slayer rule, (and wrote it into the 'canon' of the show) which is why Faith has to die before another Slayer will be called.

Of course, fanfics aren't obligated to stick with 'canon', so indeed it could be explored from that perspective.

[> [> and they never think about breaking these rules? -- neaux, 14:20:53 06/22/02 Sat

[> [> [> Gasp!! and willingly defeat the carefully engineered SCMS system??? -- OnM, 21:28:43 06/22/02 Sat

Otherwise known as the Slayer Copy Management System ?

;-)

*******

( In-joke for audiophiles, for those now going WTF??? )

Heehee... movie's up, so g'night all! See you tomorrow.

*******

[> [> And Faith can die, for a second ... -- Earl Allison, 17:20:19 06/22/02 Sat

What I got from Joss' comments was that yes, the line of succession DOES run through Faith. That doesn't preclude killing her (briefly) to create Slayer 4, then doing the same to Slayer 4 to generate Slayer 5, killing 5 to create 6, ad nauseum. That fits Joss' comments quite well -- I figure they haven't because, despite all the hatred the fandom in general has of the CoW -- even they aren't cold-blooded enough to callously murder the girls in their care like that.

And frankly, with Darla's pregnancy and Spike getting a soul -- I'm not very open to the fact that ME takes their rules very seriously, or that even if they do, they won't break them when it suits them.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> Watchers Council not totally evil... -- Scroll, 19:47:12 06/22/02 Sat

I think ME loves overturning its own rules, and while I loved the idea of Darla being pregnant and Connor's unprecedented birth, this whole other vampire with a soul is disquieting. I'm really putting my trust in ME that they'll do something amazing with this or else I'm gonna be ticked...

And I think you're right on the money regarding the hatred most Buffy fans have regarding the Council. Most fans see the Council as evil and amoral, which I can't agree with. In fact, I'd say the complete opposite. They are so rigidly 'good' and grounded in protecting humanity that they often lose sight of the 'greys' in real life. While the Watchers pretty much despised Faith (the 3 Watcher goons in "Sanctuary"), they had good reasons for hating her. She was pretty much evil then, someone who had turned her back on her destiny. But remember that nurse in "This Year's Girl"? The Watchers always knew where Faith was, they'd been keeping an eye on her so that if she ever awoke, she could be put on trial. But they never touched her when she was in her coma. They could've killed her and activated another Slayer, but they didn't. They obviously have *some* morals!

[> [> [> [> Watchers Council for good or evil... -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 19:59:56 06/22/02 Sat

I've worked for a large bureaucracy, and organizations, large and small, tend to follow similar tracks.

In a nutshell, they may start out as altruistic as anyone could wish, but the people that reach the top & stay there tend to have keen senses of their own importance & self preservation.

So, even if the Watcher's Council genuinely has the good of the world at heart, they may be able to convince themselves that what's good for them is good for the planet.

Even though Buffy is clearly a very effective Slayer, more so with her team of friends, she is also not amenable to proper direction -- i.e., to following blindly the orders of the Watcher's Council. So the Council may conclude that a fledgling Slayer that is a team player will promote the survival of humanity better than a skilled veteran who is a "loose cannon."

In which case, purely for the good of humanity, it would be the unfortunate ("sniff . . . sob!") necessity to . . . see to that veteran Slayer's employment termination.

With extreme prejudice.

Nothing personal, you understand; purely to promote the survival of the human species . . . oh! how we wish that there were another way!

[> [> [> [> [> "sniff . . . sob!" lol -- but can't agree -- Scroll, 20:13:41 06/22/02 Sat

Hehe, like your take on 'promoting the good of humanity' but if the Watchers didn't kill off Faith, who was clearly evil and not doing much good vegetating in a coma, they're not likely to ever kill off Buffy, who is doing much good and has already negotiated a truce with the Council in Checkpoint.

But your view is one much espoused in fanfic, so you're not alone!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Who is to say they haven't already? -- ZachsMind, 03:09:46 06/23/02 Sun

M.E. could opt to say that when Faith was in a coma, she died briefly. Either on accident as she was being brought in, or on purpose by a nurse when no one was looking. The introduction of a new Slayer is not something that is advertised, unless the Slayer actually starts slaying and then word sorta gets around. After Faith's death and resurrection, the Watchers may have found their new Slayer among the many candidates they keep around. They could be training her and having her assist them on secret missions without revealing her true status. Maybe they don't refer to her as a Slayer in public, but eventually the underground would start spreading rumors and those rumors would eventually reach Spike who would eventually tell Buffy.

[> Re: Flatliners -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:48:28 06/22/02 Sat

Suppose one of the Slayers resists having this done to them. Then they have a problem.

Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2002 -- OnM, 21:19:53 06/22/02 Sat

*******

I believe the art of living consists not so much in complicating simple things as in simplifying things that are
not.

............ Fran�ois Hertel

*******

You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd / But you can be happy if you've a mind to

............ Roger Miller

*******

I don't understand. All my life I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's... she's a fish.

............ Allen Bauer

*******

If you've been reading this weekly column for any kind of a fair while now, it surely must be obvious that
I'm not exactly your typical film critic. Partly deliberate and mostly accidental, my regular display of
non-technique isn't so much a way of actively trying to set myself apart from the rest of the litter in terms
of style and content as it is an example of the oddball way that my brain happens to make connections
between normally disparate thoughts.

This can be dangerous. No, not in like I-could-go-to-prison dangerous, but risky in that I might go off on
some extended stream of consciousness riff only to find myself (and my readers) stranded at the end of it
without benefit of having made any kind of a point. This is one of the reasons I try to inject some levity
into the proceedings, so that if no greater philosophical good has ultimately been served, at least the
passengers on the Mystery Train had a good laugh or two before they end up in the town of Machine.

See? Dangerous. I just made a joke that depends on your prior understanding that 'Mystery Train' and
'Machine' are both references to Jim Jarmusch films. One of these flicks, Dead Man, was one that I
had reviewed last fall. So you might, if your memory is extremely good, recall that the town
of 'Machine' was 'the end of the line', and possibly a metaphor for a soul's beginning journey into
hell. This involved a train ride, and logically enough, so did Jarmusch's film Mystery Train. (Which
I haven't reviewed yet, but if it turns out that you don't like my current pick of the week, it might make a
good alternative. Never say I don't have your best interests at heart! ;-).

So far no one has ever come right out and asked me how my mind 'works', but I'm sure that if I peck
away at this old keyboard long enough, someone will. And then I will be forced to admit, if I don't wish to
be disingenuous, that I haven't a clue.

Take this week's Classic Movie, Ron Howard's wonderful 1984 film Splash, starring a
very young Tom Hanks and a very young Daryl Hannah in what many filmgoers looked at as a 'nice little
popcorn movie' and so had a generally pleasant time at the theater and then forgot about it.

Yeah, it shows up regularly on various and sundry cable and network channels, but I don't know that
anyone ever pays much attention to it, other than when Hannah walks naked along the beach or flashes a
wee bit of breast here and there when in her mermaid incarnation. Now, not that I don't enjoy those things,
but there is a good deal more going on under the surface (ouch!) in this film than most people typically
give it credit for, and that's what I'm here to talk about, and so encourage you to viddy it yet again, and
pay just a mite more attention this time around. No, it isn't BtVS-class clever, but it's pretty darn good.

It all started shortly after Flooded aired this last Tuesday on BtVS. When this ep aired last fall, I
decided: hummm, flooded basement, therefore plumbers, therefore Super Mario Bros. Critics hated
that film, I liked it. Whadda they know? Hah! Furthermore, fungus, hero/heroine's journey, alternate
realities, neat special effects. What's not to love? I'll review it!

So, in thinking about pipes and plumbing and philosophy, and how it is easy to forget that we take the
simple things in life (like running water) for granted because they are so 'simple' ( recalling the image of
Buffy staring Zen-like at the kitchen faucet ), I thought about the fact that it was summertime (heat'll do
that, and it's warm here at the mo' in PA) and lo, into my brain came the thought/song...

In the summertime, when all the trees and leaves are green
And the redbird sings, "I'll be blue", 'cause you don't want my love"

...by a guy who entertained me vastly when I was a boy young'n, Roger Miller.

Now, you read over that brief l'il couplet, and if you're like me, you get a l'il heart-chuckle to go along
with it. Part of the joy in reading those two lines is the appreciation of the song's simplicity-- green trees,
red bird, the blues. It packs a message in very few words, but very successfully communicates the meaning
of that message. It is easy to write volumes of words about life, love and loss, but harder to recall that
sometimes things are simpler than they appear. You just have to cut through the tangle of branches.

The foliage appears opaque to the one lead character in Splash. As most of you know, since I
suspect virtually everyone reading this has already seen this movie at least once, the basic story outline is
that one Allen Bauer (Hanks), who runs a fruit and veggie wholesale business in New York runs into a
woman who has fallen in love with him (Hannah), and he in turn falls in love with her, and then finds out
that she is a mermaid. And while love might make you do the wacky, this is just a tad too wacky for him to
handle, and he tries to escape the relationship. The mermaid, who has adopted the name Madison while in
human form, is heartbroken, but before the two can resolve their differences (in more ways than the
obvious) Madison is abducted by the usual gang of nasty government scientists who pretty much want to
dissect her. Hanks and his brother Freddie (John Candy) and a non-evil (just misguided) scientist (Eugene
Levy) decide to rescue her, and just barely succeed.

All this sounds pretty much like your conventional Disney-mode filmmaking (it's not a Disney production),
but there are a couple of very neat twists here and there, largely hinging around the facts that virtually
every main character in this story-- Allen, Freddie, Madison and Kornbluth (the scientist)-- turn out to be
not what you expect in some regard. Allen's brother Freddie seems like a total doofus/pervert, but in the
crunch is revealed as someone who can cut through the malarky and get to the heart of the matter. The
scientist, Kornbluth, is very much like Freddie, except instead of being a failed romantic, his goal is to be
taken seriously for his mind. Like Freddie, he surrounds himself with failures to reassure his fragile ego that
he is at least better than someone. Allen, who considers himself to be the 'brain' of the family, the
'success story', has to admit to himself that the reasons his prior relationships have failed is that he always
enters into them for the wrong reasons; he treated his relationships the same way he runs his business
affairs-- all logic and reason and mostly the expectations of some quid pro quo.

Madison, not unsurprisingly, steals the show. I very much appreciated how Howard and the writers set
things up so that when we first meet her, we have the 'natural' reaction that she is a naive creature of
possibly lower intelligence, and then they proceed to deconstruct that (highly faulty) impression, such as
when she learns to speak English in just one day, by watching TV sets in a department store. Later on,
hints are dropped that the underwater world she comes from is not only equal to ours in intelligence and
accomplishments, but may very well be significantly superior.

But more importantly than issues of intelligence, is the fact that Madison isn't a manipulator-- she really
has no sense of guile. If she wants to offer a gift, she offers it without thought of getting something in
return. If she loves, she will make almost any personal sacrifice as long as the other person truly loves her
in return. By contrast, it seems that every single human around her is well-skilled in the art of deviousness.
Amazingly, she doesn't seem to resent this, she simply accepts. She does, however, not see that Allen is
capable of betrayal also. Her species apparently considers personal integrity to be something inherent, not a
goal to be worked at when convenient, so she tends to expect the same unless otherwise shown that she is
mistaken. I remember being in the theater when this film was first released, and watching the scene where
Allen first proposes to her and wants her to stay with him. She hesitates, understandably, because it would
literally involve giving up her entire home world, family and species, leaving them behind, never
to return, ever. She doesn't elaborate on why she can't go back, just that she can't. She expects him to
accept that her reason is a good one. He argues passionately, convincing her of the absolute integrity of his
love for her. She believes him and so ultimately chooses to make the sacrifice, and become permanently
human..

This strength of feeling finally prompts her to reveal her ultimate secret, since she is now certain that Allen
is sincere and so will accept anything, no matter how disturbing it might be initially-- for love conquers all.

Except it doesn't, at least not at first. Allen is more than disturbed, he seems genuinely repelled. He not
only betrays her with his horrified look, he allows her to remain in captivity with the people who
indifferently mean to do her harm, since they don't consider her to be 'human'-- just a curiousity to be
studied. What happens next isn't surprising, since we in the audience knew all along that Allen is a good
guy at heart, (as is Kornbluth) and he gets over his fears and decides to win her back. They escape, end up
at the oceanfront, she has to leave and go back to her world so that she will be safe there, and they can
both go on to live out their seperate lives, content with the living memories of what they meant to one
another.

This is when the truly unexpected happened, and I was both pleasantly shocked and delighted. The
situation of before-- Madison being willing to leave her 'Atlantis' and live as a human-- is turned around
and presented to Allen. He wants to come with her, but it would mean that he could never return to
humanity. Obviously he will have to turn this down-- Madison even understands and accepts his initial
refusal. But then he changes his mind-- chooses to live with her, in her world. This was one of the best
moments at the movies I have ever had in a 'popcorn' flick since the heroine saved herself (and thus
seriously tweaked the 'romance novel' convention) in the endgame of Romancing the Stone. There
is a lot of similarity in these two films, it's just a bit less obvious in Splash since the comedy is a
good bit more broadly rendered.

The reduction of his complex emotional/intellectual formula to it's simplest, single short equation provides
the clarity of the ultimate answer for Allen Bauer-- does he love this other being, or does he not? Once he
cuts through the forest of apparent complexities, he understands that it isn't that involved at all-- there are
really just these two trees, with two birds singing to one another.

Their 'color' doesn't really matter, and neither one of them is singing the blues.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

Technically Neo-Atlantean:

Splash is available on DVD, according to the Internet Movie Database. The review copy was on
laserdisc. The film was released in 1984 and run time is 1 hour and 51 minutes. The original cinematic
aspect ratio is 1.85:1 which is likely preserved on the DVD edition.

Writing credits go to Brian Grazer for the story and Bruce Jay Friedman for the screenplay.
Cinematography was by Donald Peterman with film editing by Daniel P. Hanley, Mike Hill and Bill
Shepard. Production Design was by Jack T. Collis with set decoration by Norman Rockett. Costume
design was by Jody Berke, Charles DeMuth and May Routh. Primary makeup work was done by Robert J.
Schiffer and Robert Short. Visual Effects were by Mitch Suskin. Original music was by Lee Holdridge. The
original theatrical sound mix was in standard Dolby Surround.

Cast overview:

Tom Hanks .... Allen Bauer
Daryl Hannah .... Madison
Eugene Levy .... Walter Kornbluth
John Candy .... Freddie Bauer
Dody Goodman .... Mrs. Stimler
Shecky Greene .... Mr. Buyrite
Richard B. Shull .... Dr. Ross
Bobby Di Cicco .... Jerry
Howard Morris .... Dr. Zidell
Tony DiBenedetto .... Tim, The Doorman
Patrick Cronin .... Michaelson
Charles Walker .... Michaelson's Partner
David Knell .... Claude
Jeff Doucette .... Junior
Royce D. Applegate .... Buchwalter

*******

The Question of the Week:

Daryl Hannah is considered by some movie fans to be mostly a 'character' actor, in that she tends to be the
'same person' exhibited in different incarnations in the vast majority of her films. If this is true, and
'Madison' was just another variant of the standard DH, most people will still agree that Hannah was
perfect for the part, whatever the reason.

Do you accept that some actors are just destined to be this way, and accept their work even though it
could be considered 'repetitive', or do you stop watching after a while just because you feel you should
insist on professional 'growth' in an actor?

If you accept, who would you class as your personal favorite 'character actor'? Why?

That's all for this week, folks. As usual, please post 'em if you've got 'em, and take care.

See you next time!

*******

[> Now you've done it! -- Off-kilter, 02:37:36 06/23/02 Sun

You're going to make me watch this movie after years and years of insisting that I would never view it, aren't you? Evil man.

[> [> Heehee.. that is my nefarious intent, yea, verily. Be sure to get the DVD version, por favor. -- OnM, 08:05:02 06/23/02 Sun

And occasionally remember to repeat the DVD lover's mantra,

VHS pan'n'scan is the Devil's handiwork...
VHS pan'n'scan is the Devil's handiwork...

;-)

[> [> [> Hey!!! I take pride in my handiwork...I subcontract that stuff out to you mortal types....;) -- The ****Devil**** who had nothing to do with Cordy's hair;(, 15:10:29 06/23/02 Sun

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2002 -- Dichotomy, 06:18:21 06/23/02 Sun

I just loved Splash the first time I saw it and it's one of those "reliable" movies I can watch again and again when I just want to feel happy.

Now a confession: I don't know if I really have a favorite character actor, but the first person that popped into my mind was, er, um...Ah-nuld. Every once in a while, I enjoy an Arnie movie for pure escapism with its dumb dialogue, over the top action and all. And I can think of no one else it would be more embarassing to watch in a movie if he tried to "grow professionally." Arnold Schwarzeneggar in "Hamlet"? I don't think so. Or "Arnie as you've never seen him before in a film about one man's struggle against a debilitating disease and the love that leads him to the light" Nu-uh!

[> [> My fav 'Arnie' character flick - *Eraser*. The epitomy of all that is Ah-nuld-ness. ;-) -- OnM, 08:14:02 06/23/02 Sun

Not to mention Vanessa Williams managing to hold her own personality-wise against AS despite playing basically the traditional 'damsel in distress' role-- no mean feat.

Very honorable mention also goes to Terminator 2, another high-action film with a great female leading role, albeit a more assertive one.

[> This was a fairly easy one...... -- AurraSing, 06:34:45 06/23/02 Sun

I love to watch Steve Buscemi.....I think I sort of fell in love with him part way through "Fargo".
I still haven't seen "Ghost World" yet because I'm having difficulties getting my husband to watch it,but Steve certainly tops my list of 'character' actors.Not pretty to look at and certainly happy to play the clown,Steve is a great actor who usually does a hell of a lot with any part he takes.

[> [> *Ghost World* is a wonderful flick - please do see it! -- OnM, 07:57:21 06/23/02 Sun

matching mole did an excellent guest host review on this film (and High Fidelity, in a dual-review) in my column space a few weeks back; if you haven't read it, you might check it out. I think Sol has it up at the revised Fictionary site, but if not, you can always e-mail me and I can mail a copy.

objectsinmirror@mindspring.com

Hubby doesn't want to watch it? Ehhh-- support the economy and buy a second DVD player for yourself (or him)!

;-)

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2002 -- Dead Soul, 20:24:15 06/23/02 Sun

Favorite character actor, hmm, don't know if he's my favorite, but I always like to watch him - Crispin Glover. From River's Edge, the Back to the Future movies, one of the old Friday the 13th movies, to the recent Charlie's Angels, he's always the same guy with all the same quirks and expressions. I don't run into him in movies that often, but I always enjoy him.

Dead Soul

[> Character actors -- matching mole, 08:47:28 06/24/02 Mon

Very intrigued by the definition of character actors which was quite different from the way that I'd always thought of the term. I supposed that it referred to actors who specialized in playing non=lead roles, usually because they weren't good looking enough to be stars. The way you define it - essentially playing one persona all the time - would seem to me to apply to a greater or lesser extent to the majority of Hollywood stars. A movie star by definition sems to me to be someone whose personality comes through in all their roles and is a big part of their appeal. The really chameleon-like actors such as John Malkovich who disappear into their roles seem much less likely to become famous. Yet before you defined the term the way you did I might have considered Malkovich a character actor (although not a typical one).

Sympathy for the Willow: her future (Spoilers S6 end) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 21:51:45 06/22/02 Sat

[Follow on to Shadowkat & others points re Willow below]

Willow's survival will be a work in progress.

First, she's going to need her friends -- the very same people she almost killed and did injure in a whole variety of ways. Let's see -- "Dawn, you can be a little glowing green ball again. . . " Buffy (kick every inch of her . . .) Giles (let's just take your breath away . . . ) and Xander (who did rescue her and will embrace her when his ribs heal.) So Buffy's going to have to understand and forgive not only Willow's savaging of herself but her threats to Giles & Dawn. The others -- you get the idea.

Then Willow's going to have to forgive herself for trying to be a bigger mass murderer than Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan and Tamurlane combined. In fact, she almost wiped out the human race, the horsies AND the tropical fish to boot.

How can you do that -- especially if you have a serious problem with self-esteem to begin with? If you have that dark view of yourself as wrong, inadequate, to begin with -- how can you not under the circumstances see yourself as essentially evil? If you can't forgive yourself for the sin of failing to win, to justify, your parents' love, how can you forgive yourself for attempting to end the world?

You can turn your wrath and fear outwards -- to blame others for your failings. Lots of candidates -- Rack. Warren. Even Giles with his Devon-coven plan to infect her with humanity. Her parents. Buffy and the other Scoobies. None of them, of course, will suffice.

And you can turn your wrath inward -- against the Willow who was so weak, so wrong, so EVIL as to turn the powers she had to annihilate the planet -- a measurable number of whom had done nothing to her. That's the risk.

Perhaps the most logical solution Willow may find to her own history is suicide.

To paraphrase "Jesus Christ Superstar"

"Fools, you have no perception
"the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high.
"We must crush [her completely]
"for the sake of the [planet,] this Willow must die."

It will take skillful writing by ME to have a sound, logical, and hopeful resolution of the problem of Willow.

[> A Broken Yellow Crayon -- ZachsMind, 23:36:41 06/22/02 Sat

[I just posted this to a different forum, but after reading Fred's piece, it seemed ideal to place it here as well.]

"Well, you can fight monsters naturally, with sticks and stones. Don't recommend it, though." - Willow

A Broken Yellow Crayon

At what point did Willow go bad? To the casual observer, Willow went over the edge when Tara was murdered in cold blood by Warren in the sixth season episode "Seeing Red." However, it can be argued that the potential for evil has been there for some time. It was a gradual change that occurred over several years, and quite innocently.

Many fans of the series dislike the apparent comparison between using dark magick and casual drug abuse. It seems like the series is being cautionary and almost holier-than-thou, perhaps even preaching to its youthful audience that all drug use or all magic use is bad. I don't see it that way. The correlation between drug use & dark magic is done in order to give viewers a base from which to understand what the character is going through. I mean, let's face it, in the real world the average viewer probably hasn't come across someone whose eyes turn black before they turn a teacher or employer into a toad. So the writers used the drug comparison to communicate to the audience what Willow's been going through. Unfortunately, like most metaphors, this comparison simplifies Willow's situation. It's a little more complicated.

In order to properly understand Willow's fall from grace, one needs to first understand the difference between bad uses and good uses for magic, then one should examine the actions Willow has committed, and from that one can see where she went wrong.

Tara tried to warn Willow throughout season six that she was in trouble, even ending their relationship because she felt so strongly. "What if something went wrong?" she cautioned. Frivolous magic often has consequences, and even the best of intentions can go awry. Willow didn't become a master of magic overnight, and some would argue even at the end of season six she was no master. She was more like a toddler playing with matches in a basement filled with cardboard boxes and yellowed newspaper.

In season two's episode "Becoming Part Two," Willow used magic to replace Angel's soul, but though her intentions were noble, she inadvertently returned Angel's soul too late, and Buffy was forced to send a souled Angel to hell in order to close Acathla's vortex. Furthermore, during the incantation in the hospital, Willow almost fainted but something seemed to slip into her and complete the incanation. We're never told if that something was demonic or from the elusive, good Powers That Be.

The following season Willow admitted to attempting to communicate with the spirit world, which resulted in blowing out the power of a city block. Later on, Anya asked Willow to help her with a spell that would reunite Anya with her demonic power center. Willow jumped at the chance, saying she enjoyed toying with the "dark forces." Admittedly, Anya didn't tell Willow that she was helping a vengeance demon. The spell introduced a vampire version of Willow into the world from an alternate reality. When Willow was faced with the opportunity to kill an evil version of herself, she couldn't get past the fact that it was like looking in the mirror. Vampire Willow was evil, but Normal Willow insisted they send her back alive instead. This was a portent; a harbinger of what was to come. It is interesting to note that the two personality qualities of Vampire Willow which seemed to be accentuated by the demonic influence were carelessness and impatience. "Bored now."

Vamp Will: "This world is no fun."
Norm Will: "You've noticed that too?"

These are the same two qualities that regular Willow battles. Carelessness and impatience are her inner demons. They seem uniquely innocent issues in early seasons. They're certainly not any of "The Seven Deadly Sins" of pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony or sloth. By the end of the sixth season, carelessness and impatience threaten to consume Willow. The innocent appearance of these quirks in Willow's personality cause people to gloss over them. How can someone this innocent and sweet and lovable possibly turn into a power-mad nihilist? Willow does have a taste of the seven deadlies too though. She's jealous of Buffy and wants to be seen as more than her sidekick, which is where pride comes in. Her impatience can be seen as a byproduct of sloth. She'd rather use magic to get things easily, rather than work at life to get things to naturally work her way. Willow attempted to conjure a guiding light in the episode "Fear, Itself" but like many of Willow's attempts with magic, it backfired. A few of the guiding lights even managed to make their way down her throat like lightning bugs. This is carelessness. She attempted this spell even though others cautioned her that she wasn't ready. This is impatience. It's a constant thread and running theme through many of her actions and decisions.

She almost cursed Oz for being unfaithful, even though his intentions were good. Oz saved Veruca's life that night, only to have to kill her later in order to protect Willow. Oz tried to explain the truth to Willow but she flew off the handle before he could. Impatience.

Willow conjured a selfish "I will it so" spell in the episode "Something Blue" which only worked when her darker emotions ran high. Carelessness. This spell backfired by causing random wishes Willow uttered to come true when what she should have done was work through her emotions and reasons for wanting to conjure the spell in the first place. She didn't want to experience the pain she felt in her heart over Oz's exit from her life. Rather thand deal with her grief naturally, she wanted to make the pain just go away. Impatience.

Willow accidently released Olaf, an ex-boyfriend of Anya's whom she turned into a troll, in the episode "Triangle." Carelessness. Later that season, when she vengefully attacked Glory in an attempt to return Tara's sanity, she put herself in jeopardy and would have become Glory's next victim had Buffy not intervened. Carelessness. In season six, Willow de-ratted Amy, who had turned herself into a rat two years previously as a desperate attempt to avoid being burned at the stake, and the two of them went off on a partying magic spree at the expense of many unwary victims. Carelessness. As I said. It's a running theme.

Tara also once asked Willow, "Why use magic when you can do something naturally?" Why? Because Willow's impatient. She sees no reason to take the time to respect where the power comes from. She treats magic as she would walking into a room and flicking on the lights. Magic energy stems from the force of the universe as a whole. Whether a practitioner calls upon the moon, the earth, or some demon or godlike entity, all matter in the universe is made up of one form of energy or another. It comes from some place. When a practitioner of magic utilizes that energy, even the simplest spells in appearance can have grand repercussions, because the energy that causes that spell has to come from somewhere. The energy has to go somewhere. The origins of those energies rarely coincide with the intentions of the practitioner. Like an idiot strafing a backyard with bullets from a gun, foolish use of magic can cause undo damage to innocents.

The use of magic should be saved for times when one cannot do something naturally; only as a last resort. Despite constant warnings of this nature, Willow repeatedly used her magic frivolously. Often she would claim to be using it selflessly for the benefit of others, but her true intentions either became clear or were implied. In the season five episode "Out Of My Mind," she tinkered with a spell she called The Tinkerbell Spell, which was supposed to illuminate a room with mystically-inclined artifical sunlight. Willow claimed she did it to help out Buffy, but then she showed it off to Tara narcisistically. She didn't make the spell for Buffy's sake, but for her own.

Willow hinted to Dawn how she could raise her mother from the dead, rather than let Dawn mourn and accept her loss naturally. Willow thought she was doing Dawn a favor on the surface, but actually she was showing off to Dawn that it was indeed possible, without contemplating or giving reverence to the obvious adverse side effects.

When Tara threatened to leave her because of Willow's misuse of magic, Willow responded by using forget spells, twice, rather than try to resolve her problems sensibly. She could have taken the time to sort things out, but she chose not to out of impatience. Later when the second forget spell failed miserably putting all her friends in jeopardy, Willow vowed to go "cold turkey" and never use magic again. This was an attempt at doing the right thing, which she succeeded at until Tara's death. At that point all bets were off. Willow felt cheated by the world. She did what she was told to be the right thing, and the world paid her back by taking her love away from her. If you tell a child to do something, then the child does it and you reward them by punishing them in some way, the child will not learn the lesson. Willow is basically a child to magic, and the Powers That Be are not training her properly, so it's only "natural" that she would turn to the dark arts. To her, in the moment of anger, they made more sense.

Another way of looking at Willow is regarding her nonmagic actions and words. At the start of season three, Buffy returns after having run away from home. She'd just sent her lover to hell, she was expelled from school, her mother had all but said life would be better without her daughter, and some people at a welcome home party thought Buffy had been in a drug rehab clinic. Buffy was going through a tough time. Willow's reaction to seeing her best friend leaving again was to make it all about her. Sure, Buffy'd had a bad day. Willow's response was: "This isn't easy, Buffy! I know you're going through stuff, but so am I. ...I mean, my life! You know? I'm having all sorts of... I'm dating, I'm having serious dating with a *werewolf*, and I'm studying witchcraft and killing vampires, and I didn't have anyone to talk to about all this scary life stuff. And you were my best friend." (Dead Man's Party) Objectively, comparing Buffy's life to Willow's life and trying to see who's got the short end of the stick? Buffy wins.

However, oftentimes Willow turns around issues with a subtext that redirects attention to herself. She caught Xander & Cordelia kissing, and even though Xander had made it clear before that he and Willow were just friends, Willow got jealous and took it personally. As if Xander kissing Cordelia had anything to do with her, "It just means that you'd rather be with someone you hate than be with me." (Innocence) On more than one occasion she's turned on Buffy verbally. "I'm not your sidekick" she's insisted. She's also taken offense to being called "old reliable." She doesn't want to be a rock that others depend on so they can shine. She wants to be the star.

Early in season six she downright threatened Giles, because he didn't congratulate her on using incredibly dangerous dark magicks to bring Buffy back from the dead.

GILES: "The magicks you channeled are more ferocious and primal than anything you can hope to understand, and you are lucky to be alive, you rank, arrogant amateur!"
WILLOW: "You're right. The magicks I used are very powerful. I'm very powerful. And maybe it's not such a good idea for you to piss me off."

This is by the way not the first time Giles & Willow have butted heads. They've argued on occasion about Willow's use of magic.

Willow's often been self-conscious about how people see her, thinking she stopped being geeky Willow when she started dating Oz; "a guy in the band." That's just a little shallow, isn't it? In the episode "Restless" much of her dream had to do with shallow impressions, lies, masks and costumes. What she wore as a wiccan lesbian college student was costuming for the geeky Willow she was three or four years before. Willow lacks cohesion because she wears titles like some wear clothes. In a way she's just as shallow as Cordelia was in the early seasons of "BtVS" but Cordelia was simply more open and honest about it. Willow hides her faults from herself.

These are all simple failings. Carelessness. Frivolity. Impatience. Shallowness. Narcisism. Jealousy. The displeasure that life doesn't go one's way and the knowledge that one has the power to twist reality to your own ends. Magic in the Buffy Universe is a force that can be used for good or bad, but when used in a self-centered manner without interest in the consequences, consistently, repeatedly, this taints the magic darkly and also taints the practitioner.

Wiccans believe "an it harm none so mote it be" but Willow's use of magic did harm people often, either purposefully or accidentally. The Wiccan tenet doesn't say "if it was an accident it's okay" because even if it was an accident, it's not okay. Ignorance is not a defense. Magic doesn't preclude accidents. It's like using gas to wash your car and then claiming it was an accident when the gas station exploded. Oops! One could avoid the accident if they concern themselves with consequences before taking the actions, but Willow didn't have time for that. She was too impatient. So she became careless. This is what led her to turning evil.

There are individuals, and rightly so, who are upset with the writers of the BtVS series for killing Tara in a way that appears thoughtless. They believe this caters to a cliche about lesbians in modern storytelling. There are very few lesbians in modern mainstream television and most who are in such stories end up in a bad way. It is like Hollywood is saying no lesbian love affair ever ends well - that they are somehow doomed to fail - that society still deems gay relationships evil and so therefore all storylines must adhere to some tired cliche. They see this cliche reflected in the season six finale of Buffy. In Joss Whedon's world of Buffy however, the course of true love never does run smooth, for anyone, regardless of their sexual proclivity.

The death of Tara, and Willow's turn to the dark side in vengeance for Tara's death, appears on the surface to be a "lesbian" thing. In fact, it was insinuated that only moments before Tara died, Willow & Tara had been committing an act of lovemaking. Again some argue that this is a backhanded insult at lesbians - like the writers are saying gay sex must be punished - but the truth is even harder for some gay activists to swallow.

Willow's story has nothing to do with homosexuality. It had nothing to do with Tara, any more than it had to do with Oz. Tara was just THERE. The lesbian love affair had nothing to do with Willow's depth into evil. In fact for a time Tara's love was the only thing that kept Willow from a path towards evil which she had inadvertently taken long before. Before Tara, Willow was ready to turn evil and had been ready for a long time. The only thing at that point that kept her from being evil was Tara. The writers removed Tara in order to continue Willow's story: her descent into her own self-designed hell.

This was Willow's story. A story that dates back at least as far as when Willow used magic to resoul the cursed Angel. Perhaps farther back than that. Willow's reckless disregard for the power of magic has been her downfall, and it has taken five seasons for her karma to come back to her. If Tara died because of anything, it wasn't for loving Willow in a homosexual way. One can argue that Tara died because of another Wiccan tenet: the power of three. Whatever one's actions, they will be visited upon one three fold. Do something good for someone, you'll get three times the good treatment back someday. Do something bad, you'll get punished three times as bad. She inadvertently sent a souled vampire to hell. She's done a number of other things wrong. Some more terrible than others.

The loss of Tara wasn't a lesbian thing. It was karmic payback. If you ask me, she got off easy.

The character of Willow is as potentially powerful and potentially fragile as any other human character. She had as much potential to be a force for good in the universe as a force for evil. She didn't wake up one day and choose to be evil. It was a gradual thing, and that's the story Joss Whedon and the writers at Mutant Enemy were wanting to convey.

In the season six finale, Xander stands there on King Man's Bluff. He stands between the temple spire of a long buried church to Proserpexa and a tool of destruction in the form of someone he's come to hold dear. Xander is staring in the face of evil. It's a face he's known all his life. Xander says to Willow, "The first day at kindergarten, you cried because you broke the yellow crayon, and you were too afraid to tell anyone. You've come pretty far. Ending the world not a terrific notion..." Xander argues with Willow not just to save the world, but he argues in Willow's favor to save herself from herself.

She refuses to forgive herself. One can argue this is her worst sin. As far as Willow has gotten from that tear-faced little girl staring at a broken yellow crayon, she hasn't come very far at all. Imagine a little girl holding a broken yellow crayon in her hand. A crayon she broke due to carelessness. She's apologetic in her heart but she can't undo this; she can't make the crayon whole again anymore than she could turn the sun blue. A little thing? Not to a five year old girl. The yellow crayon is something that's not hers. Something given to her by the school. She had no right to break it and she knows this. She fears she'll get in trouble if anyone finds out she broke the yellow crayon. We know she won't, but we're not the little girl staring at the broken yellow crayon, still new to the environment of a public school and the world in general.

So what does crayon breaky Willow do? She tries to fix it alone because she can't trust anyone. She's afraid they'll tattle on her. She finds that she can't fix it alone. Her impatience grows. She starts crying. Helpless. She didn't have the power of witchcraft to make it all go away. So years later she gets that power and she still can't make it all go away, because the story being told here is that power doesn't make bad things go away. Love is what makes bad things go away. Not selfish love, but selfless love. Unconditional love. Love like Xander's.

"...But the thing is? Yeah! I love you," continues Xander, "I love crayon breaky Willow and I love scary veiny Willow. So if I'm goin' out. It's here! If you wanna kill the world? Well then start with me. I've earned that."

Xander's willing sacrifice here is something that could fill a whole other essay. The writings of Joseph Campbell, who studied the myths of many cultures throughout the world, reveals this sacrifice through unconditional love to be a key element in practically every mythology. The sacrifice of Jesus in Christian mythology being only one obvious example. Xander stands there, knowing what Willow has done, knowing what she's capable of doing, knowing what she's about to do, and he doesn't CARE. He honestly doesn't care. If the world's going to end by her hand, he wants to be the first one she takes out. Facing that, Willow couldn't continue on. In the face of unconditional love, evil is powerless.

When did Willow turn bad? The same time we all did. Each and every one of us have the potential to do good or evil in this world. It all boils down to our day to day choices, and they all add up over a period of time. It doesn't make us good or evil. It means our choices were right or wrong. Willow has always had the potential for evil just as she's always had the potential for good. One can choose to use whatever resources one has at their disposal to love or to hate. It's simply a matter of choices. Just as Angel can lose his soul and get it back again, so too can Willow gain redemption, but it's not going to be an easy path. It never is. Giles once told Buffy that forgiveness is not something that is earned. It's something that is granted, because the person needs it, not because they deserve it. However, first Willow's going to have to forgive herself, or else the entire world forgiving her is not going to matter. Something tells me she still hasn't forgiven herself for the yellow crayon. Perhaps that's the real reason why she went down the wrong path. She's been unable until now to forgive herself.

Hopefully in season seven, we'll witness her learn to do just that. Hopefully she will learn to forgive herself for the yellow crayon.

[> [> ...(sniff) -- Doriander, 03:32:25 06/23/02 Sun

The writers removed Tara in order to continue Willow's story: her descent into her own self-designed hell.

Can I just say how amazingly this statement summed it up? This is the most affecting post I've read on Willow's descent. Great job.

[> [> Every viewer watches a different show. -- Sophist, 08:33:15 06/23/02 Sun

I know it's true that we all see episodes through our own eyes. It remains startling to me, however, how very different the show and the characters can be to different viewers. I've never seen the show you've apparently been watching, and I guess you've never seen the one I saw.

I suppose I could go through and point out the various reasons why I think your interpretation of different scenes is not mine, but we'd never agree anyway. I am curious, though. Can you, can anyone, point me to an analysis of Willow that identified all these "flaws" in her character that was written before S6?

I ask, because the Willow I saw in seasons 1-5 was loyal, caring, thoughtful, helpful, modest and careful. Not to say she was without faults (I agree with you about Dead Man's Party; Xander and Joyce were even worse), but her faults were minor compared to her virtues. Maybe I just missed it, or maybe the whole Willow character has been reinterpreted in light of S6.

[> [> [> Re: Every viewer watches a different show. -- Dochawk, 09:18:23 06/23/02 Sun

Sophist, I sooooo agree with you. Because in the retrospectoscope its easy to find "faults" with Willow's character. Simply put these were the insecurities of a high school wallflower who suddenly got a taste of power. I agree with you I could counteract virtually all of his points (except for DMP, but I found Joyce and Xander so horribly inhumane in that episode that I overlooked Willow). I am most bothered by his point about Becoming II though, because the fault with saving Angel's soul belongs solely with Xander, Willow did nothing remotely wrong. There was no evil, no carelessness, nothing that Willow did that I can see how it was percieved wrong.

I think Joss wanted to play with us, He has wanted to make Willow evil for 3 years, so he planted a few hints, but there was nothing in her earlier behavior that makes one believe she would want to destroy the world (she was a bit selfish and a bit immature and more than a little insecure, but aren't all of these things present in all of us? Was Joss trying to tell us we all have the potential to destroy the world?). I still continue to be bothered by what Joss did with Willow, because it was a great leap from her personal demons to wanting to destroy the world. So I have decided to accept Rufus' explanation that she was controlled by the black magics and wasn;t making her own decisions, because nothing else makes sense to me.

As for Buffy forgiving Willow. I believe Maladanza made a beautiful post about how forgiving Buffy has been to things that were more personal. I think she should have a much much tougher time forgiving Spike (I think both Dawn and Buffy will have a tougher time with it). The story is going to be about how Willow forgives herself so she can move ahead. Interestingly, I think suicide is definitely an option for her and I hope ME explores this again (they did such a wonderful job with it in Earshot).

[> [> [> [> Hindsight is 20/20 -- Scroll, 09:46:33 06/23/02 Sun

I agree that "in the retrospectoscope its easy to find 'faults' with Willow's character" simply *because* Joss has been carefully planting the seeds in her behaviour that would lead to S6. And sure, it's a big leap from being insecure to destroying the world, but I think living on the Hellmouth really upsets the laws of averages on things like that. Personally, I've always loved Willow for her compassion, loyalty, and... well, cuteness. But I've also seen her hold pretty harsh grudges (Cordelia, Faith, Anya) and she has always been careless with her magic.

I don't agree that she did anything wrong in re-cursing Angelus in Becoming 2. She did everything she could to help Buffy and to help Angel in that episode, it was just bad luck, fate, or Xander's interference that Angel was sentenced to Hell. Some people have remarked that Xander was being clear-headed and a good general when he lied to Buffy about Willow doing the spell. He lied so that Buffy would concentrate on killing Angelus. But I refuse to believe that there wasn't a great deal of jealousy and bitterness in his lie, and that for me showed a lack of compassion for Buffy and lack of respect for Willow. Not to mention seething hatred for Angel, but anyway...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hindsight is 20/20 -- Rahael, 10:52:59 06/23/02 Sun

I haven't really like Willow since Dead Man's Party. It was the way she blanked Buffy, supposedly her best friend for running away. No, Buffy should have stayed so she could be there for Willow who had such crucial life stuff happening. Of course Buffy never has crucial life stuff happening. Talk about self absorbed!! And when Joyce invites them over for a dinner party, she decides to bring Oz's band and the whole of Sunnydale, despite Giles' misgivings. That's really badly brought up behaviour. It's the only time I've ever wanted to throw things at the screen when watching Buffy. And everytime I watch DMP, I get all agitated at the unresolved tension and general unfairness to Buffy's pain.

Secondly, all through Season 5 she had the little lispy girl thing happening which so infuriated me that I could only watch Tara or anyone else who happened to be in the scene.

Anyway, I've never been a big Willow fan since quite early on. But Season 6 is the first time I've enjoyed watching her. Ever since the steely grown up, pissed off side of her emerged in that early scene with Giles. And I loved dark Willow.

I've been doing little asides about my dislike of Willow since I got on the board, a year ago. I have to say, I loved early shy Willow though - however it was the early signs of her complete self absorbedness that did it for me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hindsight is 20/20 -- Malandanza, 19:12:06 06/23/02 Sun

First, let me join the other posters in saying that I enjoyed ZachsMind's yellow crayon post -- very insightful. I don't have much to add, but I do think the crayon event is open to interpretation. I don't think Willow has ever had a problem forgiving herself for anything. The yellow crayon symbolizing (for me) the first time Willow did something "wrong" and escaped punishment. She expected to be punished -- hence the tears. But it became a pattern for her -- do something wrong and accept the easy forgiveness of her friends. Bask in the momentary attention. Repeat.

Thus, when she says:

WILLOW (O.S.) Uh oh. Daddy's home...I'm in wicked trouble now.

After Giles' timely appearance, she's not worried about the consequences. She never gets in trouble. In fact, she prefers challenging Giles, in his role as an authority figure, to fighting with Buffy. Very early in the series it was established that Willow could cross all sorts of lines and suffer no consequences. She had been hacking, she had been reading the books Giles didn't think she knew about (no punishment) and she had been deliberately hiding her spells from Giles even back then (like the Magus Tripod spell in IOHEFY).

Anyway, the reason I'm posting this under Rah's subtopic is because she hit exactly the episode that made me first question Willow's behavior:

"I haven't really like Willow since Dead Man's Party. It was the way she blanked Buffy, supposedly her best friend for running away. No, Buffy should have stayed so she could be there for Willow who had such crucial life stuff happening. Of course Buffy never has crucial life stuff happening. Talk about self absorbed!!

WILLOW: Maybe I don't need to understand. Maybe I just need you to talk to me.

BUFFY: While you're avoiding me like a virulent ebola strain?

WILLOW: This isn't easy, Buffy. I know you're going through stuff but so am I.

BUFFY: Willow, I know you were worried, but --

WILLOW: I don't just mean that. I mean my life. I have all sorts of -- I'm dating, I'm having serious dating... with a werewolf, and I've been studying witchcraft and killing vampires, and you were my best friend, I didn't have anyone to talk to about all this scary life stuff. Then you come back and you didn't even ask about me. You just worried about whether I was mad at you.

Dead Man's Party

It's all about Willow, you see. Buffy killed her boyfriend to save the world but Willow's complaint is that Buffy should have been there for her (so she'd have someone to talk to about the boy she started dating to spite Xander... or the magic that she's not supposed to be doing...) Gosh. Buffy is so insensitive.

The self-absorption has been a constant theme with Willow. Something Blue was less about Willow's pain of being separated from Oz and more about her sullen resentment that her friends had grown tired of walking on eggshells around her. I don't think it was an accident that there were so many Glory/Willow parallels in the finale: the soul-sucking, the threats to Dawn, the hubris (although in Glory's case, since she was a God, was it really hubris?), the total focus on self:

Willow's eyes flash angrily. She waves a hand and WARREN'S MOUTH IS SEALED SHUT WITH SOME LARGE, CRUDE STITCHES. HIS MUFFLED CRIES GROW MORE AND MORE AGONIZED AS SHE CONTINUES.

WILLOW: I'm talking.

Villians

Even RoboWarren (did anyone else expect Willow to look up and say "Wow... Warren's a robot! Did everybody else know Warren was a robot?").

Then there's the sidekick issue. In Season Six Willow definitely showed that she had some problems with Buffy as de facto leader -- but this issue goes all the way back to Season Four in Fear, Itself:

WILLOW: Being the Slayer doesn't automatically make you boss. You're as lost as the rest of us-

...

Willow turns back to her, angry.

WILLOW: I'm not your sidekick.

"Secondly, all through Season 5 she had the little lispy girl thing happening which so infuriated me that I could only watch Tara or anyone else who happened to be in the scene."

I know exactly what you're talking about. One scene in particular -- where she asked Tara to tell her a story... yuck!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hindsight is 20/20 -- Sophist, 20:17:15 06/23/02 Sun

After I made my original post, I went back and read Isabel's Willow character post, including the entire discussion thread which followed it. Mal posted something similar then.

Frankly, I don't see it. For one thing, Zach's original post said nothing about self-involvement; careless and impatient were his concerns. The criticisms of Willow therefore seem somewhat scattered.

For another, I don't understand the focus on Willow in Dead Man's Party. I certainly would not defend Willow's behavior there, but Xander and Joyce were much worse in that episode. Does that one episode mean Joyce was self-involved?

I don't think so. There is, to me, a big difference between saying "X was self-involved in this case" and "X is self-involved". The former is something we're all guilty of on occasion. The latter means we are regularly self-involved and rarely show concern for others. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that Willow has demonstrated some concern for others in essentially every single episode of the show except Dead Man's Party. Cordelia was self-involved. Harmony was self-involved. Willow was not and is not.

Isabel's character post didn't mention any of the criticisms now made of Willow, nor did any of the follow-up posters (except Mal), except to note that she tended to be careless with magic (not careless in general). Even then, the evidence was, as Isabel carefully noted, ambiguous. Again, I think the first 5 seasons are being reinterpreted to fit with S6.

One more point on this topic, and the Willow discussions generally: dream of the consortium made an excellent post on June 23, 2001 (part of the Willow character thread) which seems prescient now. Everyone should read it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hindsight is 20/20 - Spoilers for all Buffy seasons aired in the USA -- Rahael, 02:16:19 06/24/02 Mon

You are asking us to accept that because

a) No one had the prescience to realise that in Grave Willow would end up wanting to burnt the world to a crisp, attack all her friends, be resentful of all the people she loved and torture a man while Season 4 and 5 were playing

That

b) this is out of character, and is not a believable storyline

I don't think that this logically follows.

If you set out a list of reasons why Willow could never had done those things, I might start to accept your contention. Simply saying that Willow is sweet, kind caring and compassionate, she could never do those things is not enough. That is to argue that characters are static and have the same essence as outward action. This is to ignore the fact Willow was always preoccupied with outward behaviour, and with appearance and with the moulding of self-identity.

I'll point out that all the way from Season 2 to 3 no one said that Buffy and Spike were going to end together. Even during Season 4, it was nothing but an uncanonical and unorthodox fan fic pairing. Not even as late as the Gift did anyone predict that Buffy would be beating the crap out of Spike in an alleyway. Most of the summer speculation from the board's most respected posters was that Buffy would be moving on to even bigger and better things, emotionally and spiritually. She had achieved Nirvana. What was left but to become an Angel or some kind of minor deity.

Does this mean depressed Buffy is out of character?

Yes, no one in the seasons leading up to Season 4 predicted that Willow would realise she was gay. No one predicted that she'd try to cast a forgetting spell on Tara. No one predicted what her behaviour would be in a set of circumstances no one had foreseen.

Isn't that what life is about? Have you behaved predictably? Can we foresee all the situations we will be in? Can you predict how you'd behave in them? Events overtake us. They have their own dynamic, demanding and receiving responses from us we'd never thought we'd make. Whether we behave in a finer way than we thought possible, or whether we are weaker than we'd like to behave. The entire series of events in Grave/TTG were not preplanned by Willow. She only wanted to kill Warren, Jonathan and Andrew. Slowly. She had no idea that she'd start attacking all her friends. She had no idea she'd suck all the magic out of Giles. She had no idea what effect that magic would have on her. That is true to life. Some of the worst/best decisions we make arise out of uncontrollable and unpredictable events, fed by our own uncontrollable and unpredictable responses. And what ME were saying in TTG/Grave is a mirror image of what happened in the Gift. To the Universal, through the Personal. One person's life, unjustly taken, might as well signify doing away with the whole world. One innocent's life, bravely saved saves all of us. When Willow showed her entire disregard for the sanctity of human life in that forest, she might have just as well killed Tara. Having lost her lover, and having lost herself, indeed, intentionally losing her self in the forest, Willow didn't care anymore if the world ceased to exist. And in her warped thinking, this was mercy. And once you commit your first murder, you lose something of yourself. And it changes you in ways you or your friends cannot predict.

Xander is kind, funny, chivalrous, brave. And yet he lied to Buffy at the end of Season 2. He left Anya at the altar. His personality is as multi-faceted as Buffy's and Willow's and Tara's and Anya's.

You ask why I single out Willow in DMP - the same response I received when I first said this on the board. Willow it the only one who blanks Buffy. Xander doesn't. Joyce doesn't. Even Cordelia tries to empathise in her own blunt way. Willow was the one who suggested that they gatecrash Buffy's dinner with a 'party'. Because that would be fun. Yes let's avoid the big emotional pain. Let's have fun instead. And we already know how crappy Xander and Joyce can be. We had plenty of intimations of this in Becoming 1&2. As Mal points out above, it is the brazen cheek of Willow's reasons for being cross that got to me above all, and, the unexpectedness of it from someone who was supposed to be Buffy's best friend. I'm not saying Willow is an evil person, and perhaps even not a bad friend. She is simply self absorbed. She can only comprehend the idea of other people's emotional pain from her own pain. She is not all sweetness and light despite the way she acts and portrays herself. We know she tries to be cuter, less threatening than she actually is. The more powerful she got, the more little girlish she became. It's an act that is stressful to pull off, as Restless showed.

ME didn't go into Seasons 1, 2 &3 planning to make Willow bad. I think they built up a character, who grew in an organic way, and whose actions were based upon that growth. I think that by Season 4 the writers were asking themselves, what if? And they managed to outsmart us. They drew up a believable storyline which we did not predict. Of course it's your prerogative to find it unbelievable and out of character. But the people who find it believable are not delusional. And hindsight is what we employ on ourselves. We act, then justify. Act, and then fit it into our life stories.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Go Rah! Well, well argued! -- slightly biased d'Herblay, 03:53:06 06/24/02 Mon

By the way, I predicted that Willow would cause the world to end through her own self-involvement on November 30th. I did get a few details wrong . . .

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Go Rah! Well, well argued! -- Rahael, 05:21:15 06/24/02 Mon

Since we're doing the public praise thing (wow, only the second time dH has ever praised one of my posts! lol) I have to tell you how much I love your apocr. scripts. hint hint.

This little moment among many others:

ETHAN
(holds hand over mouthpiece
and barks at someone or
something off-camera)

Moglur! Wait your turn! What do you
need the phone for anyway? You've
got telepathy!

(back into phone)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Watching different shows -- Cleanthes, 06:46:17 06/24/02 Mon

With regard to predictions, there was some character over on the Usenet group who LOATHES Willow and constantly compared her to Pol Pot and Charles Manson, etc.

I quit reading the usenet group early in season 5 because of its thoroughgoing non-philosophical mindset. I'm so glad to be here instead. ([h&k to all who want 'em]) Still, I can testify that people have been predicting Willow's evilness since season 2.

There is a saying that "meaning is in people, not in words." I think the ambiguity of an event stems from us, the viewer, not from the show itself. No matter how much trouble ME may go to to make an event "perfectly clear," we'll each see something a little different and judge its consequences differently.

ME does contribute mightily to this, though, by introducing different viewpoints into the show itself. For example, we don't just have Buffy's viewpoint. Sometimes we see only Xander's (as in `The Zeppo`). Other time's, we get a handle on each personality, eg. `Restless`. Even Buffy's stature as the named "hero" gets constantly called into question - she might have solipsistically invented it all as in `Normal Again`. Each of these character viewpoints, including both Buffys are presented validly enough -- even when they seem contradictory -- that an openminded person has to at least consider them. Different people will, naturally enough, place different weights on this or that aspect.

Willow comes to life through the acting charms of Alyson Hannigan. Aly is very good at wide-eyed innocence. She can get away with a lot! How much any given viewer discounts her character will depend on that viewer's life experiences and interpretive organon. I suppose I see evil Willow as a natural progression because I've personally been burned too often by wide-eyed types.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm impressed. From now on, your nostra d'Hamus. -- Sophist, 12:10:02 06/24/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Drat. "you're", of course, not "your". -- Sophist, 12:12:21 06/24/02 Mon

My posting's in a slump.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you. That wasn't my argument. -- Sophist, 08:54:35 06/24/02 Mon

I am not at all making any of the arguments you refuted (at least, I don't think I am). I carefully did not say that Willow's story arc this season was out of character; in fact, I think ME built it up in S6 in a way that was believable, though not very satisfying to me.

No, my complaint is that lots of people, looking back from S6, claim that Willow has always had the potential to re-play Dark Phoenix. This might be true in the very general sense you describe -- it may very well be true that we all have the potential for that in us. But to look now at the character flaws the writers emphasized in S6 and argue backwards to, say, S2 is a retcon. That's what I'm protesting -- the retrospective judgment of Willow's character as flawed in S2 based on what happened in S6.

And I certainly was not accusing you (or Mal) of this. In re-reading my last post, I realize it may have sounded like that. My bad. I intended to let Mal off by specifically citing his prior (and consistent) posts. You were in the same category because you made the same point he did. However, my general criticism did not make this clear. My apologies to you and to Mal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> High Roads to Civil Wars (and Internal ones) -- Rahael, 09:46:31 06/24/02 Mon

I guess I misread this:

"I ask, because the Willow I saw in seasons 1-5 was loyal, caring, thoughtful, helpful, modest and careful. Not to say she was without faults (I agree with you about Dead Man's Party; Xander and Joyce were even worse), but her faults were minor compared to her virtues. Maybe I just missed it, or maybe the whole Willow character has been reinterpreted in light of S6."

and made a lightning leap to out of character. Reading between the lines is always a bad move!! You were of course expressing surprise that some viewers have claimed always to have had a negative picture of such a sweet character. (you were, weren't you? just checking!)

But then Xander is a hero to many viewers, and always has been. He has equally been a 'villain' (relatively speaking) since Season 2 for others.

You make a good point about claims that Willow was destined to be this way. That would be deterministic, and undermine the idea of free will that ME have pushed since PG. Also, to bring historiography into this, I will agree that there was no 'High Road' to Grave/TTG. There was an accidental road, paved with good intentions, unconcious choices and unfortunate interactions between personality and circumstance.

I concur, of course Willow has been reinterpreted. Isn't that natural? Since BtVS is an organic story and the characters are growing up in front of our eyes. Who could resist the urge to revisit and re-interpret? Bet the Dawn arcs in the last two seasons will be revisted in the light of next season's eps. It's not only natural but necessary, because all the plot points, all the images and words we've been shown in Season 6 do not work if they do not resonate with the long history we are familiar with.

BtVS has the luxury of a loyal fanbase who are able to recognise the little jokes, the ironies, the subtle points.

And therefore, I'd argue that all that makes up Willow, both good and bad, both her sensitivity and her inward rebellion went toward the creation of dark Willow. And I think it's instructive to go backwards and look at her. Of course, any analysis which only looks at one side, is prejudiced and perhaps we should go for a more balanced view. Or, as I do it, do a prejudiced one sided portrayal, and wait for an insightful poster to put the other side!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Whig view of history -- Sophist, 12:45:09 06/24/02 Mon

You were of course expressing surprise that some viewers have claimed always to have had a negative picture of such a sweet character. (you were, weren't you? just checking!)

Essentially, yes. What I was trying to say, however inarticulately, was that, while there was a transition from sweet Willow to Dark Willow (and therefore, Villains was not OOC), that transition took place almost entirely within S6. I'm objecting to the "inevitability complex", by which some posters claim that Willow was always destined to go nuclear and that we can see the flaws that led to this even in her early years. That's the Whig view of history (of course, I am a Whig, lol).

You're quite right that the characters change/develop. I share your view about not seeing life as deterministic. For that reason, I think the way to look at the characters is to say that, for example, Buffy was once a starry-eyed romantic (with Angel), but has grown out of that (with Spike; one hopes!). I would not go back to S2 and say that Buffy all along had it in her to beat Angel to a bloody pulp as she did to Spike in DT. One view says the character always was essentially the same; the other says the characters change, sometimes to the point where we can hardly recognize the adult from the adolescent.

Xander's not a villain. I just find it puzzling that on a show which prides itself on punishing every misstep (and most good deeds), Xander never suffers for his failures. But that's another thread.......

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Xander never suffers for his failures? -- Diana Michelle, 13:08:52 06/24/02 Mon

Every once in a while, I just get stunned by how differently each person sees the show.

Because I've always seen, until this season, Willow never having to suffer for her mistakes and failures. She's gotten off practically scot-free on tons of counts. (Something Blue being a particularly obvious example. I mean, cookies? They were under siege by demons. Giles was blind. Buffy and Spike were distracted by being in love. She had so much anger in her that she was offered the position of Vengeance Demon. And she makes it up with cookies?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I could make a long list, but we need another thread. -- Sophist, 13:39:43 06/24/02 Mon

As for Willow, she should not have done the spell, but she did undo it when she realized what happened. In fact, no one was seriously hurt. She also showed remorse afterward; hey, don't knock chocolate chip cookies as a peace offering!

Consider the parallel episode for Xander, B,B&B. He did not undo the spell, but had to rely on Giles for that. He got rewarded by having Cordy return to him. And no one got cookies.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I could make a long list -- Rahael, 14:05:39 06/24/02 Mon

Well, I can definitely see both sides of the view of Xander.

Who can't sympathise with him when he's the lowly bartender, being mocked by those snobs? And I loved the little scene in Tabula Rasa where amnesiac Xander can't remember what religion he is so he goes through the lot (ommmmm!). Or the Xander who boils his egg so it won't break in Bad Eggs. Those little moments make me love him. There are moments when I want to slap him.

But I'm always aware that in some ways I feel sorrier for him than anyone else, even Buffy. Buffy always has 'me'. She's powerful, she just forgets it sometime. I remember Xander's dream in Restless. Everywhere he turns, his nightmare pursues him. It's always that father figure, ever menacing (Restless is third scariest ep for me, after Hush and Killed by Death), waiting to rip his heart out. And Xander's terrified. You realise the pain little Xander must have had to feel, and your own heart breaks. Willow's parents neglect her. Xander is abused.

You realise that he has lived a life of feeling neglected, sleeping outside every Christmas, having parents who have severe problems and who only cause him pain. Now that's a life I can't imagine having, or being able to endure. If I couldn't have looked up to my parents, respected them, and known they thought I was special, my world would look completely different. So part of me feels very sorry for Xander. Willow's got brains and witchy powers. Buffy has superpowers, and is unexpectedly clever. Xander is just the hanger on, patronised often, underestimated and the Zeppo, the fetcher of doughnuts.

(re Willow, I know what you mean about the sudden onset of Willow's behaviour. Does that mean you don't think lispy Season 5 Willow wasn't evil? lol. Seriously, re self absorbedness - here was another breathtaking one in Season 5 - when Tara tries to explain Buffy's snappy behaviour re Dawn and her homework, and her new responsibilities now that Joyce was dead, Willow childishly throws a tantrum)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> None of our heroes have truly paid for their worst mistakes... -- cjl, 14:58:50 06/24/02 Mon

OK, I'm going to honk off just about everybody on this board, but I don't think any of the major characters have paid a harsh price for their mistakes.

One day, I would like to see Anya, Giles, Xander, Willow, and Buffy hanging out at the Magic Shop (or wherever they hang out in Season 7), and the following people walk in the door...

Ben's mother. (Presuming Ben was actually BORN and not an artificial construct made specifically to house Glory. Or, failing that, a relative of one of Ripper's fellow cult members.)

Warren's mother.

The children of one of Anya's "payback" victims.

The wife of one of the spontaneous human combustion victims of OMWF.

The American branch of Jenny's gypsy family, who want to know if this family legend about Angelus was true.

They're not Holtz. They're not out for blood. They're almost touchingly naive about the spookiness around Sunnydale, but they've heard rumors about the mystical shennanigans going on around town, and they want to know who was responsible for their loved ones' deaths. They don't want vengeance, they want justice--and they heard that the Scoobies are the good guys around town. "Would you please help us?" ask the grieving relatives.

Buffy looks at Xander, who looks at Giles, who looks at Willow, who looks at Anya, who looks back to Buffy.

What do our heroes tell these people?

What do they do?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice post ...problem with being human -- shadowkat, 06:14:02 06/25/02 Tue

is making horrendous mistakes. Remember Spiderman
let the robber go free and lost his Uncle Ben?

I can't think of one character in Btvs that hasn't done
something horrible to the other characters at least once.
What I find interesting is the other characters are able to forgive each other, move on, and make their lives work somehow. PANGS continues to be one of my all time favorite episodes, because it deal with guilt, forgiveness, and
vengeance in such an innovative way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OMWF Still Bugs Me........alot -- Dochawk, 14:59:38 06/24/02 Mon

Soph,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Xander frequently gets away with stuff, but nothing has been so blantant as OMWF. Xander summons a demon (this is a character who heretofore and afterwards continues to be severely judgemental about all demons, why would he summon one?). When the demon appears and starts causing trouble (the truthsaying songs) Xander doesn't admit he summoned it. he doesn't even fake it by coming across the spell in his research. Then he finds out the demon has killed someone. Surely now he must admit it. Nope, still too guilty to do that. Up to now, xander is guilty only of bad judgement, but once he finds ou t that Sweet has killed humans and he doesn't give Giles the desperately needed information, he becomes partially responsible for everything Sweet does afterwards. And sweet continues to kill. In fact, Xander is willing to let Buffy go out and fight Sweet without the information she may need (sound familiar, Becoming II anyone?). Not until Dawn or Buffy is faced with a life in hell does Xander sheepishly admit to anything. And he never pays any consequences for this stupid and arrogant behavior!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree, Doc. When I do post my list, you can add anything I miss. -- Sophist, 16:29:19 06/24/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> File under Plotting While Painted in Corner. -- Darby, 18:36:48 06/24/02 Mon

Joss has set up the following scenario -

- Sweet talisman in Magic Box but not in anyone's possession so Dawn can swipe it.

- Willow in trouble for casting spell on Tara, but about to be given "one more chance."

- A setup for that big honkin' kiss, so no Spike shenanigans.

- No real reason why anybody left would invoke a demon.

- A need for someone to have invoked Sweet.

- A need for that someone to be non-Queen material, and for the pay-off to be resolvable in seconds.

Who's left? Giles? Only Xander. It made no sense, it was absolutely out of character, but it was the only resolution under the circumstances. And, as offtimes happens when a plot device is necessary but terrifically inconvenient (even the Scripture according to Star Trek has cases), everyone has since "forgotten" about it.

The device even opens up a gaping problem in I've Got a Theory - if people were forced to sing what was hidden in their hearts and souls, why didn't we find out then that Xander knew what was going on? He wouldn't have had a theory, he'd have a certainty!

I am following the rest of this discussion with interest, but am too burned-out at present to weigh in with anything substantive (or maybe I'm just dense).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: File under Plotting While Painted in Corner. -- JM, 05:31:37 06/25/02 Tue

There were a couple of worthwhile points made on the boards at the time. The deus ex machina ending is almost verboten in the musical comedy tradition -- so it was a stylistic necessity. The other was it's still fairly ambiguous _what_ exactly Xander did. Giles simply says "Then one of us must have . . ." I could believe that he accidentally invoked Sweet by simply, naively ordering the talisman from a catalog based on an incomplete description of its powers. Never having invoked anything deliberately, until Sweet indicates the talisman that Dawn is wearing, he thinks the two events might be a coincidence. Nothing to actually reveal, though he was probably not as forthcoming as he could have been. He still bears responsibility, but I just think that something accidental is a little more in character for him -- after the BB&B incident -- something along the lines of speaking Latin to the books a la "Superstar." It also makes dramatic sense in that it mirrors Dawn's situation in "Older and Far Away," and explains why he sympathized with her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Too cute for words -- Sophist, 16:48:45 06/24/02 Mon

There definitely were times I thought W/T were too cute with each other. It wasn't just Willow, it was Tara also. It didn't bother me as much as some other things, though.

The scene in TL? Well, I'm not sure self-absorbed is right. In one sense, Willow was right about Dawn and the math homework. She was also right to urge Buffy to lighten up. I didn't see her as insensitive to Buffy's situation so much as hurt that her advice was being rejected not on the merits, but only because she hadn't lost a mother. In other words, her opinion was being invalidated a priori. Having said that, the best thing for Willow to do was swallow her disappointment at Buffy's reaction and attribute it to the loss of Joyce. I'd call it borderline; hardly comparable to, say, Cordelia's finer moments.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too cute for words -- Rahael, 17:05:26 06/24/02 Mon

It wasn't her reaction to Buffy. It was the way she lashed out at Tara, who was trying to build bridges between Willow and her best friend.

Willow invalidated Tara's opinion and her experiences.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Odd. I thought it was the other way around. Every viewer sees.... -- Sophist, 18:43:26 06/24/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I could make a long list -- Arethusa, 20:09:59 06/24/02 Mon

Xander has no anchor, no firm base, no foundation for his life. All that is good in him, he had to create himself. Rejected at home and school, not smart enough or good looking enough* to develop any self-esteem independently, he had nothing, nothing at all, to make him feel good about himself. Until he met Buffy. After Buffy's rejection, his romantic feelings segued into hero worship, and fighting for Buffy probably gave him the only validation he's ever had in his life. No wonder he clung so tightly to Willow, his only friend after Jesse died. (It is so nice to see their mutual affection again in the early episodes being rerun on Fox.) No wonder he dedicated his life to Buffy's calling, to the detriment of his safety and his relationship with Anya. For a long time, it was literally all he had.

I don't want to dismiss the wrongs Xander has done, but I have tremendous respect for him and what he's done with his life, despite his missteps and backtracking. I don't know how to explain away OMWF, except that he just wanted everyone to be happy, and made a stupid and deadly mistake. (Singing+Dancing=Spontaneous Combustion is hard to predict, although even an amateur demon hunter should know better.)

*to paraphrase Wedon in the S1 commentaries, NB is far to good-looking to play Xander; we're just pretnding he isn't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Our Hero! -- Malandanza, 21:54:31 06/24/02 Mon

If I seem to be responding to many of your posts, it's due to narcissism -- I find myself in agreement with most of your statements and by praising you, I praise myself.

I think Xander has had a pretty rough time growing up and, as a Scooby, has been treated rather poorly by Giles (in comparison to Giles' treatment of Willow and Buffy) -- at least in the early seasons. The parting at the airport -- where Giles said his good-byes to Xander first -- seemed to indicate that while Giles may not have been vocal in his respect and affection for Xander, it had been steadily increasing as Xander grew up. Xander and Willow were first and last in the farewells -- they were most important to Giles.

"Willow's got brains and witchy powers. Buffy has superpowers, and is unexpectedly clever. Xander is just the hanger on, patronized often, underestimated and the Zeppo, the fetcher of doughnuts."

I have found the "Xander is feeling worthless -- wait! He saves the day! This proves he is vital to the team!" plot to be overdone. Every season we have to watch Xander discover that he important.

Season One -- he brings Buffy back to life
Season Two -- Key Guy in breaking into the military base
Season Three -- The Zeppo
Season Four -- feels useless, particularly in Fear, Itself and The Yoko Factor -- but saves the day in Where the Wild Things Are and is "The Heart" of the group when the four of them merge. Back to feeling useless in Restless
Season Five -- Tired of being the "Butt Monkey" in Buffy vs Dracula, realizes he's Suave Xander in The Replacement, and has "logged more field hours" than most watchers, but is back to feeling useless (a "glorified bricklayer") by the finale -- helps defeat a God when he "picks up a spare". It was nice that Joss left a conveniently located wrecking ball parked by Glory (with the keys in the ignition) to bolster Xander's self-esteem.
Season Six -- feels useless in the finale, does what the slayer cannot -- saves the world.

I know he's not too bright, but he ought to understand by now that he's useful in spite of his lack of superpowers. Hopefully, he won't need any more validation of his self worth next season.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Our Hero! -- Rahael, 03:55:09 06/25/02 Tue

hehehehehehe Mal! I'll accept that back handed compliment.

I have the feeling that I've been upping my evil rating with my posts of late, lol.

Actually the thoughts you set out struck me particularly when watching the Zeppo. Xander, useless? the person who saved Buffy's life several times already? Pretty strange definition of useless.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Our Hero! -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:56:37 06/25/02 Tue

Xander always seems to feel useless because he's friends with superheroes who have stopped the Apocalypse several times. I mean, it must take a lot to stand out given the people he's friends with. While he's saved them a number of times, it pales in comparison to all the times he's needed to be saved. No matter what he does, as Buffy and the others begin to stack up more life and world saveage, the insecurity returns.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice post Mal -- Rahael, 05:49:36 06/24/02 Mon

and yes, it was the story at bedtime that lingered in my mind too. Still have to fast forward through that scene.

and re-reading Sophist's posts on this thread, I also want to make the point that Willow is excessively concerned with being kind and considerate, and with being seen as a certain sort of person. She does resent it at the same time.

She wants to be useful (to Giles, Buffy, Ms Calendar, Buffy etc) but she also resents being Old Reliable.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nice post Mal -- dream of the consortium, 13:08:01 06/24/02 Mon

Silly aside, but I used to have a college roommate who played the cute thing to the hilt. She hung crayon drawings in her room, requested the reading of bedtime stories from romantic interests, listened to Free to Be You and Me excessively, and so on. However, whenever there were household disputes, she inevitably claimed that everyone talked down to her, treated her like a child. It seems that "cute", like any highly elaborated role, can be as constricting as it is comforting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Old Reliable -- and a definition of retcon -- Malandanza, 19:36:26 06/24/02 Mon

"and re-reading Sophist's posts on this thread, I also want to make the point that Willow is excessively concerned with being kind and considerate, and with being seen as a certain sort of person. She does resent it at the same time.

"She wants to be useful (to Giles, Buffy, Ms Calendar, Buffy etc.) but she also resents being Old Reliable."

I think you are understating the case -- it's not that Willow wishes to be useful, it's that she wishes to be indispensable. When Buffy & Xander take her help for granted, her resentment springs from their lack of praise for her efforts.

I see a big part of Willow's hatred for Faith as a result of Faith being (briefly) more important to Buffy than was Willow. Faith wasn't a great influence on Buffy, but in Bad Girls we see Buffy far more in touch with her slayer side than she has ever been (with the possible exception of Tabula Rasa) -- and happy. She couldn't stop chattering about her adventures with Faith. There with Faith with Buffy -- but those problems had nothing to do with Willow's unhappiness at Faith and Buffy's burgeoning friendship.

Yes, I know Faith tried to kill Willow, but who hasn't? Willow easily forgave Angel, Spike and Buffy -- less easily Anya (but Anya was encroaching on Xander). Her hatred for Faith goes far beyond any grudge she has carried for any other character.

I think part of the reason Willow got along so well with Giles is that he did frequently praise her (and, until Season Six, I don't ever recall him speaking sharply to her as he did to Xander in BBB). Buffy does as well -- Willow's happiest moment prior to Buffy's death was probably when Buffy called Willow her "Big Gun". After her death, of course, Willow got to play at being the boss, a part she found difficult to give up based on her rants during the finale. Willow's need for praise reached its worst moment in Season Six when she complained that Buffy hadn't thanked her for the resurrection -- and, of course, Buffy eventually did thank her. Even without knowing that she had torn Buffy from heaven, it was obvious that Buffy was unhappy and Willow's feelings ought to have taken a back seat to Buffy's recovery.

Not only does Willow need praise, but she also can't handle criticism. She plays at being meek and solicitous, but let someone suggest, even cautiously, that she is in the wrong and she lashes out. The worst of this sort of behavior was, as you noted, in Tough Love -- what did Tara say to deserve that attack? Another example was in Fear,Itself when both Buffy and Oz suggested that she ought not get too gung-ho about magic -- but Oz deftly turned aside her attack with the "concerned boyfriend" routine (defusing a situation with inordinate flattery is a skill Tara lacked). In Something Blue, each of Willow's friends in turn offer limited criticism and are cursed as a consequence. This behavior culminated in Season Six with the "rank amateur" exchange between Willow and Giles, but it has been there all along.

oh -- and dream of the consortium -- I think it was you who asked what a retcon was a few days back. Retroactive Continuity -- when the writers change the past to make the present fit. Like changing the definition of "sire" so that Angel is technically Spike's sire even though Dru really is.

[> [> [> [> Re: Every viewer watches a different show. -- Jane's Addiction, 13:12:40 06/23/02 Sun

Wonderful points by Sophist, Dochawk and Scroll regarding the perhaps revisionist interpretations of Willow's season 1-5 actions in light of her actions in season 6.

"I think Joss wanted to play with us, He has wanted to make Willow evil for 3 years, so he planted a few hints, but there was nothing in her earlier behavior that makes one believe she would want to destroy the world (she was a bit selfish and a bit immature and more than a little insecure, but aren't all of these things present in all of us? Was Joss trying to tell us we all have the potential to destroy the world?)."

I absolutely think Joss wanted to tell us this. That's the power of taking such a decidedly human character as poor, sweet Willow down this particularly dark path. As for the whole "I did it because I was looking for a project. And it was either destroy the world ... or learn French. So I decided to destroy the world. And next summer I can learn French" thing (sorry - involuntary Violent Femmes moment), I really don't think she ever would've gone there had it not been for the coven magicks suddenly helping her feel the pain of all of humanity. The poor girl couldn't deal with her own pain. so, of course, why not connect her to the pain of all of humankind and give her a great big powerboost in the process? That may have been a bit of a miscalculation on the part of Giles and the coven. But I'm not sure that Giles has ever really understood Willow's level of empathy or her intolerance for emotional pain.

But since I do mostly fall into the "Joss' word defines the universe" camp, I'll point out this quote from his commentary on the "Innocence" DVD, regarding the merits of punishing your characters. He was referring to Buffy, but I think it can be extended to any of the characters:

"Inevitably in a horror show, you end up punishing people for everything they do just so you can find the horror - the real, emotional horror of everything they're going through. The important thing is to have the punishment be emotional ... and also let her grow from it. Let her be stronger. Let it resonate on a normal emotional level."

It just seems like the writers felt that, after a season of characters being mired in their very internalized pain, they needed to really externalize what had been a very internal struggle for Willow. In. A. Big. Way. (After all - May sweeps - it was a thing.) To me it seemed that on a personal emotional level, she wasn't trying to destroy "the world", but rather "her world" - her connection to everything and everyone. It sort of seemed to reflect Buffy's struggle at the end of season 5. What's the point of continuing to be a part of the world if everything just keeps getting stripped away? Does this make sense, or am I just babbling now?

Anyway, it seems that part of the Willow character's recovery will have to be discovering her own worth as a person and finding meaning in her life that doesn't require constant validation from outside herself. That seems to me to be a tough journey, and one a lot of people probably never quite complete. But if this sort of "every woman" character can find that meaning within herself, she should become far more powerful than any amount of magicks could ever make her. And that, in my opinion, would be a pretty inspiring message from a little tv show about "a girl and her friends fighting the forces of darkness" from without - and within - themselves.

But that's just my opinion.

[> [> [> [> [> Very nicely done, especially like the season 7 possibilities -- Dochawk, 15:36:02 06/23/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Wow...wonderfully insightful post -- shadowkat, 06:59:49 06/24/02 Mon

"It just seems like the writers felt that, after a season of characters being mired in their very internalized pain, they needed to really externalize what had been a very internal struggle for Willow. In. A. Big. Way. (After all - May sweeps - it was a thing.) To me it seemed that on a personal emotional level, she wasn't trying to destroy "the world", but rather "her world" - her connection to everything and everyone. It sort of seemed to reflect Buffy's struggle at the end of season 5. What's the point of continuing to be a part of the world if everything just keeps getting stripped away? Does this make sense, or am I just babbling now? "

No, you make a lot of sense. I think this is the feeling we've all felt this year at one point or another. I agree that Joss uses his characters to describe internal pain in a literal way. Through Willow - they made an allegory for the pain most us felt after 9/11, the rage, and the wonder at if there's really a point to going on, what pain can do to us.

And I too see it as "Joss defines his universe."

"Inevitably in a horror show, you end up punishing people for everything they do just so you can find the horror - the real, emotional horror of everything they're going through. The important thing is to have the punishment be emotional ... and also let her grow from it. Let her be stronger. Let it resonate on a normal emotional level."

I think many people forget it is a horror show. What might be resolved quietly on Gilmore Girls or Seventh Heaven, is
shown in a dramatic and painful context on Buffy. As a nightmare. That's the horror genre. I think a lot of people make the mistake of seeing Buffy as just Dark Fantasy, it's actually more horror. I remember my friend's comment when I introduced her to it - we were watching The Wish - "this is a very dark and violent show, it's not fantasy, it's horror!" (She scolded me, b/c in the past I'd expressed the sentiment I didn't like horror..hmmm. Guess I do.)

I really didn't take Willow's journey as literally or personally as some posters have. I've seen it more metaphorically and am a bit more forgiving of the character as a result. I also see tremendous possibilities for a female empowerment arc with Willow.

Thanks for posting this. I've really been enjoying your
responses Jane. You should post more.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ditto on the post more part! -- Exegy, 08:39:38 06/24/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the kind comments from shadowcat, Dochawk and Exegy -- Jane's Addiction, 16:16:01 06/24/02 Mon

"What might be resolved quietly on Gilmore Girls or Seventh Heaven, is shown in a dramatic and painful context on Buffy. As a nightmare."

Absolutely. In fact, JW makes this great little tongue-planted-firmly-halfway-in-cheek comment on the season 2 DVD - sorry, I don't have the exact quote - that "Buffy" is ultimately about emotional resonance and rocket launchers. And he compares it to "Party of Five" (a show he apparently was a big fan of ... with the watching ... and the weeping uncontrollably ... good times). But he noted that POF ultimately suffered from a tragic lack of rocket launchers. Otherwise, it might still be on the air today. So true.

[> [> [> Re: Every viewer watches a different show. -- DoktorD, 15:26:32 06/23/02 Sun

>I ask, because the Willow I saw in seasons 1-5 was loyal
>caring, thoughtful, helpful, modest and careful.

>Maybe I just missed it, or maybe the whole Willow character
>has been reinterpreted in light of S6.

You see, that's the tricky part. Inferring motivations from looking at actions is never going to reveal the whole truth about a person. In fact, it you look at ACA literature (Adult Children of Alcaholics), the point is often made that the "good, helpful child" personality is a rection formation. Loyalty, caring, thoughtfullness are wonderful expressions if they come from genuine feeling. By looking at Willow's actions over the last few seeasons, one can see that many of her actions were selfish expressions, however understandable.

And that's the razor's edge! In the movie of the same name, Bill Murray has a speach where he realizes that he'd been wrong to think that he had been rewarded for being virtuous. This, too, is Willows fundamental error. Virtue is not a means to reward. It is a reward itself.

The illusion of the material world is that successfully navigating its pitfalls will bring reward. But that isn't actually true, as comforting an idea as that is. Willow, I think, too often is motivated more from a desire for reward than from genuine caring. That doesn't make her bad, just human, and a fascinating character. She is the embodiment of the tragedy of the ACA "Good Girl" personality type. She does everything she can to take care of her people, to do the right thing, to "fix" things, and still bad things happen.

[> [> Re: A Broken Yellow Crayon -- aliera, 13:00:32 06/23/02 Sun

Thanks for posting here too...I read it first elsewhere and was hoping you would...always interesting to see the way responses cycle.

Hope you'll continue to post these. Although we don't agree on a lot of points, I am very much enjoying your writing. Most of the reason I like the boards is to see other's views than my own. I already know what I think! LOL

It's quite often that the insightful posters on this board and others pick up on little details that I miss or that their perspective broadens my view.

Thanks again.

[> [> Lovely post!! Said what I was trying to say much better! -- shadowkat, 15:01:47 06/23/02 Sun

Thanks for posting this.

I particularly love your closing paragraph which follows. See my take on Willow in my Robot thread post.

"When did Willow turn bad? The same time we all did. Each and every one of us have the potential to do good or evil in this world. It all boils down to our day to day choices, and they all add up over a period of time. It doesn't make us good or evil. It means our choices were right or wrong. Willow has always had the potential for evil just as she's always had the potential for good. One can choose to use whatever resources one has at their disposal to love or to hate. It's simply a matter of choices. Just as Angel can lose his soul and get it back again, so too can Willow gain redemption, but it's not going to be an easy path. It never is. Giles once told Buffy that forgiveness is not something that is earned. It's something that is granted, because the person needs it, not because they deserve it. However, first Willow's going to have to forgive herself, or else the entire world forgiving her is not going to matter. Something tells me she still hasn't forgiven herself for the yellow crayon. Perhaps that's the real reason why she went down the wrong path. She's been unable until now to forgive herself."

[> Whoa...well wasn't going to respond to this but.. -- shadowkat, 14:46:27 06/23/02 Sun

since you have my online name at the top of your post I can't resist?

What show have you been watching???

1. "First, she's going to need her friends -- the very same people she almost killed and did injure in a whole variety of ways. Let's see -- "Dawn, you can be a little glowing green ball again. . . " Buffy (kick every inch of her . . .) Giles (let's just take your breath away . . . ) and Xander (who did rescue her and will embrace her when his ribs heal.) So Buffy's going to have to understand and forgive not only Willow's savaging of herself but her threats to Giles & Dawn. The others -- you get the idea."

No I don't. Let's see, the very same people she has helped time and again with no reward and at risk of her own life? Willow took care of Dawn all summer long, made sure she didn't have to go back to her father. Kept buffbot
operational and oh brought Buffy back. Willow sent Spike to save Dawn in the Gift and delayed the Doc. Willow got inside Buffy's Brain and got Buffy back to help save Dawn in Weight of The World. Dawn is far from perfect, stealing, bullying, demanding, half the audience was rooting for her return to a ball of energy. And yes, Willow made threats but she was hurting and under the influence of dark magic not just her own inner wrath. Buffy just a few episodes earlier not only made threats but actually tried to kill Willow and Dawn and Xander while under the influence of drugs and turned down the chance to take an antidote to save herself. All the characters did horrible things this year, we all do in life.
I suggest you listen to the song of St. Francis at the end of the episode again, you clearly missed the point. A lot of people apparently did. To be pardoned, pardon, to recieve, give, to be forgiven, forgive, to be consoled, console???

How many times has Willow forgiven these people in the past?
Loving someone means forgiving otherwise how can you expect to be forgiven in return. And sometimes it means forgiving things that you can't imagine ever being able to forgive.

Xander has been cruel to Willow in numerous episodes: The Pack, Prophecy Girl, BBB, and Buffy? When She was Bad,
Normal Again, - also her rage at Buffy makes sense, if you think about it. Re-watch episodes on FX. And Giles? He's far from perfect. The whole egyhorn episodes? His encouragement of magic in Willow? Killing Ben? I guess you thought Ben was more deserving of death than Warren? Interesting.

2. Willow wanted to end the pain, make if go poof. She wasn't sane, she was responding to the dark forces inside her. And comparing her to mass murders is stretching things a bit. Didn't you listen to Buffy's speech in villians?
She said Willow was using the dark forces to change things and that the dark forces want to hurt Willow and them and use Willow to hurt them - but Willow doesn't understand that. (Don't have the exact quote on me, but I'm sure Rufus or someone could supply it.) Then Willow clearly states
in Grave: "Willow doesn't live here anymore."
Giles echoes this in Grave when he says the magic he used was to hit the humanity that was left, the small seed.

3. Who did Willow actually kill? A unrepentent murderer and misogynist who wanted to rule the world and torture people for his own fun and games. And an unrepentent warlock and pedophile who enjoyed dealing magic as a potent drug to minors. I can see why those are unforgiveable deaths. Both happened when Willow was still in her right mind. The Rack magic made her insane, completely unstable. Similar to how she was in Wrecked.

To paraphrase "Jesus Christ Superstar"

"Fools, you have no perception
"the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high.
"We must crush [her completely]
"for the sake of the [planet,] this Willow must die."

Interesting in the musical those are the words of the Priests condemning Jesus to death. "For the sake of this planet, this Jesus must die, must die."

Oh while we're referencing Jesus Christ Superstar:
"Forgive them father, for they know not what they do"
the man character sings while the people he wants to save crucify him.

Lovely play. I find you're use of it ironic. Although perhaps you're comparing the two because both wanted to stop the pain of the world in their own way? One just happened to be sane and not under the influence of powerful dark magics at the time.

I love Willow and still do. I do not think she needs to die, the line that they were afraid she'd cross, she didn't. She didn't kill anyone else. They can heal her, they can save her and yes they can redeem her.

If you don't believe that well, I guess we should calmly agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[> [> Re: Whoa...well wasn't going to respond to this but.. -- DL, 12:46:13 06/25/02 Tue

Without regard to the "disagreement" above, I'd just like to say that I agree with shadowkat. Let me give you a long winded version of why (BTW, I did enjoy every post above as well).

I'm a relatively new watcher of the show. In fact, I don't even remember the first time I watched, but I started watching the most stressful year of my life. Sometime during season 6, I turned on the TV, and there they were, going through life just like I was. I thought it was great to see an accurate portrayal of young adult life. Naturally, my interests were sparked. I started watching FX, and eventually purchased Seasons 1 and 2 on DVD.

I truly love the writing - possibly the best I've ever seen on TV (I'm just like early Spike...I tend to watch a lot). But what does it for me is the acting, and the characterization of complex roles. And the actor who did that the most for me was AH as Willow. Subtext, delivery, camera presence, mood - I think she's the best on the show.

I guess that I feel that I really, really relate to Will, especially earlier (Seasons 1-3) but I know what that dark side is all about. Watching her descent (great term for whoever used it above) really makes me feel for her, and in that sense I agree with shadowkat's statement:

"I love Willow and still do. I do not think she needs to die, the line that they were afraid she'd cross, she didn't. She didn't kill anyone else. They can heal her, they can save her and yes they can redeem her."

But, I would amend it to say:

"She can heal, save, and yes, redeem herself with the unconditional love of her friends."

While much of the show deals with the interconnectiveness of humanity (and non-humanity "vamps"), I tend to see the show as an exploration of different characters in their interactions with others they love. Because of that I think that the only person who can redeem Willow is herself. I think that she did cross the line by taking someone else's free will from them, even if he was an evil snot. But we've all been out of control. We've all felt deep sorrow and rage. The only way to redeem yourself from that is to examine yourself and rebuild. Will needs to get to the point where (if I may borrow a line from the Barenaked Ladies),

"I think it's getting to the point where I can be myself again." (Call and Answer)

I'm sure that her friends will help her get there.

[> [> [> Willow and Ampata -- cjl, 15:05:33 06/25/02 Tue

Shadowkat and I have discussed Willow at length (ad naseum?) and we both agree on a potential trap in Willow's recovery. Remember, Willow's problem was born out her miserable home life, a pair of overachieving parents who ignored her considerable intellectual prowess (nothing special to them) and her difficulties with adolescence (again, just part of girls growing up). She never felt special, and let's face it, Xander's complete refusal to see her as anything but "one of the guys" didn't help either. Her self-image problems started out as adorable and heart-rending (Season 1 & 2), but degenerated into monstrous by the end of Season 6.

So yes, Xander saved her through unconditional love, and eventually, Buffy and Dawn will forgive, and bring the love as well. But Willow's problem is that she doesn't love HERSELF. If she spends Season 7 continually running to Xander or Buffy for validation and forgiveness, depending on them to prop her up when the memories of her rampage threaten to overwhelm her, she's running the risk of turning into a psychic vampire, draining her friends with her neediness the way Ampata almost drained Xander and Jonathan. (I watched Inca Mummy Girl on DVD last night. Can you tell?)

Yes, her friends will give her all the love she could possibly need. But at some point is S7, Buffy or Xander (probably Xander) is going to have to lead her onto the street, give her the tiniest push, and tell her to fly.

[> [> [> [> Re: Willow and Ampata -- aliera, 16:33:52 06/25/02 Tue

That was very well done, cjl. It is at the heart. And for Buffy, also.

[> [> [> [> [> Ditto..cjl. Well done. -- shadowkat, 19:32:23 06/25/02 Tue

A bit o' summer fun for all the ES writers... -- Solitude1056, 23:56:44 06/22/02 Sat

found this, thought it hilarious. enjoy!

ats & btvs mary sue fanfic generator

[> Re: A bit o' summer fun for all the ES writers... -- Rowan, 11:46:55 06/23/02 Sun

God, yes. I ran across this once before. It's hysterically funny.

[> (~sigh~) ... I love the net... Mad Magzine lives on in Scoobyville! -- OnM, 12:59:13 06/23/02 Sun

Current board | More June 2002