June 2003 Archives

June 2003 posts

Previous June 2003
More June 2003

For Rah: A note about fantasy -- lunasea, 08:20:56 06/26/03 Thu

I've been thinking a lot about your problems with the show. I too have a vastly different world view than most of my culture and the board. Eventually this world view will drive my own sci-fi/fantasy universe (I hope).

Fantasy. What an interesting genre. It can mean our dreams, what we would like to see. It can also mean something fantastical, something that isn't real. There is a fine line to walk in both these aspects. If something is too dreamy, it loses the conflict and is boring (such as a the dream couple Angel/Buffy or a perfect home life). If something isn't dreamy enough, well, real life sucks plenty much on its own. Without some sort of dream aspect to our entertainment, it often ceases to be entertaining. Same thing with the fantastical. If something is too fantastical, it is hard to relate to at all. Part of the strength of the Buffyverse is that it combines the literal and the metaphorical. If something isn't fantastical at all, it ceases to talk to that part of us that can't be reached through words or ideas.

That is the line that Joss walks exceedingly well. In his recent interview with FilmForce, he doesn't say anything he hasn't said before. It is just at this point in his life/career, he is able to vocalize things better. Sometimes it is hard to realize what you are doing until you have done it. Every good writer (and most bad ones) puts him/herself into his/her characters. The aware ones realize this and take that projection and put it back on themselves.

Joss talks about wanting to be heard and feeling like Buffy, that he was special, but no one knew it and he would show them. That is the mission statement of the show. Here is this girl that has all this power and no one knows about it or respects her. In a perfect dreamy world, this wouldn't happen. Everyone would realize everyone else's potential and we would all help each other to maximize that thus making this the best possible world.

One thing about Joss, he understands the importance of both words and brevity (unlike me, well I understand it. just can't practice it). When he talks about his experiences working on Roseanne, he tends to talk about the same thing, the importance of respecting others and connecting with them. Joss, in thought, word and deed, tries to work towards this dreamy world.

Your problems with the show seem to be that the show doesn't portray this world. If it did, what would be the point? When the First Slayer is chained to the earth and raped, Joss isn't saying this is how it *should* be or how it has to be. He is saying that shit happens. His show is about how to deal with that shit. Buffy is the bridge from that real shitty world to Joss' dreamy world. In order to be this bridge, she has to live in a representation of this world, where the First Slayer doesn't happily agree to be Slayer.

Many people confuse the world that he is writing with approval of that world. If he approved of it, he wouldn't need a hero to fix it. As he has said, the world is harsh and cruel, hard, bright and violent. Even people born out of this world can become heroes. That to me is what Joss is saying. "It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered." What a powerful statement. The ditz became a hero. The Slayer line comes from the most horrific violation possible. The Champion was once the greatest sinner. It is like the Prodigal Son, a parable I couldn't relate to at all.

Until my younger daughter's christening. That was the sermon for mass that day. The Priest realized something when talking that day. It wasn't Easter or any other special day. His congregation was full of people that already believed and had already come home. He wasn't talking to the Prodigal son. He was talking to the good son. What message was there for the good son in that parable?

The prodigal son got the fatted calf and a big party. What does the good son get? The evangelists write like Joss does. Ever single word says so many things and everything exists on so many layers. After the son gets mad at the father, Luke 15:31 "Son you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours." That is the son's reward. It is easy to just focus on the message that the prodigal son is welcomed back, but there is a message for the good son also.

If you already see, want and work for Joss' perfect world, there is still something for you in the Buffyverse. What that is takes a bit more digging to find, but it is there.

Extentialist/Determinist Characters -- Rosie, 08:41:48 06/26/03 Thu

Definition of an EXTENTIALIST: "Existentialism is about re-defining yourself in an increasingly absurd world as defined for you by the traditions of science, philosophy and religion; you cannot help but feel alien to it. Others cannot tell you who or what you are, or what your existence should mean to you. Only you can determine what you can be for yourself, as opposed to what others want you to be. For this you must look at yourself not through the eyes of others, but from yourself, from the inside out - from within the acute reality of your own cognitive and spiritual existence. But this is no easy task - it means assuming responsibility for all your actions as you attempt to recreate yourself from the subjective contents of your stream of consciousness. It will require courage - the courage to invent oneself without being plugged into a god, a scientific assumption or the beliefs of society at large for confirmation that you are doing the right thing. It may lead to anguish and despair, for to decide for oneself is to decide for the whole of human reality, for this is your reality also."

Definition of a DETERMINIST: "Events and individual behaviour are caused. They are not the result of autonomous intellectual activity, or seemingly chaotic weather patterns, but happen in a particular way because they couldn't happen any other way. Predestination is implied."

Which Buffyverse characters are extentialists at heart and which ones are determinists? And which characters are a little bit of both?

[> Re: Exetntialist/Determinist Characters -- seven, 11:37:47 06/26/03 Thu

exestentialists:

buffy is now

Angel is on the quest to become it

Willow

Xander

Cordelia

Riley

Oz

Determinists:

Wesely

Spike

Dawn

Giles

Gunn

Conner

Anya

Faith, but she won't always be -- she'll someday join Buffy and Angel

Wood

Darla

Fred

Lorne

Obviously, there are more determinists because they are mostly the side characters who often act as foils to the stars, and since a major theme in both shows has been self - discovery and a search for purpose, the main character's motivation is to become exestentialis
imho

7

P.S. -- Some of the characters listed i'm not sure of -- like Wesely. And some others may be at different sides at different times --- these were just off the top of my head.

[> Ahem... that's "Existentialist". (sorry for the nitpick). -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:27:29 06/26/03 Thu

Rhysdux killed a Mary Sue! -- HonorH (who helped), 11:31:38 06/26/03 Thu

Yes, it's true: Rhysdux, the very first Protector of the Plot Continuum for the Buffyverse, has assassinated a Mary Sue. It had to be done. Want the details?

"Sabella" Meets Her End

[> Do it again! Do it again! -- Anneth, applauding loudly..., 11:58:25 06/26/03 Thu

and furtively checking the spelling of "applauding."

[> [> LOL! -- ponygirl, 12:10:15 06/26/03 Thu

I lost it during the kitten door bit!

Though I am feeling a little paranoid about my spelling and grammar now...

[> No_Cookie_for_You -- Masq, 12:24:01 06/26/03 Thu

How come I get a big honkin' error message when I try to click that link?

[> I feel safer as a Buffy fan with you two protecting the canon..... -- cjl, 12:35:31 06/26/03 Thu

But I have to point out that you misspelled "Cruciamentum."

Heh heh.

[> [> that was painfully funny! -- anom, 22:34:12 06/26/03 Thu

Taking things literally can be fun! But I was really feeling for your OBAFU characters.

Um, BTW, I have a couple more editorial quibbles--want me to post 'em in front of everybody, or would 1 of you like to post your email address?

[> [> [> Re: that was painfully funny! -- HonorH, 23:05:21 06/26/03 Thu

I'm going to do a final fine-toothed-comb edit before permanently posting this on the up-and-coming OBAFU page, but feel free to send me any glaring errors you've spotted. Maybe you caught one I didn't.

[> You are so mean!!!! ;) -- lakrids, 16:11:56 06/26/03 Thu

[> Is it true that your next target will be a nightmarish fanfic AU called the "Babyverse"? -- cjl (shuddering), 17:58:57 06/26/03 Thu

Please explain the concept and content of this abomination (even though I suspect I know them both too well), and how you plan to obliterate it...

[> [> SHHH!!!! -- HonorH (the sekrit agent), 19:08:10 06/26/03 Thu

We've got agents infiltrating the Babyverse even as we speak, but we *must* keep it quiet. This is a foul, deep-rooted, utterly evil Canon Distortion and will take time, finesse, and great ruthlessness to destroy. Don't alert any of the enemy's minions to our presence.

Baby must die.

[> [> [> Eeek! -- ponygirl, 20:10:58 06/26/03 Thu

It's not some sort of Dirty Dancing crossover is it? Because nobody should have to face that - not even in the name of destroying it!!

Buffy: Nobody puts Baby in a corner!

Baby: Thanks Buffy, but I can get out of this corner just fine! [she stakes a vampire, Patrick Swayze begins to lip-synch]

I'm in a very scary visual place right now!

[> [> [> [> Actually, there's a perfect BtVS/DD tie-in -- cjl, 20:16:41 06/26/03 Thu

Baby is Doc's daughter.

[> [> [> [> No, not that. Worse. Baby is *much* worse. -- HonorH, 20:32:08 06/26/03 Thu

Baby is the Sue-est of all Mary Sues. She's the undisputed Queen Sue of the Buffyverse. Take a look at her bio:

Baby

a.k.a.:

Ý Spike's Baby

ÝName on driver's license, legal papers: Baby Roxton, Mrs. William Roxton

ÝReal name unknown to anyone but Spike.

Marital Status

Ý Consort of William the Bloody - 2000.

Ý Legal wife of William Roxton - 2013

Primary Residence

Ýsince 2000 - New Orleans, LA. Has home in the historic French Quarter on Royal Street.

ÝHas a second residence, an antebellum plantation on the Mississippi off River Road.

ÝAlso has home with her consort, René, in Mobile, AL in his pink Victorian mansion.

Physical Appearance

ÝHair: Thick, dark red hair (dyed prior to 2016 and natural red there after) that has a tendency to curl but can be worn straight. Has a small widow's peak. Style is up to the writer since women change hairstyles frequently.

Ý Eyes: unusual hazel eyes - golden. Sea green with lots of honey-gold rimmed with dark gray. Color is changeable with her moods - more gold or orange when she is angry, more green or brown when she is at peace. Needs reading glasses for the 8 years prior to being vamped.

ÝSkin: Pale milky white with pink tones. After vamping, she is described as lily white.

ÝHeight: 5'6 1/2"

ÝFigure: Baby is "voluptuous" and has an "hour glass figure". In short, Baby is stacked. Large bust, small waist, swelling hips. Long legs, short waist. Somewhat narrow shoulders. Spike describes her as very much the Victorian ideal.

ÝFace: Not conventionally pretty. Delicate brows and eyes, the sort that look bruised easily. Eyes are heavy-lidded. Slightly aquiline nose with delicate nostrils. Short upper lip with slightest overbite. Small mouth with well-defined cupids bow upper lip and full pouty lower lip, the classic Victorian rosebud. Corners turn downward naturally. Cheekbones are set high and are somewhat broad. Narrow jaw and small chin with a hint of a cleft. Can be described as pretty in a Medieval or old-fashioned way. Faint resemblance to Drusilla. See actress Gillian for a reasonable facsimile.

ÝVampire Face: Baby is from another dimension and her vamp features are not exactly like Spike or Angel's. Brow ridges are very, very delicate. Eyes turn glowing yellow. Fangs are canines only and very long and very sharp. Spike describes her as being somewhere between him and Dracula when she vamps.

Ý Has long sculpted fingernails usually painted in unconventional colors (navy, black, red) Very a la Drusilla.

Dress

For hunting

Ý Prefers stretch jeans (often black) and silk shells with matching shirts unbuttoned over them. Likes loose sweaters when it's chilly.

Ý Matte black, soft-top Durango cowboy boots.

Ý Never wears tennis shoes or sneakers.

General
ÝLikes lots of jewelry - gold, never silver.

ÝHas a black natural silk coat that comes to her ankles. Light enough that she can wear it in S. LA in Spring, Winter, & Fall. She describes as "Swishy enough to make Angel-Cakes jealous".

ÝWill "tart it up" if she and Spike are going out (or if she's in the mood).

ÝLikes leather (Duh!)

ÝLikes boots - flat or spike-heeled not chunky heels

Ý Very short skirts

ÝUnderwear optional but usually wears a bra (with a chest that size, it's needed!) though it often is a Fredricks of Hollywood type thing. In fact, think Fredricks of Hollywood a lot!

ÝLikes bustiers and corsets (again, Duh!)

Ý Dark lipstick and dramatic eye shadow - nearly Goth but not quite.

At Home

ÝAt home, the look is much softer, more ladylike.

ÝSoft silk and cotton flowing dresses - not Drusilla-like, more exotic, more oriental or middle eastern.

ÝExpensive embroidered Kimonos and sweeping robes. Fancy lingerie.

ÝNo make-up at home. (Spike doesn't like the taste.)

ÝNeeds glasses for reading and computer work prior to being vamped.

ÝNo perfume

Personality

ÝCompletely devoted to Spike and his wellbeing. Spike is the center of her universe and everything else revolves around him and how it affects him.

ÝStraight forward and somewhat blunt in her speech. Curses nearly as well as Spike.

Ý Volatile and quick tempered if someone is messing with Spike. Extremely protective of Spike.

ÝBrutal, violent, and mildly psychotic toward the "bad guys", human or demon

Ý Enjoys torturing her victims. Usually using a knife.
ÝHas a particular fondness for torturing rapists. Will carve the word "rapist" into their chests.

Ý Sexually stimulated by watching Spike hunt and feed.

ÝVery gentle and loving toward Spike and their Children.

ÝDemonstrative

Ý Shares Spike's exhibitionist tendencies. ("You know a dance floor just screams 'Come have sex in public to those two." - Cordelia Chase-Angel)

ÝFrequently shares a bed with Wesley and Drusilla and less often with Cordelia.

Ý Baby avoids actual intercourse with Angel though they have a very dark and violent attraction to each other. However - likes to "tease" Angel and see just how far she can push him both emotionally and sexually. Enjoys verbally sparing with Angel. This all changes after "Bed of Roses" Angel considers her his consort after "Bed of Roses" though he cannot actively act as her spouse.

Ý Seldom calls Angel by name. Prefers to call him Angelus or Peaches or some other annoying name.

Ý Shares a fascination with killing and Darkness with Wesley.

ÝVery dangerous if cornered

ÝEnjoys the wilder aspects or her life with Spike.

ÝHas Southern accent that she can control. More marked when she is playing around or picked on about it or hotly angry. Nearly disappears in business situations or when she is coldly angry.

ÝPost "Bed of Roses" she and Spike share 'one life, one soul' when she becomes the Voice of the Oracle.

Ý Has been in love with René Beaumont since first time she saw him. Mother to his only human child, Nina. Born 2002.
She & René kept their feelings a secret from everyone but Jean until 2017 though Spike suspected all along. Took René as Consort 2017. Her conflicting loves for René and Spike are the tragedy in her life.

Weapons

ÝBaby likes to carry an assortment of weaponry. S6 Spike describes her as a "walking arsenal".

Ý Normally has a 22 revolver in her left shoulder holster or boot always loaded with hollow-point bullets. Took this gun as a spoil in her first hold up of a 7/11 with Spike in Sunnydale.

Ý A black-bladed double-edged 4"dagger in her right shoulder holster or boot. Does not always carry this knife.

Ý Carries a Barretta 9MM "Desert Storm Edition" automatic in a holster in the waistband of her pants or skirt right at the small of her back. This is her favorite gun.

ÝHas a "Double Shadow" dagger in a holster between her shoulder blades. A "Double Shadow" looks like a large dagger whose blade had been divided down the middle so it had 2 blades. Blade and haft are pewter or silver colored. Since it is a divided blade, the point will make 2 holes instead of a single one. This is her favorite knife and was a wedding gift from Spike.

Ý Carries a unique knife with a fat brown wooden blade for dispatching vampires at all times. Carried in her boot. Will place in a shoulder holster if not wearing boots.

Ý Baby is an excellent shot with pistol or rifle and her sniper skills are often useful to the Scourge.

History

Prior to meeting Spike

Ý Born - 1957 in south Mississippi.

Ý Masters Degree in Business

ÝBachelors Degree in Computer Science

ÝWas a successful business woman

ÝWidow who had lost husband and 2 daughters in a car accident 1985

After

ÝMet Spike in 1998 in Sunnydale, CA. It was 2002 for her.

ÝTurned - 2014. Sired by Spike and Angel in Los Angeles.

You have heard the evidence, ladies and gentlemen. What is your verdict?

The beast resides at: The Babyverse

She must die.

(Thanks to Rhysdux the Brave for the info. I'd have gone stark staring crackers if I'd had to discover that on my own.)

[> [> [> [> [> Oh God EW! -- Alison, 17:26:28 06/27/03 Fri

Took a look at the history of the "Babyverse" on their page and nearly gagged. Who are these people? Why create so vile a being? And why why why name it *BABY*?!

[> [> [> [> [> From this description she sounds very much like an Anita Sue -- Dead Soul, 20:39:25 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> I flicked through a couple of the biographies -- KdS, 15:29:32 06/28/03 Sat

I gave up when I found the bit about Wes begging to be sired. OOC to the nth power.

For me, this has to be the all-time most extreme example of replacing BtVS vamp concepts with Anne Rice ones. And if there's one thing that will make me metaphorically throw a story across a room, it's when the Good Guys take pleasure in torture, and you're meant to approve because the victims are Bad.

[> [> [> i prefer secrete agents -- anom, 22:43:31 06/26/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> Is their weapon of choice an Oozie? -- ponygirl, 12:10:14 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> hahahaHAAAA!!! got that pun fu black belt yet, ponygirl? -- anom, 17:37:22 06/27/03 Fri

'Cause the Master thinks you're ready!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Still in training, sensei -- ponygirl, 08:13:00 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> [> How do you determine when a Mary Sue is a Level One danger to the Canon? -- cjl (defining the terms of engagement), 09:43:24 06/27/03 Fri

HonorH--

All kidding aside here, this is an interesting subtopic in the realm of fanfic: when does the presence of a Mary Sue in a fictional universe escalate from harmless self-indulgence to viral threat to the community?

Like you, I've always found Mary Sues a tentative first step for a lot of fanfic writers, a way of working out their overidentification with the characters in a fictional universe. Eventually, they realize what it is about the characters and the universe itself that speaks to them, which themes resonate, and they concentrate on how the characters relate to those themes (rather than parade across their own pages in an appallingly thin disguise).

Not all fanfic writers grow out of their Mary Sue-ness. Some are either too untalented to write anything else (Sabella) or so monstrously self-involved that they lose themselves in their own alternate universe (Baby). Whichever path to hell they take, I don't care too much either way. In the age of the internet, we're bound to see a ton of crap that we never would have seen otherwise--and overall, I think the extra helpings of great fanfic balance it all out.

But I suppose I have a higher tolerance for some of this material than others. I enjoy metacommentary too much, and I've gone the self-indulgent route every once in a while, inserting myself into my own fanfic (although, in self-defense, "The Rescue" was more "Adaptation" than "Babyverse"); I can understand why authors feel the need to personally connect with the characters they love (even if it distorts these characters beyond recognition).

I guess I'd make a lousy assassin....

So, H, I put it to you (and Rhysdux): why are these Mary Sues a threat to the Buffy universe? Why do they get under your skin when other bad fanfic just rolls of your back? Is it the massive self-indulgence? The distortion of your favorite characers? The bad writing?

Do tell.

CJL

[> [> [> [> You'll notice Sabella had to incur a whole list of charges. -- HonorH, 11:13:13 06/27/03 Fri

She has to get to the Jonathan "Superstar" level, really. Just showing up and having a romance with one of the main canon characters, then dying heroically, probably won't rate more than an eye-roll from the PPC.

However, when she steps in and not only becomes the center of the universe, but causes Buffy to become a wimp, Giles to become incompetent, Spike to become a squishy sap, characters who hate each other canonically to bond, and characters the author doesn't care for to disappear, she becomes Highly Annoying and is a more likely candidate for assassination. Add to this the charge of completely altering canonical events, i.e. Sabella wearing the Amulet of Soul Sunshine, and the PPC is forced to step in for a Discreet Intervention.

So you could divide it up this way:

--merely being an uncanonical presence: annoying, but not enough to warrent a visit from the PPC
--warping canon OR characters: draws the PPC's attention and may require intervention, but not assassination
--warping both canon AND characters: Stab time!

[> [> [> [> [> Official PPC Charge List -- HonorH, 11:15:01 06/27/03 Fri

From the original LotR PPC website:

PPC Charge List

[> [> [> [> [> Baby has many, many more -- mamcu, 09:26:38 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> More hideous than demons -- mamcu, 09:23:54 06/28/03 Sat

Those who knew were wise enough not to give us a link as an easy portal to damnation, but I was tempted and fell. I googled and found that Babyverse is a whole hell dimension of depraved art, sick stories, and Mary Sue dementia on a cult scale. Not going back there any time soon. Wonder what we look like to them?

[> Report for future PPC activity (PG-13) -- KdS, 09:41:27 06/28/03 Sat

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

TO: Protectors of the Plot Continuum HQ, WhedonVerse Sector

CC: Miss H, Principal, OBAFU; Rhysdux, Faculty, OBAFU; Disturbing Acts of Violence Department; BadSlash Department

FROM: KdS, Intelligence Consultant

THREAT ANALYSIS: BOFFA DEMONS

Introductory material

Reports of grossly out of character behaviour by canon figures of a particularly disturbing and repellent type (informally referred to as "rapefic") are on the increase. Research has determined the probable cause of these alarming incidents to be an invasion of the Buffyverse by a new type of demonic entity, known as the Boffa. The native dimension(s) of these creatures is(are) unclear, but our scryers have determined that one of them may be identified by the word "Orthanc". It is unclear whether there is any connection to the residence of one of the most notorious mystical figures of the Middle Earth continuum.

Description and Practices

The Boffa appear to be related to the well-known Thessulac race of paranoia demons. Like those entities, they appear to be normally non-corporeal, capable of twisting human or vampire minds to the point of actual possession, and to feed directly on negative human emotion. There appear to be two distinct forms of Boffa, which operate symbiotically.

The Major form typically possesses male characters, transforming them into sadistic, priapic sociopaths. (Confusion has been caused by the fact that this is an in-character mental state for certain Buffyverse canon figures). There have been reports that the Major Boffa may also be capable of physically augmenting and transforming the target's sexual organs by mystical means.

The Minor Boffa, or Boffee, is even more dangerous. It appears to possess canon characters, usually female but occasionally male, and render them implausibly vulnerable to sexual victimisation. Canon characters who are usually capable of vigorous verbal, magical or physical self-defence, and possessed of high self-esteem, are rendered utterly terrified and submissive by ridiculously minor forms of extortion, or even mere force of personality. In extreme cases, a target may actually voluntarily submit themselves to gross degradation and torture, and even achieve climax from activities usually survivable and pleasurable only to psychotic vampires.

In (rare) physical form, the Major Boffa manifests as a reptilian male humanoid, with unexpectedly small and pathetic sexual characteristics. The Minor form manifests as a shiny-skinned, androgynous humanoid with limited mobility and abnormally large bodily orifices, remiscent of a so-called "blow-up doll".

Recommended actions

Given the appalling nature of Boffa transgressions, it is strongly recommended that agents adopt an extremely active approach, intervening at the first sign of OOC behaviour rather than observing until a crisis is reached as normal. Affected characters are to be immediately exorcised by standard means. The Boffa are then to be bound in their physical form by standard means and disposed of. In the case of the Major form, any type of physical violence is effective. However, the Minor form's ability to metabolise pain and suffering renders it susceptible only to painless and non-violent means of disposal. Excellent results have been achieved with gradual refrigeration, and with the use of lethal doses of sedative, hypnotic and narcotic substances. Affected characters are to be immediately memory-wiped to minimise psychological scarring, which may affect the "aggressor" just as much as the "victim".

[> Heheheh. Finally got around to reading this. It was...neat! -- Random, 10:22:31 06/28/03 Sat

I feel so much safr knoing that you, two r in chargge of protetcing us from those whom wuld infilct there Mary Su-eness on us.

[> This was most eddifing... -- LittelBitt, 13:40:27 06/28/03 Sat

Id allways wandered what a MarySoo was. Ive lerned alot from reeding this. Espeshilly why we use punctation and nowns and verbs and stuff. Id instinktivlly tryed to use them befour butt I have now lerned my lessen.

I no the rules for fanfic now:

1. SpellCheck (don't just run it, actually consider using the suggested changes).

2. GrammarCheck (when you're this unsure of sentence structure, though, don't just use the computer version, hand it to Gramma, too).

3. Some things are written for yourself and your close friends and shouldn't be inflicted on the rest of the world (the exception, of course, being Behind the Scenes at ATPo, but then we consider you all to be our close friends) :-)

Round Robin: Restless, Buffy vs. Dracula, Real Me -- LadyStarlight, 13:10:45 06/26/03 Thu

Xander watched Anya walk back and forth, back and forth; each time somehow managing to walk in front of the television at precisely the right moment to cause him to miss something crucial to the plot of the cop drama he was trying to watch. Finally, after her last perambulation blotted out the half second appearance of the killer yet again, he spoke up.

"Anya. Sweetheart. Love of my loins, did you want to talk about something?"

She whirled in place, blocking, he noted resignedly, the television. This could be big.

"Talk? No, no, why would I want to talk?"

"Well, you're awfully restless tonight. Usually, you like trying to out-guess the nice policemen." He grinned and patted the couch cushion beside him. Thank goodness for TiVO, he thought.

"Yes, usually I do, but this is more important!"

Uh-oh. All hands on deck, red alert, red alert!

"I think I should really be with Tara. She's soft, and smells good, and could probably teach me some good spells."

"You're not seriously thinking about taking relationship advice from Cordelia!"

"Don't do that. Your voice squeaks unattractively and you sound female. Does Buffy still need money?"

"Uhh - gahh - what?"

"Money. Does she need some? Because I've thought of a great way for her to earn some!"

Xander could only wait for the newest revelation.

"She could fight cage matches, like in Monday Night Mayhem. Wouldn't you pay to see Buffy vs. Dracula?"

"The jerk who made me eat bugs? Oh yeah, I would so pay to see Buffy put the smackdown on him. But honey, are you sure you don't want to think about the whole spell-doing thing for a while?"

"Perhaps you're right. I should discover the real me before I make such a lifestyle commitment. Can lesbians teach other lesbians to dress, do you think?"

"I'm almost scared to ask this, but huh?"

"Tara, silly. She desperately needs a new wardrobe, don't you think? You've looked at every other feminine bum to cross your field of vision, I thought you'd have an opinion."

"Let's fine tune that cage match idea, shall we? Wouldn't want Buffy to be able to find flaws in such a great plan."

"Good idea!"

Next up: The Replacement, Out of My Mind, No Place Like Home....who's up for the challenge?

[> I'll take the next installment. -- deeva, 14:32:51 06/26/03 Thu

[> [> Uh...I can't seem to find the parts before this. Anyone have any idea where it is? -- deeva, skimming thru the archives, 14:57:13 06/26/03 Thu

[> Preserving... -- Masq, 09:48:56 06/27/03 Fri

IWRY thread continued! -- Valheru (hates writing long posts that lose their threads!), 16:41:03 06/26/03 Thu

You can take each character event one by one and say, "This might've happened without Angel," but could all of them? He is like what Robert Jordan (*shudder*) calls a ta'veren, a person who draws people and events to him like a magnet. But as a human? It's doubtful that would happen.

Look at The Wish. Buffy never came to Sunnydale and it was literally a hellhole. Why? I mean, if humans are so capable, why couldn't they fight off the Master? The reason is Buffy. She brought the strength out in people. Without her, the Scoobies aren't Scoobies, they're just a group of scared kids who think they're powerless. Giles never gains self-confidence. Even the White Hats--while more empowered than their Buffyverse doppelgangers--never think they're doing anything but delaying their inevitable deaths. In the Buffyverse, it is specifically Buffy's power to draw people around her and guide them to their untapped potential that made a difference (even if she did so unknowingly).

But if Buffy weren't the Slayer? Say that if, in episode 8 of Season 1, Buffy were to lose her Slayer powers. As Angel said in Helpless, Buffy would probably still fight. But what about the Scoobies? At that point in the series, were they empowered enough to fight as they did in the Buffyless summer before Season 3? Or would they just get scared and let the Hellmouth swallow them? I think we must also take into account that Buffy's strength as the Slayer helped the Scoobies with their own confidence, almost like they were saying, "Yeah, this vampire stuff is all really scary, but at least we have a Slayer on our side, so let's go out there and kick some vampire ass!"

I know it's not a message people like to hear (and one I'm sure Joss didn't intend), but physical strength can make a difference almost as much as psychological strength, especially in a world of supernatural demons and hellgods. People tend to rally around strength of any kind because it offers protection and comfort. Physical power is why situations like Iraq and Nazi Germany can happen: "Okay, so Hussein is nuts and we don't like what he's doing, but as long as we stay on his good side, he can protect us from all the bad stuff and we won't have to worry about it." Psychological power is why a tiny, unassuming man like Ghandi can have such an impact: "Our lives may suck, but if this little guy can be so positive about himself, we can too!" But when you marry the two strengths together? Americans are living in the result.

It is because of the strengths--psychological and physical--of Buffy's and Angel's that the people around them have flourished. They inspire those around them, yet also give them the needed power to act on that inspiration. Without the psychological leadership, you have a group of confused, frightened people who animate zombie-like behind a leader who can protect them and offer victory. Without the physical leadersip, you have a group of spirited people who can't overcome that which opposes them.

As a human, Angel would have only his soul and willpower with which to fight. And while that would work very well with his individual self, it wouldn't draw the Fang Gang to him as before. He'd just be a guy, like Xander, who is all heart but not a lot of punch. Over time, he could probably assemble a gang like Holtz, Gunn, Wesley, or even the Initiative, but what did all those gangs do that the Scoobies and AI haven't? They broke up amidst strife or were killed. And when the Scoobies were divided by strife in S7, who did they turn to to lead them? Faith, the person who had the exact same physical powers as Buffy.

I'm not advocating brute power over mental thoughness by any means. If I had my pick, I'd rather be centered that muscular. But having both is even better. A human with a strong psyche and a powerful determination to do good is wonderful, but someone who also happens to have vampiric powers is even better. And I think that's what Angel figured in IWRY.

1. Would you mind explaining this one? Doyle was the one with the visions (the link to the PTB)so I don't see how he "needs" Angel in order to sacrifice himself.

I don't think he ever said it outright, but Doyle implied in City of... that the visions were sent by the PTBs for a Champion; Doyle was only the messenger. And while Doyle was a nice guy, it didn't seem that he ever acted on his visions by himself. When Angel visited the Oracles in IWRY, they said that he was no longer in their service as a human. So if Angel had remained human, two things might have happened: a) Doyle stops getting the visions altogether, since the PTBs didn't have a Champion to send them to, b) Doyle keeps getting the visions but can't or doesn't do anything about them, or c) the PTBs send Doyle to some other Champion to tell the visions to. The third possibility is pretty variable (is the Champion even in L.A.? Could Doyle find the Champion, tell him the deal, and get him to accept before the events of Hero? And if so, would Angel have inspired Doyle enough before becoming human to make the sacrifice, or would the new Champion be able to inspire him?). Not that I don't think Doyle could have eventually become enlightened enough to be a real hero, but time would be against him to do what he did in Hero if Angel is cut off from the PTBs.

2. Possibly,or it's possible she would have still gotten the visions from Doyle, and would have had to get her own allies and continue the fight (see below).

Again, getting the visions from Doyle require the events of Hero, which isn't a given if Angel remains human. Otherwise, I don't think by the 8th episode, Angel and the Good Fight had made enough of an impact on Cordelia for her to keep fighting it without him.

3. Would he have stayed inept; or would the fire of necessity that turned him into someone who was dark, ruthless, and efficient in Season 4 simply have started burning sooner?

Possibly. But the variables that would have to go into turning Parting Gifts Wesley into S4 Wesley, sans AI, are unpredictable. All we can extrapolate from is what we know of Wesley in Parting Gifts, where he was heading down a road of loneliness and continued ineptitude. At that point, Wes had a lot of "book smarts" but not a lot of "street smarts," without which a non-powered rogue demon hunter would likely have a short life.

4. Would been and entirely different story; I'm not sure that Faith couldn't have pulled herself together by herself, or with the help of one of the six billion other people on this planet. Angel helped Faith, but she saved herself.

Again, you're assuming too much. In order for someone to take a chance on Faith as Angel did, they would: a) have to already know her and her situation (which, since the Scoobies couldn't help her, Cordy and Wes didn't want to, and we're assuming a human Angel won't, would have to be the Council, which couldn't help much the previous two attempts), b) get to know her and her situation and suspect that she can be redeemed (this is assuming Faith doesn't do something evil to them first and then opens up a little, which both aren't very likely at that point in her life), or c) be able to take down a Slayer and force her to stop being evil (how many non-evil beings can do that?).

Could Faith have crossed back over on her own? Of course. Possibly after weeks, months, or years of more murder and mayhem. But she was in crash-and-burn mode after WAY, so if something didn't kill her, the crash would have been deadly and destructive to anyone in the path. It was by sheer luck that she crashed into someone who could stand toe-to-toe with her and then not give in to killing her.

5. Yeah, he probably would have stayed with his gang, and maybe Cordelia and maybe even Wes would have become allies of his as well. And yes the risks are high, but if he couldn't stand risk he wouldn't be fighting the good fight, with or without supernatural allies. (because as Xander will attest, supernatural aliies are sometimes not enough to prevent harm in battle)

But supernatural allies help. As the Wishverse Xander can attest, he'd rather have had a Slayer around. Gunn was fighting the good fight, but he was also standstilling in a dead end. Angel pulled him out of that. I'm sure if you'd ask Gunn, he'd rather have had Angel recruit him than stay in his gang.

6. Adam would probably have speared Walsh anyway, and then Riley would likely have died alongside the other spud-boys, I fail to see where this is a problem.

Well, if Maggie hadn't had to rant about Buffy because she stole Riley from her, she might not have been alone in the lab with Adam for him to stab her. And even if she had died, Riley wouldn't have been so "rebellious" from hanging out with the "anarchists" that he could have held himself and the Initiative together. And without the Buffy/Riley partnership, Buffy doesn't find out from Riley about Adam's power core and she doesn't sneak into the Initiative to stop Adam; without B/R, S4 is a whole lot harder for the heroes.

But you're right about Spike =)

[> Rambling with cointreau and cookie dough -- fresne, 17:58:56 06/26/03 Thu

The only real problem for me with this argument is that one of my big problems with AtS was what seemed to me to be the over use of the word Champion. Was that wishy washy enough? Okay, then...Angel Champion of the people. Fred and Lorne talking about how of course Angel and Cordelia should hook up because they're Champions. Fred's not a champion, so you know, shucks.

I cannot even express how annoying I found that. Well, we all have our peeves. Champion abuse, thinking plain yogurt was vanilla, reality t.v. It's the little things.

The implication that for all that Gunn has laid life and family down for what he perceives as a good, he is not a Champion. Muscle. That surviving for years in Pylea doesn't get Fred a gold star. That Wesley, sigh. Blah, blah, blah, everyone's examples. Basically, that in my Mary Sue brain (it's like a lizard brain, only smaller and kind of blue), that I don't get to be a Champion. Not that I could or want, but hey...Mary Sue brain. Who can understand its sad little blue ways.

No. I don't want Angel human. I don't want Buffy to loose her powers. But, if one of their powers is that they are Enablers, then it really shouldn't matter who or what or how they are.

I'm reminded of a story from, Lawrence's Friends Speak, a collection of essays about T.E. Lawrence after his death (I believe I mentioned my Lawrence obsession, the opposite of peeve). Now, Lawrence was commonly described as someone who by his deeds and speech and behavior Enabled others. I capitalize, since I speak of good enablement. This one woman told the following story. Lawrence had an appointment at her house with her husband. She was upstairs in bed because she'd just had a miscarriage and she just couldn't will herself to be. Lawrence came up and talked to her for about two hours. Listened to her for about two hours. And when he left, she understood the why of her depression. She said something like, she didn't know what he'd done in the desert, but that night he saved her life.

I think of that and I think of Angel believing in Faith. A moment of compassion and understanding and connection with someone who was willing their own death. Sure, it's nice to see Angel kick some posterior. It's big and bad and super. But he's Batman, not Superman. And Bats is all human, although certainly one who is really driven, really psychologically damaged and really wealthy. Really.

It's the moments when Angel connects that I like him. That for a moment, I understand the character. Until someone says the C word again, or other disengaging behavior (and you know, just me talking here) and I'm left with nose against the glass wondering if the show will let me in again.

Given the way things played out this season, I don't think this will be a peeve anymore. Heck, I've got the blended margarita and the mariachi band playing. No cold sad Dickens' noses here. Please don't tell HonorH about the Mary Sue brain though. I need it to make the margaritas. The secret is in the dash of honey.

[> [> About the use of the word "Champion" (Spoilers for "Awakening") -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:02:32 06/26/03 Thu

I, too, have had problems with the use of the word Champion. Though, for me, the real problem is that it's such an ill defined word. Sometimes it seems to be an unofficial title, othertimes it seems to bear mystical significance.

While it might seem to be sort of a "I'm better than you" thing, it could make sense if you interpret "Champion" as meaning an earthly representitive of a higher power (given that Angel's mission has often been shown to have links to the Powers That Be, calling him a Champion is appropriate).

Also, there is something I think is significant: in "Awakening", during Angel's fantasy of a perfect day, he tells the entire AI gang that they're all Champions. While "Champion" may seem to be a title used to raise Angel above other evil fighters, it is significant that, in his eyes, Gunn, Wesley, Fred, and Cordelia are Champions just as he is.

[> [> [> Champion and motive -- lunasea, 21:59:54 06/26/03 Thu

I think the reliance on the word Champion this season was Angel was trying to convince himself that he was doing everything for those motives that would label him a champion. When bug priest asks him why he is doing this, he says he is trying to save his world. Bug priest tells him he does it for the boy. He would do it for the girl, but she is gone.

I think we get Angel doing that a lot. He is going to kill himself in "Amends" because he won't hurt Buffy, but then when he is on the hill he decides he can't become a monster again. In IWRY, he is doing it because Buffy may die, but he tacks on for others and thus becomes a champion. In "Epiphany" he wants to lose his soul. When he doesn't, he has to figure out why.

Angel, in his gut, in his soul, knows what is right. It is that core that Fury says is unambiguously good. After he decides to do something, he then figures out his motives. This season it was "I save the world because I am a champion." Really he did what he did for Connor.

I don't blame him for refering to himself as Champion. Whenever he meets some supernatural creature that is how they refer to him. He is being set up to be a major player in the apocalypse and he knows it. He is trying to live up to this. As he tells Jasmine, he is working on it.

But what matters most to him is his son. It is a son that has pissed him off to no end and he doesn't know how to help or deal with, but it is a son that he loves. It was a lot like Buffy season 5 with Dawn, without the whole "Can I love" angst on top of it. Instead we got the Cordy stuff.

Buffy didn't die season 5 to save the world. She did it to save Dawn. Angel saved the world from Jasmine not for all that stuff about free will and because he is a champion. He did it for his son. Doesn't make it any less beautiful and doesn't make what he learned about why it was the right thing any less powerful.

At least that is how I see it.

[> [> [> [> Beautiful, lunasea! Totally agree. -- Scroll, 13:54:44 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> Does anyone else want fresne's margarita recipe? -- ponygirl, waving her blender, 08:15:50 06/27/03 Fri

I was trying to think of why the use of the word Champion annoys me, but Slayer does not. Both are used often, used as titles, as ways to separate and define the characters. Yet I barely notice the word Slayer. Maybe it's because we've been trained to see the negative in what it means to be a Slayer, that the isolation that comes with it is not a good thing. The Champion seems to be set above us, the Slayer may be be above but she is also beneath, and somewhat to the side, lurking in the shadows. That actually seems like a better description of Angel himself, rather than the bright ideal of Champion.

[> [> [> Re: Does anyone else want fresne's margarita recipe? -- s'kat, 10:56:05 06/27/03 Fri

Actually Champion is used more on Ats than slayer is.
Also used differently. Slayer doesn't mean Champion or hero on Btvs - it can also be used derogatively. And it does describe why Buffy has her power.

Angel has his power because he is a vampire. No other reason. So on Ats - Angel being called a vampire is similar to Buffy being called the slayer. The soul doesn't make him a champion either - it's a curse. It's there to make him miserable. The irony is it motivates him to do good. That does not mean he doesn't act like a Champion, but the need to constantly call himself one - seems to be his way of bragging about his good deeds, demanding credit for them, which takes away the importance of what he does. Look at me! I'm a Champion! I'm the Winner! He comes across as a bit of a braggart when he uses the word.

The other problem I have with the use of Champion is it's become a joke. I mean people have drinking games and guessing games on number of times they use it. I can't take the word seriously any more. I actually laugh at him whenever he or anyone else uses it now. Because they use it at least three-four times in EVERY episode. It's overuse has made it a joke. If the writers meant it to be taken seriously? They should have used it more sparingly. And no I don't think you can really compare it to slayer - since slayer, unlike champion, has more ambigous connotations.
Slayer means killer after all. And Buffy doesn't really like the term. She would rather not hear it and often quips it away. Angel on the other hand seems to wear the Champion word like some people wear medals...he wants to hear it, all the time. Big difference.

[> [> [> [> Exactly -- ponygirl, still whirring the empty blender, 11:31:35 06/27/03 Fri

Agree with all your points. I was trying to muddle through why one word annoys and one doesn't - beyond the fact that they're obviously two different words. :)

We hear Slayer with the full weight of all its meanings, good and bad. Champion on the other hand, is presented as the be-all and end-all, simply good. And not just by Angel, everyone on AtS says it without irony. I think that's why it jars. Not something we're used to in the Buffyverse, which is why I've long hoped for something to happen to give the word a fouler taste. Not holding my breath though.

[> [> [> [> [> Or, at least, Champion of Good -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:30:25 06/27/03 Fri

Haven't there been a few times when antagonists have been described as Champions of Evil or the Underworld?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not really... -- s'kat, 13:34:14 06/27/03 Fri

And if so? Not nearly often enough for me to remember an occurence. In fact I can't recall a single episode and I've watched them all at least three times by now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Looking at Masq's analysises . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:48:41 06/27/03 Fri

I realize that I was talking about Vocah in "To Shanshu in LA" and the black knight in "Judgement" (I originally thought the analyis called Vocah the "Champion of the Underworld", but it really says "Warrior of the Underworld").

Again, I haven't seen Seasons 1 or 2 of "Angel", however, upon rereading Masq's analysis of "Judgement", it seems to give a fairly good look on the meaning of "Champion". There, Angel is a Champion because he is taking part in battle on behalf of someone too weak to do so herself, and battles a Champion of Evil in doing so. Considering that I read through all of Masq's site before ever watching "Angel", this has always colored my view when the word "Champion" is used: I see it as meaning someone who fights as a representative of those who can't do so for themselves (ie "helping the helpless").

And, for those who say "Champion" is just a big ego thing, I again point to "Awakening", where Angel shows he believes Wesley, Cordelia, Gunn, Fred, Lorne, and even Connor (under the right circumstances) are all Champions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Best definition I have seen -- lunasea, 18:08:09 06/27/03 Fri

The Slayer's title comes from what she does. She slays demons. In order to be a Champion, you have to champion something. He isn't like Buffy, how saves people that she never even knows. Her title lies in her relationship to what she fights. Angel's title lies more in what he protects. He isn't called Hero, which is a title that would have to do with his courage. He is a Champion, someone who fights for others.

I don't think that Champion is an ego thing. Until recently, Angel was very reticent to use it. Others tended to use it when referring to him, good and evil creatures. Angel tends to use it in the plural, even in the Champion Speech in "Deep Down." That is why there is US, champions.

S4 he is a Champion, but his cause is Connor.

[> [> [> [> [> Okay, okay, yeeesh! -- fresne, 13:50:39 06/27/03 Fri

1oz good tequila:
· 100% blue agave. This ensures that there are no artificially added sugars.
· Anejo (aged 2+years if possible)
· from Mexico, because they have more regulations for terms like: Blanco, Reposado, Anejo, 100% agave, blue agave, etc. and they mean it. We're talking serious stuff here.
· Basically, something that if you drank it on its own it would go down like the smoothest of aged scotches. Sipped, not slammed. A quality that comes at a cost. Although, since the better the quality, the fewer the impurities that give you a hangover, it may be worth it.
1 oz Cointreau
1 oz Triple Sec
1 Fresh Lime
1 cup Margarita mix, I've never had a preference
2 trays of ice or you know, however much fits in the blender
1 Tablespoon of honey (I favor clover myself)
and as much salt as I can force to cling to my glass.

Of course, this is all terribly cyber, so you only have my word that it's tasty. Also, what I normally do involves some cheap tequila and a lot less exact.

Hmmm...I suppose I should say something about Champions and Slayers.

Umm...Margaritas for everyone!

Well, except Dawn and Connor. Because alcohol is icky. Really. Except my housemate's first word was Daiquiri. So, um, okay, yeah... I feel like Queen should be singing, "We Are the Champions" somewhere in the background.

I think it is the lack of irony. With Buffy, we have Cordelia saying that we should have a fascist state for the benefit of cool people. And we laugh. Grumble at von Buffy and thrill at little moments like in Anne when she declares her identify. Wee frail little gunna kick your evil industrialist demon ass Buffy.

Now picture the same scene, but with a six foot + guy, with fully loaded muscly arms. The secret of the thing isn't so secret. Cause, umm...look at him. The knowledge that a Slayer is always some unexpected marginalized female, who never the less is the one to walk out of that ally, helps inform the word. Slayer. She who hangs out in graveyards. Slayer, the.

Champion is a word that carries with it certain cultural implications in a way Slayer, a newish word, can't. Two knights in the lists fighting for my ladies favor. Champions fighting on the field of battle to decide the war. It is easy to cheer David. Goliath gets less sympathy. They are both Champions. Chosen by the lady or the king or some power because these Champions are the best and brightest in the land.

Which is nice, I just don't want to hear about it all the time.

However, the entire Jasmine arc, to my mind, subverts the whole concept of a Champion. Who did the Oracles serve? Who sent the visions? Who does Angel represent as Champion?

Groo was the Champion of the people of Pylea. Although, I suppose technically Groo was the Grousalgh (sp and I'm not looking it up) of the people of Pylea. Whose favor does Angel wear? The PtB? Jasmine that was?

Now that Angel has stepped from Champion to General (in Jasmine's, Wolfram and Harts, his own) army, what will that mean? What murky waters do we now swim?

I have no idea. It's summer. For once it's warm in the Bay Area. Tonight I'm going to sit on the beach, somehow sneak a Margarita with me, and enjoy not knowing. And my Margarita.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Mmm, thank you. -- ponygirl, 14:00:12 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Does anyone else want fresne's margarita recipe? -- sdev, 13:57:54 06/27/03 Fri

Different take.

"One Slayer in all the world..." (or maybe two)

This is a true title belonging to a very limited and identifiable category. The big "C", as I've taken to calling it, is a self-promoting amorphous category which anyone can claim.

[> [> [> The word "Champion loses all meaning... (spoilers for AtS, and "Chosen") -- Doug, 16:20:07 06/27/03 Fri

...when it gets tossed around all the time on the show. The word has a definition, which I am to lazy to look up, it is a noun but can also be a verb; you can "choose to champion someone else's cause". But as it used on Angel it has no meaning.

A Champion of what? A person or persons; or perhaps an abstract ideal? I always figured Angel was chosen by the powers that be to serve them as first among their minions, so he's their champion; though how Jasmine's fate will change this is anyone's guess. Of course, to oppose this we have the definition from "Chosen"; a champion is anyoe with superpowers + soul. This means that when Faith served the mayor she was a Champion, because she met both criteria. Some have suggested "Champion of the People", but while a fair number of lives get saved in the normal day-to-day routine of our Champion and his followers when the general populace is actually at high risk they focus on a certain "turgid supernatural soap opera", and Angel's son Connor seemed to be the only one hiutting the streets instead of hiding in the Hyperion. This leads me to believe that the cause that is championed is more of a "Champion goodness and everything nice".

Ok, I just realized after typing that last peragraph that it was rather sarcastic and will no doubt offend many. Nevertheless I am going to leave it intact, since it does contain some of my issues about the whole Champion thing.

Slayer is a word that has a destinct definition, and refers to a supernatural status that has certain properties. Some of these properties have changed, specifically the number of Slayers. However, the essential traits of the slayer title are still essentially unchanged (superstrong, superfast, males need not apply). Even when something is changed the change is noted.

In some parts of the United States the word "Liberal" is a political swear-word. "Fascist" is the preferred swear-word up in Canada (though it also sees use in many other places) and these words will be thrown around without much thought to the actual meaning of the word, because all it means to anyone is "something bad". Champion, as used on the show, is a praise-word. It means "something good" about the person being called it without actual having to come up with concrete reasons why that person is so great. People don't analyze someone's politics before they throw around "Commie" or "Fascist", they just say it to make the other guy look bad. Champion isn't based on any actual criteria, it's just meaningless praise.

[> Re: IWRY thread continued!-But there's one thing you guys are forgetting... -- sdev, 20:44:29 06/26/03 Thu

What you are describing-- if no Angel then xyz bad events might have happened is Angel's hubris talking. There is no way to answer the what if. The fact is he, unlike Buffy, was not created to be a Champion (apologies to Fresne; I don't like that word either and it is interesting to note that it is all over AtS and not much in BtVS). Buffy and the Slayers were created to protect the world and one could assume they were essential thus the built in survival of the slayer species mechanism.

The world survived without Angel for the 240 odd years he existed but did not help. Who is to say, other than Angel himself, that another "C" would not be born or made to replace him. There were other examples of demons sent to help the side of good--Doyle, Whistler. Another Angel-like being might have been sent. Hell, another Angel-like being was sent, Spike. Oh yeah and he did save the world.

Angel was created as a curse on a vampire. He was offered his humanity in the supernatural course of events not as a disturbance of the natural order. He took it upon himself to decide that his demon status was critical to the cause of world survival. (that or he did it to save Buffy, I'm still not sure which)

Your example of The Wish demonstrates the need for a Slayer, not necessarily any being of superior strength. I agree that Buffy and Slayers were shown to be indispensible in the fight of good and evil.

I also don't really agree about the failure of the Initiative. I think when Riley returned in AYW, he demonstrated the success of human/soldier demon fighters without the hidden agenda which brought them to ruin under Maggie Walsh.

If Buffy had been consulted I venture to guess she would have believed his mission was to become human not remain a demon.

[> [> If she did that, we'd have more "Buffy is a selfish bitch comments" -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:54:18 06/26/03 Thu

Also, wasn't there an episode where Angel saved the world with only Lorne to back him up?

[> The Audience Tease Episode -- s'kat, 21:50:20 06/26/03 Thu

First off, I agree with fresne & sdeve on the whole Champion bit. God, they've used that word so often on Angel now - it's become a drinking game. Heck at one point in the season there was a contest on this board to guess which character would say it first in each episode. It became in essence a joke. And I'm not unconvinced it wasn't meant to be one - these writers are notorious for subverting their own stories.

That said Valheru sort of hints at something in hi/r posts that neither sdeve or fresne picked up on but goes to the root of my pet peeve with this episode. It's a personal pet peeve, so keep that in mind ;-).

Bear with me as I explain.

Val's point, which Val probably didn't intend to make, but I caught reading the posts finally: Angel the Series is about a vampire with soul hunting redemption. His goal? To become redeemed. How is that redemption realized? Well, he becomes human and rides off into the sunset with the Buffster. That's the initial conception - or at least it was in S1 Ats. (I'm holding out a weak hope, very very weak at this point, that the writers do something more twisty and interesting, less predictable than that. I know I'm probably in the minority on that. ;-) )Angel is the hero caught in the classic comic book/genre super-hero conflict: if he stops being a vampire he doesn't have super powers and can't save the innocent. But if he doesn't stop being the vampire - he won't have a life and get the girl. Solution? Easy - he saves the day and the world and enough people and when that day arrives - he earns redemption, the PTB make him human and off he and the Buffster ride into the sunset.

What bugged me? An age old television cliche. Which I like to call the audience tease. It's done in every tv program that has at it's center a character or group of characters whose sole purpose in life is some linear (often impossible) goal - the series basically ends the moment they reach that goal. The audience tease or if you will mislead episode - is the producer's way of attempting to trick or tease the audience: give the character what it wants, have them actually enjoy it, then whammo, yank it away, leaving the audience to wonder if the characters can ever get it and feeling great sympathy for the character not getting it, and somehow wanting them to get it more - since they almost had it. Also if the character willingly gives up this central goal for some greater good - the audience is supposed to feel this deep empathy for the character and think whoa what a hero..ugh. Personally I consider this blatant audience manipulation and character manipulation and very poor story-telling.

Examples of other shows that have done this:

1. Voyager - they almost get home in one episode, I think in the first season, not sure, but nope, can't b/c it would hurt some race. So they do the noble thing and not go.
(OF course the audience knows they won't try to go home this route b/c that would be the end of the series which is all about them hunting the way home and their adventures on the way. Finale has them finding it.)

2. Space 1999 - The Bringers of Hope - who mislead the Alpha crew and the audience into believing that they've found earth again. Nope. (And not the first episode to do it either...but the most creative one. Probably the best of the audience teases.)

3. The Pretender - he finds his family, oops nope, he misses them at the last moment.

4. The Fugitive (who we can blame for creating the misunderstood-hero on the road helping people until he clears himself or is redeemed concept.) He almost captures the one-armed man once or twice before the finale.

5. John Doe - who almost finds out who he really is, then drops it. (So did I after this episode).

6. The Incredible Hulk - who almost conquers his anger and the Hulk ( he doesn't until the movies air a year or so after the series is cancelled).

7. Cheers - Sam and Diane who almost get married. (Diane takes off instead. She returns five years later in the finale where they almost do it again.)

8. MASH - the war is over. Nope sorry, that was mistake, it's still going on. (can't remember the episode...sometime in the seventh season. Yes, MASH lasted longer than the Korean War. Although this time it didn't bug me for some reason.)

9. Quantum Leap - Sam trades places with the Dean Stockwell character and gets home. Sam's goal is if he helps the right person - the next leap will be home. But an electrical accident shifts him and DS, so he goes home and DS leapes. So Sam leaps home, but being the hero he is, he goes back and switches places with DS. (Sam never leaps home after that.)

And there are many more. sigh.

Angel does the same thing in IWRY. Heck it wouldn't be the formulaic hero helps people to reach desired goal without this episode, would it?? He, Buffy and the audience get their heart's desire - Angel human, B/A together. But nope, Angel didn't earn it apparently, also it's only the fifth (?) episode in the new Angel series, so obviously he can't stay human - no show. So we know he has to change back to a vamp somehow. The only suspense in this episode is how is Angel going to become a vamp again. I was disappointed that the way they chose was...so pat, ex deus machina, and anti-climatic. I didn't get Buffy dealing with it. It didn't move anyone forward. Angel was pretty much in the same place he was before. It was what it was - a dang audience tease episode. The only person it seemed to affect in any way shape or form was Doyle - who didn't even remember any of it.

Also? In my humble opinion - I don't think this episode succeeding in making Angel heroic, if anything it made him less heroic in my eyes. So I'm not sure what the point was
except to offer the character and the audience the proverbial chocolat carrot only to yank it away again.

What is interesting - is from assorted interviews, I think WB complained to Whedon and Company somewhere around this point, stating they were less interested in the Touched by An Equalizer episodic concept and wanted something a bit more like Buffy. So the series changed a bit after that.
And I got interested in it again, because if also became less predictable and far more twisty. I've seen way too many Touched by An Equalizer tv shows for my own good. ;-)

[> [> Problem with the anthology series -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:39:07 06/26/03 Thu

Everything's got to be status quo by the end of the episode. Otherwise, it isn't an anthology. For those focused on character developement, this is a major irk.

When I first read through ep summaries of Angel Season 1, I noticed a problem the writers had. On the one hand, they were trying to do an anthology, which means the episode focuses around a specific, self contained story and one-shot characters. On the other hand, they did have a cast of regular characters (one of whom the show was named after) that they enjoyed showing the personalities of and giving emotional conundrums. This basic conflict of priorities (regular characters vs. one shot episode characters), probably created a lot of the displeasure with Season 1 of "Angel". Whenever people are unsure of what sort of story they're trying to tell, the results suffer.

[> [> Yup. And they needed Buffy to move on.... -- curious, 06:05:24 06/27/03 Fri

I agree with your "audience teaser" assessment here. But I also think they needed a mechanism where Buffy could move on to Riley (get your mind out of the gutter!) and still have Angel pining for her. The B/A shippers didn't want to ler her move on. Maybe they had to throw this ep in to make her moving on to another relationship more acceptable. From her POV, Angel isn't interested in persuing the relationship - she is free to move on - somewhat angry with Angel but guilt free. But from his POV, he has had a taste of what the relationship could have been and gave it up. That gives him more reason to brood and do good deeds until he really deserves his "reward" - human life with Buffy.

Maybe the audience is supposed to be irritated that Angel chose to be a "champion" over Buffy. ME needed the shows to move apart but still keep a little Buffy angst for the future.

[> [> How does the "addiction" metaphor fit in? -- curious, 08:21:58 06/27/03 Fri

I was thinking (may get a bit rambly - my coffee just kicked in) - if AtS is about a guy trying to overcome an addiction - was he ready for a relationship at that point in the story? Doesn't he have a lot of stuff to face and overcome before his cookies are baked? He gave up Buffy for the same reasons he smashed the ring of Amara. He hadn't "earned" that happiness yet. He didn't feel worthy.

A more half-baked thought is that one of the things Angel seems to be addicted to is BUFFY or the hope of a perfect life with her. Buffy is his drug of choice in a way - at that point in the story. Getting to be with her quickly and easily in IWRY would be kind of like a drunk being able to drink all they want without the consequences - very tempting but ultimately a bad idea because it is a short cut to redemption. The underlying issues that make him want to drink are still unresolved. If they had gotten together - it would have been a disaster. He hadn't worked through his addiction issues and she was too young - still cookie dough. (That and the show would be OVER after 5 eps. LOL.)
I was thinking (may get a bit rambly - my coffee just kicked in) - if AtS is about a guy trying to overcome an addiction - was he ready for a relationship at that point in the story? Doesn't he have a lot of stuff to face and overcome before his cookies are baked? He gave up Buffy for the same reasons he smashed the ring of Amara. He hadn't "earned" that happiness yet. He didn't feel worthy. When I look at this ep, giving up Buffy is a more noble gesture. Even if he didn't fully realize why he was giving her up.

A more half-baked thought is that one of the things Angel seems to be addicted to is BUFFY or the hope of a perfect life with her. Buffy is his drug of choice in a way - at that point in the story. Getting to be with her quickly and easily in IWRY would be kind of like a drunk being able to drink all they want without the consequences - very tempting but ultimately a bad idea because it is a short cut to redemption. The underlying issues that make him want to drink are still unresolved. If they had gotten together - it would have been a disaster. He hadn't worked through his addiction issues and she was too young - still cookie dough. (That and the show would be OVER after 5 eps. LOL.) Doyle is still a "drunk" at this point and he thought Angel was crazy not to stay human with Buffy. Cordelia seems to "get" why Buffy is not good for Angel at this point.

From Amends:

ANGEL: Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care. Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man.

In Season 6 of BtVS - Spike is Buffy's drug of abuse. Season 7 is about her coming to terms with the piece of herself that needed that drug to "feel". At the end of Season 7 - she no longer needs that drug and Spike is free to be his own person - not Buffy's drug of choice or her lapdog. But Buffy's addiction pattern isn't as entrenched as Angel's. She doesn't have nearly as much to atone for or work through. Buffy's story was about "growing up" but Angel's is about making amends with the past - a more complex and arduous path.

I hope ME does a twsty thing with B/A eventually. I think (and fervently HOPE) B/S is over but Spike can be a part of what B/A need to either get together or realize they can live without each other. (And I say this as someone who found B/S more interesting than B/A.) Ironically, I don't think there could be any hope of B/A unless Buffy worked through some of her stuff with B/S. (I'm deliberately leaving out Spike's side in all this. That has been discussed ad nauseum lately. There was A LOT of discussion of B/S and co-depedence, mutually abusive relationship, etc.)
From Amends:

ANGEL: Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care. Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man.

In Season 6 of BtVS - Spike is Buffy's drug of abuse. Season 7 is about her coming to terms with the piece of herself that needed that drug to "feel". At the end of Season 7 - she no longer needs that drug and Spike is free to be his own person - not Buffy's drug of choice or her lapdog. But Buffy's addiction pattern isn't as entrenched as Angel's. She doesn't have nearly as much to atone for or work through. Buffy's story was about "growing up" but Angel's is about making amends with the past - a more complex and arduous path.

I hope ME does a twsty thing with B/A eventually. I think (and fervently HOPE) B/S is over but Spike can be a part of what B/A need to either get together or realize they can live without each other. (And I say this as someone who found B/S more interesting than B/A.) Ironically, I don't think there could be any hope of B/A unless Buffy worked through some of her stuff with B/S. (I'm deliberately leaving out Spike's side in all this. That has been discussed ad nauseum lately. There was A LOT of discussion of B/S and co-depedence, mutually abusive relationship, etc.)

[> [> [> Some goofy cutting and pasting in the post above. Read this one. -- curious, 08:27:45 06/27/03 Fri

I was thinking (may get a bit rambly - my coffee just kicked in) - if AtS is about a guy trying to overcome an addiction - was he ready for a relationship at that point in the story? Doesn't he have a lot of stuff to face and overcome before his cookies are baked? He gave up Buffy for the same reasons he smashed the ring of Amara. He hadn't "earned" that happiness yet. He didn't feel worthy.

From Amends:

ANGEL: Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care. Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man.

In Season 6 of BtVS - Spike is Buffy's drug of abuse. Season 7 is about her coming to terms with the piece of herself that needed that drug to "feel". At the end of Season 7 - she no longer needs that drug and Spike is free to be his own person - not Buffy's drug of choice or her lapdog. But Buffy's addiction pattern isn't as entrenched as Angel's. She doesn't have nearly as much to atone for or work through. Buffy's story was about "growing up" but Angel's is about making amends with the past - a more complex and arduous path.

I hope ME does a twsty thing with B/A eventually. I think (and fervently HOPE) B/S is over but Spike can be a part of what B/A need to either get together or realize they can live without each other. (And I say this as someone who found B/S more interesting than B/A.) Ironically, I don't think there could be any hope of B/A unless Buffy worked through some of her stuff with B/S. (I'm deliberately leaving out Spike's side in all this. That has been discussed ad nauseum lately. There was A LOT of discussion of B/S and co-depedence, mutually abusive relationship, etc.)

[> [> [> THIS is what I wanted to say. Grrr Aaargh! Too much coffee! -- curious, 08:33:20 06/27/03 Fri

I was thinking (may get a bit rambly - my coffee just kicked in) - if AtS is about a guy trying to overcome an addiction - was he ready for a relationship at that point in the story? Doesn't he have a lot of stuff to face and overcome before his cookies are baked? He gave up Buffy for the same reasons he smashed the ring of Amara. He hadn't "earned" that happiness yet. He didn't feel worthy.

A more half-baked thought is that one of the things Angel seems to be addicted to is BUFFY or the hope of a perfect life with her. Buffy is his drug of choice in a way - at that point in the story. Getting to be with her quickly and easily in IWRY would be kind of like a drunk being able to drink all they want without the consequences - very tempting but ultimately a bad idea because it is a short cut to redemption. The underlying issues that make him want to drink are still unresolved. If they had gotten together - it would have been a disaster. He hadn't worked through his addiction issues and she was too young - still cookie dough. (That and the show would be OVER after 5 eps. LOL.) Doyle is still a "drunk" at this point and he thought Angel was crazy not to stay human with Buffy. Cordelia seems to "get" why Buffy is not good for Angel at this point.

From Amends:

ANGEL: Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care. Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man.

In Season 6 of BtVS - Spike is Buffy's drug of abuse. Season 7 is about her coming to terms with the piece of herself that needed that drug to "feel". At the end of Season 7 - she no longer needs that drug and Spike is free to be his own person - not Buffy's drug of choice or her lapdog. But Buffy's addiction pattern isn't as entrenched as Angel's. She doesn't have nearly as much to atone for or work through. Buffy's story was about "growing up" but Angel's is about making amends with the past - a more complex and arduous path.

I hope ME does a twsty thing with B/A eventually. I think (and fervently HOPE) B/S is over but Spike can be a part of what B/A need to either get together or realize they can live without each other. (And I say this as someone who found B/S more interesting than B/A.) Ironically, I don't think there could be any hope of B/A unless Buffy worked through some of her stuff with B/S. (I'm deliberately leaving out Spike's side in all this. That has been discussed ad nauseum lately. There was A LOT of discussion of B/S and co-depedence, mutually abusive relationship, etc.)

[> [> [> [> To get IWRY -- lunasea, 11:27:57 06/27/03 Fri

You have to keep in mind that the episodes that set it up are "Bachelor Party" and "Pangs." Doyle/Harry tell the story of Angel/Buffy. Harry and Doyle can't be together not because Doyle is a half-demon, but because Doyle can't handle this. Same thing with Angel at this point. When Angel is made human, he doesn't have to deal with this temporarily and can deal with other issues surrounding his being with Buffy.

In "In the Dark," Angel tells Rachel "You're at a crossroads, I know. It's either go for the easy fix and wait for the consequences, or take the hard road and go with faith." That is just what IWRY was for him. The addiction metaphor does play out strongly with Buffy. It is evidenced by his attempt to go cold turkey and "forget."

Angel learns something very important in IWRY. His dream would be to turn human. He learns that it isn't such a dream and it has consequences that he isn't ready to deal with. Send that Angel back in time, and he works more on accepting himself. After this point, Angel really does develop close bonds with his family. He really works through his past with episodes like "The Prodigal" and "Five-by-Five." That doesn't mean when he finds out he is going to Shanshu that he isn't happy. As he accepts himself more, being human doesn't sound like such a bad idea any more.

[> [> Re: The Audience Tease Episode -- lunasea, 11:00:24 06/27/03 Fri

It may surprise you that I completely disagree with what you said. If all they wanted to do was tease us, Angel wouldn't remember much of anything. Time was folded, but Angel still carries the memories of that day. Those memories had to be protected. They could have just protected how to defeat the Mohra demon. That isn't what the Powers/ME did. Why?

That episode served several important purposes. The series isn't about killing demons and racking up redemption points. It is about Angel learning to really connect with others and discover what it is like to be human. He is hyper-human because he understands what it is like not to be human and doesn't/can't take things we do for granted. There is an arc that leads up to IWRY.

First in "City Of" we see Angel trying to fight the good fight on his own, in order not to be a monster and even though he isn't doing evil yet, he isn't quite not a monster. Doyle manages to push his buttons and get him to try to help Tina. Russell kills Tina and Angel goes into Avenger Mode. By focusing on Avenger Mode, Angel realizes "I killed a vampire. I didn't help anybody." Enter in the importance of Cordy and Angel starts to help the helpless. So using Angel's desire not to be a monster any more, ME manages to take him down a path that gets him to try to connect to others more.

Next episode to hammer home the point is about just that, the importance of connection and what loneliness can drive us to do. It also shows how difficult it is to connect to others. In "In the Dark" the alcoholic removes temptation by destroying the ring, but why he does it is more important. The Gem of Amarra is a bit more than a plot device. It is a way to show how disconnected Angel is from Buffy now. We know why Buffy sent the ring to Angel, but he doesn't. Helping Rachel has connected him to something larger than himself. He is learning how to reach out to people.

In "I Fall to Pieces" we learn a bit more about how totally creepy Angelus was and how he didn't remotely know how to relate to others. We see how Angel-now really does comfort Melissa. Ronald is falling to pieces to contrast with Angel starting to be put together. He still isn't quite there, since he is left alone at the end, but he is making progress.

I love "Room with a View." Peanut butter on the bed will later show up in IWRY. Watching Angel try to connect with Queen C, while she was still Queen C, was great. As was the theme of past mistakes still haunting us and how to get out of them. Cordy finds the strength to fight Maude and also embraces Dennis and finds a sort of redemption with her dream apartment. Doyle isn't ready to deal with his past yet, so it is only by asking for Angel's help that he is able to survive, but it is just surviving.

In "Sense and Sensitivity" we get to see sensitive Angel. What if Angel could totally empathize with everyone? Bleck!!! The show tends to support the Golden Means. Even though the goal is for Angel to connect, they don't want him to turn into Mr. Sensitivity.

"The Bachelor Party" sets up "Pangs." Doyle's first vision even echoes what Spike sees, a vampire nest/family having dinner. The food/family metaphor will play out in both episodes. The parallels to of Doyle/Harry to Angel/Buffy are just too numerous to post here.

"Pangs" has to be included in this arc. Angel (and now Spike) always on the outside looking in. Thanksgiving is about family and as of this point, neither has one. Spike tied up in a chair gets to interact with others more than Angel. Doyle's vision says that Buffy is in trouble. It doesn't tell him to lurk in the shadows. Even though Angel has been reaching out to others on his own show and sort of connecting, he doesn't feel he should any more with Buffy. One of the great lines of the episode comes from Xander who says it feels like old times with Angel there. This not only lets Buffy know that he was there, but shows that Xander feels something for Angel. There is great stuff with Angel and all the Scoobies. That is what leads up to IWRY

The theme of connection/isolation that has been running throughout the series comes to a head in IWRY. Why are we here? Angel is told that he has to connect with others. He has been working on this. In "Sense and Sensitivity" we see there is more to it than that. In "Bachelor Party" the idea of doing what is best for someone may mean giving them up is revisited. Also revisited is why Angel gave up Buffy. Nothing he says in "Prom" is true. He had to give Buffy up for the same reason Harry left Doyle, because he couldn't handle being a demon.

So lets make Angel not a demon any more. IWRY logically flows from "Bachelor Party." So does him wanting to know who Buffy would choose in "Chosen." (not something discussed, but as usual the title refers to more than one thing) What is keeping them apart on Angel's side is his problems with being a demon. If that is gone, then what would keep them apart at this stage in Angel's development?

Angel's mission. It isn't about showing how much of a hero, not a lower being, he is. It is about showing how much Angel depends on this image. Doyle is celebrating because he thinks he will be free of the visions. Then he gets one. The Oracles say Angel is released from his fealty, but Angel still has to fight. Cordy is the only one upset about being out of a job, but Cordy has always been the one to get things the quickest because she is so self-centered.

Just a teaser? Not from ME. It isn't just a teaser. There is a lot more to the episode than Angel's perfect day. ME didn't completely destroy their playbook when they started Angel. The demons tend to still have to do with what is going on with the characters. It makes them easier to write. The Mohra demon is a warrior demon that gets bigger and stronger when you kill it, much like our two heroes. Angel will come out of this episode with a renewed purpose and be stronger in his mission. He will feel that he belongs to the world as a champion. That is a bit more than a teaser.

What Angel does will have later consequences also. It will lead to his outburst in "Sanctuary." It will be there as he says "I'm sorry" in "Forever." It will even cause him to tell Buffy "I'm not getting any older" in "Chosen." Speaking of Chosen, Joss wrote Buffy telling Angel to leave because it was confusing. In IWRY he says "it's more then confusing - it's unbearable." It being only confusing shows how much they have grown.

This episode also sets up why Doyle has to leave. Besides the whole hero aspect, we find out that Doyle is a bit more than just a receiver for the visions. He is on a need to know basis and he puts Angel on a need to know basis. He knows more about what is going on. He knows that Angel is eventually going to be made human. There is a lot of good stuff in there.

You may feel manipulated, but I thought it showed both how far Angel had come and how far he had to go. If the central goal as revisited later with Shanshu is to become human, than what Angel did just shows that he wasn't ready for it. It doesn't show that he shouldn't have it.

That was a lot longer than I intended.

[> [> [> Re: The Audience Tease Episode -- sdev, 14:31:32 06/27/03 Fri

I can live with plot holes but thematic holes drive me nuts. And I just realized some of the problems I have with IWRY relate back to In the Dark. If Angel were so interested in being the big "C" for the express purpose of saving the world, wouldn't the additional powers of invulnerability and free daylight movement add to that ability?

He smashed that ring with very little compunction. In the Dark really bothered me. Again I sense hubris. In a peculiar way his overwhelming sense of guilt and need to punish himself, to earn his redemption, to earn freedom of movement, or happiness is very prideful and self-centered. How can one believe that his reasons in IWRY were a desire to keep superpowers for the good of the world after he gave up powers in In the Dark?

His decisions often seem to be about himself, sometimes not even considering others impacted profoundly. This does fit into the overall theme that Angel by being isolated is acting selfishly out of personal desire to avoid human interaction, and that he must, for the good of the world, to help others, put himself out there.

But that does not change the fact that some actions were selfishly motivated, as in IWRY and self-flagellation in In the Dark. That is his struggle.

[> [> [> [> Is In The Dark Self-flaggelation -- lunasea, 17:55:48 06/27/03 Fri

If it is, then what is the purpose of Rachel? I love how these shows are so tightly written. Every character, every sub-plot relates to some central theme. How does Rachel fit your observations?

The word selfish may be a bit harsh. Angel's struggle is to find himself and he finds himself by being a champion for certain people, that person is represented by Rachel. Spike's monologue at the beginning, as usual, shows how he so doesn't get it. If you agree with what he says, then the subtle complexities of Angel's character will be missed. In "In the Dark" he doesn't smash the ring to keep punishing himself. He does it because he doesn't have enough faith in himself that he will continue to help the helpless if he keeps the Gem. Angel believes that he was brought back for a reason. Both the Gem of Amarra and being made human conflict with this reason. Is it selfish for him to go with this reason? Not how one typically thinks of the word.

Personal desire is another harsh word. Angel doesn't want to avoid human interaction. He feels he has to in order not to hurt them. In "I Fall to Pieces" Angel talks about why he used to hurt women. They reminded him of how defective he really was. As Whistler says in Becoming, the more you are part of this world, the more you realize how outside you really are. Angel's desire not to be around others is because he doesn't want to lash out at them because he isn't part of them any more. It is only by realizing he is part of the human condition because of his human soul that he can be around others.

I don't think the theme is that for the good of the world and in order to help others he must put himself out there. I think that is how Doyle got him to do it. What the PTB are making is an Uber-Champion that will be needed in a paricular apocalypse that has been prophecied. What is needed for this apocalpyse? Why isn't Angel there yet? (and how many want to bet it will have to do with the First?)

It is an interesting show that uses Angel's desire to help others, his soul/heart of a champion, to show us what our humanity is. At the core of Angel is three words "and to care." AtS is about how to deal with that caring.

At least that is the show I watch.

[> I don't think we're going to agree on this -- Doug, 16:53:29 06/27/03 Fri

We could argue those examples back and forth for the whole summer and still we wouldn't come to an agreement. Suffice it to say that I still believe that things can happen more than two ways. I don't believe there is only one person out there for each of us romantically, and that if you don't find the omly other being in the cosmos who is your soulmate your screwed. It just has zero evidence to support it in the life I have lived, at least as far as I've gotten. Similarly I don't think that anyone is totally indespensable to the continiued function of the universe. I already wrote why I thought each of those characters could have found their own path even without some mystical individuals presence, and I still stand by my original post. Maybe out of all the possible possibilities the one that ended up happening was the best possible reality. Or maybe it wasn't. Maybe if Angel had stayed human Wesley's transformation would have accelerated, Gunn would maintain leadership of his own gang and continue to fight the good fight without being denigrated into being "just the muscle, and maybe Faith would have found her own way out of the darkness. Or maybe not.

I actually agree with you about the physical force, except that this isn't the World of Darkness, this is the buffyverse. As early as Graduation vampires have been shown as being easily defeated by ordinary human teenagers with almost no combat training, and in season 4 were being taken down by a bunch of frat boys masquerading as commandoes; honestly, me and my High School gym class could have defeated the initiative...

...but I digress...

...in short, both shows have failed to present a universe where such powers as Angel posesses in his Vampire state could not be compensated for by physical training, marksmanship, and getting a basic knowledge of homemade explosives that he could probably get off the internet. There are just not a reat surplus of opponents against which ordinary humans who actually bother to fight smart cannot defeat.

Part IV of Whedon's Interview : the Buffy YEars -- s'kat, 18:59:24 06/26/03 Thu

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/425/425492p8.html

And he says some very very interesting things about S6 and S7 in this interview :

IGNFF: In retrospect, looking back at season six, it tonally existed for a reason - that's where the character was at...

WHEDON: That's why that tonal shift. It wasn't like UPN said, "Make it different," or we had a feeling that UPN wanted to do things differently. That was where we went in our heads for season six. The funny thing is, I came out of season five and I said to the writers, "You know what..." - I looked at the season as a whole, and I would do this every year - "here's what I loved, I'm really proud, we did great work. Here's what we could do better on. Here's what we need more of." One of the things was, "I feel like we need to be funnier." And then I came up with season six. But it was true. I was like, "You know, season five, we got very much into this one space. And there was a feeling - I like that anarchic feel we had in the earlier seasons, of bouncing back and forth between comedy and tragedy. Let's try and get back to that." That was why we had the nerds. But at the same time, bringing somebody back from the dead is not something you do lightly. I had done it before, so I knew. I'm not talking about Buffy, I'm talking about Ripley.

IGNFF: The original draft.

WHEDON: Yeah.

IGNFF: It seemed like the shifting in season six was to extremes...

WHEDON: You know, it was very extreme. We really went to a dark, dark place. We got sort of... people talk about the creative meltdown. I've said this before, that I think when people look at the seventh season, as a story, they'll understand season six better. I also understand that it got too depressing for too long, but I don't think all of my instincts are perfect. In fact, the interesting thing was that Sarah took Marti Noxon aside and said, "You know what? I feel depressed. I feel like I want Buffy back. I feel like we've run on this path, and I feel like it's time to sort of reclaim her." I had the exact same conversation with Marti on the same day. So she had her conversation with Sarah and came back to me, "You're not going to believe this." That was always the way it was.

IGNFF: Well, the interesting thing was to compare that to season seven. Looking at season seven, it started off completely different than what it evolved into. Because I remember you had made comments that it's going to be a return to roots, and Sunnydale High is opening again. But, tonally, it seemed like Buffy almost regressed back into the dark things that one had thought she'd grown out of over the course of season six.

WHEDON: Well, the problem was season six took us to a dark place, and that dark place we lost Buffy - and I think that's why people didn't respond to it, because they always had Buffy to lean on. No matter how sad she got, she was still Buffy. In six she was really questioning her very identity. People didn't want that. That upset them. It was like they didn't have their anchor. So it didn't matter if you have something tight or interesting or thematic or funny - they wanted that anchor back. I get that. In season seven, it wasn't like we weren't going to put her through her paces. Buffy in pain is a staple of the show from season one. As [David] Greenwalt and I told each other very early on - "Buffy in pain, story more interesting. Buffy not in pain, story not interesting." So we couldn't just have her be like, "La-di-da, do-di-do, all is well," for a season, because - hey, show not about that. The dark place we took her to was about, "I'm accepting my power, my responsibility, and my leadership, and those are hard things to deal with." So, inevitably, she got kind of bummed out, because that's how you tell the story. The hero goes through something and then they resolve it.

IGNFF: I think the odd thing was when you had a dozen episodes of a different speech each episode...

WHEDON: You know, we got into some speeches, because she had these potentials. I think the flaw of the season for me was that we were so clearly focused on what we wanted to do at the end of the season that we had to sort of get to it in a lot of episodes. Even though they contained things that I loved individually as single episodes, they were just part of a whole - not of themselves enough, a little bit. Also, when you're dealing with potentials, you have huge guest casts - which is just a nightmare to try and find people who work, and register. We found some good ones, but it's really hard - especially when you have an ensemble that's large, that your audience really cares about. But I had to get the potentials in there.

In PArt V - he'll be discussing:"Check back tomorrow for the final installment of Ken's conversation with Joss Whedon - in which Whedon discusses the changes and problems in season 7 of Buffy, which Buffy actors will be popping up in other projects of his, the Internet's role in television production, the future of Firefly, and more. "

This may be amongst the best Whedon/writer interviews I've read in a while. Very comprehensive.

[> This is more of the same interview -- RadiusRS, 19:27:30 06/26/03 Thu

To echo s'kat, one of the best, most comprehensive, and well researched interviews of Joss I've ever found with information on his childhood, his early days on Roseanne, and some of his experiences in Hollywood. And it adds further fire to my argument that on-set tensions had something to do with Season 7 weaknesses and that these tensions were many years old, from the Joss' mouth. This is a section of the interview from the 8 page and immediately precedes what s'kat posted.

IGNFF: Were relations frayed in this past season?

WHEDON: Well, you know, there was some things...

IGNFF: There was a recent interview that came out with Freddy Prinze, Jr. ...

WHEDON: The thing about the nonsense? He was quoted as saying, "Sarah had to deal with a lot of nonsense," and I was like, "Okay, Fred. I never saw you on set, so I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but bless ya. Bless ya. By the way, I still know what you did last summer, buddy."

IGNFF: Scooby Dooby Doo.

WHEDON: Oh god. There was tension on set. Not everybody was best of friends, and in fact we did not link arms and sing "La Marseilles." But we made the show as well as we could for seven years, and you know, everybody made it together.

IGNFF: Was there a sense of burnout towards the end, as far as everyone looking on to what the future was going to hold?

WHEDON: Yeah, that started around season three. So it was sort of like, "We're still here, guys. I know you guys are doing movies, it's very exciting ... Oh, so it's Dangerous Liaisons, but with kids - that's going to be fun. We still have to make the show. Is anybody with me?"

IGNFF: "It's a movie about a pie? That's great..."

WHEDON: My one biggest priority of the show is that Aly becomes a sex symbol, and now she has - so I'm very happy about that. But, you know, you have to keep people's head in the game.

IGNFF: There was this perception towards the early years that it was one big happy family, greatest set in Hollywood, and I guess the only time that anything belying that ever came to the forefront was the transition from the WB to UPN.

WHEDON: Yeah. Well, you know, again, the tensions I'm talking about are a small thing - but you asked what lessons I had learned, and one of the most important ones was "When you're a leader, you can't be everybody's buddy." You have to be a leader. That doesn't mean you can't be kind, that doesn't mean you can't be friends, it just means you have to be a leader. You have to know the difference and when to exercise the difference. And the fact of the matter is, in year five, we all planned to come back. The problem was with outsiders. The problem was with the network and the studio - it wasn't with each other. Ultimately, the move to UPN wasn't really a test of anything, because they were still working for me - same crew, same cast, you know? Same 48 audience members.

IGNFF: I hear it made it to 49 by the end of seven. A friend told a friend.

WHEDON: You know, I never even looked at the ratings for the last episode. I don't even know if they went up at all.

IGNFF: I know there was an upswing.

WHEDON: Oh, that's nice. You know, that was just dispiriting - but then Dean Valentine rode in on his white horse and made it all better, but that wasn't a problem on the set. On set, it was the usual.

IGNFF: I know one thing that I definitely wanted to ask... there's a lot of people that noticed a tonal shift when things moved from WB to UPN....

WHEDON: Yeah.

[> [> Uhm...but you left out a VERY important tidbit -- s'kat, 20:44:22 06/26/03 Thu

I was thinking of doing this anyways since it sort of proves my contention that Whedon was responsible for everything the last two seasons and that Whedon controlled what got on the screen not the actors, not the directors, not the writers - the executive producer does in TV.
(This is not to say RR is wrong about the above...just that...there's more to it and I'd hate to think people made up their minds without seeing it all. ;-))

"IGNFF: Now, I've always been interested in the butchering of the film script in execution. Looking back in hindsight, with the skills you have now, was there anything you could have said, could have maneuvered, that would have had an impact on how the script was realized?

WHEDON: Yes and no. The fact of the matter is, I remember having a conversation with Kristy Swanson. She was like, "Please, tell me how to do this. Tell me what you want." I literally said, "I can't." Because I have always treated film and television like the army, and I'm very strict about it. It was not my place. It was the director's movie. At that point I was there to try and help the director realize her vision, and that's all. Even though it was my script and all this stuff, the director... who had also financed, gotten the film off the ground. Fran Kuzui came in when nobody else wanted the film, said, "We're going to put this together"... And they did. Howard Rosenman and Sandollar and all of that. Without them, there would be no film - and possibly not this phone conversation. So I didn't agree with the way the movie was going, but I also kept my mouth shut because you respect the director. You do that. You respect the person above you, and you make suggestions and you do your best. You know? But you don't ever disrupt the chain of command. You have to have faith in the person who's running it or things will fall apart. I believe that part of the problem was that the director was unable to control the big, fat, wannabe movie star who came - you know, the old guy...

IGNFF: Initials D.S.?

WHEDON: Donald. They were changing their lines and running roughshod over her and everybody else, and I'm sorry. You can't have that. You have to have faith in the leader, and in that situation the leader has to be the director. In TV, it has to be the producer.

IGNFF: So it was a lesson you learned from Roseanne?

WHEDON: It was just something I've always believed. I thought they were f***ing up and I thought they should have filmed some of the things I wrote. I thought that they should have let me into the process. Sometimes I know that I haven't spoken out when I should have, and I've been too timid - because I'm basically terrified of confrontation. Or there's times when I think, "Ahh, if only I'd taken over and done something Machiavellian to get control of this or that." But I've always believed you have to respect the person who's doing it, no matter what. If you're John Wayne in Fort Apache, you follow Henry Fonda - even though he's going to get everybody killed. That's what you do.

IGNFF: You'll get them back four pictures later when you've had a promotion.

WHEDON: I'm not interested in getting anybody back or getting at anybody. All I'm interested in is when it's my turn to lead, that I can lead. That people afford me the same respect that I did. Because now that I'm actually in charge, I do things the same way. I'm open to suggestion, I'm interested in what people have to say - my word is final. I will not brook anybody basically coming down against it, once it's been said. That's just how it works.

IGNFF: Is there any way that you see that you could have possibly enlightened Fran a bit more, as to the tone or style that the script was written in?

WHEDON: No. She had a thing she wanted to do. She was into the comedy of it - she didn't want to make a B horror movie, that's not her style. That's her decision. That's her right. What can you say? The director gets to take over. Now, somebody should protect the script, somebody should be there to do that. Directors have to be storytellers and all that stuff, and some are better than others. I'm talking about movie directors, because a TV director has to do that as much as they can, but ultimately are in service to the executive producer. The producer is the one who has to do that. But, you know, as Jeanine put it once, or probably more than once, "A director doesn't have to create anything, but he is responsible for everything." Same thing goes for an executive producer on TV. I don't have to write a line of the script - although there's not a script for my shows that I don't have a line in, or a scene, or a pitch, or something. I don't sew the damn costumes, I don't say the words - but I'm responsible for everything in every frame of every show. That's my job, whether or not I'm directing the episode. So that's why you have to have that complete faith, that kind of blind faith in a leader who has the ability to lead. I don't know... I just also think leadership is something that is earned. I respected those above me, and demand the same from those below me. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. That's one thing that helped keep the show together, is I had a clear vision and I was willing to share the credit with my extraordinary staff, crew, and the cast. I mean, obviously, I'm not writing novels - I'm doing collaborative work. But at the same time, I had a couple of people challenge me on my authority, and they found out quickly that they do not brook that.

IGNFF: Where would those challenges originate from? In what aspects?

WHEDON: People becoming unhappy if I changed something or if I was controlling or if I had something ... either pull something out from under me, or complaining about me to staff or something. I'm all for giving people their due and all, but I wouldn't let it lie. You just can't.

IGNFF: How would you deal with those challenges?

WHEDON: I would take them either aside or up to my office and explain why they mustn't do that. It's very simple. I said to one director... he said, "One of these days, I'm going to come down and look over your shoulder while you're shooting." I brought him up to my office the next day and I said, "Let me explain something to you. It is my job to control the way you shoot, not your job to control mine. My name comes at the end of every show. You do very good work and you're going to come back for us, but I am never going to let you do something that I don't approve of."

IGNFF: He understood that?

WHEDON: Yeah. He did, actually.

IGNFF: Do you think occasionally, as part of the position, you do have to lay down that "mission statement" for people?

WHEDON: Yeah, and I think I could have done a better job of doing that with the actors on Buffy. I think we were all so young and so fresh and so crazed when we started, that I let a lot of tension on the set. In trying to be everybody's friend, and so excited to be doing this work, and sort of assuming we'd all get along, I let a lot of non-constructive emotion take open sway on the set, when I should have just put the hammer down and said, "You know what? We're here to do the work. Everybody, just get it done."

IGNFF: Does it make it harder to try and do that later?

WHEDON: Yes. Yes, because you'd set precedent, and that's something you have to learn. I was 31, had never run anything before, and most of my people were pretty new. We all were just sort of, "This is so exciting!" It seemed like we were all going to link arms and march towards the camera singing "La Marseilles." That ain't the case. It can't be.

IGNFF: "Let's make our single season on the air something to remember"...

WHEDON: Exactly. I mean, it felt like that. Come season two, it's like, "Well, you're our buddy! We can just misbehave, because you're our buddy, right? So it doesn't matter, because you're just one of us." I was like, "Whoops. I think I can do that better."

IGNFF: What was the biggest problem with trying to rein it in?

WHEDON: You know, it was just people getting their personal issues or their rivalries or whatever it was, letting them creep into the energy of the set. That was the problem. I should have been more in control, more concerned with the energy of the set as it affected the crew. Because, ultimately, the crew are people you have to protect - more than people I think sometimes realize. It's funny... I said to one reporter one time, and I told my wife this, I said, "You know, the first year, it was like we were all on Ecstasy. Everybody loved each other, everybody hated each other, and nobody wanted to go home." Because I was literally there all night - I'd sleep on the couch. My wife very quietly said, "Not anymore." I was like, "This round to you. The game is far from over!"

IGNFF: "We'll meet again!"

WHEDON: "We'll meet again! Probably when I come back into the kitchen." It's very true, the energy of a set is a very important thing. My cast... by the way, I'm talking about things that, on a Hollywood scale, are tiny. My cast always came to play, always came knowing their stuff, doing the work, doing the best. Whatever bad energy they had before the cameras rolled, they didn't put it on the screen. But at the same time, there was a lot of tension. Who that bleeds into are the crew, people who come in before - I was the only person coming in before the crew, and staying after the crew, and I get paid better. So I can't complain. They were the people there first and there last, and energy like that flows down a chute, it makes it not as much fun a place. Still, this stuff kind of calmed down, we went seven years, we all kind of grew up. By the end, more professional. "

Uhm while I agree there were tensions and he states that -
it is also pretty clear that it did not affect what went on screen for the TV show, unlike it did for the movie.

The people who complained were the crew and they are the ones who feel it. And it hurt them a lot. Whedon mentions that. BUT it did not affect the quality of the show, according to Whedon. Whedon makes it crystal clear in his interview that he is responsible for everything that went on air. What happened behind the scenes did not go on the screen. It may have made things tough at times - but hey that's work for you.
Can anyone here say that they haven't had a work environment where they did not want to murder at least one of their co-workers? Or their boss? God knows, I have.
My last boss was a serial bully. Did it affect our products?
No. Did it affect my life, well yes, but I'm not going to
advertise his name or make a rucus about it. Same here.

What the article also makes very clear is Whedon did control both S6, s7 and Angel. He's the executive producer - so he is the boss and he runs his ship like the army.

For the complete thing in order? See the link. Highly recommend.

[> [> [> Candidness much appreciated... -- Kate, 21:45:16 06/26/03 Thu

Totally agree that this is one of the best JW interivew I've ever read. I greatly appreciate the fact that the interviewer truly appears to understand his interviewee...which is not always the case. Very impressive.

As for JW, my respect for him has only grown, especially regarding his comments about respect for the hierarchy in the entertainment/performing arts industry. As someone who has been in that field since childhood, I was taught the same idea about hierarchy and respect for order as JW was and unfortunately that idea often seems lacking in contemporary productions. I also appreciate and respect JW's candidness about the "behind the scenes" happenings of the productions mentioned in the interview without being vendictive or a gossipmonger. He doesn't couch the truth in "public relations language," which is so refreshing, and yet he doesn't (to me anyway) come off as disrespectful of the people he's worked with either. He just tells it how it is/was.

As you mentioned s'kat, who gets along with everyone they work with? We tend to, as movie and (especially) television watchers, get so caught up in the story and the relationships of the characters that we want the real life people behind the scenes to get along like one giant, happy family, like their counter-parts on screen. It's sometimes hard to remember that just because Willow, Buffy, and Xander are best friends, doesn't mean the actors are (not commenting whether or not they are or aren't. Just an example). I feel bummed out sometimes myself when I hear about on-set squabbles of my fave shows. But that's life and it is a high pressure industry with long hours. Strife is inevitable, but I completely appreciate the fact that at least the cast of "Buffy" brought none of that to the screen. Now that's professional.

Can't wait to read the last part now!

[> [> [> [> About casts on screen in life -- RadiusRS, 00:20:06 06/27/03 Fri

I always admire casts of show where I've heard of on set squabbles and yet not an iota of that is on film. Buffy was different because the characters who loved each other REALLY got mad at each when in most dramas and comedies it's always back to the status quo. As a writer and student of Joss' shows & style, these real life tensions, tied to character arcs and relationships, are a goldmine for tension and conflict. And no matter what anyone says, that is the nature of great art: to create (at least) two different and contradictory emotions simultaneously in the viewer/audience. A writer would have to be extremely clever to pull off a relationship between two characters when the actors playing them have no chemistry. Even the best actors have trouble playing chemistry some times. And some movies and shows are vastly improved by the power of the chemistry between the two leads. Chemistry can be good or bad thing, and comes in many forms. A good writer, familiar with the cast, will play up their real life strengths, challenge them to grow, and exploit any kernel of truth in an actors performance, relationships, and chemistry that strengthens the impact of their message as a whole. And I believe that is Joss' greatest talent. Imagine...without David Fury, we might never had had Wesley and therefore Faith might not have gone bad or bad in the same way. Fury's "Helpless", which introduced the Cruciamentum and got Giles fired, has repercussions that are still being felt today. Joss even echoed the idea in his single Angel Season 4 episode "Spin the Bottle". Joss recognized the fact Fury had this love for the show, and his bravery for submitting a spec script that ended with Giles being fired is what landed him the job. Joss recognized the creativity and bravery in Fury, and instead of co-opting his idea or putting his own spin on it, he incorporated it in his show to see how his world would be affected and if it would be strengthened (which it was). Think of Fury and his script as a virus that infiltrated the Buffyverse, and the Buffyverse immune system neutralized the virus and was slightly mutated as a result but stronger and more complex than before. Just like Fury's real life qualities promoted positive repercussions in the Buffyverse, I am quite certain that the negative qualities of any of the other creative people (directors, writers, or actors) could influence the show as a whole .(and actors ARE artists, interpreting and growing with their characters in ways that the writers don't necessarily envision and that can then drive the writers to strengthen the characters (cough, cough TOM LENK cough, cough). See www.cityofangel.com for more details about Fury in a two Part Interview posted there (also see the Interview with Steve Deknight which is a great read as well).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: About casts on screen in life -- s'kat, 10:28:13 06/27/03 Fri

"Imagine...without David Fury, we might never had had Wesley and therefore Faith might not have gone bad or bad in the same way. Fury's "Helpless", which introduced the Cruciamentum and got Giles fired, has repercussions that are still being felt today. Joss even echoed the idea in his single Angel Season 4 episode "Spin the Bottle". Joss recognized the fact Fury had this love for the show, and his bravery for submitting a spec script that ended with Giles being fired is what landed him the job."

Not sure I agree with this interpretation of the text, so here's the actual text he's quoting from, so people can make up their own minds. Nor would I go so far as to thank Fury for the character of Wes any more than I think we can completely credit Marti with the character of Anya from the Wish. I read it as Fury got an opportunity to write an episode. Whedon gave him the general outline of what they needed to have happen and Fury did it. If you read Espenson's interview on Firefly website and combine it with Fury's that's the take I got. I don't have that interview handy at the moment. But here's Fury's.

"The transition over to Buffy came by way of a long and winding road which kept leading back to Joss Whedon's door. Going all the way back to the beginning, he explains, "I actually met Joss when Buffy [the television series] was in development. I was writing with my wife, Elin Hanson, at the time and we were up for a show [Life's Work] at ABC for Disney. Then, we got this meeting for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which at that point was just a presentation at The WB. They were going to pick it up for six episodes for mid-season." Explaining the context of the situation at the time, David adds, "The WB was a network on its way out. It hadn't found its identity and was getting creamed." Despite the inherent issues, David and Elin met with Joss. "The thing was, I originally went to Elin and said, 'Hmm, Buffy the Vampire Slayer?' The interesting thing was that I took Elin to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer [the movie with Kristy Swanson] the first day it opened because I loved the premise so much." He laughs remembering, "I saw the ad campaign for it and went 'I love this!' I was so excited that I skipped work that day to go see it." It ended up being a waste of a hooky day. "I hated it. I didn't think it worked. It was a bummer."
Flash forward again to the television show and David found himself sucked back into the concept. "I was still curious because I still loved the premise. So I said 'Let's meet with Joss and we did at his old offices in Santa Monica. We got to talking and we hit it off really well." Describing Joss, Fury remembers, "He was just a real funny personable guy. We joked around and he was very complimentary about our work." Then the inevitable happened. "A question came up about the movie and I said 'I have to tell you, I really did not like the movie.' And he was like "Oh, thank God!" And I went 'I absolutely love this guy.' We came out of [the meeting] and I turned to Elin and said 'I think I want to do Buffy the Vampire Slayer." She said "Really?" and I said 'Yeah. This sounds fun and exactly the kind of thing I'd love to do.' Except it didn't happen. "Unfortunately, our agents talked us out of it. They said we would be crazy to go to a WB mid-season [show] when we were going to get staffed in a fall premiere a highly publicized sitcom sandwiched between Roseanne and Home Improvement." Fury sighs when adding, "We thought we couldn't lose. We let our agents talk us out of it and we took that show, which of course ended after eighteen episodes. Meanwhile, we watched Buffy become a phenomenon in its first season." With perfect comedic timing, Fury waits a beat before adding, "We fired our agents and got new agents who happened to be Joss' agents, coincidentally."

With new representation and a television season come and gone, David and Elin approached their common agents with a request: 'We'd really, really like to get in to see Joss again.' Expecting a rejection "because we turned him down in the first season," they instead found Joss open to a new meeting. David explains, "He brought us in during the second season to pitch to him. We pitched him a story he bought right away [Go Fish]. A success all around, Mutant Enemy then approached the duo about signing on as full-time writers for the series. But circumstances would yet again prove to be a stumbling block. Looking back at the timeline, David explains, "At that point, Elin and I were splitting up as a writing team. She got offered Mad About You so we had to turn down the job yet again. It just seemed like fate was against us. We missed out on the first season. We missed out on the second season and now we were missing out on the third season so it must not be meant to be." Grasping at a last option, David remembers, "I said to my agent 'Would Joss considering letting me freelance by myself?' At that point Joss had never read anything that I had written by myself." Imagine David's shock when Joss said "Yup, I want to give him the chance to do that." David adds, "That [episode] was Helpless, which sealed my fate. After that, they said, "You're coming onto the show. We want you to write the second episode of Angel, the show that we are developing, and we want you to come onto staff next year."

See, while you can read it as a spec - the fact that he a) wrote for Whedon before and b) met with Whedon - shows it's not really. A spec script is something you write as an audition. This was an actual assignment. If he failed?
He'd be gone, like so many other writers were. But that's not the same as a spec.

Also while Fury states he more or less came up with the idea Giles gets fired - he did not expect Whedon to approve it. Whedon did. Whedon also added lines here and there.
So what's on air isn't purely David Fury.

Suggest people read these interviews for themselves. You can find Fury's on www.slayage.com. He does say some controversial things - which demonstrate that he's not in charge of the ship, Whedon is.

sk (also a writer who studies these things intently)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Joss is not God -- RadiusRS, 12:15:13 06/27/03 Fri

His is definitely the voice that shapes the series, but he is not the only voice in the room. Yes he might be the loudest, most important voice in the room most of the time, but someone else writes his paycheck. He is very lucky in that those who write his paychecks have given him so much freedom, but that is the exception, not the rule. So i'm really tired of the argument of Joss being the end all be all on his shows (If he were, "Serenity" would have been the first Firefly episode aired and the series would have made a lot more sense from the get go; having rewatched all the eps in the upcoming DVD order i can tell ya that the story is much tighter, sharper, and easier to understand.) Joss is the biggest kid in the sandbox: he sets the rules and monitors anyone who comes to play in his universe. But there's always someone above Joss, and someone below him who can cause all sorts of problems. Hollywood isn't like other exactly as trickle down as other businesses; there is definiely a hierarchy and Joss would definitely be at the top of his hierarchy, but there is also a "We're all in this together" feel to working on these kinds of projects (see IGN Interview for more detailed info). Joss clearly states that he was "one of the gang" before he realized he needed to become "The Boss". In those years, do you think that there was perhaps at least one decision where he bent towards the will of another trying to be everyone's friend? I'll bet you anything there were many. I just don't like your vision that Joss, while undeniably brilliant and talented, can seem to do no wrong and controls every aspect of his show. He quite clearly states that it is his vision that is ultimately on the screen, but talk talk to any director/writer/producer and you'll find the same thing: compromises are made so that the creator gets most of his vision, but not all on screen. These could stem from creative difficulties, light and weather patterns, equipment problems, etc. I'm just saying it's extremely highly likely that THE STAR of the show (in Hollywood, many such stars see their importance as just slightly below the producers) cpould have created situations were the compromise was still Joss vision, but altered by someone else. Why do you have such a hard time believing that SMGs bitchiness could have interefered in Joss' vision?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Infidel!! Burn the heretic!! -- Rob the Crusader, getting out the sticks and matches, 12:25:26 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss is not God -- Yellow Bear, 13:04:14 06/27/03 Fri

I think the argument s'kat lays out is that Joss is the creative be all end all of his shows. Firefly's episode order has nothing to do with the creative aspect of the show and everything to do with Fox's scheduling practices. If Joss could control fox's schedule, I'm pretty sure Firelfy would still be on the air:).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss is not God, Firefly ep "Serenity" spoilers -- RadiusRS, The Heretic, 14:04:42 06/27/03 Fri

But he's NOT the creative be all and end all of his shows. And Firefly's episode order has EVERYTHING to do with the creative aspect of the show, especially on a Joss Whedon show where even the standalone eps sometimes have scenes or moments that are important for character or seasonal arcs. Joss wrote and directed a two hour pilot that the network had every chance to offer input on. After that he and his cast & crew made the pilot, which showed how Book, Simon, and River came to Serenity, set up many major storylines such as the tension between Mal and Wash over Zoe, Mal and Zoe's losses in the war vs. The Alliance, Book's mysterious past, what had been done to River, the sexual tension between Mal and Inara, the introduction of the Reavers and the nihilistic concept they represented on the show (and I'll be damned if they weren't being set up to be some sort of recurring Big Bad),etc. Fox saw this pilot, which they had already agreed to and approved of, and thought it lacked enough action sequences. Personally, I think the pace of the episode "Serenity" is interesting because it sorts of slowly lulls you in and then BAM! all of a sudden you're hooked (which I was by the time Simon had begun explaining who River was). Instead, Fox refused to air that original pilot and made Joss write another that would have more action. Thus came along "The Train Job", still a good ep that echoed many of the major points from "Serenity" but without the same oomph (like say, Mal's expression about losing the war in The Train Job vs. actually seeing the battle when his side lost in "Serenity". Having seen "Serenity" immediately followed by "The Train Job" the other day, "The Train Job" is now a lot richer and more satisfying an episode to me now that I GET a lot of what was in it because of "Serenity", as opposed to the first time I saw it on TV, when a lot of references were to things that had happened in the episode "Serenity" or were reiterating themes from that episode. Since Fox promised to air the original pilot as a prequel later in the season, Joss decided not to edit more action into his previous ep (and therefore more story out) or do a shorter, 1 hour version of "Serenity". So he chose to write an episode that, while a pilot and containing a lot of the same info as the pilot, was not originally planned and had to be squeezed storywise between "Serenity" and "Bushwhacked". This an irrefutable example of Fox interfering with the creative direction of the show and chosing to air the episodes in whatever order they pleased rather than the one that the producers of the show had determined. Not only did this hurt the show on a creative level, in the public and showbiz eye, this was a show that was "In Trouble" before it aired, all because Fox and them shoot a new pilot (which in Hollywood is tantamount to saying the show sucks). I completely blame Fox TV for the demise of Firefly, especially since Fox Studios produced it and it could have been a real cash cow for Fox Corp. (anyone else get the feeling watching Firefly that THIS is what Enterprise should be like?). And therefore, Joss is not the end all, be all of his shows, which is what s'kat is arguing; sure he has more control and freedom than most don't (only folks like The Simpsons producers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, John Kricfalusi of Ren and Stimpy fame, and the guy who produces Scrubs have that kind of control and freedom), but that does not mean his control is absolute (and especially at a time when he had two hit series on the air about horror and was tackling sci-fi, the more popular of the two genres, in a post-Enterprise world). Therefore, I think the claim that Joss ultimately has the last say might apply to most artistic decisions but not on other aspects of the show that come as a result of network and studio intereference, actor and writer personalities, and the state of the crew, things Joss is ultimately unable to control. The thing is, we will never which of those specific battles were won or lost, and who prevailed or succumbed; we will never know the details so it is pointless to argue them. What we do know is the big picture, and that tensions were there and that, like any other thing in life, compromise had to occur on many different points and from many different parties to resolve some of those issues. The specifics aren't important. We know that these are some important elements of the bigger picture, and that out of this environment came the finished product we see on our screens. Were the folks who work on those shows professional? Absolutely. Did their behind the scenes personalities affect the work, even if it was only on a subconscious level? Indubitably.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss is not God -- s'kat, 13:28:55 06/27/03 Fri

I'm just saying it's extremely highly likely that THE STAR of the show (in Hollywood, many such stars see their importance as just slightly below the producers) cpould have created situations were the compromise was still Joss vision, but altered by someone else. Why do you have such a hard time believing that SMGs bitchiness could have

interefered in Joss' vision?

I don't, actually. There are loads of "stars" who have alterred tv shows. I just don't believe SMG had that much power or that kind of power. I think you overestimate her star power big time. And I just don't see a two-bit tv
actress interferring with the vision of a writer who has had to deal with people that could eat SMG for lunch, ex: Donald Sutherland and Roseann Barr and Tom Arnold.

She's incredibly young and Whedon put her in her place twice on the show. The first time was with Earshot, when she mouthed off about the delay. The second time was with the move to UPN.

Also if she had as much power as you believe - three episodes would NOT have happened. Actually probably four.
Those are:

1. Once More With Feeling. Sarah doesn't see herself as a singer or dancer and hates losing control, she fought against it. Didn't win. So found choreographers who could at least make her look good. Whedon liked the choreographers and went with them.

2. Smashed - SMG was against the S&M sex theme according to all her interviews.

3. Dead Things - she hated that episode and did not want to do it.

4. Seeing Red - she also hated the AR scene. Prior to Normal Again and SR - she'd asked to get Buffy back. And went into S7 thinking she'd get quippy Buffy.

So if SMG had nearly as much influence as you seem to think, S7 and S6 would have played out differently. Also Btvs was never top in the ratings - it's a cult tv show, the stars aren't that powerful in it. SMG does not bring in box office dollars. She's not a Roseanne Barr or a George Clooney or a Dennis Franz or even Laura Innes who gets to direct ER. SMG didn't have that great a rez behind her: two short lived soaps, a short lived play that was made into a cable movie - Jake's Women, a few commercials and a soap opera emmy. Lots of people in the biz have that.

Whedon on the other hand was an name and an established entity in the biz. HE had co-written and fixed Toy Story which garnered an OSCAR. He was third generation tv writer. He'd worked on Roseanne. And the producers who brought him in were the ones who worked on the Buffy movie. Gellar according to her interview on E! Julie Esiner Revealed - was not first in line for the part, someone else was, they were considering her for Cordy, they took a long time making a decision.

So I'm sorry - while it's possible her bitchiness affected things, bitchiness always does to an extent - I don't see any evidence on screen or in interviews that it did to the extent you seem to think.

My question is: Why is it so important to you that SMG was at fault? Do you have a personal beef with the actress?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sarah Michelle Gellar -- RadiusRS, 15:21:01 06/27/03 Fri

This is the Hollywood Hierarchy:

Producers (Including Studio Heads and Some Major Agents)
Directors
Actors
Writers

Of course, these days things get confusing as everyone is multi-hyphenated.

Now you're quick to dismiss Gellar's Emmy at such a young age, her years of experience in the business, and her pop cultural appeal. When it first aired, the two most recognizable faces on the show were "the chick from All My Children and the guy from those coffee commercials". As the show grew in cult status, in entered popular culture. The show rewrote some of the rules of television ("Hush", "Restless", "The Body", "The Gift", "Once More, With Feeling", etc.) as well as showed lesbians kissing, loving, and making love, and some of the most graphic sex scenes I've ever seen on TV (between Buffy and Spike for example), stretching the bounds of what is acceptable in our mainstream media (and for the better I'd say, f*** puritanical morality!). Personally I think Season 6 was dead on, one of the best seasons because it toned down the fantasy aspect of the show and was an accurate representation of what your early to mid 20s are like. I think Sarah was very smart in realizing that a lot of the audience wouldn't get what they were trying to do, which is why she opposed so many of the dark turns of S6. I think the fact that she didn't "win" could contribute to her wanting to leave. I also believe that her inability to express her insights into how the audience would react to the creators is just another sign of how hard a time she has being a team player. Maybe Sarah was right this time, and there were a few things that were too dark (such as th B&S sex scene at the Bronze, which she specifically mentioned in her EW "I Quit" Cover story (by the way, EW has always supported the show and they are one of the most influential cultural media voices in the world, which would give both Joss and Sarah even more notoriety), Marsters saying how the AR was the most difficult experience he has had (I think Sarah echoed some of those feelings, too in EW), Fury commenting on the Succubus Club how the writers were forced to take the characters there because so many fans were fond of Spike and we needed to be reminded that even with the chip, he is still a soulless monster, etc.

Joss has clearly stated that Sarah and he were partners. In the IGN he talks about why the show HAD to be called Buffy the Vampire Slayer, despite the fact that so many disliked the name. Having seen every episode of Buffy ever (unaired pilot included), I believe it's because the central conflict of the character from day one, which wasn't resolved until the end of the series, was how this girl, this Slayer, could reconcile the human, teen, young, naive, part of herself with the ancient, deadly, dark, demonic poart of herself. I think this conflict is what defeated all previous Slayers and makes Buffy unique among them: that she embraced both dark and light sides of her nature, and came out more than the sum of the parts. It's about a person whose job is their life, and how they learn to make the most out of that, while still managing to actually carve out a bit of a life for themselves. Therefore, despite the fact that the show really focused on the Core Four for most of the run, Buffy was always the central figure, and therefore indispendible to the series. I'm glad the show ended when it did because it was obvious that not too many people (both creators and audience) were still interested in continuing the premise of the show as it was. That is why the genius move to spread the Slayer power was the perfect end to the series. Buffy wasn't killed off, which would have TOO been there, done that, and yet she was freed from her lonely struggle as a reward for being both a woman and a Slayer and making em both work. This leaves the Whedonverse open to any number of possible scenarios in which our favorite characters can come back in a dynamic that does not require one character to be more important than all the others.

Do I have a personal beef with her? Not at all, I'm just tired of seeing pretty girls get away with being bitchy just because they can be, especially in Hollywood, because these people give actors and other creative people a bad name. And within the business, she not only has a bad name behind closed doors, she also has the power to produce films (they may be Scooby Doo but they're still making money: anyone else find it ironic how she left one Scooby Gang just to join another?). She's ballsy, takes risks, and usually makes the most out of her situation. I think that in reference to Buffy, her ego got in the way of making it a better show. I believe it's one of the best shows on television ever and leaps and bounds above anything out there, but I have the nagging feeling that if it weren't for her antics, the show might have been able to break out of it's cult status and gained more recognition and cultural impact than it already has. I think Whedon's show have messages and ideas that are important enough to be spread as far and wide as possible and I think that SMG, in her attempts to only look after her own interests, has weakened the show as a whole and is at least partly responsible for the environment which lead to the end of the show. A lot of people blame the writers who, let's face it people, probably talk and argue about the characters more than even we do. Or they blame individual actors whose performances they don't like. But very few people blame the Creator and the Star (the two most important people in the equation!; I know you don't see Gellar as a star but her EW cover stories as well as producing power and current resume give her A LOT of weight in this town whether you want to believe it or not).

Joss Whedon has written for many great shows and films, been nominated for an Oscar, and at one point had three shows running simultaneously. So I don't think that most of the problems with the show came from him. Having eliminated the writers as major influences, because as Joss says He has the final word and because they know these characters and stories pretty damn well, and also the "secondary" cast, who have a lot more to lose than the star in terms of opportunities and visibility, because they really don't have any power, all that really leaves is the crew, the producers/network, and the star. Knowing the reputation of crews, and especially the good rep the Buffy set has, I will eliminate them as an influence since their work is what makes the show look as damn good as it does. The producers/network are another matter, though in the case of Buffy it seems they were fully supportive of Whedon and his choices. That only leaves the star as the wild Card in this bunch. Since everyone else has been eliminated due to their experience, reputation, or power, she alone remains to shoulder the problems of the shows (sort of like the real Slayer faces the demons of the world alone!). Since she is less experienced, has less longevity and in your estimation doesn't have as much power or weight in the biz, wouldn't it therefore be more likely that all these strikes against her could also be strikes against the show. That her lack of clout and experience would lead her to ill-informed decisions as to her role in the show. You cannot deny that she was the Star of the show, with enough artistic cred in indies and limited succes in movies (Cruel Intentions, which spawned a sequel and a short-lived TV show as well as being one of the biggest selling videos from the early days of DVD, as well as the undeniable financial success of Scooby Doo and its future sequel, which she also produced), she has all it takes to be taken seriously as a contender in this town, despite how quickly you dismiss her apparently bare career. Whether she had the power or not is not the point, the point is whether she believed she had the powers and this belief lead to behaviors which affected the quality of the show. I think she'd a decent, hardworking actress who probably has quite a few years left in her career. I also think she's a difficult, demanding, and butchy person who can hurt the projects she's in through her attitude, but no one says anything about it. I also think it's the most likely that it was she who had the most negative influence on the series that people complain about, despite her good instincts. I simply don't believe that people fully explore her influence on the show in every aspect and instead dismiss it looking for an easier, and less fair, answer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Too bad she isn't a ...guy...cough -- Rendyl, 18:35:47 06/27/03 Fri

A couple of points.

All the traits you point out Gellar having would be admired in a guy. He would never be considered (or called) 'bitchy'. Instead he would be thought of as determined, agressive or self-confident. 2003 and still with the double standards.

It is her fault the show did not get better ratings? Joss has stated over and over he does not CARE how many people watch his shows. He brags on the status of the show. In interviews he seems proud that the show appeals to a narrow audience. Gellar has said a few things she probably wishes she hadn't but she was pretty young at the time. Joss said one of the most arrogant statements ever. "I don't give people what they want, I give them what they need." Don't get me wrong, I still think he is very talented and creative (and I would likely walk on hot coals to get his 'Firefly' back on the air) but in no way does he have a clue what -I- need.

And finally, S6 was dark and depressing. I can easily imagine months of acting it could easily bleed over into your daily life. People in other fields end up carrying pieces of their work home so I have no difficulty seeing actors doing the same. Marsters says he still can't watch AR and he knows it was all an act. If you know Gellar personally then your criticism might be warranted, but if you don't why the heavy condemnation? Months of playing
uber-depressed Buffy would make me a little grouchy. Why should she have to be perfect?

***Fury commenting on the Succubus Club how the writers were forced to take the characters there because so many fans were fond of Spike and we needed to be reminded that even with the chip, he is still a soulless monster, etc. ***

I won't drag the AR debate back out. (as everyone sighs in relief) but I will point out my take on the above. I still feel that if the writers had done a good enough job SHOWING us that Spike was still a monster AR would not have been needed. If the impression was taken that Spike was not evil it was because the writers put the ambiguity in the storyline. (On purpose or on accident)

If she had problems on the set I did not see it transfer over to her or the other cast members performances. I have things I liked and disliked about the last two seasons but none of those involved how an actor did a scene. Maybe you just don't like her at all?

Ren

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I heard Sarah has a bad rep in Hollywood -- Claudia, 19:05:34 06/27/03 Fri

and she is kind of notorious in certain circles. I know its not fair to listen to rumours but Sarah really has been surrounded by those stories for years which makes me think there is a grain of truth to them. And I have read the story from the stunt guy writing a fan fic characterising Sarah as the evil bitchy princess lol.

I can sympathise with the cast and crew of Buffy if the rumours are true and she did spend her last year on the show bragging about her film career and being superior to them. Joss has said in season 7 the writers were writing Buffy based more on Sarah and her relationship with the cast.

Emma and Aly sure have problems with her. Emma talking about someone on set thinking she's a star and Aly has made countless sly digs all year it seems.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too bad she isn't a ...guy...cough -- ECH, 07:37:29 06/28/03 Sat

***I still feel that if the writers had done a good enough job SHOWING us that Spike was still a monster AR would not have been needed. If the impression was taken that Spike was not evil it was because the writers put the ambiguity in the storyline. (On purpose or on accident)***

The writers still could have used something metaphorical that would actually have been a evil act, like say trying to vamp her, which would have been a metaphor for attemped rape and wouldn't have hurt the actors, the fans, put a cloud over B/S past and future, and it wouldn't have put the incredible limits on B/S interaction.

The AR came from an experience where one of the female writers tried to force herself on a boyfriend. Which is a very human mistake that one doesn't have to be an evil monster to commit. In fact one doesn't even have to be an inharently bad person, I doubt that female writer is. But, oddly enough because the AR was made realisitic many fans look at the act as something much much more horrible then an actual act of evil like trying to kill her, vamp her, or even killing one of her friends, like when Angel killed Jenny. That doesn't effect people like the AR because they can't relate to that the way they relate to something like being raped.

So IMHO the AR failed big time at its intended purpose if that was to show that Spike without a soul was evil, at the same time it damaged the show and the characters greatly and caused the actors emotional pain. So was it worth it? I am willing to bet that IMHO if Joss was in the position again there is no way in hell he would ok the AR, simply knowing the damage it did to the show in the 7th season. I really think the Spike insanity and the torture was pretty much only a way for the writers to try to punish Spike for the AR and sadly they did if for over half the freeking season. I can't imagine very many things more self destructive to a show then taking the sexy male lead of a show, having him try to rape the female lead, making him insane, sticking him in the basement, endlessly torturing him. Is it any wonder that the ratings for season 7 were the lowest since season 1. Hell, the series finale of Buffy itself couldn't garner a rating as high as any of the episodes last year other then Entropy and SR.

And, no SMG didn't say she hated to do the AR, she said that she hated to do the DT sex, because she thought it was degrading to the hero of the show. SMG has never said anything officially about the AR.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too bad she isn't a ...guy...cough -- manwitch, 12:55:40 06/28/03 Sat

See, I think SMG is totally hot as a girl. I think if she were a guy, my interest in the show would be way reduced.

Plus, a lot of her costumes I think would look silly on a guy.

But I concur with your points.

If you work with people, there will be times when you butt heads. That's life. But lets be honest, without SMG, this show tanks. Not saying she's perfect or without faults, but lets not pretend she's yoko. Aly and Emma and Joss and whoever else can make comments about how difficult she is if it helps them or makes them feel better. That's fine. And I'm not saying they're wrong.

But take away Sarah and your show goes away. Is she the only person about whom that is true? Probably not. But come on. Sarah is Buffy. Deal with the fact that your show has a star and that its why any of you have jobs. Accept your large paycheck and your cool profession. Go home to your big house with your no doubt gorgeous sex partner and get over it.

I'm sorry. The sniping of the priveleged is big button for me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too bad she isn't a ...guy...cough -- Random, 17:09:32 06/28/03 Sat

I have no clue about SMG's influence, or the Hollywood pecking order, or the road map detailing the behind-the-scenes twists and turns of BtVS's run. Quite frankly, I am utterly uninterested in such things. Heh, I don't even have a clue as to why I'm bothering to read this thread, except a couple posters I respect enormously have posted to it.

I would like to comment upon one statement, though. You said that:

All the traits you point out Gellar having would be admired in a guy. He would never be considered (or called) 'bitchy'. Instead he would be thought of as determined, agressive or self-confident. 2003 and still with the double standards.

This old chestnut -- and it has been around for a while -- deserves clarification. It is repeated as rote, and rarely, if ever, do those who reiterate it acknowledge that a fair proportion of us do not have this double standard for the basic reason that we call anybody, male or female, who possesses such traits unlikeable, self-absorbed, insecure, and ultimately worthy only of our contempt. If they insist that their opinions, their jobs, their desires, are more important than those around them and try to impress their own unsecure narcissism and need for control on others...I and many, many people like me don't give a damn whether they're female or male, beautiful or ugly. I just dismiss them as having failed to impress upon me that I need bother caring what they have to say. Thus their own lack of respect for other breeds lack of respect for them. Their own attempt to be controlling breeds powerlessness.

Once again, I have no clue about SMG's real nature. Or JW's. Or any of the others. I've never met them. And if they are anything like what has been described in this thread, I never shall, god willing. But I don't know.

I'm sorry if I'm treading slightly on a cherished notion -- but I've heard the "double standard" mouthed innumerable times, and felt that merely acknowledging the truth of it (and there is some truth in it) falls short of actually describing reality. Some of us resent sweeping generalities that sweep right over us.

~Random, who has gotten touchy about this issue before, as a few of his friends, both RL and in chat, can attest

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> talking past each other -- manwitch, 07:45:39 06/28/03 Sat

I largely agree with both Radius and s'kat and find the interview very interesting.

I understand what s'kat is saying. Her point is really one of accountability, as is Joss's, rather than creative production. The fact that Joss is ultimately accounatable for everything in every frame does not mean that he creates everything in every frame. The actors and crew and other writers have a great deal of input into that.

But Joss will see everyframe. He may not sew every costume, but he will see them all. What he doesn't like he will probably reject or make suggestions for improvement. What he does like is both his creation and the creation of the costume designer. The fact that Joss says, yes that's it exactly, doesn't mean others did not contribute.

See, Joss is not different from anybody else doing his job, except perhaps in quality. But he's doing the same thing. He creates an idea, a framework. Its his vision. His story is pretty well thought out from the get go, and he makes it a priority to continue to flesh it out well in advance. But what he is doing is not writing every line but creating a grid of where to go. Other people will have enormous input into how the show travels from point a to point b, but Joss will ultimately have the final say, not because he's difficult, but because its his job. If it makes it on the air, its because Joss let it. Period. Doesn't mean for one second that Joss is the sole creative power on the show.

As for SMGs influence, I understand what Radius is saying. However, I would not want to stop at SMGs influence being negative. She was not wrong about losing Buffy in Season 6. Also, remember she is not a writer or a producer. She is an actress and her primary influence on the show is in that capacity. Imagine for example, the show with any one else you can imagine in the title role. Imagine someone other than Emma Caulfield playing Anya. That should tell you the influence actors have.

And don't think for one minute that the creative flow goes only from Joss to the writers to the directors to the actors. Those actors create the characters, give them life. And what those actors do, what they are strong at, has a monumental impact on the writers and what they will write for a given character. As Joss said, its a collaborative effort. Joss is not the be all and end all of the creative aspect of this show, simply because its not even theoretically possible for him to be.

That's why I always oppose ideas that come up on this board about authorial intent as though the only thing the show could possibly mean is what Joss said it did in an interview. But Joss doesn't know, because Joss isn't the sole author. He's the executive producer and is therfore accountable for everything that goes into the show and as its creative leader he clearly has profound impact on every aspect. But he does not write or direct every episode. He does not oversee every aspect of set design, decoration or lighting. He does not do the makeup or the costume. He trusts his staff to exercise creativity in accordance with his vision, and it seems clear that sometimes they pleasantly surprise him with creative contributions he himself might not have been prepared to make. But in truth, he doesn't necessarily even know everything that went into his show. He just knows that when it was presented to him he thought it worked or was willing to accept it.

There is no single author of a television show. Ever. Seinfeld can write lines, but Jason Alexander is required to make George. He's not just a robot doing what the leader told him. He's creating the character.

Joss's job is to be the final word. He, to his credit, seems to understand that job. And he probably is more of a creative control freak than most. But this show is the result of creative input and influence by many many people.

Whedon didn't necessarily make season 6 what it was, but he's professionally responsible for it. For what you liked and for what you didn't. Same in all the other seasons.

But actors know when their character is out of voice and sometimes they should be listened too.

What I object to about actors (not limited to this show) is the petty competitveness between them and the narcissism, when every damn one of them should be grateful to be on the freakin' show.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would agree with all that. Well said. -- s'kat, 11:41:00 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: talking past each other-authorial intent,agree -- sdev, 13:26:29 06/28/03 Sat

"That's why I always oppose ideas that come up on this board about authorial intent as though the only thing the show could possibly mean is what Joss said it did in an interview."

I agree that authorial intent should be viewed with skepticism, but for another reason as well. The authors too come with their own psychological baggage. They are not always aware of what underlying messages they are giving out. Maybe an older Marti Noxon, now in a good relationship, has a yen for her less stable, dangerous bad boy past. Maybe that undercut some of Season 6 and contributed to the confusion. I don't know and in a way don't care since Marti Noxon is not my interest. The text or what I see on screen is. I have to make sense of that as it appears.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great point. I agree completely. -- manwitch, 13:31:24 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> An excellent theological conundrum for a monotheist -- fresne, 09:10:15 06/28/03 Sat

And somewhat tangential, because dammit all week I dreamed of sleeping in and I woke up at 6 snafin affin argh o'clock. Not fair I say. Okay, that really was a tangent. But all I can say is Blehhh!

Anyway, finally had time to peruse through the article and found something that I don't believe I've seen commented on,

"It made me realize, at that moment, that every time somebody opens their mouth they have an opportunity to do one of two things - connect or divide. Some people inherently divide, and some people inherently connect. Connecting is the most important thing, and actually an easy thing to do. I try to make a connection with someone every time I talk to them, even if I'm firing them. Because a connection can be made. People can be treated with respect."

I really like that. Having been to some pretty grueling divisive meetings over the last week, yes. Connect or divide. And that's art isn't it? Connection. That moment reaching across space and time to merge thought with vision.

All these people. These writers. These directors. These actors. These people crafting away to give me some story that I need. Sometimes they fail. It's true. Others how glorious in success.

I'm reminded of a quote by my favorite author, "Not that I haven't leaped up into the blinding light of competence now and then. It's sustaining the altitude that defeats me."

Or also reminded of a number of years ago, when I was fortunate enough to attend a choral concert at Notre Dame. The great pipe organ speaking its song. The blended acapella voices rising in response. Connection echoing up the great arching walls that go up and acoustic up.

Connection a theme of S7 in its way. Well, of the series, but the way that Buffy was unable to connect with those potentials. Deliberately kept herself from connection.

Hush. OmWF. Connection. Division.

Giles untouched. Untouching. Anya, who seemed so at a loss as to how to connect.

Again with the clasped hands, cause dammit, it looked cool. The idea of Buffy as the hands.

Apogee is hard to maintain in any form. The sun and the earth and the stars, they all move in their elliptic way. And we so trapped in our bubble move with them. All of us objects in space. Reaching out, across, in. Wanting. Needing. Being.

Is Joss a god? Well, no. Well, yes. He imagined a world into being and sent it to us for our delectation. Is SMG a bitch? Goddess? Both? Neither? Niether? Po-tay-toe. Po-tat-toe. Are there other unseen deities in the firmament that cast these lot about on whim? Will I watch the E True Hollywood story when it comes out? Probably. Other than that. We connect. We disconnect. We hope and leap for blinding light and pray for apogee.

And for the most part, I think we got it. Or not. Or some. Or all. But certainly some flash, otherwise, why would we be here sending connections in pulsing light.

[> [> [> I didn't read it like that, -- RadiusRS, 23:52:52 06/26/03 Thu

especially in light that what I posted (mostly negative on S6 and S7) and then what you posted (mostly positive about S6 and S7) came immediately afterwards. I like your interpretation and hadn't considered it that way. As for coworkers affecting your job, I think that sentiment is heightened in the entertainment biz, and I HAVE had experiences where a mutual dislike with a coworker led to low handed tactics including not giving me big projects until the last minute and failing to inform me of key information in a timely manner. I complained but since there was no evidence, I got the boot since it was my word against hers and she had many years seniority. So that definitely affected my work. And would Aly's taunts of Sarah been as delicious without that resentment (which was brewing under the surface since way back in Season 3 according to the interview).

Also, the crew are the most active members of a project outside of the producer (TV) and director (film), and even then do most of the hard work on the show during filming (setting up lights, moving the set, making sure the video and audio equipment are set correctly and working properly, etc.). Theirs is a grueling job, and often thankless since the "creative" people receive most of the recognition. Crews in this town can make or break performances and careers, and are a Power (union-wise) in the Hollywood Game. Treating the crew as well as any other member of the project is essential to maintaing a career in this town; it helps ensure that when your shots are lit and filmed, the cameraman, lighting director, and makeup artist will make you look your best and not your worst. Some people that crews like: Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz; some people crews hate: Sylvester Stallone, Val Kilmer. Whenever you hear that star is being bratty on a project or that there are creative differences, who do you think leaks the "news"? Crews are a hardy bunch, and it usually takes a lot to peeve them off and make them unprofessional, so I'm guessing things got pretty serious, and I doubt that any actors got the boot to resolve it but rather some crew members are out of the picture now and that can't have sat too well with the remaining ones. Having been on a few sets, I think Joss' storytelling and his vision is what ultimately brought everyone together as there have always been good stories about the cast in the news, gossip, and on the net. I interpret the article as saying that all the folks that worked on Buffy were very professional. As some of cast started branching out, tensions were created, which then affected the crew. Things came to a head and everyone agreed to get along again. When the show switched networks, Joss said there was little dissent. But I clearly remember reading in Entertainment Weekly, on the net, and seeing in the L.A. TV News that Sarah threatened to leave the show if it left the WB (an understandable position of solidarity with the network, but one that must have pissed off her cast and crewmates as they waited to see whether they would have jobs again after their summer vacations or whether they needed to look for work. That fact, that she created dissent in a situation where no one agreed and with her and she had no true power to negotiate (since she still had a few years on her contract), indicates to me that there is a strong possibility that after whatever problems were experienced on the Buffy set, everyone got over it except SMG. And if you think that all that behind the scenes history doesn't affect the work, you're nuts. I have great respect for Joss as a Creator/Storyteller, and think that he managed to get the best out of his cast and crew and create something that changed the nature of television. But anyone who thinks that all that stuff doesn't sneak into your work on a subconscious, uncontrollable level has got to have at least a touch of delusion in their fevered mind. (Like me!)

Still, I think your interpration is a strong and sensible one, so take mine with a grain of salt.

[> [> [> [> Re: I didn't read it like that, -- s'kat, 10:03:29 06/27/03 Fri

There you go again making assumptions...;-)

especially in light that what I posted (mostly negative on S6 and S7) and then what you posted (mostly positive about S6 and S7) came immediately afterwards. I like your interpretation and hadn't considered it that way. As for coworkers affecting your job, I think that sentiment is heightened in the entertainment biz, and I HAVE had experiences where a mutual dislike with a coworker led to low handed tactics including not giving me big projects until the last minute and failing to inform me of key information in a timely manner. I complained but since there was no evidence, I got the boot since it was my word against hers and she had many years seniority. So that definitely affected my work. And would Aly's taunts of Sarah been as delicious without that resentment (which was brewing under the surface since way back in Season 3 according to the interview).

Uhm, you might want to check the December archives, shadowkat, why I left my job - sara's why you hate your job thread. Because sorry, it's no worse in showbiz than it is outside of showbiz. Showbiz people just think it is ;-)
Because I had a sociopath for a boss. HE conspired with and bullied a colleague into attempting to manipulate me out of of my job. IF you want the story - go to the archives.

Also that portion I posted? It came immediately before your section. Please go to the link and read the whole thing in context - if anyone is reading these posts. I didn't post the whole thing, because it makes the copyright attorney in me nervous.

Don't get me wrong - I know bad behavior in any work environment can affect your career and those careers around you. Whedon states that clearly in the section regarding Roseann and Sutherland. SMG wasn't that big a problem. HE had bigger problems actually on the Angel set. Rumor has it CC was driving the crew nuts and people did lose jobs there.
I've heard far worse about CC actually. And I think part of the reason CC is no longer a regular and had the storyline she got is for the reasons you stated. So yes, in some cases, you can find yourself in trouble. Whether the rumors regarding CC are true or not? No clue. Same thing on what you've reported on SMG. Heck that's the reason I didn't go out and sue my boss or attempt to slander his name - b/c proving this stuff legally or getting it outside the hearsay clause, is almost impossible. It pretty much comes down to he said/she said scenario. Which yes, is very frustrating when you are unemployed and the idiot who made your life difficult or is making others lives difficult is making tons of money - and believe me, no one knows that feeling better than I do, as others on this board could probably attest to ;-). But all you can do about it is worry about making your life better and forget about them.
Their mistakes will eventually catch up to them - just not always in the way we expect or wish.

Did tensions on the set affect the show? Not that I could tell. I really didn't see much evidence of it. Maybe you did. But there appears to be no consensus on this in the fan base. I do know from personal and extreemly painful experience - that just because your work environment is a living hell - does not mean that people outside it are going to care. OR for that matter, the hell you are living in, is going to affect the product others see. The customers of my old company - still adore the products and think highly of the company. The publishers who did know what was going on - still provide content because they get paid. And I suspect the same thing goes for Btvs - the crew gets paid, they do the best job possible, the end product still gets approved, Gellar still makes her marks on time,
and the audience can't really tell if there's tension on the set from what we see on the screen. We just see the story.

[> [> [> [> [> A portion I found very important was... -- Rob, 10:18:20 06/27/03 Fri

...Well, the problem was season six took us to a dark place, and that dark place we lost Buffy - and I think that's why people didn't respond to it, because they always had Buffy to lean on. No matter how sad she got, she was still Buffy. In six she was really questioning her very identity. People didn't want that. That upset them. It was like they didn't have their anchor. So it didn't matter if you have something tight or interesting or thematic or funny - they wanted that anchor back. I get that. In season seven, it wasn't like we weren't going to put her through her paces. Buffy in pain is a staple of the show from season one. As [David] Greenwalt and I told each other very early on - "Buffy in pain, story more interesting. Buffy not in pain, story not interesting." So we couldn't just have her be like, "La-di-da, do-di-do, all is well," for a season, because - hey, show not about that. The dark place we took her to was about, "I'm accepting my power, my responsibility, and my leadership, and those are hard things to deal with." So, inevitably, she got kind of bummed out, because that's how you tell the story. The hero goes through something and then they resolve it.

A lot of fans, including myself, almost seemed to forget after the hell that Buffy went through in season 6 that Buffy goes through a hell of some sort every season. I still maintain that the focus may have been a bit too much on Buffy's disconnectedness this year and they should have deflected from this by having more prominent plotlines with other characters. But...it wouldn't have been in keeping with the mission statement of the show for Buffy to have been happy all year, as many of us wish she were. So basically we had a very realistic thing occur: Buffy had an epiphany at the end of season 6, and attempted to follow-through with it the next season. But found herself in a more dire situation than she'd ever been in, and so started to backslide a bit into old habits for different reasons. At the end, she finally found out how to use the insights she gained by the end of season 6, in her life, and change accordingly. IMO, this makes it much more complex and emotionally realistic, because real people in real life do not have one defining moment and from that point on never behave as they have before. People in life make mistakes, learn from them, and then sometimes make the same mistakes numerous times before truly changing. And even then it can be a struggle not to backslide into bad, old habits.

And why did I place this post here? Basically to add to the argument that the off-screen tensions did not alter the product on screen. Whether SMG was having problems with the cast or not, Buffy was going to be in pain this season (not as a punishment from Joss for SMG's alleged 'tude problem)...as she is every season.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I didn't read it like that, -- RadiusRS, 13:19:23 06/27/03 Fri

There you go again making assumptions...;-)

especially in light that what I posted (mostly negative on S6 and S7) and then what you posted (mostly positive about S6 and S7) came immediately afterwards. I like your interpretation and hadn't considered it that way. As for coworkers affecting your job, I think that sentiment is heightened in the entertainment biz, and I HAVE had experiences where a mutual dislike with a coworker led to low handed tactics including not giving me big projects until the last minute and failing to inform me of key information in a timely manner. I complained but since there was no evidence, I got the boot since it was my word against hers and she had many years seniority. So that definitely affected my work. And would Aly's taunts of Sarah been as delicious without that resentment (which was brewing under the surface since way back in Season 3 according to the interview).

Uhm, you might want to check the December archives, shadowkat, why I left my job - sara's why you hate your job thread. Because sorry, it's no worse in showbiz than it is outside of showbiz. Showbiz people just think it is ;-)

The assumption in this post is that I was refering to a showbiz job, when the job I was referring to was definitely not a showbiz job (sales and import mostly). And, sorry, it is worse in showbiz, which is one of the toughest jobs around. Imagine if you had to go on job interviews 3 or 4 times, every week. Imagine that you don't even hear back from many of these job interviews. Imagine arriving on a set and being in risk of losing your job just because somebody doesn't like the way you look or because you refuse to do what the star asks when the director gave you another order, and you have no projects or reports on which to fall back on that show the strength of your commitment and dedication to the project. Or having to find work every time you complete a project, not knowing for sure whether you'll still be employed in six months' time. Or being treated like a meat puppet, since there is a consensus in society that actors are vapid, shallow, and essentially trained monkeys. Acting is not brain surgery, but it's a lot harder and takes a lot more time to learn than, say, driving a stick shift. And look at how many people can barely do that. Showbiz is a business just like any other, and the same general rules apply to showbiz than other business (I've been telling my parents this for years), but we do put up with a lot more stress and uncertainty on a day to day basis than 99% of the workforce. A lot of people don't respect actors, writers, directors, and such because they see showbiz as a life of fantasy with very little connection to reality, and therefore inconsequential. A soldier, a doctor, or a bus driver does a lot more for society than an actor does, he just plays make believe; these other people make changes and contributions that are real. But, like it or not, Hollywood is a major part of our culture and the part that most influences other countires and people. The Entertainment industry is also the only industry in the world (apart from the mafias out there of course) that has historically grown consistently with each passing year. Since 9/11, we are the only American industry that has kept thriving and growing. One actor creates hundreds of jobs, starting with their agents, managers, publishers, assistants, etc., and continuing into the many people who bacomes the crews of whatever blockbuster that actor or actress got greenlit when they agreed to do it. That's why actors, writers, and directors who are informed should carry as much weight as any politician of successful businessman, because they create jobs. Look at Joss: how many people do you think have gotten work because of him? How many of those people do you think will go on to even bigger and better things? How many of those people will continue to work with the same people (a la Amber Benson's "Chance" with Amber, JM, and AH)? That's why they let Joss get away with so much: his undeniable talent is like a magnet that attracts other great talents, thereby giving the people who produce the shows a quality product that will make money for them.

Also that portion I posted? It came immediately before your section. Please go to the link and read the whole thing in context - if anyone is reading these posts. I didn't post the whole thing, because it makes the copyright attorney in me nervous.

The original post that started this thread had the second half of page 8 of the IGN interview. I posted the first half of page 8, which I felt put in a slightly different context what you had posted. THEN you posted most of the 7th page of the interview to further give context. That is what I meant. And it's interesting to see the conclusions we've coming to since we started analyzing the comments in reverse. The copyright part is understandable, though I don't think it would be a problem if all of us posted bits and pieces. Most people should just follow the link in the original post and read the whole thing from the top (it is WELL worth your time, last two pages will be posted today on IGN) so they can come up with their own interpretations.

I won't comment about CC rumors because, frankly, I have never seen or heard about her as a person (quite the opposite with SMG). Not to say she might not be difficult, but I hear much less about the behind the scenes of Angel than I do about Buffy.

Your last paragraph was very interesting. Just because everyone shows up to work on time and does their job properly doesn't mean the product's going to the best it could possibly be. Better results will come if people are actively working together. The people on that show were so good, that even a half-assed day at their jobb was still better than most of the dreck on TV. Could it have been better? Absolutely. Why did the cast and crew love Aly and James so much? Because they take whatever they're given and find their own way of interpreting that in a manner that will most benefit the story and the other actors with them. Having watched Season 4 again recently, where Spike was arguably at his most pathetic because he didn't have his love of Buffy to redeem him them and was just a chipped loser, I am amazed how, in the episodes he only had one or two scenes (since he was a regular) you forget that he's barely there and there is a much bigger impression. Aly's tearful moments are so effin' emotional and come from such a real place that they add weight and legitimacy to both her performance and the message of the show. I think SMG is a fine actress who makes very creative and interesting acting choices (a term used to describe the manner in which an actor chooses to portray their character's actions), but there are many times when I was expecting a witty delivery on a line, or a shocked and scared reaction to a threat and she just kind of threw away those moments frequently, like she didn't take them seriously, and therefore the audience wouldn't take them seriously. I like her acting but I can clearly see places in her work where her witty delivery and on screen charisma are mysteriously lacking, which I feel Aly and James never do.

[> [> [> [> [> [> On a serious note... -- Rob, 13:35:27 06/27/03 Fri

I don't think it's fair to villify SMG or profess to know about what being on the set was like, when we were not there. SMG herself has never said anything unkind about the show. The only indication we had to go on was Freddie Prinze, Jr.'s ill-advised words in that interview he did. And the fact that she didn't go to the wrap party. Joss has never said anything unkind about Sarah. He's acknowledged that they have had their differences, but that does not=SMG is a bitch. They are always very respectful of each other, and problems or not, no word has ever come out that Sarah is anything less than a consummate professional. I don't believe for one minute that any off-screen problems colored the writing of the show or the direction Buffy took this year. The idea of the darkness of the Slayer's life has been evidenced from the beginning of the show, and was repeated throughout the years. And in this last season, she experienced the darkness of being a Slayer full-blast, but at the end subverted that darkness and turned it into something bright and beautiful in the end.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I didn't read it like that, -- s'kat, 13:48:13 06/27/03 Fri

The assumption in this post is that I was refering to a showbiz job, when the job I was referring to was definitely not a showbiz job (sales and import mostly). And, sorry, it is worse in showbiz, which is one of the toughest jobs around. Imagine if you had to go on job interviews 3 or 4 times, every week. Imagine that you don't even hear back from many of these job interviews. Imagine arriving on a set and being in risk of losing your job just because somebody doesn't like the way you look or because you refuse to do what the star asks when the director gave you another order, and you have no projects or reports on which to fall back on that show the strength of your commitment and dedication to the project. Or having to find work every time you complete a project, not knowing for sure whether you'll still be employed in six months' time. Or being treated like a meat puppet, since there is a consensus in society that actors are vapid, shallow, and essentially trained monkeys. Acting is not brain surgery, but it's a lot harder and takes a lot more time to learn than, say, driving a stick shift. And look at how many people can barely do that. Showbiz is a business just like any other, and the same general rules apply to showbiz than other business (I've been telling my parents this for years), but we do put up with a lot more stress and uncertainty on a day to day basis than 99% of the workforce. A lot of people don't respect actors, writers, directors, and such because they see showbiz as a life of fantasy with very little connection to reality, and therefore inconsequential. A soldier, a doctor, or a bus driver does a lot more for society than an actor does, he just plays make believe; these other people make changes and contributions that are real. But, like it or not, Hollywood is a major part of our culture and the part that most influences other countires and people.

First you didn't make that clear. The way you worded it was that your bad job experience was an actor to support why this behavior is inexcusable - something we agree on btw.

What I strongly disagree with is your assumption that acting and showbiz is worse than other fields. Uhm no, sorry it's not necessarily. Because those experiences you mentioned? I've had those experiences all my life, I'm still having them, month after month, I really really wish I didn't, and I'm not an actor. So there you go. Showbiz is no worse no tougher no better than anything else.

Since you have no clue what my background is or Kate's above, I'd suggest not assuming that we haven't had these experiences. Many of us have.

[> [> [> I find these comments even more fascinating and important in light of the storyline in S7. -- Sophist, 08:35:33 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> A different take -- Darby, 13:37:57 06/27/03 Fri

I tend to see this as explaining why he hasn't been as involved in Buffy for two years - it's Marti's ship now, and his principles about that will limit his involvement. I think this is also why his fingerprints were all over Angel this season, especially after Firefly ended - Jeffrey Bell (and Simkins before him) just isn't David Greenwalt, and Joss had more inclination to season the soup in that kitchen.

Sara wonders if Joss has even been watching Buffy for two seasons. I'm sure he's been reading the scripts and sending notes, but I've got to wonder about that, too.

Warren vs Harmony -- JBone, 21:43:28 06/26/03 Thu

vote here

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html

new bracket here

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/vampire.html

Giles has kicked Gavin's ass in the expected landslide. The results will not be up tonight, but you can find the Buffy over Vi and Glory over Snyder results here and here. I must be living right, because there are great comments that I didn't even beg for. I wish I could say stuff without sounding like a smart ass, because I have some serious thanks for those leaving comments. Here it goes: dudes. . . I mean d u d e s.

I have The Road To The Apocalypse entry site up here.

I've rewritten the "rules" page again, so I'll want to look at with sober eyes before I upload it. It's not the rules themselves that have me rewriting this over and over again, it's my standards and practices explanations that keep me second guessing what I'm actually saying. I'm not sitting here writing and rewriting the stuff. I wrote it once about a month ago, finally had time to revisit it this week and didn't like it. But it will be up this weekend.

[> Handicapping the "Vampire" Region -- cjl, 23:08:13 06/26/03 Thu

(1) Liam/Angelus/Angel v. (16) Olaf/Olaf The Troll

No contest. In fact, Angel doesn't even have to lift a finger. All he has to do is sit quietly in a corner and brood over his tortured relationships with Connor and Cordelia, and thousands of Angel worshippers will race over to comfort him, trampling Olaf into guacamole in the process. The original vampire-with-a-soul earned his #1 ranking the hard way--and with Mayor Wilkins conveniently out of the picture, the regional finals should be the showdown vamp fans (and Buffy) have always dreamed about: Angel vs. Spike. (ODDS to win the region: Even)

(3)Connor Angel/Steven Franklin Thomas/The Destroyer v. (14) Agent Forrest Gates

Connor, for the first time in his existence, gets a break, drawing a third seed and a weak opponent. Forrest was a good solider, and reeled off the occasional snappy line ("all-temperature Buffy"--heh), but the military machismo and sublimated homoeroticism of the Initiative got a little old after awhile. I will not say a bad word about Connor (not on Masq's board, anyway), but I don't think the lad's famous survival instincts will do him any good in this competition. One, maybe two and out. (ODDS: 25-1)

(9) The Master v. (8) Andrew Wells/Tucker's brother

Similar to the Adam/Kate Lockley matchup, this is a pairing of two relatively popular characters weighed down by negatives. The Master was the first big bad (and one of the wittiest), but compared to Angelus, Spike or even Sunday, he seems two-dimensional in retrospect. As for Andrew--well, it seems you either like him or you don't, and there ain't no Mr. In-between. (Gee, shadowkat, how are YOU voting?) Close race, but no matter who wins, it's one and out. (ODDS: 75-1)

(11) Clem/Clement v. (6) Lilah Morgan

This bracket is the exact opposite of the one above: two characters loved by nearly everybody. Clem's unaffected friendliness was one of the bright spots in the dark, dark days of Season 6, and Lilah is just--words can't express. No knock on Clem, but ME has been leaning on Stephanie Romanov more and more as they go deeper into ANGEL's run, and SR keeps drawing in viewers like metal filings on a magnet. The guys think she's fun, evil and hot; the women think she's fun, evil and powerful. There is no bad here. (Well, actually, there's plenty of bad with Lilah, but that's part of her appeal. She's kind of the female Spike.) Long shot getting past the male Spike for the regional finals, but it's not out of the question. (ODDS: 10-1)

(5) Drusilla v. (12) The Beast

The Beast, after one of the best starts by a supervillain in ME history (obliterating W&H and the Ra-tet, knocking politely on Connor's door, then blotting out the sun), ruined his chance for the Evil Hall of Fame by crafting the instrument of his own death, and smooching Cordelia. ("Huh?" and "Yecch!" respectively.) Drusilla, though, is the dark flower of the Fanged Four, the Visionary in Black Lace, the child-woman with an Old Soul (if she had a soul, that is). For some reason, I find her sexier in vamp face. (Don't ask--it's a thing.) Dru in a Lover's Walk, but she's never getting past Daddy. (ODDS: 20-1)

(7) Warren Mears v. (10) Harmony Kendall

Sociopath or bimbo? Tough call. Harmony is much easier on the eyes than Warren, but her relentless vapidity has its limits. I suppose it comes down to this: as much as I admire the work ME and Adam Busch put into making Warren Mears both pathetic and repulsive, I never looked forward to seeing him on screen. Harmony, on the other hand, is good for big laughs when the scriptwriters are on, and I'm looking forward to seeing her in ANGEL Season 5. (And there is that "easy on the eyes" thing.) Harmony by a nose, but she'll be smacked down by the heavyweights in this division. (ODDS: 50-1)

(13) Mr. Trick v. (4) Darla

Mr. Trick practically overflowed with style, and he was probably the precursor to Sweet in OMWF. All good--but he's out of his league here, as Darla and her various incarnations (Catholic schoolgirl, Master's minion, Queen of the Fanged Four, dark seductress, Mayflower madam, pregnant vamp, martyr, PTB messenger) simply overwhelm the senses. She doesn't have enough fan appeal to beat out Angel, Spike, or even Lilah, but I think she'll rack up some huge numbers in defeat. Hope ME can find a way to bring her back yet again in ANGEL S5. (ODDS: 15-1)

(15) Whistler v. (2)William the Bloody/Spike/Hostile 17/Randy Giles

Hate to say this, but Whistler is almost irrelevant in this contest. Spike is one of those amazing characters who inspires passion, both positive and negative, in huge numbers of people. Every match-up until the regional finals will be a referendum on Spike, and unless his supporters are caught napping, he should breeze through. Spike v. Angel, though, is a much different story. (ODDS: Even)

[> [> Those were great, cjl! -- ponygirl, placing her bets, 08:33:26 06/27/03 Fri

I just bought that "Chosen" novel tonight at Barnes and Noble... -- Rob, 21:45:51 06/26/03 Thu

Before I start it, curious if anyone else has read it and whether they recommend it.

I heard on another board that the novel fills in some of the storytelling gaps in season 7 and makes the FE story arc a bit smoother and more defined. Also said it's rife with typos and seemed like it went to print in such a rush that no editing was done at all. Typos or not, I'm curious on braving the sloppy nature of the book to find the spackling tidbits. I especially would like to use them in "The Annotated Seventh Season" (which seems like it will take forever to get to lol). I was wondering generally though whether it's worth reading for those spackles, or if they just aren't impressive enough to warrant spending my precious time on reading a nearly 700 page novelization.

Rob

[> I think it's just Nancy Holder, the author's view as approved by Fox -- s'kat, 22:11:16 06/26/03 Thu

From what I've read on other boards - the consensus is that this is NANCY HOLDER's reading of S7 not Joss Whedon's.
Remember Whedon does NOT own the distribution or copyright all he has is creative control over what goes on the screen. He is the executive producer. But he has absolutely no say in any novelizations, t-shirts, coffee cups, or by-products of his work.

So if you're using the novel to guess at Whedon's intent?
Don't waste your time. There's no way of knowing that anything Holder wroter ever passed beneath Whedon's eyes.
Personally? I doubt it.

The book was probably read by someone who works for Fox in the rights department, their principal job is to read novels based on Buffy and see if the content fits with the content on the series and the message of the series. To do this they have to watch the show and they have a pamphlet of all the do's and don'ts. I had a job interview for a position like this with a tv studio last summer. That's how I know it exists.

Does the book fit with Fox's intent? Probably. The person probably read it, told Fox it didn't contradict anything and fit what they personally saw on screen and wasn't filled with foul language or explicit sex or anything that would hurt the show or infringe on their ability to sell the show.

Can you use it to spackle? Well it's Nancy Holder's opinion approved by Fox, not ME. So I guess what you need to decide is how much control does Fox have over the show?
IMHO - it's probably no more accurate or less accurate than fanfiction that spackles Chosen.

Just my ten cents for what its worth. Oh haven't read or seen the actual book - since my Barnes and Noble didn't have a copy that I could just thumb through. So this is just my knowledge on how the whole approval process probably works.

[> [> From the Front Cover of "Chosen" -- Rufus, 04:32:24 06/27/03 Fri

A novelization based on the seventh season of the TV series created by Joss Whedon.

From what I read, Holder got ahold of "shooting scripts" and turned the lot into a fiction....so there is stuff in the book that never made it into the episodes, but the disclaimer on the front cover is there for a reason...it's a work of fiction "based" upon season seven. I feel that the ending Holder describes is less ambiguous than the ending we saw onscreen.

[> [> [> Re: From the Front Cover of "Chosen" -- Rob, 08:20:46 06/27/03 Fri

I feel that the ending Holder describes is less ambiguous than the ending we saw onscreen.

That is probably because this book is meant to be a lead-in to a new series of "Buffy" novels that are going to pick up where the show left off. On the last page, (which, yeah, I flipped to!) it says, "The mission continues..." On the next page is a reminder that there will be "An all-new original Buffy or Angel novel every month." Judging from the quality of the writing in this book, I don't think I'll be reading any others. 3 chapters into now, and I'm just sticking with it because of morbid curiosity. Unlike a few Amazon customer reviews, I think this reading experience is vastly inferior to watching the show. The writing's clunky and it messes up the best jokes by overexplaning the circumstances. For example, it gives away that Buffy gave Dawn a cell phone right from the get-go. And then there's also the fact that, as soon as as AtS continues next year or there is any possible spin-offs in the future, the books probably won't fit into their continuity, and I feel reading a Buffy story that doesn't fit into the continuity is a waste of time. JMHO.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Typo fixage... -- Rob, 08:24:00 06/27/03 Fri

"And then there's also the fact that, as soon as as AtS continues next year or there is ARE any possible spin-offs in the future, the books probably won't fit into their continuity..."

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Ooof! -- Rob, slaps his own face in annoyance, 10:23:02 06/27/03 Fri

"And then there's also the fact that, as soon as as AtS continues next year or there is ARE any possible spin-offs in the future, the books probably won't fit into their continuity..."

One too many "as"-es. ;o)

Rob

[> My condolences -- Masq, 22:11:32 06/26/03 Thu

But if you find out something knew that fills in the gaps, share!

[> [> I'll post a full review w/ quotes where spackles (official or not) are found once I'm done reading! -- Rob, 23:18:24 06/26/03 Thu

[> [> [> Hey, Nancy H's spackles are just as good as our spackles -- Masq, 06:02:24 06/27/03 Fri

Although probably not as clever and certainly not as eruditely explained.

[> [> [> [> Definitely not as clever and erudite...I'm up to Chapter 6, and not impressed so far! ;o) -- Rob, 13:22:11 06/27/03 Fri

Where are Tchaikovskys reviews for Angel eps.17-22? -- Jamie82, 21:52:18 06/26/03 Thu

Hey, been away from the board for awhile. I was wondering where Tchaikovskys reviews for the Angel episodes are. I've checked and can't find them. If someone could direct me to where I can find them I would appreciate it.

[> They don't exist yet. ;o) We're expecting their arrival by mid-July the latest, I believe. -- Rob, checking his watch, 22:09:06 06/26/03 Thu

[> Rob's not quite right! -- Tchaikovsky, 08:46:40 06/27/03 Fri

Two of them are up- those for 4.17 'Inside Out' and 4.18 'Shiny Happy People'. You can now find all of the Odyssey at http://members.fortunecity.com/tchaikovsky/. Who says that extra plug was sneaky?

But the cheerleader-y one does have it right on the last four episodes, 4.19-4.22, which should be up and about short-ish, as 'Home' has just aired in Britain.

TCH

[> [> The Cheerleadery One...I like that! -- Rob, who has a new moniker!, 09:44:00 06/27/03 Fri

I'm drowning in you Summers, I'm drowning in you... -- Artemis, 22:24:48 06/26/03 Thu

I been thinking this for sometime and I know the connection to Buffy has been made in regards to Spikes line "drowning in footwear." But has anyone mentioned How It seems to come directly from the lines he spoke in Crush.
Like I said, so much has been written and so much I've missed that this has probably been mentioned too. But just in case... Anyway thought it was cool.

[> Re: I'm drowning in you Summers, I'm drowning in you... -- Alison, 08:00:54 06/27/03 Fri

I don't recall anyone connecting Spike's line in Chosen with Crush. Its a great line though- funny, open to interpertation, and ultimatly can always be connected back to the two biggest parts of Spike's story: Buffy, and his soul. Classic Joss.

[> That was definitely my first thought. -- Anneth, 10:14:08 06/27/03 Fri

Then there's the whole 'shoes have soles, Spike has a soul' thing. And lastly, of course, there's the Restless connection, where Buffy informs the First Slayer/Tara/us/herself that she's "gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back." So, in Chosen, Spike's soul literally "floods" the hellmouth with sunlight, dispensing with the bazillion Ubers. Earlier, the slayer power had been shared amongst all potential slayers in the world. So, after the sun-flood, Buffy walks off into the sunset with the knowledge that she's no longer "The One" but one among many; she is finally sort of normal. She can go do normal stuff, like become a fireman, if she wants. (Firewoman, I guess. Or maybe fireperson?)

[> [> How about firefighter? -- eloise519, 18:40:49 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> Re: Also... -- Purple Tulip, 00:12:25 06/28/03 Sat

...didn't Buffy say something about buying shoes when she was talking to Willow, Xander, and Giles just before the big showdown in Chosen? "I'm drowing in you Summers...I'm drowning in footwear...I need to buy some new shoes..." Or maybe I'm just really tired and this has no baring whatsoever.

[> [> [> That's exactly where I was going. Sometimes I'm too vague -- Artemis, 18:27:33 06/28/03 Sat

I've Lost My Chat Virginity! -- Wizard, 01:30:13 06/27/03 Fri

Earlier this evening (well, technically yesterday by now), I entered into this Board's chatrooms for the very first time. I am pleased to say that I enjoyed myself, and will be back as often as real life permits. I would like to thank my fellow chatters, who are too numerous to mention, for making my experience most enjoyable. Thank you all!

[> It's true! I was there. I even helped. Wizard is no longer pure. -- Random, 08:45:35 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> You've corrupted another one! -- Rob, 09:59:00 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> We have. Corruption is what we do best ;-) -- LittleBit, 10:07:22 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Ran and Bit... -- Rob, 10:20:20 06/27/03 Fri

I've been in chat like three times in the past two weeks (I know, not often enough! I do have a good excuse though, since my computer was in repairs for 2 out of the last 3 weeks) and I keep missing you guys! When do you think you're gonna be there next?

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Awww, Rob... -- LittleBit, 10:32:44 06/27/03 Fri

I'll be there tonight, around 9 or so, usually there until at least midnight/1.

Hope to see you!

[> [> [> [> [> Sorry, my friend... -- Random, 10:35:47 06/27/03 Fri

We've been busy...I had stuff going on down in N.C., and then spent last Friday through Tuesday in Ohio for the Cleveland meet with Rah and d'H. And -- sigh -- I'm going out of town for the next couple of days. I should be back in chat on Sunday...come on in and make us happy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Will do...for both of you! -- Rob who is never missing chat again, 10:45:37 06/27/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> I was there too. It is always nice when we have a virgin to sacrifice -- lunasea, 11:04:15 06/27/03 Fri

Seems chat didn't act up badly last night either.

If you were wondering my wonderful Hubby got in at 2 in the morning. He ended up talking to an old shipmate and lost track of the time. Now he has to get me S4 DVDs today instead of my birthday.

See ya tonight, maybe.

just a thought... -- seven, 07:50:48 06/27/03 Fri

wouldn't it be funny if Spike comes back and

instead of the leather duster he takes pride in his sacrifice and wears some Champion brand sports wear?

I'd laugh.

7

"Witch" Revisited -- Darby, 12:52:56 06/27/03 Fri

Well, first off, I always call it THE Witch, but it's not.

Buffy to Giles, re cheerleading: "And you'll be stopping me how?" It's already been pretty obvious to us that Giles will have to collaborate rather than be in charge, but this really says it overtly. It's also the nightmare of every parent of a teenager, as the coercion options dwindle. Of course, Giles really starts with no options, but develops some later as Buffy starts to care about his approval.

Once again, it amazes me how different SMG looked just a few yesrs ago. They've all changed, but the others not as much.

Alyson Hannigan's Willow has already moved out of the frumpy wardrobe into something a trifle more flattering, if not in the Buffy / Cordelia range. Joss' recent interview included a statement that he sees it as his mission to make sure AH becomes a sex symbol - the mission started early if subtly.

The much-discussed bracelet - Buffy directly addresses the message here later, or the message she sees since it comes from "one of the girls" who isn't interested (or so she thinks) in dating her.

I tend to think that a really good actress could have played Amy so that on a repeat viewing you could see an adult pretending to be a high schooler, but it's not there, or I don't see it. And there are many opportunities. I find it hard to believe that Catherine could play her daughter so convincingly, or would want to step into her wimpy shoes. After months of being Amy, the Catherine we saw would have asserted her own personality, not subverted it. Who was going to suspect?

The connection of spontaneous human combustion to rage is a Buffyverse thing - in our universe, it's usually falling asleep with a cigarette.

Xander: "I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide til it goes away." That sets part of the dynamic here, and sets up Owen, who won't fit into it, later.

I really like that Joyce is clueless, but cops to it when necessary, and really doesn't want to be. Besides reflecting lossely on the Amy-Catherine dynamic (Anneth had great observations there), it continues the promise that Joyce may not be around a lot, but she's going to interesting and not a typical tv mom.

Buffy at the fertility statue: "Jeepers!" That always struck me as a strange Buffy exclamation, but that's a tricky reaction to put in her mouth with minimal implications. I wonder how long they agonized over that one word? Did they have Buffy and Joyce watching old movies in later eps to set a connection?

On the one hand, we need Buffy and Amy interacting during tryouts to propel the plot; on the other, Catherine is a sad, lonely person, and it makes sense that she would connect to another girl trying to make the team (who didn't seem that much of a threat). In fact, it kind of adds a level of poignancy to the rewatching.

So Catherine took back her maiden name after her husband left, and had her 12-year-old daughter do it too? Yeah, with the backstory that sort of makes sense...

This is the first time - maybe reading it was the key - that the "padlocking the fridge" thing is how Catherine kept her own weight under control (and then brought Amy's down after possessing her, presumably). That makes Amy's brownie binges a bit more passive-aggressive, which fits with the later Amy.

When Xander draws the picture of Buffy seeing him as part of the scenery, Willow picks it up as her old chewed-up pen. The script quite pointedly has her tossing the pen in the trash, but she doesn't do it in the episode.

So the UPS truck bears down on Cordy, who is snatched away by Buffy, it tears off the door of the driver's ed car - and just beeps and continues? Those wacky California drivers!

"No wonder you can still afford a house..." We get the first of what becomes a running but well-spaced schtick on property values in Sunnydale.

I had not noticed before that the science teacher in this episode was the same one who offs it next week. Just one of those neat little details. That I can't believe I'd never picked up on before.

There's a small exchange between Xander and scalpel-wielding Willow in the script that gives a glimpse at Scary Willow. I'm amazed it got cut.

So why was Catherine-in-Amy surprised at mouthless girl in the lab if she cast the spell (and we see her later at home, when it's definitely Catherine)? Perhaps the results were a bit more...dramatic...than she expected? Or she was a bit too close for comfort? Or she knows that she's just been found out? Or they just needed it for Buffy to catch a clue toward what was going on?

When Loopy Buffy wakes up and breaks her alarm clock, there is no sound of it ringing - just rising music.

Got to add another vote for Wacky Buffy. I'm happy that she reappears from time to time. And how could anyone hate Beer Bad when it's got a variant of Wacky Buffy in it?

A very simple script blooper you'd think someone would have caught: when Buffy leaves the squad, it's four hours til game time. Giles gives her three hours at most til the spell kills her, but they save her during the game. Is this saying that Giles' calculations can't be trusted? Well, that's one possibility.

Giles is information guy, but Buffy efficiently figures things out and directs their strategies. Wahh, I want Smart Buffy back, and then a do-over on Season 7!

Watching ASH doing the spell, I have to think that the actor knew that this wasn't Giles' first spell, no matter what he said about it to Buffy.

I love this board. Without it, I wouldn't have heard the echoes between Amy's father and Giles. Was that Anneth, too-?

Okay, folks, when do we take a break and do The Movie? After Prophecy Girl? I want to discuss Rutger Hauer as a Whedon villain. I also haven't seen it since long before I developed an ear for Joss' voice, so I know it's going to be quite the experience.

[> Re: "Witch" Revisited -- manwitch, 13:07:37 06/27/03 Fri

How about those california drivers. I thought that while I was watching it, I was thinking, "Doesn't that driver have to stop when he sees a pedestrian about 50 yards ahead of his van? Like, wouldn't he slow down a little, especially given that there had been an accident?"

But then I remembered all the people I have known who have been UPS drivers, and it made sense.

The time thing was not only nutty because the game started before Buffy died, but Amy the alternate became the one that the others elevated into the air. I don't know the move, and I hesitate to call her the apex of the triangle, cuz I didn't see a triangle, but don't you think maybe they would have used someone who had had more than twenty minutes practice and had actually made the team on merit?

I thought maybe amy was directing a mouthless spell at Buffy or willow but got surprised by the spill and the spell kinda missed. So her shock was not at the spell, but where it landed.

I recognize that there is no evidence of any kind to support this view.

I like the fact that once Xander and Willow are touched by this new world of mysterious powers, they can't let it go, no matter how frightening or dangerous it gets. That's nice. And Buffy let's them. That's nice too, and that little act of acceptance on all parts in this episode will play a role in saving them all countless times.

[> Darby... -- Rob, 13:28:11 06/27/03 Fri

...did you read my post about "The Origin" comic book a few weeks back? It's a graphic novel based on Joss Whedon's original screenplay, and it's very interesting, because for the most part, it has the same story as the film (give or take some plot points here and there), but it is presented not as campy or silly, as the movie was, but in the darker tone of the series. It might be interesting to view the finished film and then compare it to this book, which is probably the closest we'll ever come to seeing what might have been had Joss had control over the movie.

Rob

[> [> I've had no luck tracking a copy down. -- Darby, 14:15:34 06/27/03 Fri

It would be interesting, but we do have a Joss-centric comparison anyway for the movie - the tv show!

[> [> [> You can get it from Amazon for $9.99. -- Rob, 14:18:51 06/27/03 Fri

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569714290/qid=1056747730/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5842889-7590215?v=glance&s=books

It collects all three issues in one volume.

Rob

[> Addendum. I get it! --- Witch = Which? -- Darby, 14:24:54 06/27/03 Fri

[> Re: "Witch" Revisited -- Cactus Watcher, 16:48:37 06/27/03 Fri

I was noticing while watching season four interspersed with these season one eps that AH had changed mightly as well. She, unlike SMG, had gotten noticeably heavier and at least in my opinion better looking.

"Jeepers" seemed like a good thing for Buffy to say to me. Especilaly, if she thought her mother might accidetnally catch her peeking.

I saw the movie for the first time after about four or five eps of season one. All I could think was thank God, I saw a few eps first. I'd have never given the tv show a chance if I'd seen that awful movie first. Rutger Hauer is one of those guys who always plays villains so well I'm never sure whether it's the villain or actor himself I can't stand. (Lee Van Cleef was that way for me until the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns.) Paul Reubens charcter is so overdone on purpose that it's amazing anyone finds it amusing. Kristy-as-Buffy, Pike and even the much abused Merrick aren't that bad. The Kuzuis just didn't know the difference between camp and crap, and it shows.

[> Re: "Witch" Revisited -- mamcu, 19:35:33 06/27/03 Fri

I tend to think that a really good actress could have played Amy so that on a repeat viewing you could see an adult pretending to be a high schooler, but it's not there, or I don't see it. And there are many opportunities. I find it hard to believe that Catherine could play her daughter so convincingly, or would want to step into her wimpy shoes. After months of being Amy, the Catherine we saw would have asserted her own personality, not subverted it. Who was going to suspect?

Well, I agree that the actress could have been better, but this one wasn't all that bad. I've watched this episode several times and can't draw a clear line between Amy and Catherine--they sort of morph.

A Question about Magical tapping out only work on humans and not demons? -- rack, 16:42:50 06/27/03 Fri

For someone who gets magic like Willow has ,would a demon hybrid be affected like willow has? In my opinion demons are more used to magic than humans and most likely can handle the power better.

[> I don't think there has been anything that talks about it -- VR, 20:12:34 06/27/03 Fri

Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.3 (She's a witch! A witch!) -- manwitch, 20:35:45 06/27/03 Fri

I like this episode a lot. Who doesn't like wacky Buffy? Or dangerous Cordelia? Or hurt Willow? Or overly enthusiastic Giles? It's a fun little episode with spookiness, danger, action, romance and drama. A little bit of everything.

It's the first "stand alone" episode.

Or is it? It doesn't have the Master. It doesn't have Angel. So it can't be part of the season arc, can it?

We talk a lot about the emotional arc or the plot arc of a season. But there is also a spiritual arc. And in the spiritual arc every episode tells the story, every episode is perfectly placed. From the standpoint of Buffy's Spiritual Journey, I think we are going to find that there are no stand alone episodes.

In the first two episodes, which in fairness, is just one episode, we were introduced to Buffy, the sleeping heroine, dreaming of Shiva, and other strange and mystical powers, powers of her subconscious bubbling forth in dream. We learned that Buffy had arrived in Sunnydale to have a new start. Buffy and her mother mistakenly interpret this as a new start at highschool, a chance to be more normal, to not get into any trouble. But really what she has in Sunnydale is a chance at a new spiritual start, the chance to embrace her spiritual destiny. The term for that destiny in the show is "The Slayer." She is the one girl in all the world chosen to fight the powers of darkness. And what Buffy must embrace is the fact that she is so chosen. But we see her deny this destiny very explicitly. She is frightened of the cost. "Prepare me for what?" she exclaims to Giles. "For getting kicked out of school? For losing all my friends? For not being able to tell anyone who I am because it might put them in danger? Go ahead, prepare me." Buffy doesn't want danger. She doesn't want risk. She wants normal.

And I suppose its possible that we all want that when we are children. But life eventually will demand more from all of us, and so it will of Buffy. Growing up isn't just about getting a job or paying the bills. Of course there are material and social responsibilities that will necessarily come to us all no matter how much we try to resist them. But more importantly, there are spiritual responsibilities. The world is not simply what we can see, nor made only of things we can measure. There are more things in heaven and earth. And if we do not nourish also our spiritual selves, our innermost being, we deny ourselves and arguably those around us, perhaps even the world, our most valuable and human possibilities. It is childish to do so. And Buffy, at the age of sixteen, is at the point where she must put childish ways behind her. That will utlimately be the story of the season. Its time to put the child to rest and come alive as a spiritually active adult.

And oddly enough, that is exactly what Witch is about. Catherine is obsessed with her childhood, unable to let go, unable to move on, unable to recognize the place that she appropriately occupies in life. She wants to be a cheer leader, to live the glory days, to relive a time before the bastard used her and walked out and left her with a boatload of responsibility. And she is willing to use the strange and magical powers to which she has access not for nourishing her true spiritual needs, but to negate and deny them.

Other people have commented on the themes of this episode, and one in particular that caught my eye was that of the pressure of living up to a parents expectations. While I agree that the theme is present and with the points made about it, I have a minor linguistic quibble with the idea that there is a metaphor of the pressure of living up to a parents expectations. That is what is depicted. A metaphor occurs when what you see depicted is really something else. And in this case, the metaphor is that the witch is Buffy.

It is Buffy that is obsessed with her childhood, unable to let go, unable to move on, unable to recognize the place that she appropriately occupies in life. She wants to be a cheer leader, to live the glory days, to remain in a time before the bastard leaves her and walks out, before she must live a boatload of responsibility. Catherine is an indicator for us of where Buffy is on her Spiritual Journey, and it ain't very far.

But unlike Catherine, Buffy has, even against her own wishes, compassion for others. Without ever having met Amy, Buffy is able to recognize that it is in fact Amy in Catherine's body. And the message she sees is that if you stay obsessed with remaining a child, you really will lose your youth, and you will wake up one day and realize that you are still a child, just one that is trapped in an old and spiritless body. It is important to note that Buffy does not kill Catherine. She merely shows Catharine the true reflection of herself and it destroys her, trapping her forever in a memory of childhood that she realizes only too late is not where she belongs. And that is why Joyce, for all her difficulties with the dismount, gives Buffy the parenting Buffy needs. When asked, Joyce admits that she would never go back, not even if it would help her understand Buffy. Joyce knows where she belongs, and Buffy is able to recognize in her a healthy model.

So in the spiritual arc, the episode is right on point. Buffy gets her first glimpse that the desire to remain a child is pathological, and it is the openness of her heart, her ability to connect to others, that allows her to overcome this first obstacle. At least she is able to set cheerleading aside.

A couple of other points about the episode. It is the first episode to deal with something other than vampires, and it deals with witchcraft and magic. This is interesting given that magic and the power of witches will appear ultimately to be one of the dominant if not the dominant power in the Buffyverse. Also it is interesting that in this episode there is no paganism, no blessed sisterhood, no bake sale. This is intercourse with the Devil witchery. This is witch craft used to thwart rather than inspire spiritual experience, the kind of thing that many thousands of women were ostensibly killed for in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It's a mildly interesting aside that it was believed in medieval times that crosses and holy water could thwart witches and their magic. But later it came to be believed that witches were stealing souls, particularly those of infants, to empower Satan. And that's when the persecution got really ugly.

But its interesting to me that the show in this early stage, doesn't seem to be clearly beyond that view of witches. It is true that Giles is able to reverse the casting, so it doesn't appear that magic itself is necessarily evil, but the character of the witch power is not ambiguous in this episode. I also find it interesting that Angel, who is sort of playing the Obi Wan role of Buffy's spiritual guide here in the beginning, gave her as a symbol of the journey she must go on a cross, the symbol of the Christian spiritual journey. So the witch as an obstacle to that, especially given that she in some sense steals the soul of an infant, fits surprisingly well.

Also, by exploring magic this episode again emphasizes the existence of a world beyond what we see, but that can be experienced. Just as it implied in The Harvest when Willow suggested calling the Police and Buffy pointed out that the Police couldn't handle it even if they believed, the show is illustrating the existence of a world, or an aspect of it, that is not measurable, does not conform to the rules of logic, can not be explained by science. This idea will come up repeatedly. While the show is never disparaging of science, logic or law, it always reminds us that there is much beyond their compass.

Cordelia, in her threat to Amy, says we must achieve our dream or we wither and die. Cordelia's dream is to be on the cheerleading squad because Cordelia has no spirit beyond the school kind. But it reminds us again of Buffy's dream of Shiva and other mysterious powers lying just beneath the surface. Buffy's dream is to embark on this spiritual journey, to seek Shiva, to awaken the mysterious powers within her. Catherine/Amy is perhaps the symbol of what will happen to Buffy if she does not achieve her dream.

Lots of spirit references, but one particularly amusing one is when Willow, who will someday be indicated as a metaphor for Buffy's spirit, says to Xander, "you were just saying how looking at scantily clad women is a spiritual experience." Its like she was describing my view of the whole series.

Finally, I just want to mention that Xander, the metaphor for Buffy's heart, gives her a bracelet saying "yours always." So the metaphor is saying Buffy's heart will always be Buffy's. She wants her heart to always stay directed towards herself, attracted to what she already is, stuck on herself if you will, rather than directed outward towards what she might become. Again, this parallels the theme of the entire episode perfectly. And her explanation of why the bracelet pleases her so is that Xander is one of the girls. While we know this is not true literally in the plot, metaphorically speaking it seems the message is that Buffy's desire to remain always in this narcissistic condition has no creative potential. As one of the girls, Xander's love of Buffy, which is Buffy's love of herself, can produce no spiritual offspring. It's a dead end. Willow is pleased of course to hear that Buffy thinks Xander is one of the girls, because it means that there is still a chance Xander will wake up and turn towards her, still a chance that someday the heart might fall for the spirit. Its gonna take a lot of episodes, but its going to happen eventually.

But I'm getting ahead. We'll leave it at the Witch. Imagine that. There was a time long ago when you could honestly say the Witch was the best Buffy episode ever.

The Top Ten Percent (so far)

1 Witch
2 Welcome to the Hellmouth
3.The Harvest
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

[> Keep these coming! They're brilliant. -- Rob, 21:45:15 06/27/03 Fri

And if you haven't noticed, I've already added your post on Buffy's dream to the corresponding notes in "The Annotated Buffy." I'll be adding these "Witch" notes to that episode with my next update!

Rob

[> [> Seconding Rob -- Sophist, 08:05:45 06/28/03 Sat

I feel bad letting such great posts pass by without comment, but I find I have nothing to add. I do appreciate them a lot manwitch, and I hope to see one for all 144 eps. Let's see, at one per week that'll keep you busy until....

[> [> [> Thirding! -- ponygirl, 08:18:55 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Re: Thirding! -- Klytaimnestra, 11:55:23 06/28/03 Sat

These analyses are extremely useful; thanks so much for doing them. Seven years on, Buffy has just now taken her first tentative step into adulthood, I think; but even 7 years ago, we were being told that that was the whole point of the journey. I hadn't realised that until I read this post.

[> Re: Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.3 (She's a witch! A witch!) -- Darby, 07:21:37 06/28/03 Sat

She turned me into a Newt! the Congressional leader bellowed.

Sorry. I'll try to get better. (Somewhere on the top of the page, it should be stated that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is recommended viewing here.)

I love the parallels between Catherine and Buffy and each episode as a stepping-stone, which is supposed to be how seasonal arcs work.

It's also interesting to watch these early episodes through the prism of folks who have honed a certain perspective. I hope people aren't annoyed by my microdissections (Gee, I never realized before that my posting style reflects my old research style!), and these spiritual journey posts are fascinating.

We need shadowkat with an extensive examination of POV (among a thousand other things). And Honorificus on the demonic wardrobe choices. And Rob to tell us why this episode was the finest hour of television ever. And...ack, this is why I avoid lists! You get the idea.

Current board | More June 2003