June 2004 posts
o/t: r.i.p. genius--ray
charles hits the final road -- anom, 16:47:24 06/10/04
Thu
He could take a song of any style & make it his own. Songs that
sounded silly or even dumb from anyone else sounded great when
he sang them. They still do, thanks to recordings--I'm listening
to Genius Hits the Road right now, which ranges from Hoagy's
"Georgia" through "California Here I Come"
(!) to "Mississippi Mud," w/Ray Charles' unmistakable
stamp on each one. He was amazing.
It came as a shock to hear on the radio this afternoon that he
had died, maybe the more so because he seemed to have this timeless
quality. He'd been sick for some time, but his last performance
was just in April. I get the impression he had a pretty good life;
certainly he touched a lot of other peoples'. It's sad to think
he won't be back no more.
Replies:
[> Yes, we've lost a musical great. A sad day. -- Jane,
20:00:49 06/10/04 Thu
Why do people considered the
First Evil destroyed in the Buffy Series Finale? -- megaslayer,
20:14:06 06/10/04 Thu
The Amulet only destroyed the Turok-han and the hellmouth. So
the first lost its followers and its army to fight for it. Also
as long as Evil is in everybeing it can't be destroyed.
Replies:
[> Not sure anybody thinks that. -- HonorH, 21:17:47
06/10/04 Thu
Not here, at least. The First had its plans severely upset, but
of course it's not gone--any more than W&H is gone now that Angel
& Co. have slaughtered its main agents in this world. Buffy stopped
a plan the First had had in motion for who knows how long, and
she further inconvenienced it by activating every Potential in
the world. There are a lot more warriors against evil now, and
the First can't try the same ploy of killing off all the Potentials
and then Faith and Buffy to end the Slayer line. Thus, it's sent
back to the shadows to scheme for another day.
[> [> Do we even know what the First's plans were?
-- Doug, 06:54:03 06/11/04 Fri
I mean really; we know that the First was killing potentials,
but it's minion the uber-vamp let itself be kiled because it was
ordered not to kill "her" (presumably Buffy). We know
that the First had Caleb slaughter the Watchers by blowing up
the council, but didn't have him do the same thing to the Summers
house. We know that the First had it's minions digging up the
scy- the axe that everyone called a scythe, but the First essentially
ensures that Buffy gets it. And we know that the first made alot
of cryptic statements, some contradictory, and all potentially
manipulative.
In short, since we don't know what the First intended, we can't
possibly know that it was stymied. Assuming that kiling the potentials
was the objective, and not simply another stratagem towards something
more cunning, is a valid assumption but it's still assumption.
The First's plans are somewhat nonsensical if taken at face value,
and there seems to be a change of plans at some point in the season;
earlier in the season it was talking about being tired of the
mortal coil, but later it was talking about wanting to be made
flesh, sounds to me like it had one idea, then got a better one.
Theory time
There is one theory that actually manages to make the First's
plans this season make sense; and I'm fairly certain it wasn't
what Joss had in mind. But consider the following: The Slayer
power does not decrease with additional vessels, it grows to fill
the number of available Slayers. Two, though admittedly not conclusive,
we as viewers have only seen the First manifest when there is
more than one Slayer active (I realize that's been true since
the end of season 1, but stay with me). Three, remember what Beljoxa's
eye said? Something about a weakness in the Slayer line bringing
forth the First. Four, the Uber vamp specifically avoided killing
Buffy even after it had beaten her down, though it still went
after potentials, Why? (hint: see item 2). And what kind of being
is the First if killing the Slayer line would free it from the
mortal coil?
What if the First was the essence that the shamans bound into
the first Slayer? All these years chained inside one body or another,
being used as a weapon against the other demons. Remember all
of Buffy's fears about a possible dark and bloodthirsty nature
to her power, particularly during early season 5; well GiD basically
confirmed all of that. But we don't know exactly what that shadow
thing was; so what if the being we saw was the first as it once
was. It sat inside the Slayer, incapable of doing anything to
the outside world, until through such means as resuscitation or
ressurection there were 2 Slayers; with it's essence growing to
fill up the available space and power both Slayers at those times
it can manifest and gather it's minions. We don't know for certain
that Xander's CPR in "Prophecy Girl" was the First time
2 Sklayers had coexisted, it's possible ressurection spells had
been cast before and because of lack of telecommunications in
the pre-industrial world the Watchers were never aware of simultaneous
Slayers on opposite sides of the planet.
So if the First wanted to be free of the mortal coil what would
it do, but kill potentials. After it had killed all the potentials,
and Faith, the line itself would be gone and once Buffy died it
would be free. However it couldn't kill Buffy earlier because
then it would grow dormant and would lose it's chance. Conversely,
if it wanted to become more powerful and be able to interact with
the physical world directly it would need to make sure that Buffy
found the scythe, and cast the spell. Which would expalin why
it had Caleb and the Bringers digging out the scythe, and why
it didn't seem all that put out when Buffy got it, and stopped
Caleb from hunting her down. What if the army of Turok-han was
simply a goad, a whip, a stimulus that would force Buffy to take
a course of action that the First wanted. It's like guiding lifestock,
often painful stimulus is used to encourage the sheep or cows
or whatever to move in the desired direction. And while I'm not
trying to compare any character to livestock it most certainly
looked like they were being herded. So why did the First disapear
at the end? It had what it wanted. Hundreds, possibly thousands
of vessels to extend it's power from. Why would it stick around
to clue Buffy in on what had happened?
Now, as I said before I don't think Joss intended this interpretation.
It would kind of undermine the whole Girl Power thing, plus it
would mean that Buffy's last act would be to hand victory to the
enemy, ending the show with her believing victory when she had
failed miserably. I mean, Joss wouldn't be that cruel, Would he?
I mean, that would be like Buffy finally battling Angelus, then
Angelus getting resouled and Buffy having to send Angel to hell.
Just kidding, I'm absolutely certain this wasn't what Joss intended.
Makes for some scary fanfic though.
[> [> [> Excellent Theory Doug -- Kana, 08:30:39
06/11/04 Fri
Excellent theory there Doug. As I've said, you Message board guys
are really smart, but maybe Joss purposely left such an ending
open for interpretation. That's what makes Buffy such a powerful
show, its almost irrelevant what the writers intended when the
viewers can infer so much from what they see, as you have just
proven. By the way are you fanfic writer? If not you should be.
Cool ideas and see you around.
New brit boy
Kana
[> [> [> [> Thanks -- Doug, 09:22:00 06/11/04
Fri
Though I think some on this board may eviscerate me before nightfall
over this (in the philosophical sense, not the literal). To answer
your question I am an attempted writer, of both fanfic and my
own material, though I'm not all that good. I'm still trying though.
[> [> [> Symmetry -- Darby, 09:29:18 06/11/04
Fri
Now, I don't think that the plan was anything this coherent (if
only because there was no coherent organization behind the scenes),
but I'm not sure that it matters.
Someone connected with the show - maybe it was in one of the Joss-written
comics - expanded the basic Buffyverse mythology to the extent
that the vampire displaces the original human soul, but that soul
is locked in a type of limbo until the vamp is killed. Your suggesting
a very similar process with the soul of the Slayer-empowering
demon, and it really does jibe with the speech at the end of Conversations
with Dead People. I'm not sure all of the later details line
up with it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if at least one
of the Powers-That-Were had a plan very similar to the one you
suggest in mind.
[> [> [> [> My Personal First Evil Theory --
Finn Mac Cool, 11:33:21 06/11/04 Fri
My theory is a tad more simple. I think it was much like what
the First said in "Chosen": when the forces of the Turok-Han
overran the world, the balance of good and evil would shift heavily
towards evil, and the First would be able to take corporeal form.
Being "done with the mortal coil" could easily mean
it was done working within human society to accomplish its goals.
As for the Scythe: my basic theory is that the First either wanted
to use it for its own purposes (it could be that it could perform
the reverse of Willow's spell and drain all potentials of their
power) or destroy it (we can't be sure what would happen if it
did in this scenario). However, it was well aware that only the
Slayer could lift the Scythe from the rock, so it quite pointedly
made sure there was always a Slayer still alive in Sunnydale,
one it could manipulate into pulling out the Scythe. Once the
Scythe's free, the First could have Caleb take it, but, until
then, it needed Buffy alive.
[> [> [> Additional Notes -- Doug, 09:41:29
06/11/04 Fri
Firstly; I think I should change the words "failed miserbly".
I think that the deal with the amulet actually may have thrown
the First for a loop because of the destruction of the Turok-Han.
The First going after Buffy directly didn't make sense when there
were still a large number of potentials out there (there have
been estimates ranging from hundreds to thousands out on the boards).
But if Willow cast the spell, and then the scoobies were slaughtered,
then the First would still get a massive power boost, have an
army, and have the remaining Slayers untrained (though this does
increase their vulnerability and thus the First's they wouldn't
be in any condition to oppose the First). So the First still gets
massive power, but needs to get an army again.
In addition, I feel I should give credit for inspirations given
(please, don't blame these people if you're angry). The folks
at Sunnydale Slayers provided me with the idea of the connection
between the Slayer power and the First while I was paging through
past reviews and found their review for "Restless" (you
check out how the first Slayer and the First Evil refer to themselves).
Secondly some of the folks at the TWoP forums for pointing out
the logical problems inherent in treating every claim that a character
made onscreen as gospel truth, when the actions didn't seem to
match up.
[> [> [> Spiffy. -- BrianWilly, 11:38:31 06/11/04
Fri
Still, I don't think it accounts for the fact that the First actually
tried pretty hard to get Willow to not use magic. Unless
it was using reverse psychology?
It's fun to come up with these theories though, isn't it? I once
had a theory after first seeing "Never Leave Me" --
one that has long since been nulled, unfortunately -- that the
First Evil was actually the First Vampire. At the time we didn't
know what the Turok-han was, and I thought that maybe this was
the First.
It kinda ties in with your theory; we all knew before this that
the Slayer's power came from someplace dark...Dracula had said
that it came from the same source as the vampire's power. So I
thought...what if the First Slayer and the First Evil were interrelated?
Even though the First had a walking, talking incorporeal spirit
apart from that nasty, ancient-looking vampire we saw emerging
from the seal, remember that we also saw in Restless that even
though the First Slayer had something of a true body, she also
talked and acted and communicated through the form of Tara. I
thought that maybe this was the way that the First Evil had to
work...its true body was stuck inside that seal, so it had to
assume a form to interract with the world.
I was wrong, but hey.
"Please, how many times have I heard that line
in my demon days? 'I'm so rotten, they don't even have a word
for it. I'm bad. Baddy bad bad bad. Does it make you horny?'...or
terrified. Whatever." - Anya
[> [> Not Sent Back -- Roy, 11:52:16 06/12/04
Sat
The First Evil was not sent back into the shadows. It still thrived
within the Senior Partners and every other being that committed
evil. The First Evil IS the spirit of evil within all of us.
[> [> [> How do you know that? -- Finn Mac Cool,
15:14:30 06/12/04 Sat
Is it the spirt of all evil in the world? Or is it simply the
first of many evils, acting as creator but not necessarily a part
of? Or is it made up only of the evil sides of the deceased (explaining
why it can only appear in the forms of those who have died)? While
it's certainly a valid theory, I don't recall any hard evidence
stating that the First Evil is the embodiment of all the world's
evil (its own claims don't count since, as Anya said, lots of
ancient evils like to boast and brag and hardly consider themselves
above lying).
[> [> [> [> Re: How do you know that? -- BrianWilly,
03:21:27 06/13/04 Sun
The First did mention that it would be able to enter every human
being in the world -- become flesh, basically -- if the forces
of evil outnumber the humans*, which implies that it does
have at least some connection to the overall scheme and "essence"
of evildom in the world. While it's true that it could have been
lying, I think there's a difference between overexaggerating your
own status for the purpose of a barroom boast versus establishing
your plans to your minion and/or enemy in the spirit of inspiration
and/or intimidation; we know that the First has made this some
proclamation to both Buffy and Caleb, and it really doesn't have
anything to gain from lying to Caleb.
*Interesting sidebar: does this mean that humans in the
Buffyverse are forces of good?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting sidebar --
Kana, 06:51:59 06/13/04 Sun
It merely means that humans have more of a potential for good
rather than being part of an innate force of good.
Attention: Everybody Attending
the Chicago Board Meet! -- Sheri,
21:35:12 06/10/04 Thu
I need your shirt sizes!
Why? Um.... no reason.
No reason at all :)
Replies:
[> Heh...Large. -- Rob, 06:34:07 06/11/04 Fri
[> [> And my friend, Justin, is, too. -- Rob, 06:35:07
06/11/04 Fri
[> Medium. [Gives Sheri a quizzical glance] -- cjl,
06:50:38 06/11/04 Fri
[> medium...or small in "unisex" -- anom,
07:15:16 06/11/04 Fri
[> woman's large -- Arethusa, 07:36:07 06/11/04 Fri
[> Large, and I am still taking cookie requests(you can't
complain if you don't request) -- Ann, 08:22:57 06/11/04
Fri
[> [> Mmmmmmmmmm.....chocolate chip cookies. -- cjl,
08:37:53 06/11/04 Fri
[> [> [> They are already done and in the freezer
as are the almond shortbread and the ginger snaps -- Ann,
08:42:38 06/11/04 Fri
[> [> are you trying to make the rest of us large too?
@>) -- anom (i should talk--i'm bringin' the chocolate!),
09:33:18 06/11/04 Fri
Bringing chocolate bars, that is, not chocolate cookies. Although
that's not a bad idea, is it, Ann? Or how about chocolate fudge?
Wait, chocolate mint! No, chocolate mint fudge! How big is your
freezer, anyway?
Oh, and as for the chocolate bars, yes, cjl, there will be Maya
Gold, & yes, Masq, there will be milk chocolate. (The dark stuff
goes without saying.)
[> [> [> 'Maya gold'? Sounds like illicit drugs....
-- Masq, 09:49:56 06/11/04 Fri
OK, gotta lose another nine pounds in the next three weeks...
[> [> [> [> well, the mfr. is british--maybe they
don't know u.s. drug slang! -- anom, 12:58:04 06/11/04
Fri
But it's so good, we'd better not let the authorities find out,
or it might be outlawed! For now, though, it's neither illicit
nor illegal. It's decadent, but not immoral. It's...well, there's
no getting around the fact that it's fattening. So we'd all better
work on any extra pounds, or Sheri will have to round up our shirt
sizes.
Actually, I brought it to Vancouver last year. It was the one
in the orange wrapper. Maybe you didn't try it because it's dark
chocolate? but w/orange flavoring & "rainforest spices"
(hence the illicit-sounding name). Might be good enough to convert
you to the dark side! @>) It's very popular at New York meets.
And I don't think I'll have any trouble remembering I brought
it (that's an in-joke).
[> [> [> [> [> I sampled ALL the chocolate
-- Masq, 13:14:49 06/11/04 Fri
Don't get me wrong, anom. I eat dark chocolate. I'll eat ANY kind
of chocolate (except the bitter unsweetened kind my grandma once
used to make choc chip cookies. That was blech).
I'm just very prosaic and unsophisticated and want to make sure
there's milk chocolate there. ; )
I have distinct memories of eating the orange-wrappered kind last
year.
BTW, any news on LJ??
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, guess I'd better bring
some... -- Jane, 15:24:38 06/11/04 Fri
There is a wonderful chocolate shop right across the street from
me, "Lee's Homemade Candies". They make all sorts of
fabulous chocolates in the back. Yumm.
Maybe I'd better tell Sheri I'm size large:) Might be after the
meet!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> so you do know! --
anom, 17:24:51 06/11/04 Fri
"I'm just very prosaic and unsophisticated and want to make
sure there's milk chocolate there. ; )"
Oh, you don't have to--that's my job! ("Prosaic"?
"Unsophisticated"? You? Right....)
"BTW, any news on LJ??"
Sorta. They did respond (& thanks for talking to the LJ PTBs for
me!), but I need to question some of their answers. For 1 thing,
they still want to give me the kind of cookies I don't
like--they say I may not be able to stay logged on to their site
w/out them. I need to ask them if that's relevant if I'm just
opening an acc't. so I can read what's locked in the Sixfic community.
I'll let you know what they say.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: so you do know!
-- LittleBit, 11:56:42 06/13/04 Sun
You need the cookie if you want to utilize the setting that allows
you to stay logged in after you close the browser. Otherwise it
signs you out when you close it and you have to sign in again.
Really no big deal to do that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: so you do know!
-- Masq, 14:11:42 06/13/04 Sun
I agree with 'Bit. You can log in to read the _grr_argh_ board,
and then log back out again. The cookies are needed to keep you
logged in on a full-time basis, and logged in when you switch
from one browser window to another. But as long as you log in,
stay in the same browser window, and then log out, those cookies
shouldn't be necessary.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> that's not
how they made it sound -- anom, 22:13:32 06/13/04 Sun
But I'll write back & ask them to make sure. Thanks, 'Bit & Masq!
[> [> [> Re: are you trying to make the rest of us
large too? @>) -- Ann, 09:51:40 06/11/04 Fri
Nope. Like Buffy, you are given the choice in how to use the power
of your reach! to the cookie plate I mean. You were the one who
suggested ginger cookies. Buffy said "So here's the part
where you make a choice. What if you could have that" cookie...
now?
I am not so concerned about the size of my freezer but the size
of the luggage I will need to carry all of these lol.
[> [> [> [> I can see this is going to be the couch
potato meet -- Masq, 10:17:01 06/11/04 Fri
Sitting in front of the TV, DVD player swirling away, eating cookies
and chocolate bars and probably large bags of chips as well.
We'll all die from a Buffyverse!Chocolate OD, but what a way to
go....
[> [> [> [> [> well...anyone wanna lead exercise
sessions? -- anom, 21:49:31 06/12/04 Sat
Didn't think so. @>)
[> [> [> [> [> [> My friend Sue just bought
an abcruncher chair... -- Jane, 22:44:52 06/12/04 Sat
Maybe I should bring it along! ;D
[> [> Mmmm. I love peanut butter cookies... -- Jane,
19:00:06 06/12/04 Sat
Like Mom used to make, the kind that you squish down with a fork
before baking. Ahh, childhood memories!
[> [> [> Yes, Ann! Peanut butter! -- Masq, 19:22:27
06/12/04 Sat
I am myself made out of peanut butter.
[> [> [> [> that explains why you & chocolate get
along so well! -- anom, 21:45:51 06/12/04 Sat
Actually, I don't like choc-PB candies very much, probably because
the PB is oversweetened. Oh, plus they're usually made w/milk
chocolate.
[> [> [> [> [> Two great tastes that go great
together... -- Masq, 06:43:27 06/13/04 Sun
Dark chocolate dipped in old-fashioned peanutbutter.
[> Medium -- fresne, 08:53:11 06/11/04 Fri
So, we've got MST3K-ing. The OMwF sing along. Lots of watchin.
Wine (This seemed to be a red crowd). Chocolate.
Yeah, this is going to be good.
[> [> I want a Smile Time sing along this year --
Masq, 11:28:19 06/11/04 Fri
Sock puppet theater optional.
[> [> [> how about "once more in cyberspace"?
-- anom, 12:06:38 06/11/04 Fri
Remember Dedalus' opus of 2002 starring ATPosters in a parody
(or parallel universe version?) of OMWF? Somebody must've--it's
marked "NEW!" in Fictionary Corner, so we can all study
the lyrics, & we already know the music! It's very funny, & if
we do this, I can make up for my character's not getting any songs
in it by singing the other characters' songs. So there, Ded.
[> [> [> [> Hey, I remember that -- Masq, 12:30:37
06/11/04 Fri
I got the number in the graveyard.
Beats having to drive the van!
[> [> [> [> How could I possibly forget.......;)
-- Rufus, 16:22:53 06/13/04 Sun
[> [> [> [> Shall I phone my performance in...sniffle...I'll
be all alone here with nothing to sing about..:( -- Rufus,
16:29:04 06/13/04 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> well, last year... -- anom,
21:05:10 06/14/04 Mon
...we had live chat from the meet--maybe you could type it in!
Besides, a lot of OMIC takes place in chat, so it seems appropriate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'll keep that in mind...:):):):):):):):)
-- Rufus, 01:40:33 06/15/04 Tue
[> [> [> Couch potater (slightly fried) theatre should
have time for all -- fresne, 08:05:25 06/12/04 Sat
Moment for Mr. Burns impression, "Excellent."
Although, this does give me this image of us doing craft projects.
We should make sure to have someone bring lyrics sheets for Smile
Time in addition to the video. And possibly socks.
Speaking of which, who all is bringing what episodes/seasons/shows?
[> [> [> [> DVDs for Chicago -- Masq, 06:50:07
06/13/04 Sun
Speaking of which, who all is bringing what episodes/seasons/shows?
Buffyboy, tech-guy extraordinaire, is bringing the season 7 BtVS/season
4 AtS DVDs. I'm not sure about earlier seasons.
We should probably arrange to have a few people bring DVDs just
to make sure we have everything.
And I can bring Season 5 AtS tapes.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: DVDs for Chicago -- Ann,
08:05:11 06/13/04 Sun
I can bring AtS S1,S3 and Buffy S1. I have videos of Ats S2, S4
if needed.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: DVDs for Chicago -- LadyStarlight,
08:56:27 06/13/04 Sun
I would volunteer to bring sets -- but given that I said I would
last year and managed to completely forget to pack them in all
the excitement -- I'll step aside for someone who's more organized
than I am.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: DVDs for Chicago -- LittleBit,
11:59:36 06/13/04 Sun
I'll have everything else. [grin]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: DVDs for Chicago
-- Jane, 21:16:44 06/13/04 Sun
I have Buffy seasons 1 through 6, and Angel 1 through 3 on DVD.
Be happy to bring them all, if needed. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: DVDs for Chicago
-- LittleBit, 09:58:12 06/14/04 Mon
Actually, my point was that I will be bringing all of them. But
if other people want to as well, great!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since we got
into such a musicals discussion -- fresne, 10:21:06 06/14/04
Mon
at the last meet, do we want to bring some 1 am, just in case
musicals?
I've got Broadway Melody of 1940, if anyone wants to begin the
beguine.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good, that
will leave more room for cookies in my luggage! -- Ann, 10:58:00
06/14/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: DVDs for
Chicago -- Jane, 22:20:09 06/14/04 Mon
Thanks for clarifying this,'Bit. I wasn't sure if we were being
asked to bring DVDs or not. This will leave more room in my carryon
bag - I try to travel light! (Hmm, must remember to pack chocolate...)
[> [> [> [> [> Ah'm bringin' me some car-tunes!
-- cjl, 11:19:48 06/14/04 Mon
Specifically, the Looney Tunes four DVD Golden Collection.
[> [> [> [> [> [> & speaking of tunes...
-- anom, 11:53:34 06/14/04 Mon
...(but not toons) & of musicals, last year after the discussion
of movie musicals we had a late-night reprise of the OMWF singalong
to a CD that fresne's roomie (I think it was) had brought. Is
anyone bringing one this year? I've been trying to tape the songs
from my videotape of the ep, but I'm having to do a lot of them
over because I tend to cut off the beginnings of the songs! On
the other hand, I'm including some bonus tracks: "Mustard
on My Shirt" & "Mrs." from Selfless, & "Blue"
from CWDP. But my tape recorder is kinda bulky for travel, so
if anyone can bring a small one, that'd help.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: & speaking of
tunes... -- fresne, 16:07:23 06/14/04 Mon
I'll try to dig up the CD.
Now that we have two copies (the official and the bootleg) it
gets a bit confusing in our CD stacks.
I'll admit to a certain fondness for the bootleg since all the
dialog is still there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: & speaking
of tunes... -- LittleBit, 09:09:07 06/15/04 Tue
Hee [blush]... when I said I was bringing everything else, that'd
be BtVS s1-6, AtS s1-3, the OMWF CD, the OMWF songs directly from
the episode as mp3s as well as Anya's "Mrs" song, Music
for Elevators, the GotR CD (not that we need to listen to any
of those), but I don't have the Kane CD (yet).
Of course, in my TV DVDs case there's also Firefly and a whole
bunch more. I think maybe I'll also grab the musicals I have.
An for them car-toons, I have the Mickey shorts. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> that's
not *everything*! -- anom, 08:00:22 06/22/04 Tue
What about "Blue" from CWDP? Or "Mustard on My
Shirt" from Selfless (just before "Mrs.")? 'Cause
I've got those on tape, but I'd rather someone brought a more
compact tape player than the one I have to play them (luggage
space issues).
"An for them car-toons, I have the Mickey shorts."
You have Mickey Mouse's shorts? Did Disney put them on auction?
'cause I never heard about this! @>)
[> [> [> woo hoo! i got my tickets today! -- anom,
21:59:42 06/17/04 Thu
I'll be arriving at 1:23 Friday afternoon. I'd have preferred
to get there a little later (actually it has more to do w/getting
up a little later), but the earlier flight was significantly cheaper.
Not enough to pay for Cubs tickets, though...but more than enough
to cover a 3rd night at the hotel! That's right, Masq--I'll be
there for that last decadent night, & to split the cost of the
room! And don't worry, I'll be sure to bring enough chocolate
to last into the next day.
So is anyone else gonna be there that early on Friday? Where should
we look for each other?
[> [> [> [> I get in at 2:59 Friday. -- Jane,
22:23:14 06/17/04 Thu
Once I get through customs, I expect I'll get a cab (or, is there
a shuttle to the hotel from the airport? Anyone know?)to the hotel.
Staying til Monday. Masq,Rob, will there be a central meeting
area at the hotel? Woohoo, getting excited about all this!
[> [> [> [> [> seeing as it's an airport hotel...
-- anom, 22:39:44 06/17/04 Thu
...I'd guess there's a shuttle on practically a continuous loop.
[> [> [> [> [> We'll have a conference room
assigned to us -- Masq, 10:32:02 06/18/04 Fri
Rob knows the details about its availability, but for each day
we're there, we'll have a conference room where the TV/VCR will
be set up with chairs, etc.
Last year, we all gradually congregated in the conference room
each morning and hung out there off and on through out the day.
The first day (Friday), however, I don't know if we'll have the
room yet or not, because people will be busy drifting in, finding
their rooms, etc. Last year, we just hung out in each other's
hotel rooms the first night, and ran into each other in the lobby,
etc.
For those of you who don't recognize other ATPoers on sight, it
might be a good idea for us to exchange photos, cell phone #s,
etc. Although we got "a block of rooms" in the hotel,
last year we ended up being scattered all over the place on different
floors, wings, etc.
[> [> [> [> So you'll be there Fri, Sat, and Sun
nights? -- Masq, 10:26:09 06/18/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> whoops--shoulda said a *4th*
night! i'll be there monday night too, & into tuesday -- anom,
11:01:10 06/18/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah! That makes it cheaper
for me! -- Masq, 13:17:30 06/18/04 Fri
Not to mention good company!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> same for me, on both
counts! don'tcha like those win-win scenarios? -- anom, 13:49:26
06/18/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are you going
to be leaving Tuesday, or site-seeing? -- Masq, 14:22:51
06/18/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> as long
as i can make a 4 pm flight, i'm up for sight-seeing... --
anom, 15:25:02 06/18/04 Fri
...or whatever else we can find to do in Chi-town. Gotta figure
in security-check time at the airport, though. So maybe it's really
a question of getting up in time to do anything first.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
seem to recall... -- Masq, 16:26:46 06/18/04 Fri
Last year, the big Meet days were Fri and Sat, and then on Sunday,
people who stayed sight-saw that day.
Ergo, this year, the big Meet days will be Sat and Sun, and people
will start leaving Monday, but those of us staying until Tues
can sight-see Monday afternoon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm in for Monday afternoon sightseeing. -- cjl, 21:09:01
06/19/04 Sat
Should get in at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, and leave at 5:30 on Tuesday...
[> [> [> [> Who's coming when... -- LittleBit, 20:37:59
06/19/04 Sat
LadyS, Random and I will be there Thursday. I thought that for
Friday we could leave notes at checkin so people could find us
(like LadyS did last year). We can do that for anyone whose full
name we know, which isn't everyone who's coming, I'm sure.
If anyone wants to be certain we have names so we can leave notes,
just e-mail me.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Who's coming when...
-- LadyStarlight, 09:08:05 06/20/04 Sun
All I did was ask the front desk to give the message to anyone
who was checking in for whatever we wound up calling it. Much
easier than trying to leave them for specific names, IMO.
[> OK, reading this, I'm going to say I'm a medium --
Masq, 09:55:17 06/11/04 Fri
[> [> you are? really? wow--can we have a séance
at the gathering? -- anom, 13:08:10 06/14/04 Mon
This being the realverse, I think it'd be pretty low-risk. @>)
[> [> [> Yes, we're going to call upon the wisdom
of all the dead Buffyverse characters -- Masq, 09:31:12
06/15/04 Tue
Which means the seance should take up the entire weekend.
; )
[> Ooooh...I love a surprise -- Sara, Graffiti and Darby,
11:47:10 06/11/04 Fri
Large for me (sniff...sniff...) Extra Large for Darby and the
growing like a weed Graffiti.
[> XL for me -- Buffyboy, 11:53:00 06/11/04 Fri
[> Medium in men's, large in women's sizes.. -- Jane,
15:28:11 06/11/04 Fri
Don't like my t-shirts too tight! Need lots of room for expansion,
give all the chocolate and cookie goodness waiting for us. ;)
[> 15½ 32-33 -- d'Herblay, 03:36:55 06/15/04
Tue
I guess that means "Large."
[> [> d'H? You coming? How about Rah? -- cjl, 06:29:52
06/15/04 Tue
[> [> [> Could Rah possibly come?!! -- Arethusa,
07:04:44 06/15/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> Third-ing that. Cookies Rah, what kind
do you like? -- Ann, 07:59:59 06/15/04 Tue
[> [> [> You guys are so sweet! -- Rahael, 07:30:56
06/19/04 Sat
I'm afraid I shan't be able to make it (my holiday leave is such
that I have to eke it out as much as possible and travelling to
the states doesn't allow me to work some days and not others).
Hope you all have a great time, and I wish I could be there!
[> [> [> [> awwww... >sniffle< -- anom,
19:36:13 06/19/04 Sat
"Hope you all have a great time, and I wish I could be there!"
So do we, Rah!! We'll miss you--hope you can make it next time!
[> [> d"H is coming to Chicago -- Masq, 09:27:15
06/15/04 Tue
Does dance of joy
Of course, I already *knew* that.
[> [> [> but not rah, right? -- anom, 11:18:21
06/17/04 Thu
I don't think she can, or we'd have heard by now.
Does dance of mitigated joy
Let's see--last year Rahael visited d'Herblay in Cleveland the
week after the ATPo Gathering in Vancouver. This year d'H is visiting
Rah in London till a few days before the ATPo Gathering in Chicago.
My theory? They're zeroing in on the Gathering & next year will
be together the same weekend as the Gathering & at its actual
location. Or maybe the year after that, but I'm pulling for next
year.
[> [> [> [> We can *hope* -- Masq, 11:52:38
06/17/04 Thu
[> 2 x-tra large or x-tra x-tra! -- frisby, 18:39:56
06/24/04 Thu
2 x-tra large or x-tra x-tra large
Chicago roll call... 'cause I'm curious and
I want to know -- Masq, 13:51:03 06/20/04 Sun
Here's a list of people I know are coming to Chicago. If you are
not on this list but plan to be there, chime in. If you are on
this list in error, also chime:
Ann
anom
Arethusa
Belladona
Buffyboy
cjl
The Darbys - Sarah, Graffiti and Darby
d'Herblay
fidhle
fresne
Jane
Lady Starlight
Little Bit
mamcu
Masq
Rob and Justin
Sheri
Replies:
[> Re: Chicago roll call... 'cause I'm curious and I want
to know -- LittleBit, 21:38:18 06/20/04 Sun
Also Random.
[> [> Right, I knew that! ; ) -- Masq, 21:42:21
06/20/04 Sun
[> I plan to attend without staying at the hotel. --
Kansas, 10:05:35 06/21/04 Mon
I apologize for being unable to help with filling the room block,
folks. :)
[> [> Are you a Chicago local? -- Masq, 11:10:24
06/21/04 Mon
[> [> [> Yes. -- Kansas, 11:44:34 06/21/04
Mon
[> frisby? you made up your mind yet? -- anom, 22:22:46
06/23/04 Wed
[> [> Yes, I guess so, and bringing a friend too!
-- David Frisby,
09:27:03 06/24/04 Thu
Anon, and Masq too, and others:
Yes, I'm coming. My friend, George Dunn, who teaches philosophy,
including a course on evil that he's taught several times, will
be there all day saturday and sunday but will probably leave sometime
monday after breakfast or lunch, aiming to arrive friday night.
We do have a room booked and did so before the deadline so I hope
that helped the count. On t-shirts, we need extra-large or even
extra-extra. We'll bring a small tv-dvd, as well as seasons 1-6
of buffy and angel 1-3 for region 1, and season 7 buffy and season
4 angel region 2 (with region 2 dvd player). Also bringing buffy
books and a few philosophy books. I read much of the time is spent
lounging around the pool, drinking red wine, and watching episodes?
and eating cookies? Am I forgetting anything? Looking forward
to this! Thanks 'anom' for the slight push to decide -- it really
made a difference. Nothing like face to face to enhance the online.
See you next week!!!
i'm new -- Kana, 04:55:56
06/11/04 Fri
Hi i'm new to the message post and i was wondering if the campaign
for a sixth season of Angel is still going on. I love the show
but i'm glad it is ending. i haven't seen season 5 yet so maybe
that will change my mind, but i think the buffyverse should now
be left to fanfiction writers, novelists and comic book writers.
i want to remember Angel with fond memories, not when writers
are struggling to find passion for story and character arcs.
By the way you message board members are really smart. i saw and
participated in a really interesting Faith debate.
see you guys later
Kana
PS. Are you guys mostly from the US cause I'm a brit fan. Are
there any other british fans out there?
Replies:
[> welcome -- anom, 07:52:49 06/11/04 Fri
Hi, Kana. Yes, the Save Angel campaign is over, although there
may still be a few diehards out there trying. There used to be
links to sites for the the campaign at the top of the board & they're
gone, so that's a pretty good indication.
A lot of people would (& will, I'm sure!) disagree w/you about
wanting Season 6. There were a lot of things that were left unresolved
& could have been followed up on if there'd been another season.
In fact, there's a project on this board to write Season 6 (link
near top of main page)!
I'd say most posters here are from the U.S., but there's a sizable
British contingent. Not as big as the Canadian one, though!
[> Hello! -- Doug, 09:57:17 06/11/04 Fri
Canadian fan here.
[> Hello, Kana. -- Briar Rose, 15:12:25 06/11/04
Fri
This is a great group of very intelligent and friendly posters,
and I'm sure that you will enjoy it here.
Have you found the Existential Scoobies archives yet? Rob's Annotated
Buffy? Those are must reads!
[> [> Hi Kana, welcome! -- Jane, 15:19:00 06/11/04
Fri
Hope you find this board as interesting and enlightening as I
have. Always room for another fan. (Canadian fan here.)
Eve -- David, 10:51:20
06/11/04 Fri
How come Eve didn't have Hamiltons strength and also Hamilton
beat Illyria, a Old one/God and Eve was scared of Harmony eating
her who is just a vampire and not a smart one.
Did the senior partners decide to give Hamilton their strength
and 'ancient power' so he could beat the fang gang or did Eve
just play dumb and was binding her time. Also what did Eve mean
when she said she was a 'child of the partners'. Did they actually
have sex and produced Eve or did they genetically create her using
their lab and scientists
Thanks and sorry if this is a lot of questions
Replies:
[> Re: Eve -- luvthistle1, 18:07:50 06/11/04 Fri
Eve was mortal who was only given Immortally", which means
that she would stay young and will not die, of diseases. but she
could still be killed. While Hamilton was given "immortally"
along with the blood of the "Senior Partners", which
gave him long life and power. something like what the frist evil
did with Caleb. ...I find it interesting that Hollen Manner mention
that he likes kids and that the Sp has taken his kids. ..hint
to how Eve came about , maybe? they never was clear on what Eve
meant by her being a child of the senior partners. I think it
means they they might have raise her, but she wasn't their .
[> [> We know that Hamilton... -- Wizard, 01:10:10
06/12/04 Sat
Is very, very old, given the casual and familiar manner he used
with Drogan. I can't remember the actual dialogue, but the subtext
was very clear- they knew each other of old, and since we know
that Drogan is hundreds of years old, it follows that Hamilton
is as well.
As for Lilah-lite- er, Eve, we don't know how old she is. In fact,
we don't know very much about her at all. Given the nature of
the Senior Partners, taking the children of their mortal servants
and milking all they could out of them is hardly a stretch. In
fact, I would be surprised if the sacrifice of children was literal.
Wouldn't be horrible to have
it ended like the Fray comics? -- megaslayer, 13:05:19
06/11/04 Fri
If All demons are forced out then what about all of the good demons,
entities, and supernatural beings. Also it would make a little
boring or delaying for the fight between good and evil. Angel,
spike, Connor, lorne will be sent other dimensions because they
are demons.
Replies:
[> Connor isn't a demon. He is human with superpowers, just
like Buffy. -- SS, 14:12:04 06/11/04 Fri
[> [> In his heart and soul maybe -- BrianWilly,
18:33:22 06/11/04 Fri
But the Caritas non-violence spell cast on the Hyperion labeled
him as some manner of demon, so I'm guessing that if there really
was some sort of a spell that totally removes all demons
from this dimension, it would make the same distinction.
[> [> [> That was always ambiguous -- masq, 00:43:24
06/12/04 Sat
It was never clear whether that was *real* or whether Jasmine/Evil!Cordelia
finagled that to manipulate Connor's mind.
At any rate, if it was real, he is biologically, genetically human,
and only a demon by virtue of some additional metaphysical heritage.
In other words, not much different than slayers, whose powers
also come from demonic heritage.
[> [> [> That was always ambiguous -- masq, 00:48:30
06/12/04 Sat
It was never clear whether that was *real* or whether Jasmine/Evil!Cordelia
finagled that to manipulate Connor's mind.
At any rate, if it was real, he is biologically, genetically human,
and only a demon by virtue of some additional metaphysical heritage.
In other words, not much different than slayers, whose powers
also come from demonic heritage.
[> I have a feeling that Joss will, at some point...*SPOILERS
FOR FRAY* -- BrianWilly, 18:42:09 06/11/04 Fri
...erase or at least debunk that aspect of Fray canon. He himself
mentioned that Buffy mythology no longer intersects correctly
with Fray mythology, what with the many many Slayers now, and
that he will address this point in future issues of Fray. My theory
is that either Urkonn was lying or not telling the whole truth(after
all, we find out near the end that Urkonn hasn't been exactly
forthcoming)or that he himself has been lied to concerning this
history(his higher-ups don't really consider him as anything more
than a pawn).
After all it doesn't actually make much sense, does it, to have
all supernatural things in the world disappear? In the
Buffyverse, magic is a part of foundations of the world...not
just something that was added as a convenience, but something
that was there since the beginning. How can something that is
tied to the core of the planet itself just up and disappear? People
might forget about it or forget how to use it, and it may even
lie dormant, but to banish it?
And besides, the Slayer is something born of magic. If, as Urkonn
described, all magicks left this world...why would the Slayer
line have continued as he also claimed it did? Something in his
story doesn't check out.
I agree that to have everything supernatural disappear from the
world would be a terrible thing indeed. What about all the good
magicks, the healing forces, the earth and Gaea powers that Willow
and all other positively-inclined wiccans and shamans acknowledge?
Not all supernatural things are bad.
[> [> Re: I have a feeling that Joss will, at some point...*SPOILERS
FOR FRAY* -- Ames, 10:07:20 06/12/04 Sat
Why would Fray be inconsistent with the Buffy mythology? Both
Chosen and Fray were written around the same time, as you can
see from the appearance of the Slayer Scythe in Fray. Joss may
certainly have further thoughts on what happens in between at
some point, but not because they became inconsistent after Fray
was written.
There have been some very inventive ways of dealing with the problem
of how magic can go out of the world. Have you read the book "The
Magic Goes Away" by Larry Niven?
(MINOR SPOILER AHEAD if not)
In his story magicians eventually realize that magic is is a non-renewable
resource, that it can be used up permanently in any given location.
One magician invents a sort of doomsday weapon, the magic equivalent
of an atomic bomb, consisting of two simple spells combined: one
which causes a disc to spin faster and faster, and another which
magically reinforces the disc so that it cannot fly apart. When
the spell is triggered, the disc spins faster and faster until
all the magic in the vicinity is exhausted. Then it flies apart,
leaving a permanent magic dead zone in the world. Repeated use
in spite of all attempts to ban it leading eventually and inevitably
to the loss of magic from the entire world.
[> [> [> Re: I have a feeling that Joss will, at some
point...*SPOILERS FOR FRAY* -- BrianWilly, 15:12:43 06/12/04
Sat
As far as I know, Fray was written long before Buffy season 7...it
took a while for all the issues to get out(first of the eight
issues came out June of 2001), but the groundwork and mythology
were all down. The inconsistency that I'm talking about is the
fact that there are supposed to be hundreds of Slayers all at
once now. In Fray, there's still only one; the evidence for this
is that one of the Old Ones says "To kill her and seek the
next Slayer would take time, but..." If there were still
many Slayers, this wouldn't be the case.
Now, for a comic set in the far future, Fray's flashbacks were
actually pretty precise, and the events in Chosen -- as far as
the characters on Fray have described -- never happened. The Slayer
line continued in the one-by-one process. Assuming that Joss still
intends to keep the two universes side by side, there are several
possibilies to explain this, two of which I mentioned:
1) Urkonn lied to Melaka about this history. We find out in issue
eight that, while lovable, Urkonn was hardly honest and kept his
own agendas, so this option is quite likely with little if any
tweaking involved.
2) Urkonn's superiors lied to him about this history. These "Old
Ones" looked at Urkonn throughout the arc is little more
than an expendable minion, so once again this is a possibility,
but not as likely as the first one; Urkonn himself is incredibly
old, so it's likely he was around during the present age.
3) At some point in time, the Awakening spell of Chosen will be
undone. At first this doesn't seem incredibly likely, as
it tends to tear down the whole empowerment theme that Joss set
and is uncomfortably similar to a retcon...we'll call it a procon,
proactive continuity;).
But in actuality this is far from impossible. It could be something
evil that did this, or it could just as easily have been a decision
made by the good guys too; if there were no more demons for Slayers
to fight, then obviously Slayers themselves weren't needed anymore,
much less hundreds of them...in fact, the continuation of hundreds
of these superpowered women would probably be a bigger threat
to the world at this point, with the Scoobs gone and not being
able to watch out for them.
4) There is more to the Awakening spell than what we know...and
hey, we actually know very little about it. When exactly do Slayers
awaken?...at birth? Adolescence? Are new Slayers going to awaken
at all after this line of hundreds? After this batch passes
on, are we back to the one-by-one process? As powerful as Willow
is, she tapped into some big-time, volatile magic...who can tell
if she was allowed to specify these details?
I haven't read that book, but it sounds incredibly interesting.
I think I'll have to take back my idea that it's impossible to
detatch all magic from this world...in a sense, this is what we're
doing every day. If the magic that Buffyverse mages use comes
from the Earth, and we kill the Earth, then clearly there is no
more magic. Giles insinuated strongly that the true essence of
magic is good and nature-based...and from what we know of Fray's
time, nature is all but totally gone.
Melaka: "Good luck finding an actual piece of wood."
I assumed that this purge of the environment was merely a continuation
of the ecological destruction of our time, but what if it was
indirectly brought on by the Scoobies in their final battle? In
sending away magic, did they actually doom the Earth's natural
wonders? Food for contemplation indeed.
[> [> [> [> Re: I have a feeling that Joss will,
at some point...*SPOILERS FOR FRAY* -- Rob, 17:46:30 06/12/04
Sat
As far as I know, Fray was written long before Buffy season
7...it took a while for all the issues to get out(first of the
eight issues came out June of 2001), but the groundwork and mythology
were all down.
That's only partly true. While Joss may have had an idea of how
the story would go, the reason "Fray" took so long to
come out was Joss had major delays in writing between issues,
due to his other commitments. The issues were sometimes finished
less than a week before they were released. Had they all been
finished months before, they would have been released in a more
timely fashion.
Rob
[> [> Re: I have a feeling that Joss will, at some point...*SPOILERS
FOR FRAY* -- Ames, 10:08:48 06/12/04 Sat
Why would Fray be inconsistent with the Buffy mythology? Both
Chosen and Fray were written around the same time, as you can
see from the appearance of the Slayer Scythe in Fray. Joss may
certainly have further thoughts on what happens in between at
some point, but not because they became inconsistent after Fray
was written.
There have been some very inventive ways of dealing with the problem
of how magic can go out of the world. Have you read the book "The
Magic Goes Away" by Larry Niven?
(MINOR SPOILER AHEAD if not)
In his story magicians eventually realize that magic is is a non-renewable
resource, that it can be used up permanently in any given location.
One magician invents a sort of doomsday weapon, the magic equivalent
of an atomic bomb, consisting of two simple spells combined: one
which causes a disc to spin faster and faster, and another which
magically reinforces the disc so that it cannot fly apart. When
the spell is triggered, the disc spins faster and faster until
all the magic in the vicinity is exhausted. Then it flies apart,
leaving a permanent magic dead zone in the world. Repeated use
in spite of all attempts to ban it leading eventually and inevitably
to the loss of magic from the entire world.
Amy Acker invterview
-- Ann, 04:28:51 06/12/04 Sat
Part of this article has an interview with Amy Acker about the
ending of Angel.
http://209.11.49.185/backstage/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000530456
Angel's (Or Spike's) reward
-- Kana, 06:35:33 06/12/04 Sat
I'm new as i've said and this has probably already been discussed
but the thought of going through all the archives terrifies me
immensely, but anyway i was wondering whether Angel's reward (The
Shansu one) had two benefits. Consider the fact that the demon
part of a vampire grows more powerful with age, wouldn't this
mean Angel in time would have less control over his demon side
and if this were the case then he is putting the very people who
he would be trying to save in danger. Plus if his face changed
permenantly then he would have some difficulty attempting to get
people to trust him.
Perhaps the Powers That Be are aware of that and that is why they
will in time give him his 'reward', to become human. Although
he would no longer be of much use to cause, he would at least
no longer be a threat.
By the way i realise this could all relate to Spike but i guess
that means if the prophecy relates to one vampire with a soul
then either Spike or Angel are not going to survive the apocalypse.
Lastley, i have not seen AtS season 5 so if this is at all answered
in the series then i apologize.
Replies:
[> It isn't answered! ME can be evil. This makes the speculation
even more interesting. -- Briar Rose, 12:58:29 06/12/04
Sat
Conner's kids -- Kana,
07:01:34 06/12/04 Sat
Assuming Conner had a kid with a human girl (not a Power That
Was masquerading as a part demon ex cheerleader) what would the
child be? Human, another one of Conner's species or something
else?
Replies:
[> Re: Conner's kids -- Ann, 08:14:59 06/12/04 Sat
The way this show ended, I don't think species matters anymore.
Assuming the "world" doesn't end and some survive I
imagine that in 10 or 15 years:
The memory intact Connor, IMO would have kids that were realistic
about the world, were well loved, and had a wonderful sense of
history provided by Grandpa. Three I think, 2 boys and a girl.
Can you imagine Angel with grandkids on his knee!! Imagine the
stories he could tell them, while digging candy out of his pocket
to give them behind Connor's back! I think Connor would be a strict
parent, firm but loving, everything that Liam's dad wasn't. I
think this might close the circle of pain begun by Liam's dad.
Angel would be grateful that this was Connor's gift to him.
I am imagining an urban not suburban upper level house (no basements
here). A cute dark haired wife, not ditzy in any way and not a
pushover either. Strong in her own right, attentive and completely
aware of the losses of his early childhood. Maybe someone he met
in therapy, after realizing the full spectrum of his emotions
about his past. The Connor presented in the final few episodes,
leads me to believe he would be proactive in his recovery. He
wants to mend it all. It is reflected in his kids. And his dad.
[> [> I will probably get popcorn thrown at me for this
but.... -- SS, 13:42:38 06/12/04 Sat
I think that after they both have had a bit more time to grow
and develop, that Buffy would be the best bet for Connor and that
Connor would be the best bet for Buffy.
I don't think anyone would understand or would be equipped to
help those two better than each other.
They have shown that neither Angel or Spike would work with Buffy
because the vampire with a soul to human divide is too big to
cross. I think you could extrapolate the same to Connor.
Yet they have also shown that an ordinary human (like Riley) wouldn't
work with Buffy either because again, the balance would be way
too off. Again, I think you can extrapolate the same to Connor.
The (almost) only answer to that would be to find for each of
them someone who was something in between, and the only ones we
know of like that on both shows were Connor and Buffy.
I used the word (almost) because, I think Buffy and Xander, with
a great great deal of work and development could also work, if
only because of how much they already love each other, if only
as friends for now.
:)
SS
[> [> [> Conner and Buffy? -- Kana, 13:57:46
06/12/04 Sat
I can't see Angel standing for that. I mean i would be quite disturbed
if my true love and son got it together. coming to think of it,
that would be the second time that happened to Angel (Sort of).
[> [> [> [> Re: Conner and Buffy? -- Lilly,
08:47:38 06/13/04 Sun
Oh no, Yuck,
If Angel survives that could never ever be, even if he didn't,
that is still impossible.
Dawn and Conner perhaps.
Seeing how Conner has a "thing" for older women and
he was very impressed with Faith, I think that in fact would be
the most likely possibility.
[> [> [> Connor is best compared to Slayers--human
and preternaturally strong -- Masq, 14:56:55 06/12/04 Sat
I don't know about 'shipping (but Connor's got a big ol' crush
on Faith!), but metaphysically, Connor is best compared to Slayers,
a human who comes by his supernatural powers in virtue of a non-genetic
demon heritage.
[> [> [> [> Re: Connor is best compared to Slayers--human
and preternaturally strong -- Wizard, 23:43:41 06/12/04
Sat
He also corresponds to Dawn- 'unnatural' people that shouldn't
exist but do because of major mojo having been worked upon them.
Also, both have the experience of being put in happy families,
false memories and all.
And Buffy/Connor is every bit as squicky as Connor/Cordy.
[> [> [> Three clarifications ;) -- SS, 16:50:09
06/13/04 Sun
Why I said what I said hinges on my belief that Buffy isn't, and
never was really meant to be Angel's true love, and vice versa....
My friend sent me a pass along email once about how some people
come into your life for a reason, and some come for a season...
I think that Angel played a crucial and necessary role in Buffy's
growth and development, and I think they have a lot in common,
but their needs and capabilities don't mesh anymore, and my opinion,
probably won't again. For example? In all relationships that I
have known of, there is always one party, either the woman or
the man that takes charge. Angel use to take charge because of
Buffy's youth. Who would take charge now? Now they both are the
take charge type. Connor on the other hand, would fend for himself,
but he was never the take charge leaderly type.
Do I think that Angel would get squicked from it? First, I think
that he has resolved most to at least many of his Buffy issues
towards getting on with his life. Second, I think that he already
has begun to get on with his life, with Nina, who, in my opinion,
is a much better match for him. Given enough time, and enough
of a new relationship, I don't think Angel would get very squicked
by it.
I also don't think that Connor/Buffy would be anything near squicky,
and yes it was squicky, as Connor/Cordy. First, Buffy didn't mother
him as a baby, as far as I know, Buffy to this date has never
even met him yet, and now he is close to being fully mature. Second,
I picture this happening some time after Angel, who I think is
much closer to being ready for a relationship (by virtue of his
relationship with Nina) has already moved on, so it wouldn't be
like Connor would be stealing his father's girl.
If you want, and I can clear the time, I will give other examples
of how I think that Buffy and Angel, or Buffy and Spike aren't
likely compatible in the future.
:)
SS
[> [> [> Coffy? Raise hands if ewwwww;). -- BrianWilly,
14:33:32 06/14/04 Mon
Ptui! We shall speak of it no more!
Lol on the non-joky side, I actually am of the faction that doesn't
believe Buffy and Riley didn't work out because he was purely
human.
In fact, I think that regardless of how she was written to feel
after the big helicopter scene, Buffy did put hell of a lot of
effort into the relationship. Look at the scene between the two
in "Out of My Mind."
People tend to think that Joyce's operation was merely an excuse
for Buffy to become cut-off from Riley, but I think it's a valid
circumstancial reason. Her mother was possibly dying. Riley's
gonna...what, rag on her for not giving him that extra hug because
she has to look out for her family now?
In fact, I pretty much think that theirs is a relationship that
could have been easily fixed if only Riley had bothered to, oh
I don't know, talk to Buffy about his insecurities as opposed
to being all MAN about it...not to mention the "cheating"
aspect of it between him and the vamp girl.
Ptui. Whiny army boy. We shall speak no more of him either!
[> [> [> Re: I will probably get popcorn thrown at
me for this but.... -- luvthistle1, 21:33:46 06/14/04 Mon
popcorn over the Buffy and Xander deal, xander had already been
establish as Buffy's bother figure, so it has a "eww"
factor... but the Connor think would work....if he wasn't Angel's
son ( another "Eww" factor". but Buffy and Connor
are slayers, both had to deal with being different and trying
to fit in. so they would make a good couple.
[> [> [> Superficial grounds.... -- dlgood, 06:13:43
06/15/04 Tue
The (almost) only answer to that would be to find for each
of them someone who was something in between, and the only ones
we know of like that on both shows were Connor and Buffy.
Such an argument is more than a little flawed for a few reasons.
First, is the assumption that a slayer cannot "hook up"
with a normal human. Which if true, is devastatingly sad - as
there are now tons of slayers running around.
Second, is the assumption that satisfying these basic biological/metaphysical
niches is sufficient.
Buffy and Connor are supernatural beings, with human traits. Does
that in any way mean they'll actually like each other or get along?
Who knows? Would it mean Connor, if he wanted a slayer, would
want Buffy as opposed to the many other slayers running around.
A potential Connor/Slayer relationship has the supernatural/human
status thing going for it. But, it's hard to take that as more
than superficial at this point.
[> [> [> [> No one really answered my question
-- Kana, 06:44:37 06/15/04 Tue
This thread started as a result of me asking what sort child Conner
would have if he got together with a human girl (which is just
as likely as him dating a slayer etc. to add to your point, dlgood).
I think it's really interesting to debate who Conner will end
with romantically but I only wanted to discuss the metaphysics
of Conner possibly being a parent for the second time. I understand
the obvious comparisons between Conner and any Slayer but we know
what happens when a slayer has a child, it's completely run of
the mill. Although Conner is not the first to inherit supernatural
abilities through some sort of demonic force, he is the first
'human'(?) to inherit it directly from his parents, surely that
will affect what sort of child he has.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No one really answered my
question -- Passerbyer, 10:18:55 06/15/04 Tue
Actually, it's possible that a Slayer's kid could have enhanced
abilities. Do we know if Wood was born before or after Nikki was
called as a slayer? That could make a difference.
As for Connor, I don't think his kids necessarily have to have
enhanced abilities. The Buffyverse could probably explain it either
way.
-Passerbyer
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No one really answered
my question -- Wizard, 14:03:03 06/15/04 Tue
It could go either way. A pregnant Slayer would have very little
(relative) mobility, so if Nikki patrolled in her later stages,
she would have been killed much sooner. However, the Council as
a whole viewed Slayers as expendable, so if word of her condition
went back, Nikki's Watcher might have been forced to send her
out.
As for Connor's children- yes, they could go either way, but my
personal view is that his immediate descendants (children and
maybe grandchildren) would be more than human, at least to some
degree.
[> [> Re: Conner's kids -- Passerbyer, 16:53:38
06/14/04 Mon
I can't believe I'm about to discuss the theoretical implications
of a vampire's kid having a romantic relationship with a vampire
slayer.
Ok...Buffy and Connor...bad match. Even though the two are fairly
close in age, Buffy has much more emotional maturity when it comes
to relationships. There's no way the two of them could have a
healthy relationship. Buffy needs a man, not a boy. Connor needs
someone who is more on par with his emotional maturity.
It reminds me of something Oz said to Willow once about sex; that
he wants her to want it for the same reasons he wants it. Same
goes for Buffy and Connor. They need things from each other that
the other can't offer.
Perhaps a slayer that's not Buffy or Faith.
-Passerbyer
[> Re: Conner's kids...(Spoilers will the Senior Partners...)
-- botitas, 23:20:33
06/12/04 Sat
Let Connor live. If the Senior partners wanted to punish Angel
for his betrayal, it would seem to me that they would not stop
at Angel but include his son, especially since Connor fought with
Angel against Hamilton. Afterall the SP know where Conner lives
and if Hamilton was their coduit they would know that Conner fought
with Angel, so why would they want Conner to live? IMHO if you
really wanted to punish Angel, the SP would capture Angel and
make him watch Conner die a long slow death or bring back Angelus
to kill Conner. Remember, Angelus was temporary brought back in
?Season 1??? when Angel was drugged.
If Doyle had two bracken
demon parents would he be considered a half-breed? -- wolverine,
08:09:10 06/12/04 Sat
I was thinking because doyle had a human mother he was a considered
a halfbreed. I know all demons are tainted with some human ancestors.
There are pure demons, pureblooded, and then halfbreeds.
Replies:
[> Demon genetics -- Ames, 09:43:29 06/12/04 Sat
Doyle is probably similar to a vampire, or to Anyanka for that
matter, about a 50-50 mix of human and demon.
It was Anya who originally said on BtVS that all the demons seen
in this world are at least part human. We don't know exactly why
the original pure demons had to leave this world after the humans
arrived on the scene, but it could be that only those with some
human blood tying them to this reality were able to remain.
I don't know if there's any example of a hybrid with a lot less
than 50% demon. Maybe Connor? If his parents were both 50% demon,
and mystical genetics works anything like biological genetics,
then he might have turned out 0/25/50/75/100% demon. We know that
he appears completely human and has no demon face, but on the
other hand he has great strength and was affected by the anti-demon-violence
Sanctuary spell. So maybe he was 25% demon?
Re: The Final Battle Assessed
(Spoilers: Angel 5:22) -- Peasant,
00:43:07 06/13/04 Sun
Hi, I was directed here by Indri and have been reading the interesting
discussion of the final battle in the archives.
I'm one of those who think they don't have a chance. I was toying
with comparisons with Agincourt, Horatius and Rorke's Drift (all
well known examples where a small number of defenders defeated
a far greater number of opponents), but I think there are good
reasons why the Angel scenario is different from all of them.
_Agincourt_
1415, c.5,000 English defeated 20,000-50,000 French (1:4-10)
Somebody has already mentioned that the difference in numbers
is not equivalent. I feel I should also point out that at Agincourt
the vital factor was the English longbows. You also have to bear
in mind the very sticky mud of the battlefield and the nature
of early fifteenth century armour, which combined to mean that
a man who went down for any reason - be it injury or simply a
slip - was very unlikely to get up again. The flat plates of his
armour would adhere to the mud and suction alone make it near
impossible to rise without help. A large number of the French
nobility would simply have drowned stuck face down in mud.
Now I suppose much of this comes down to whether you follow a
Keegan type explanation for the battle (John Keegan: The Face
of Battle, 1976) - that the French were hindered by their own
crush - or a Hardy type explanation (Robert Hardy: Longbow, a
social and military history, 1976) - that the French were killed
by arrows before they got anywhere near the English. I myself
tend to favour Hardy for the early stages of the battle and Keegan
for the later ones. In which case the explanation of why the French
became hindered not helped by the bodies of their comrades becomes
apparent. A pile of bodies as a useful launching off point onto
an opponent immediately below might well be a help, but if the
French were first being killed at a distance of 60 yards from
the English line by the longbows then any Frenchman had to negotiate
a maze of his dying fallen comrades. Bear in mind that any trip
could result in death - and you can see why the battle became
a massacre. Most of the French never even got near the English,
who as long as they had a steady supply of ammunition could keep
enough of the French off to be safe, and in the later stages of
the battle when they did get close then the English Archers dressed
only lightly in cloth had a significant advantage over the French.
Hence the almost complete absence of casualties on the English
side.
Where the French did manage to engage close up - as happened with
the Duke of York's section of the van - the English actually sustained
casualties, especially amongst their own nobility since they were
then vulnerable for exactly the same reason as the French.
Compared to the Angel scenario then this battle clearly has little
relevance. Angel and co have no long range missile weapons with
them (pity Wes didn't make it) and thus any casualties they can
cause will be up close - where they will indeed pile up to provide
a convenient launching pad for their opponents, whilst fatally
hindering the Angel team's own fighting space. Their room for
manoeuvre - a vital component of both Angel and Spike's fighting
style - already limited by the chain fence behind would thus be
further hindered.
_Rorke's_Drift_
1879, c.140 British beat off an attacking force of 3,500 to 4,000
Zulus. (1:25-28)
These numbers are getting closer to what Angel and co faced, there
is also an equivalency that the defenders of Rorke's Drift had
nowhere to retreat to and had just had their morale damaged by
news of the crushing defeat at Isandlwana (equivalent perhaps
to news of Wesley's death) and the fleeing of a troop of the Natal
Native Horse that had been with them (perhaps equivalent to Lorne's
defection).
But again the vital factor is that at Rorke's Drift the defenders
had a fast loading long range weapon (the breech-loading Martini-Henry
rifle), thus preventing their opponents ever getting close enough
for the hand to hand fighting at which they excelled. They are
also defending a well prepared position, reducing their own exposure
to a minimum and ensuring they have no problems with ammunition
supply. These factors are combined with the almost farcically
high morale of the British imperial forces in the nineteenth century.
Compare this to the Angel team - they are in a narrow alleyway
with nothing defending their rear except a chain link fence, which
will only hinder their own movements. They are overlooked by tall
buildings - a single man with a crossbow on any one of which would
spell disaster. They are facing a charging force but have no missile
weapons or even something like a pike to keep them at a distance.
This is not a good defensible position but a death-trap.
Oh and their leader has clearly told them he does not expect them
to survive, nor will he offer any strategic advice when requested.
And there's a dragon.
_Defence_of_the_Sublician_Bridge_
Late 6th Cetury BC, 3 Romans held off the Etruscan Army. (3:2,000?)
Well it probably never happened. But assuming it had the theory
is that the three defenders were able to keep the Etruscans off
the bridge by virtue of only having a narrow space to defend,
so only three Etruscans at a time could ever face them even though
there was a whole army. This could then be exactly equivalent
to our four heroes in the narrow alley.
Unfortunately it isn't. Horatius and friends had no worries about
an attack from the rear (the bridge itself) or flanks (River Tiber),
nor, clearly, did they have to worry about Etruscan arrows or
slingshots - we can assume that the press of Etruscan champions
eager to prove their worth against the Roman heroes and establish
the vital bridgehead was so thick that the lowly archers and slingers
couldn't get within range. Had they been able to then the three
defenders could have been taken out quickly and safely.
In Angel and co's case even if the press of demons down the alley
was thick there would be nothing to prevent anyone with a gun,
crossbow or the sense to toss down a concrete block from getting
above our heroes on or in the buildings overlooking them.
Horatius also had somewhere to retreat to - he and his comrades
knew they only had to delay the Etruscans for long enough for
the other Romans to cut down the bridge. They had no need to hold
out indefinitely and defeat all their opponents as the only way
to ensure their own safety.
One final word - it is impossible to say how many Angel's team
were facing or how fast reinforcements could be brought up but
we do know one hard fact - the Archduke Sebassis had over 40,000
demons at his command. Even had any of Angel's team somehow survived
the alley, they could not have survived long afterwards. You don't
walk away from a thing like that.
Replies:
[> Re: The Final Battle Assessed (Spoilers: Angel 5:22)
-- StarryNightShade, 14:40:45 06/13/04 Sun
Hi Peasant,
When I posted my original analysis it was to give some succour
to those who need to see that they survive.
For me it is irrelevant. The message is that the fight goes on(as
it is for recovering alcoholics...for which Angel's journey is
an analogy). You don't show this with 2 or 3 demons but with rank
upon rank of them.
The analysis I did was to show that numbers alone are not the
only factor to consider. There are actually far too many unknowns
to even guess; and considering "Hollywood's" understanding
of combat (i.e. the final battle gladatorial type combat scenes
in "The Patriot" or "Last Samurai" are good
indications of that) then any outcome is plausible. Add to this
any number of additional events which may come to pass at the
whim of a writer's pen......
However, as a viewer I would expect the some of the following
constraints upon the Senior Partners:
1) As they can't operate directly easily on this dimension they
have created, the Circle of the Black Thorne to act as their command
and control centre. The loss of this command and control should
mean something...they should not be allowed for example to activate
and coordinate all of Duke Sebassis' 40,000 demons. Otherwise
why was the Duke even needed.
2) They shouldn't be able to open portals willy-nilly. Thoughout
the series opening a portal WAS a big thing. If they can open
dozens of these portals it really cheapens all of the previous
"stop the apocolypse" events of Buffy/Angel.
3) If they can activate all of the forces of hell, then the PTB/Slayers/etc.
should also be allowed to respond...and maybe this might be one
option Joss considered for Season 6.
Cheers
SNS
[> Re: The Final Battle Assessed (Spoilers: Angel 5:22)
-- skpe, 15:35:10 06/13/04 Sun
I think that as Angel is more a mythic figure the last battle
should more accurately be compared with other mythic fights. I.e.
Sampson who is supposed to have killed 10,000 philistines with
nothing but a donkey jaw
The test Buffy took in ,,Helpless,,
should be outlawed. -- Greg White, 08:55:00 06/13/04 Sun
The test Buffy took in ,,Helpless,, should be outlawed it,s mean
and degrading.It,s offical name is the Cruciamentum.No slayer
should be treated that way.I don,t blame Giles for his objection
to the test.
Replies:
[> Re: The test Buffy took in ,,Helpless,, should be outlawed.
-- Peasant,
09:23:14 06/13/04 Sun
The Watchers' Council must have some sensible reason for that
test - and whilst I do believe they were unbelievably bureaucratic
I don't think they were ever actually ill intentioned towards
their slayers. Why should they be? So the Cruciamentum must serve
some vital purpose in their eyes.
I would propose that the answer lies in the more advanced knowledge
of a Slayer's power that Buffy was persuading Giles to teach her
during the early parts of Season 5 - whatever this knowledge is,
it is perhaps not something that an entirely green Slayer should
be privy to due to risks associated. Maybe the Cruciamentum -
an admittedly extreme test - was developed as a way to distinguish
those older Slayers who were fit to pass on to the next level
of training, from those who were not.
[> [> Re: The test Buffy took in ,,Helpless,, should
be outlawed. -- Rich, 11:19:31 06/13/04 Sun
"a way to distinguish those older Slayers who were fit to
pass on to the next level of training, from those who were not."
By killing them ? By forcing the CoW to call a new Potential who's
even "greener" then the one who died ? Does that really
sound like an effective stategy ? The navy SEALs drop a lot of
recruits during "Hell Week" (other military units have
similar procedures), but they don't kill them.
There is one way I can see that your argument might hold up. The
vampire in the test was guarded by 2 watchers. Possibly they were
intended to interfere if the caged vamp got the upper hand. In
which case, Giles was right - the test "spun out of control"
& should have been cancelled immediately.
[> [> [> Re: The test Buffy took in ,,Helpless,, should
be outlawed. -- Majin Gojira, 13:53:14 06/13/04 Sun
"By killing them ? By forcing the CoW to call a new Potential
who's even "greener" then the one who died ? Does that
really sound like an effective stategy ? The navy SEALs drop a
lot of recruits during "Hell Week" (other military units
have similar procedures), but they don't kill them."
It's the only way to get a New Slayer. So the entire analogy kinda
falls flat.
Whislt I do agree that the type of vampire seen to be used was
illogical (it should have been a newbie--fresh out of the grave
vamp), the comparison doesn't work as there are different requirements
to get New Slayers.
[> [> [> [> Re: The test Buffy took in ,,Helpless,,
should be outlawed. -- Rich, 15:34:58 06/13/04 Sun
Ok, I have to agree with you about the analogy - the recruiting
process for Slayers doesn't parallel that of the military (or
didn't at the time - the situation is different now).
But I still think that a "test to destruction" is a
bad
idea. After all, if a Slayer is truly incompetent, her regular
duties will kill her off soon enough.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The test Buffy took in Helpless
should be outlawed. -- Ames, 16:07:20 06/13/04 Sun
Your destructive testing analogy isn't quite right. Picture yourself
about to enter a battle, and you want to draw a weapon from a
big trunk of similar weapons of uncertain quality, of which you
can only use one. You pull one out of the box, study it - and
then you want to test it. Bash something with it, bend it to see
if it breaks. You don't want to depend on it in battle if it's
going to break too easily, and if it does break - well, you have
an essentially-infinite stock of replacement weapons to draw on.
Assuming of course that you are ruthless about weapons and you
don't care how many you break before you find a good one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The test Buffy took
in Helpless should be outlawed. -- Rich, 16:28:06 06/13/04
Sun
Ok, but -
A. I've only got one weapon,
B. I've used it in the past (in Buffy's case, I killed the Master
with it & defeated Angelus), &
C. If I break it, I have to *Build* a replacement for it (since
the new Slayer will have essentially no experience at the time
she's called, & may not have much training [although Kendra apparently
did]).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The stakes are extremely
high with slayers and training begins before the Call -- Charlemagne20, 18:42:47
06/15/04 Tue
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a rare exception to the Slayer rule.
Kendra is a much more typical example of the Slayer (remember
her?) and Faith to a certain extent since she was found likely
a few years before her initial call.
Frankly a better solution than training Buffy would have been
in the WC's eyes to have Merrick pull a gun and blow the 15 year
olds away until Kendra was called and then let HER handle Lothos.
They are slightly less ruthless though.
Frankly if Buffy can't slay a vampire (something *XANDER* has
proven capable of doing) then she has no justification guarding
the fate of the world. Of course the Watchers shouldn't rely totally
on one girl, they should build a frickin ARMY for the numbers
out there
[> Perspective - why the Cruciamentum? -- dlgood, 13:14:54
06/13/04 Sun
There are a few reasons for that test, and they apply differently
depending upon how one views the Council of Watchers.
A) That which does not kill you...
Slayers, if not seen as people, are inherently disposable. The
test is a "weed-out". If she can't pass the test, she
must not be so great, in which case the world is better with another
one.
B) Learning Experience...
Slayers, over time, run the risk of identifying too much with
their super powers. They might lose connection with what it feels
like to be a regular person, and consequently, care less about
normal folks. Additionally, they might be too dependent on physical
prowess, and thus be ill-equipped to fight in circumstances when
they are either deprived of physical ability, or when physical
ability is irrelevant.
Loss of the physical power reminds the slayer to appreciate what
it feels like to be a "non-slayer" and encourages her
to think on her feet and use other attributes beyond brute force.
C) It's About Power...
It's designed to maintain council control. Reminding the field
watcher that he/she takes orders from the council, and not the
slayer. It also reminds the slayer that the watcher doesn't work
for her, and that the council doesn't work for her. It reminds
her that the council wishes her to follow orders, and to trust
into Duty and Order. Not in individuals. And the test trains that
specifically.
With the exception of option (B) the test isn't really about or
for the benefit of the slayer. And if (B) were the case, there'd
be no reason to keep it a secret from the slayer. Cruciamentum
makes a lot of more sense if one presumes the Council of Watchers
is not on the up-and-up.
Options (A) and (B) can make a certain amount of sense, if one
is a bit ruthless.
To be honest, I think option B is actually a valid case for a
Cruciamentum type experience for the modern slayer - presuming
it were handled as a willing exercise rather than a secretive
test. It could actually be a valuable learning experience.
[> [> I did a more detailed post on the Cruciamentum
last year -- KdS, 02:38:53 06/14/04 Mon
Before it became clear in S7 that the WC were intended to be irredeemable
eternal rapist bastards.
Original here
and about half way down. Follow ups here.
[> [> [> Way overstating the case... -- Kansas,
08:53:11 06/14/04 Mon
...the WC were intended to be irredeemable eternal rapist bastards.
I don't see any good reason to assume that... the Shadow Men were
perhaps the forerunners of the Council, but the idea that their
actions millenia ago taint the current Council is stretching it.
Also, there's no reason to assume that the subsequent activation
of new slayers is anywhere near as rough as the creation of the
first one was.
[> [> Re: Perspective - why the Cruciamentum? --
Rich, 08:37:31 06/14/04 Mon
I think there's a mention that the test is being revived after
having been discontinued sometime in the past - why bring it back
now ?
How about:
D. Buffy's successes ( she'd already defeated the Master, the
Judge, & Acathla ) reflect on Giles, enhancing his position with
the CofW - which makes Giles a potential rival for Quentin *within*
the Council. Of course, this makes Quentin a jerk - but I think
we already knew that.
[> [> [> Re: Perspective - why the Cruciamentum?
-- dlgood, 09:10:53 06/14/04 Mon
I think that still fits under "C" - the Cruciamentum
as play for power, and a means for Quentin and the CoW to maintain
the chain of command.
I think there's a mention that the test is being revived after
having been discontinued sometime in the past
Where is this comment on revival from? Travers notes that the
Cruciamentum has been in existence for centuries, and based upon
his reactions, I surmise Giles knew about it beforehand. He may
have been upset at the Cruciamentum, but he doesn't seem surprised.
As for the rivalry issue - I don't think that holds much water.
As long as Buffy were alive, Giles would be too busy in the field
to play a prominent role in intra-council politics. And, one could
imagine that field time might make the watcher less connected
and less interested in such politics anyway. Indeed, sending a
watcher to field would seem keep them out of politics - not make
them a threat.
A test like the Cruciamentum would risk provoking the field watcher
into actually taking note of Council politics, at which point
he would become a threat.
[> [> [> [> Re: Perspective - why the Cruciamentum?
-- Rich, 10:45:22 06/14/04 Mon
I checked, & you're right about the "revival" - I read
too much into Giles' argument with Quentin.
I still think Quentin & Giles have some kind of personal issues
- although I may be reading too much into that too.
[> [> [> [> [> You're not (reading too much,
I mean) -- tim, 10:51:23 06/14/04 Mon
See DF's commentary on "Helpless"--he meant for the
Quentin-Giles relationship to be the same kind of father-child
dynamic that existed between Giles and Buffy, but much of it had
to be cut for time.
--th
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're not (reading
too much, I mean) -- Rich, 11:09:25 06/14/04 Mon
Wasn't aware of this - it puts the whole thing in a different
light. They DO have issues, but not the ones I thought.
[> [> Re: Perspective - why the Cruciamentum? --
skeeve, 09:03:25 06/14/04 Mon
C is the only possibility.
The birthday present doesn't accomplish anything else.
It was a way to kill Buffy without admitting to that purpose.
It's a "test" that is likely to kill the vast majority
of "test-takers".
If that wasn't obvious on its face, the conversation Giles had
with the other Watcher provided a pretty good clue.
Buffy's response was entirely too mild.
She should have demanded that the other Watcher come back.
She should have held him while Giles broke his arm.
Giles's alternative would be to watch Buffy tear the arm off.
Getting Giles to fetch the other Watcher might be a matter of
beating him up regularly until he complies.
Giles was far from innocent in this, but he gets a partial pass
because he wasn't the instigator and because of previous good
Buffy-related work.
[> [> [> Why is C the only option? -- Finn Mac
Cool, 10:36:07 06/14/04 Mon
Do you really know what the ratio of test takers to deaths is?
This seems to me to be one of those assumptions many fans make
(like saying Buffy is the longest lived Slayer in history) that
has no actual basis in the show.
Also, why couldn't it simply be a tradition that was created hundreds
of years ago as a rite of passage and continued into present day
as a matter of tradition? We know it was created many centuries
ago, most likely in Britain or Europe considering the modern Council's
location and representation. This was a time and place when dangerous
tests and ceremonies like the Crucianitum would probably not be
frowned upon. After all, back in those old days, someone who lived
to be eightteen had probably already reached middle age. With
death from disease, hunger, murder, or wild animal attack being
so common, people tended to be a little more frivolous about death.
I can very easily see the Crucianitum arising as a test and rite
of passage during this time period and simply being continued
afterwards as a matter of tradition. Why are non-virgins frowned
upon for wearing white at their wedding? Why are men discouraged
from being nurses? Why are there always stars on the American
flag equal to the number of states? Tradition. Knowing that something
has always been done a certain way can be a powerful motivator.
[> [> [> [> Re: Why is C the only option? --
skeeve, 13:34:23 06/14/04 Mon
Finn Mac Cool:
Do you really know what the ratio of test takers to deaths
is?
I don't know the ratio of deaths to people sprayed with machine
gun fire,
but I suspect it's rather high.
Remember Giles's concern for Buffy's survival.
Remember the title of the episode.
This seems to me to be one of those assumptions many fans make
(like saying Buffy is the longest lived Slayer in history) that
has no actual basis in the show.
I don't make that assumption.
If others have, it's probably something I didn't deem worth remembering.
It would be baseless, especially if one counts each lifetime separately.
Buffy might become the longest lived Slayer in history,
but that also seems unlikely.
Also, why couldn't it simply be a tradition that was created
hundreds of years ago as a rite of passage and continued into
present day as a matter of tradition?
Try to imagine how such a tradition would have started.
The Slayers certainly didn't start it.
Why was it done the first time?
If it was a rite of passage, passage from what to what?
The living to the dead?
A Slayer that was getting tired of being bossed around
to one more easily cowed?
If it accomplished something useful, what was it?
Getting rid of an unskilled Slayer doesn't require a birthday
present,
just a bad day at the office.
It wasn't a tradition when it started.
We know it was created many centuries ago, most likely
in Britain or Europe considering the modern Council's location
and representation. This was a time and place when dangerous tests
and ceremonies like the Crucianitum would probably not be frowned
upon. After all, back in those old days, someone who lived to
be eightteen had probably already reached middle age.
Was there ever a time that a test that killed more than half the
test-takers was considered a test?
I can only think of one possible example and death was the passing
grade.
Mere decimation was used as a punishment.
It seems to me that to make the case that WC birthday presents
weren't just about control, one would have to at least claim that
they killed less than ten percent of the recipients.
With death from disease, hunger, murder, or wild animal attack
being so common, people tended to be a little more frivolous about
death. I can very easily see the Crucianitum arising as a test
and rite of passage during this time period and simply being continued
afterwards as a matter of tradition. Why are non-virgins frowned
upon for wearing white at their wedding? Why are men discouraged
from being nurses? Why are there always stars on the American
flag equal to the number of states? Tradition. Knowing that something
has always been done a certain way can be a powerful motivator.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is C the only option?
-- Finn Mac Cool, 18:59:54 06/14/04 Mon
Why did some ancient cultures practice certain tests of manhood/warrior
status that involved self mutilation, spending long periods of
time without food or water, and/or the very real possibility of
death? It was believed that, in order to be a warrior of the tribe/village/culture/what-have-you,
people first had to go through excruciating physical trials both
to prove their worthiness and become enlightened through overcoming
these trials. Tests such as the Crucianitum are not unique to
the Watchers Council. Ancient cultures didn't devise these painful
and many times life-threatening tests to kill off the participants
or leave them weak and easy to control. Considering you had to
pass the test in order to become either a warrior or a man in
the eyes of the community, killing off most of the test takers
would leave everyone else defensless at best and on the verge
of extinction at worst. Nor was it necessarily to break the will
of the test takers (at least for the manhood tests, except in
the unusual case of the tribe/village/community being matriarchal).
Besides, wouldn't someone who has survived the test feel that
much more empowered, having proven their worthiness; if it was
really about control, then the test would be difficult to complete
but not lethal, leaving a dispirited but still usable person at
the end. A Slayer who survives the Crucianitum and a warrior who
survives his rite of passage have both proven their worth to their
elders/leaders and to themselves.
I see the Cruciantum as developing under similar lines of thought
to these ancient cultures. If we assume the average Slayer is
called by age sixteen (as Kennedy said, the younger the better),
then the Slayer has at least two years of training with her Watcher
(more if she was identified as a potential) to prepare her for
facing the vampire without her powers. This seems similar to training
a potential warrior in some ancient cultures and then leaving
them in the wilderness for a period of time with no clothes, tools,
or weapons, and their ability to survive is what makes them a
warrior. I'm not saying the Crucianitum was a good practice, just
that the motives behind it weren't necessarily malevolent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is C the only option?
-- skeeve, 08:38:35 06/15/04 Tue
"the very real possibility of death" rarely means a
probability greater than 50 percent.
It means a possibility small enough that some might be oblivious
to it, but that anyone who thought about it would regard as significant.
Do you really believe that WC birthday presents didn't kill at
least 10 percent of their recipients?
90+ seems much more likely to me.
The only way for an unarmed person to kill a vampire is to tear
its head off.
Making stakes by tearing apart furniture is a bit difficult when
a Slayer's strength has been reduced to slightly subhuman by a
poison.
As I mentioned earlier, Buffy should have responded with violence.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Caveat -- dlgood,
12:29:01 06/15/04 Tue
It is important to recognize that we have a remarkably small sample
size from which to draw conclusions from - namely, only one instance
that we've seen.
QT calls it a "right of passage", and while Giles disputes
the humanity of such a test - he doesn't dispute the "passage"
component. Indeed, if girls were dying all over the place, it
would be hard to continue such a tradition.
IMHO, it would seem to me, the very purpose of the test was for
the slayer and watcher to survive - with a fuller acceptance that
the CoW was the ultimate authority. Under such a circumstance,
the occaisional death can be spun, but a high death rate would
provoke rebellion in a way survival wouldn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Most likely
the "Crucia" isn't that dangerous with the SLIGHTEST
bit of sense -- Charles
Phipps, 18:55:15 06/15/04 Tue
The test is designed on a simple basic principle that NEEDS to
be at the forefront of every slayer's psyche when they enter battle
"Your strength will not save you from what is out there.
Your smarts will."
Vampires are amongst the least dangerous of enemies you are likely
to encounter in the demon word if you know their weaknesses. Holy
water, stakes that go through your skin like jelly, sunlight,
fire that kills you with a torchblow, and yes decapitation but
that's less an average means.
A cross can protect you as well along with garlic.
Buffy took almost NO precautions and her arrogance about Slaying
killed later quite a few potential slayers in Season 7. She learned
NOTHING from this test. Frankly, my sympathy isn't with a girl
who dismisses causally the threat of a vampire.
*ANY* sane person would have loaded up 'good for bear' at this
point or huddled up until they knew what was going on. Eventually
they'd be lead to the monster's stronghold with NORMAL DEMON HUNTER's
equipment
Buffy could have just burned down the place were not her mother
involved and the test is over, she passes.
Quentin and others made it horrifically BAD for her but the test
itself is a simple one.
"Can a normal human kill a vampire?"
Well NEWSFLASH Oz, Willow, Xander, and plenty of non super strength
folk have killed vampires.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What
we actually saw in "Helpless" -- KdS, 02:25:40
06/17/04 Thu
suggested that the Slayer in question was depowered, then locked
up in a confined space with a vampire, with no weapons and no
prior warning or understanding of what would happen. This is a
long way from "Kill a vampire without using any superpowers"
by stealth, trickery or technology, as you suggest.
Also, remember that this was still during the early period of
BtVS when the average vampire was portrayed as so superhumanly
strong that any normal human who took one on in combat was utterly
doomed. This isn't later BtVS or AtS where a combat-trained human
can take on your typical cannon fodder vamp one-on-one and have
a good chance of winning.
Also note that there seems to be something more going on than
simple loss of physical strength, as Buffy completely looses all
her combat skills, even the ones that don't need anything above
the normal (eg the knife-throwing scene).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About
the knife throwing -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:22:50 06/17/04
Thu
Buffy was used to throwing objects with lots of innate strength.
The change in how the object goes through the air and how much
force is behind it would almost certainly throw off her game,
since she would have to do some relearning about the proper way
to throw something without the benefit of superstrength.
[> [> D is also possible -- manwitch, 13:14:37
06/14/04 Mon
I suggested this in response to KdS's post on the cruciamentum
however long ago that was.
The cruciamentum is used by the Council to realign the loyalties
of the Watcher away from the dynamic young woman to whom
he has become personally connected back to the Council and their
impersonal claims on the Slayer as their instrument.
The ritual forces the watcher to act against his slayer, specifically
to remove her power. It forces the watcher to make peace with
the Slayers potential death. The result of both of these, even
if the Watcher is not explicitly aware that it is a test of the
Watcher, is that he places himself apart from and above the Slayer.
Its everybit as important to the council, even more important,
that the watcher be on board with the council's mission than that
the Slayer live to be 19.
[> [> [> And I've now come round to this position
-- KdS, 13:16:36 06/14/04 Mon
[> [> [> I thought I'd covered that with the first
sentence of part C -- Dlgood, 14:50:28 06/14/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> Well, I've considered this... --
manwitch, 04:43:43 06/15/04 Tue
And it seems like your second sentence of part C pretty much covers
it as well. Explicitly even.
As Emily Latella would say, "never mind."
Numfar's dance and the writer's
voice -- Ann, 11:24:52 06/13/04 Sun
Numfar's dances.
This brother, Numfar, of Krevlorneswath, Lorne, is known for several
dances, The Dance of Joy, the Dance of Honour and the Dance of
Shame in the episode "Through the Looking Glass". These
are performed when Numfar is demanded to do so. The interesting
"host" of this character is none other than Joss Whedon
himself. One may think Numfar is only being silly or foolish,
but like everything else in these shows, nothing is only as it
seems. Numfar may be the fool, the slave of others, his mother
and others that demand of him, but his story is important. Once
again, the characters in the background have a story that can
be told.
I only first saw these dances a week or so ago. I have heard for
some time, of course, about the joys of watching the dances. It
is often exclaimed on this board when someone is especially happy
[hi Rob!]. So of course, I was thrilled to finally watch it. Thanks
of course to Masq for the tapes.
However, while watching Numfar perform his little dances, a character
that seems a little slow perhaps, with no voice, doing only what
his mother and others want. Numfar never speaks, so his dance
becomes his voice. I think Joss Whedon's voice. Nice parallel
to Lorne, who finds himself by discovering music and realizes
for certain by the end of the episode, that Pylea is truly not
his home.
Therefore, I did a frame-by-frame analysis of these dances.
First we have the Dance of Joy.
"LORNE: Guess who's back.
MOM: Krevlorneswath? Can it be true? I've often prayed that I
might look again upon your face.
LORNE: Well, you're in luck then.
MOM: (beard and all, spits in Lorne's face) You have shamed our
clan and betrayed your kind.
LORNE: Thanks, mom.
ANGEL: (dumbfounded) Mom?
MOM: Each morning before I feed I go out into the hills where
the ground is thorny and parched, beat my breast and curse the
loins that gave birth to such a cretinous boy-child!
LORNE: (spreading his hands) My mother!
MOM: Your father was right. We ate the wrong son.
LORNE: Well, enough of this sentimental reminiscing. Just a couple
of quick questions, then I'll skeddadle. You remember back around
five years ago when I first disappeared - did you notice anything
- odd?
MOM: We noticed feasting and celebrations. Your brother Numfar
did the dance of joy for three moons. Numfar! Do the dance of
joy.
(Numfar -- who is played by no other but Joss Whedon himself--
starts some weird dance routine, which includes some kicks and
hops as well as tapping himself repeatedly on the head.)
LORNE: Actually what I meant was more along the lines of a strange
flashing, kind of a weird pulsating... (aside to Angel) You remember
when I said we didn't have music
in my world? Wish I could say the same about the dancing. (Back
to his mom) Lights. Really you couldn't have missed it. Big, bendy,
swirly...
MOM: No longer do the dance of joy, Numfar!"
It begins with Numfar standing legs apart with his hands on his
hips. He starts leg lifts to the side with up and down hand motions,
hands together. Jig like. Then the legs begin to turn the lifts
into kicks, as he appears to grow more confident. Then he moves
to our right, his left, swiftly circling his arms into a bow and
arrow holding position. Then goes to our left, his right, backwards
while skipping almost and brushing his hands together, almost
brushing something off of them. (I was reminded of Pontius Pilate
as most famous hand brusher off-er). He then begins to move his
hands from his head, outward in small reverse tap motions. He
then stands with his hands behind his back almost waiting.
Most of the reviews I have read of this dance, regard Joss as
tapping his head. But certainly not a tap dance in the traditional
way. I did not see this interpretation. What I saw was Numfar
motioning away from his head. Opposite to the tapping others see,
he began at his head and moved outwards. He uses both hands equally
on each side of his head which accounts for both the visual (right)
and the linear (left) sides of his brain he uses to write these
complex, organized and well rounded visual shows. I realized that
this dance was Joss's interpretation of his own story telling
gift to us. He starts at his head and offers his arms out. Like
the stories that come from this man's head and then out to us,
the gift that we all treasure so much. The literal-ness of this
dance stunned me. Joss, while acting and dressing silly, shows
us his gift. Nothing this man does, means nothing.
From the BBC Angel page: "The cameo came about during production
meetings, where Whedon would demonstrate the Dance of Joy he envisaged
the character performing. Eventually fellow producers David Greenwalt
and Tim Minear suggested Whedon play the role himself, much to
the shock of Andy Hallett, who had no idea who was under the green
make-up until filming had been completed."
I am glad he was the choreographer. Makes the meaning of what
he does in this dance, his alone.
Then we have the Dance of Honour:
"LANDOK: He is as valiant and courageous a warrior as I have
ever known.
MOM: Then he shall be welcome in our home and we shall honor him.
Numfar! Do the dance of honor.
(Numfar launches into another series of leaps and gestures, including
the bunny-hop.)"
It begins with Numfar reaching for his head, but doesn't actually
touch it. He begins to do leg lifts, alternating both legs, while
his hands are folded closed near his temples. Then he continues
the jig leg motions, and then squats slightly while spreading
arms and then goes back to the bow and arrow position moving sideways
off the screen. He moves back on screen, with his hands in front
in almost a "Walk like Egyptian" position while hopping.
He swoops front wards, jumping up and turning right again hopping
like a bunny or frog. He turns away from the camera, lifting legs
alternating and then back to the original position of the Dance
of Joy, legs kicking high, and then begins to shimmy (suggestively
lol) while hopping and shaking his head, turning around several
times. He then bends down lower, slightly and does a shuffle,
ball, change to his left, and the scene ends.
I think the Dance of Honour honours intellect. Numfar is almost
in "The Thinker" position contrasting oh so well with
his status as foolish brother. I interpret this to mean he sees
the importance of thought and sharing thought. The leg motions
continuing, I think, represent striving for intellectual curiosity
and the need for it. I think it important that he always moves
left first. He does return to the right, to the center. The hopping
may indicate facing fears, and continuing no matter the cost.
Bunnies and frogs were both Anya's and Willow's fears respectively.
He has the Dance of Honour return to the beginning of the Dance
of Joy, the circling of his craft. He loves what he does, and
gets great joy from it. The fact that his hands do not touch his
temples, I think means that his is an ongoing effort never quite
finished because the story, his story, never is finished. The
fact that his hands are near his temple, his church, and the place
of his worship gives credence to honouring the intellect and the
creative.
It is also interesting to me that in a culture that does not know
music, knows dance. Do they not go hand in hand? It could be that
this method of dance is expression for the "Numfar's"
of their world. Only the fool's efforts in a world that cannot
hear music. (Hey WB!) Interesting, that we know Joss can write
music well (OMWF), and that he has Lorne be the literal voice
of empathy on this show. Numfar is the voice of freedom of expression
by an almost-slave. Do this Numfar, do that Numfar. Numfar needs
a voice. He has it in dance. Lorne has it in song. Song is powerful
in his vocabulary as a key to his soul. Also from a historical
perspective, the only dance in our earthly culture without music
comes from the Postmodern forms of dance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_dance
which claimed any movement was a form of dance. I guess Numfar
would agree. Once again, Whedon takes the traditional and gives
it a twist. This choice is not surprising I guess when viewed
from the perspective of the outside world looking in at the worlds
of Buffy and Angel. Whedon has called himself a loser and has
said he writes for losers. Therefore, he made himself into this
with Numfar the word to flesh from a mute character.
We never actually see the Dance of Shame that Numfar does, but
we do hear it's stomping:
Angel: "Every family's got its problems."
Mom muffled: "Numfar, do the dance of shame."
We hear some shuffling and clomping coming from the house behind
them.
Angel: "Yours more than most."
Angel feels shame while in Pylea.
ANGEL: No, Wes, I-I can't... - You know what happens to me. (Looks
down) I-I'm sorry... (Looks at Gunn) ...ashamed of what I did
to you.
GUNN: It's kind of a crazy place here. The sooner we all get out
the better.
I am not sure that Angel ever voiced shame before, regret, repentance
and apology yes, but shame no. After this episode, he voices shame
again in That Old Gang of mine while talking to Merl. This portal
to Pylea was a portal to others places as well. However, shame
is not visualized here by Whedon, it is hidden away behind a closed
door like shame always is. It is never expressed because, well,
it is shame. It isn't shame if it is expressed. It becomes something
else. Therefore, the Dance of Shame is hidden. We can hear it
though, as it needs to be uncovered. It is not revealed, but it
is discovered.
I really liked the Numfar dances. Anyone that knows more about
dance certainly should have a stab at interpreting it. Whedon
shows us himself, behind the mask of Numfar, the silent voice
of the writer. His written word has given us so much, he reveals
himself here and we are glad. Numfar never speaks because the
writer's words are only given voice by actors. He chose himself
as the actor for this important character, revealing him self
in a comical way. Whedon loves the silly but it has meaning too.
A mute. A brother of empathy, and a son of pain.
Quotes from the Buffy Dialog Database as usual.
Replies:
[> Re: Numfar's dance and the writer's voice -- Ames,
11:27:17 06/14/04 Mon
Interesting analysis, thanks. Has Joss ever said anything about
whether Numfar's dances had meaning? Or did he draw more on the
Ministry of Silly Walks as his inspiration?
[> [> Re: Numfar's dance and the writer's voice --
Ann, 08:21:38 06/15/04 Tue
I wasn't able to find any interviews that mention this. There
are many instances where other writers connect Whedon and Python.
Not having seen many of these Python sketches myself, I wouldn't
be able to do this.
Any takers?
[> I'll never look at the Dance of Joy the same way again.
-- Arethusa, 07:56:07 06/15/04 Tue
An excellent analysis of the relationship between movement and
meaning. A pity we never see the dance of shame; it might explain
the source of Whedon's angst.
[> [> Re: I'll never look at the Dance of Joy the same
way again. -- Ann, 08:18:34 06/15/04 Tue
Thanks. He claims in several interviews that he has good family
relations. So I hope his mother is not like Lorne's ;-). Like
all empathetic people and I truly do think he is one because he
couldn't do this so well if he wasn't, he sees the pain and joy
in the world and it is expressed in his characters. Buffy and
Angel most completely, but I think other aspects sneak out in
the other characters. Because he is Numfar, and he isn't
an actor, and obviously not a dancer, Numfar becomes the unsophisticated
but truthful representation of the pain of the writer. The fact
that the dance is so obviously unsophisticated, but Numfar still
dances, almost puppet like, is Whedon putting himself out there,
literally and of course figuratively. I am glad he sticks to writing.
(I am picturing Numfar facing the dragon right now!)
Current board
| More June 2004