ATPo Archives

March 2004 posts

Previous March 2004
More March 2004

Happy Birthday, LadyS!!!!!! -- LittleBit (passing out the chocolate cake!), 17:29:33 03/28/04 Sun

And a little present for you...

[grin!!]

Replies:

[> Happy Birthday! -- Masq, 18:11:54 03/28/04 Sun

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear Lady S.
Happy birthday to you!

[> Happy Birthday, LadyS! -- Random, 19:12:20 03/28/04 Sun

::pouncehuggle!:: Many happy returns of the day!

[> [> Re: All the best on your special day, LadyS! -- Your bloody but unbowed Prince, 04:21:32 03/29/04 Mon

[> happy birthday, ladystarlight! sorry i couldn't stay at the party longer -- anom, 20:52:47 03/28/04 Sun

[> Happy Birthday one day late! -- Pony, 06:56:06 03/29/04 Mon

[> Best wishes, Sidereal One! :-) -- OnM, 07:28:31 03/29/04 Mon

[> Happy birthday -- TCH, 14:36:41 03/29/04 Mon

[> Thanks so much, everyone!! -- LadyStarlight, 17:08:49 03/29/04 Mon

It's much appreciated.

[> late happy birthday! (like the flashy present) -- MsGiles, 11:43:09 03/30/04 Tue

Off topic-ish: something that made me a little happier -- Tchaikovsky, 18:14:23 03/27/04 Sat

A little, rather trivial article here, contains the following assessment of Buffy by Sarah Michelle Gellar:

If I was scared of stuff like that I donít know that I would have moved to LA and done Buffy in the first place. Iíve had eight years of probably one of the best television shows, in my opinion, in the history of TV. And I would never try to replicate that.

Now by all means castigate me for being too believing in rumours, or again for being naive about a statement that occurs after she's had time to get perspective on her previous haughtiness. But this just made me smile, so I thought I'd pass it on.

As a sidebar, I don't really worry too much about actors' opinions usually, but Michelle Trachtenberg's recent toe-stepping slightly irked me, since I still unhealthily over-associate her with Dawn.

TCH

Replies:

[> That is a nice article - thanks for the link! -- OnM, 19:53:04 03/27/04 Sat

Spike and Halfrek -- ghady, 06:35:03 03/29/04 Mon

What's the deal with those two? There seemed to be some history between them in Older and Far Away. Is that ever developed in S7? (i haven't seen that season yet, so PLEASE, no spoilers)

Replies:

[> Re: Spike and Halfrek -- Ames, 08:01:46 03/29/04 Mon

This is a common question, so you'll find a lot of commentary about it if you look around.

Halfrek was played by the same actress who played Cecily in Fool For Love, Kali Rocha (IMDB ref). If you recall, Cecily was the girl in 1890's London who William (pre-vampire Spike) wrote his poems to, the one who spurned him with the words "you're beneath me". We don't know what ever happened to Cecily, and some have speculated that she became Halfrek, in the same way that once-human Anya became a vengeance demon. The way she called Spike "William" certainly raises that possibility.

It seems unlikely though, since Anya had apparently known Halfrek for a long time (more about that in the Season 7 ep Selfless). But it's not quite impossible.

However in the CD commentary for Fool For Love by Doug Petrie, he mentions this connection and implies that the writers were just having a little fun with the audience.

[> [> Re: Spike and Halfrek -- Antigone, 12:53:06 03/29/04 Mon

I agree. I always thought of it as the Danny Glover/Mel Gibson moment in "Maverick". If you have not seen the movie, it is directed by Richard Donner, who also directed "Lethal Weapon," the buddy cop franchise with Danny Glover and Mel Gibson. In "Maverick", Mel Gibson plays the title role, as the conniving gambler. A cute and funny film overall (also has James Gardner, Jodie Foster and James Coburn). As an "in -joke," Danny Glover has a small cameo (i.e. you blink you miss it!) as a bank robber in a scene where Mel Gibson's character happen to be at the bank taking care of other business. When his eyes and Maverick's eyes meet, there is a short "do I know you from somewhere moment" with the Lethal Weapon theme playing in the background for a few seconds. So I see the Spike/Halfrek moment as just that: fans and the writers know it was the same actress who played Cecily and Halfrek so they just wanted to wink at the audience. The problem I think is that they winked too long and hard and had Cecily ask "William?" (instead of just a quick glimpse between the two characters or something more subtle) so fans saw it as more than it was (I was guilty of it myself until it became clear that the writers never brought it up again).
Another explanation is that they wrote it ambiguously on purpose, maybe to use it later but they never got the opportunity.

[> [> [> Exactly -- tomfool, 14:26:21 03/29/04 Mon

"The problem I think is that they winked too long and hard and had Cecily ask "William?" (instead of just a quick glimpse between the two characters or something more subtle) so fans saw it as more than it was (I was guilty of it myself until it became clear that the writers never brought it up again)."

I think you and Ames have got it exactly right. Your sentence above states it brilliantly, a wink too long and hard.

[> [> [> [> Re: Drew Goddard speaks! -- punkinpuss, 09:41:09 03/30/04 Tue

You might want to check out this dvd review of the BtVS S7 dvd set:
DVD Times review

The reviewer mentions that during the Selfless commentary, "Goddard in particular brings an interesting slant to the proceedings, since it was the first episode he ever wrote, of any show. One especially interesting thing is that he finally confirms that the character Halfrek is indeed the same as Cecily, the 18th century woman with whom Spike was obsessed in the flashbacks in Season 5ís Fool For Love ñ a subject that has been intensely debated by many fans."

It's been fanwanked six ways to Sunday, but I tend to favor the idea of Halfrek as an undercover "justice" demon.

In general though, he finds most of the commentaries on this set a disappointment. :(

[> [> [> [> [> However.... -- Briar Rose, 15:33:54 03/30/04 Tue

This would appear to be the reviewer's take on it. That does not mean that it was intended, simply that the reviewer THINKs it was intended.

I'd have to see the actual commentary. I have season 5, but no dvd player, so I don't know exactly what Goddard said. Just this reviewer.

I doubt he's reviewing season 7, as I don't think even advance copies have been released yet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> In the UK... -- LittleBit, 16:22:48 03/30/04 Tue

The season 7 DVD set is being released this coming Monday.

Jealous? No, of course not, why do you ask? [smiles insincerely]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: However.... -- punkinpuss, 16:26:39 03/30/04 Tue

Well, unless I'm completely misreading the review (link in my previous post), it IS quite obviously the Season 7 dvd set being reviewed. Just click on the link and see for yourself. It's for the Region 2 market which gets the dvd sets way before Region 1 does.

Could he be misinterpreting Drew in one of his more whimsical moments? Sure, it's possible. But the reviewer is also obviously a serious fan or he wouldn't be going into such detail which is rare for reviews.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And we all know that serious fans ovserve these things objectively :) -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:09:54 03/30/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Into a corner and off on a tangent -- tomfool, 07:57:32 03/31/04 Wed

You're right that the review is a detailed look at the R2 set coming out April 5 in the UK. Although I think the reviewer (Michael McDonald) is a serious fan, he admits that he came to Buffy late and caught up on 6 seasons in a few months. In other words he may have watched all the episodes, but I'm sure that many of the obsessed ATPers have rewatched, digested, discussed, and wanked each episode in more detail than this guy. I noticed quite a few minor factual errors or at least questionable interpretations in his review.

Nevertheless, I think he probably accurately reports on Drew Goddard's commentary on the Cecily/Halfrek question. In spite of DGís comment though, I don't think it's gospel. If fans can wank, so can the writers. DG was the late inning shot in the arm/burst of creative energy that the writing staff seemed to need in the home stretch of Buffy and most of us found refreshing. Over six years of the show there are times when the writers wrote themselves into a corner and instead of addressing an issue, just left it hanging or ambiguous counting on the fans to provide their own answer. DG brought a welcome obsessed-fan attention to detail/continuity to the writing staff and finally addressed a number of hanging continuity threads (e.g., Xander's 'kick his ass'). I'm sure that in the process he made a list of hanging threads and worked out a way to fit small bits of resolution into scripts ñ both his and those of the other writing staff (this is speculation on my part).

I still think that the 'William' recognition by Halfrek was a 'wink too long and hard' despite any wank that DG lays down. The reviewerís comment is pretty ambiguous - '[DG] confirms that the character Halfrek is indeed the same as Cecily.' Thatís a pretty vague statement. I'll be interested to see a direct transcript of DG's comments to see if he gives any explanation of the discrepancy in dates, etc. As lynx says in a post below, the undercover theory is pretty much shot down in LMPTM, when Spike's mum said Cecily was the Underwood's eldest daughter.

Warning detour ahead ñ review of review. The reviewer loses a bit of credibility for me in some of his statements about S6 and S7. Although he often couches his statements as opinion, he's a little too certain when he states:

"despite the generally derided and admittedly foolhardy decisions made during Season 6...î

"Noxon wisely chose to downplay her involvement in the show after bearing the brunt of the blame for the Season 6 debacle..."

"It seems to be almost universally agreed that, after Season 5, the show suffered a massive drop in quality."

"... no doubt that Buffy the Vampire Slayer took a nose-dive during the final two seasons."

Now these are certainly common and valid opinions, but they are by no means universally agreed upon. Itís interesting that S6 already seems to be rising in season popularity polls and Iíve seen it as ranked as high as two in some polls. Not to get into a debate about seasons, but the reviewer does tend to substitute his opinion for fact and for me, loses a bit of his credibility as a reporter.

A wank is a wank is a wank.
Sorry for the incoherent ramble. Iím sure there was a point in there somewhere.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I apologize! I forgot that UK gets things SO much more quickly. -- Briar Rose (I AM jealous now!*L), 16:01:02 03/31/04 Wed

I read the article and I see that he says DG stated it flately. But I also don't see a quote....

I think that's why I am sort of holding off on whether he said, "Yes. Cicely and Helfrek are one and the same and she became a vengance deamon because of something that happened after she knew Spike." Or if DG means, "Yeah. You caught that? Same actress as Cicely. We love when you pay attention. Not!"

I have to say that Halfrek's character has a backstory that goes way beyond the time that William could have possibly known her IF she was indeed Cicely.

Halfrek and Anyanka are how many thousands of years old? I believe that Halfrek is said to be older than even Anyanka.

There is no way that a 200 (Spike is around 200 - since Angel is 300 and change, I assume.) year period could produce a Vengance Demon as old as Halfrek is alledged to be.

I've always assumed that Halfrek may look extraordinarily like Cicely (~wink, wink~), and this is why the same actress would work for both. Yet maybe William met Halfrek after meeting Cicely and her looks caused him to have an emotional reaction because of the resemblance.

[> [> Re: Spike and Halfrek -- Pip, 12:59:44 03/29/04 Mon

We don't know what ever happened to Cecily, and some have speculated that she became Halfrek, in the same way that once-human Anya became a vengeance demon. The way she called Spike "William" certainly raises that possibility.

However, the off-hand reference to Anjanka and Halfrek having a bit of a bust up during the Crimean War (in S7 Lessons) means D'Hoffyrn would have needed the power to send his 'girls' back in time if Cecily became Halfrek. Cecily is seen in 1880, the Crimean war happened in 1854 to 1856.

It's still possible that Halfrek was undercover as Cecily; Spike's record of liking girls who try to kill him makes it entirely possible that young William was unknowingly attracted to a vengeance demon. Or Halfrek could have met Spike, who might have mentioned that she looked like a girl he knew when he was still called William the Bloody. So calling him William was a joke between them. Or...

... anyway, the possibilities are endless (and the likelihood is that it was just the writers having a little joke about Halfrek and Cecily both being played by Kali Rocha). My own personal favourite is the idea that 'Cecily' was Halfrek undercover. It makes sense of the 'you are beneath me' line, and it fits with Spike's later taste in girlfriends. ;-)

[> [> [> Re: Spike and Halfrek - unfortunately... -- lynx, 02:11:39 03/31/04 Wed

it was brought up again in LMPTM, when Spike's mum said Cecily was the Underwood's eldest daughter. So, the undercover theory was shot down. :(

OT: Asking for some metaphorical help -- Seven, 08:58:55 03/29/04 Mon

Hi. I have been allowed to create a writing assignment for students (hypothetical ones mind you). It is part of my "teaching" education. I can do whatever I want so of course I'll be incorporating Joss, but I also want to incorporate other stories.

Here's my idea: My hypothetical students will be allowed to choose from a list of movies and TV shows, and, after viewing one of them, they write an essay describing metaphor and allegory. So far, I will use "Restless", Fireflyís "Objects In Space," and "Peace Out." These stories carried some big topics and metaphor. "Restless" had incredible symbolism in it, "Objects in Space" was deeply existential, and "Peace Out" has a very intriguing argument between Zoe, er, Jasmine and Angel concerning right and wrong. I also would like to include the movie; "The Matrix" for it also carries symbolism in the form of religion.

I need help, however, in finding other such stories that stimulate viewers into deeper speculation. That is, after all, the point of the exercise; to think more critically and analytically about what a person perceives. I will use TV and movies, because I feel it will be more accessible to students who often donít care for reading. I will then, of course, follow this up with a statement or assignment involving massive reading, just to even things out.

I am, however, calling on my philosophical brethren to help me in this endeavor, by helping me come up with more metaphorically intriguing episodes or stories. Other Joss stuff is fine, but Iíd like to broaden the horizon. (Every time I think of great symbolic storytelling, I think of ME and Joss, so Iím kind of circling). Anyone want to offer assistance?

Thank you.

7

Replies:

[> Treasure of the Sierra Madre? -- Vickie, 09:53:11 03/29/04 Mon

2001: A Space Odessey?

Practically any episode of Babylon 5 (The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari comes to mind) or The Prisoner?

Memento? (well, what is the age of the students?)

Run, Lola, Run?

Fargo?

There are tons! Just wait until you see what others suggest. I do see one problem with the structure of the assignment: you may need to restrict this to films. The TV show episodes assume the previous history of the show. This can obscure or prevent the understanding of the metaphors used.

For example, in the B5 episode I mentioned, if you do not know the wrongs that Londo has done to GKar for the previous four years, you may not be able to understand the metaphor of his heart under glass. There are flashbacks in the episode, but they are nonliteral, dreamlike, and sometimes individuals are transposed for others. It makes perfect sense if you know the history, but if not, perhaps not.

I'm sure you can see how this might apply to Restless, where the entire episode is a consequence of something done in the previous ep.

Also, I assume that this all begins with a fascinating lecture on metaphor, allegory, and symbolism, their differences and purposes in literature and drama? ;-)

[> [> Re: Treasure of the Sierra Madre? -- Seven, 10:11:56 03/29/04 Mon

Thank you so much for your suggestions. Rest assured, the lesson has many more aspects to it that I did not mention, including introductionary material with symbolism and the like.

Also, you are right about an episode like "Restless" (it's just too good to pass up!) I think a student could find some other symbolism in this episode as well though. I chose "Peace Out" mostly because of the "No absolutes" speech by Jasmine and the counterpoints offered by Angel. But this (your mentioning of the difficulty using TV) is the type of stuff that I may have missed in my excitment over the project.

I'll look into those eps and movies that you suggested

7

[> Watership Down! The book or the movie.... -- Briar Rose, 02:31:59 03/30/04 Tue

I would also think that the movie Seven would suit, if you can get past the blood and focus on what the writer is truly trying to say.

[> Re: OT: Asking for some metaphorical help -- skpe, 06:50:17 03/30/04 Tue

You might checkout "WonderFall" ( the last ep was a bit heavy handed but it had some good moments)

[> How about 'Unbreakable'? (spoilers for film) -- MsGiles, 12:48:47 03/30/04 Tue

I haven't really thought it through, ut I've a feeling there might be some mileage in it.

There are several levels to this quite interesting film. It deals with the comic book (or graphic novel, to those who feel the other term is derogatory) view of the world, and how this relates both to film language and to the way people's interaction with reality might be conditioned by reading said comic books. The comic universe is on the whole a markedly dualistic one, especially in its earlier incarnations.

A hero arises (Superman, Batman) and is instantly matched by an equivalent but opposite villain (Lex Luthor, the Joker etc). It's possible that this premise derives from the heroic elements of the Nordic sagas (Beowulf comes into being as a hero via slaying the monster Grendel) filtered through Arthurian legend (the division into Good Guys and Bad Guys via the icon of the Round Table, and the dispersal of the Good Guys when (in later interpretations anyway) they get too compromised by their humanity and start to merge with the bad guys (except for Galahad, who gets whisked away).

In a later generation of comics, the dualism starts breaking down; Batman has darkness in him, there's the Silver Surfer, the ultimate existential brooder of the superhero gang, characters move in and out of alliances, badness and goodness.

What 'Unbreakable' is dealing with, though, is the simpler dualistic view of the world, and its implications. One main protagonist is a guy with brittle bones and a comics obsession. Fed with comics from an early age (to compensate him for being housebound), he starts to see himself as a comic character ('Mr Glass'). From the dualism of his comic reading, constructs the idea that somewhere in the world there must exist his opposite - someone unbreakable. In addition, there is a moral dimension to his belief, his world-picture. Because the unbreakable person he posits must be the hero, he decides that he himself must be the villain - and he must commit villainy, before the hero will come into existence. This is after all what happens in the superhero narrative. Bruce Wayne would live as a normal reclusive multimillionaire, except that his parents were killed by super-evil criminals, an event to which he reacts by becoming Batman.

So our antihero must commit evil to create the nemesis he longs for, the good man, the unbreakable one. And he does - this is the backstory to the film. And apparently he succeeds, for lo! there is the Bruce Willis character surviving train wrecks and bench-pressing all his worldly goods at once, and finally rescuing people.

Is it allegorical or metaphorical, though? I think it has to do with psychology and myth: its about the way we construct myths to interpret our lives. We construct those myths with the building bricks that culture gives us, and its partly about the implications of drawing those bricks from comic books; the kind of psychological buildings you get when you construct with these materials. (Now there's some nice metaphor mixing. Perhaps a metaphor mixer is one of the tools you need on a good psychological construction site). Because of Night Shyamalan's previous film, the 6th Sense, I presume an interest in the psychological. In that film, ghosts are used both as metaphors (for the boy's sense of identity with the persecuted and dead, for the psychologist's guilt over his failure to assist a previous boy, and lack of closure/inability to die) and an allegory (because the ghost metaphors form a consistent part of a whole film, in which they represent unresolved business among the living, coming down in the end to the boy's mother's relationship with her grandmother.

In 'Unbreakable', Mr Glass, the fragile guy, has become rich selling comic art, and runs a gallery, while his unbreakable counterpart has turned down sporting success to be a humble security guard. Neither of them are happy, though: Glass is isolated by his illness, his temperament and his success, while Mr UB's marriage has failed because of his lack of ambition. They are each incomplete without the other, and in this I think an element of the film is an allegory of the incompleteness which a dualistic view of the world produces.

[> [> great analysis -- Seven, 15:46:59 03/30/04 Tue

The dualistic nature of the "comic book" universe, which is very similar to the Buffy and Angel Universe, is interesting indeed. I'd probably include this movie on the list.

Thanks

7

News on March 31st Save Angel Rally - and how you can participate -- Masquerade, 09:35:39 03/29/04 Mon

From the savingangel.org newsletter:
=================================================

Join the Fight for Quality Television by asking your audience to participate in one (or all ) of the Saving Angel Rallies being held on Wednesday, March 31. The main rally will be held from 3 pm to 7 pm, at The WB Ranch in Burbank, but to give everyone a chance to participate, online rallies are being planned for Wednesday, as well. Details of the dayís events can be found at www.savingangel.org and www.savingangel.com.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
WORLDWIDE ONLINE RALLY
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Our Online Rally is gearing up.

The Worldwide Saving ANGEL Rally is a rolling rally starting out in the Far East and working its way around the world. Please participate between 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on March 31 in your time zone. However, if you have conflicting obligations, we don't mind if you come to the rally early or leave late. The Online Rally will kick off at 6:00 a.m. Wednesday, March 31st, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

Check back with us daily for the latest updates and details.

The activities are briefly listed below. For complete details on the list of SavingAngel Worldwide Rally Activities visit: http://www.savingangel.org/rally/vr.html, the list includes:

Post at the WB Angel Forum:http://talk.thewb.com/

Post at the Fox forum : http://forums.prospero.com/foxshows/messages/
in the Online Rally :bring ANGEL to FOX thread.

Post at the TNT forums:
http://forums.tnt.tv/jive/tnt/forum.jsp?forum=302 in the Online Rally: Bring ANGEL's 6th season to TNT thread.

At jumptheshark.com: http://jumptheshark.com/ vote to say that Angel Never Jumped the shark.

Donate to the Angel Food Drive: http://www.angelsfooddrive.com/

Send a message to our e-mail target: http://savingangel.com/email.html.

Check the savingangel site for our postcard targets:
http://www.savingangel.org/downloads.html#postcards and write out postcards.

Visit the Worldwide Saving Angel Rally board:
http://www.savingangel.org/rally/vr.html and share your experiences.

Call your local WB affiliate:
http://thewb.com/Stations/Index/0,8112,,00.html
to let them know that you aren't watching their network because ANGEL isn't on for you to watch.

* * * * * * * * * * *
NEW POSTCARD TARGETS
* * * * * * * * * * *

As you know, the media attention and positive press generated by our billboards and other campaigns have prompted us to start targeting the media itself. The media can help us put even more pressure on the networks. This is a very critical time in terms of saving the show. As before, we need to be heard in a big way. This week, please send as many postcards as possible to the following:

USA Today
Robert Bianco
USA Today Criticís Corner
7950 Jones Branch Dr
McLean VA 22108-0605

And

Entertainment Tonight
Paramount Pictures Domestic TV
Roddenberry Building
5555 Melrose Ave
Hollywood CA 90038

Downloadable postcards and more information about this campaign are available at: http://www.savingangel.org/downloads.html.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
SAVING ANGEL RALLY UPDATE
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Please note the correct address for the rally *

Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Time: 3 pm - 7 pm PST
Location: The WB Ranch
411 N Hollywood Way Gate 11
Burbank CA 91522

For more information visit: http://www.savingangel.org/rally/vr.html.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
SAVING ANGEL CANDY BAR UPDATE
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hershey candy bars, wrapped in our Saving Angel campaign wrapper, have been ordered and will be delivered to various network and media outlets early in the week. Each shipment is accompanied by a Saving Angel campaign message.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
SHARING SOME FEEDBACK SAVINGANGEL HAS RECEIVED
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Subject: Hello from Iraq

"Hello Thereís A LOT of soldiers here in Iraq that have watched Buffy and now Angel. Weíre all rooting for the Save Angel Campaign. If thereís anything we can do besides the e-mailing and post cards we have been sending please tell us."

"Duty in Iraq can be hard but watching Angel helps lighten the load. There are about two dozen of us that gather in the MWR tent to watch Angel whenever we can. Angel reminds us of home and gives us much needed laughs as well. Please do your best to keep Angel alive. If thereís anything else we can do besides e-mails or post cards just let us know."

Xavier Feldman
US Army
=================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * *
FOOD BANK DRIVE UPDATE
* * * * * * * * * * * *
A message from the organizers of the Angel Food Drive Campaign:

ìTo date, Angel's Food Drive has raised over $6500.00 for the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. Due to overwhelming, positive fan response, Angel's Food Drive will continue until Angel is renewed, Numfar sings or Joss tells us to stop.î

Visit http://www.angelsfooddrive.com for more information.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
BEANIE BABIES FOR ANCIER
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Beanie Baby campaign, from the people who brought you the Flowers For Levin campaign, is targeting Garth Ancier, Chairman of The WB. Beanie Babies start at USD3.00 including free shipping. Details can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/laurapalmer71/TheySlayMe-BtVSandAngel_Tribute.html.
=================================================

Go forth and campaign
Savingangel.org/Savingangel.com

Real-world vampirism? -- Vickie, 11:03:23 03/29/04 Mon

At least, real-world vampire slayers. Strange little article. I wish they had a little more.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8297430.htm

Replies:

[> Yes -- KdS, 11:22:17 03/29/04 Mon

It adds a little perspective to remember that there are parts of the world where genuine vampire beliefs survive, and see how much they differ from the romantic western versions.

Need philosophers for OBAFU! -- HonorH (the long-lost one), 15:43:44 03/29/04 Mon

Hi, guys,

Not having AtS eps until way the heck too late (WB SUX!!!11!!1), I haven't been around much. However, I'm hot on the heels of another OBAFU chapter. Right now, though, I need help with a seminar.

Could I have some of you who know really big words and obscure concepts argue something really strange and minute--say, the characters' hair colors or some such? Make it as ridiculous and esoteric as possible, and you'll have yourself a cameo appearance in the chapter titled, "Weekend Seminar: Philosophy and the Jossverse, part I: A Panel Discussion."

Thanks much! BTW, to all attending WriterCon, I'm going to be a panelist there, so I'll see you in Vegas in August!

Replies:

[> Re: Need philosophers for OBAFU! -- Dlgood, 18:04:13 03/29/04 Mon

Depends what manner of philosphy you're looking for.

My primary background was Political Philosphy, particularly in terms of international relations and national security strategy. There's an ethical component beyond the power dynamics.

Beyond which, I did have those posts on the metaphysics of vampires, souls, and redemption. So I can be the incendiary guy on the panel at least one of the students wants to boil in oil. I'd be more than happy if you can use me.

[> [> Yes, but-- -- HonorH, 22:08:04 03/29/04 Mon

How do you *feel* about the characters' hairstyles as they evolved throughout the show? Was there any deeper relevance to Xander's shaggy 'do in S5? Why did the Key come with special Extra Shiny Hair? What was with Anya's revolving styles and colors?

[> [> [> Hair Styles and Attitudes, How are they connected? (warning: very silly) -- Vickie, 07:43:09 03/30/04 Tue

Hair styles and attitudes, how are they connected?
Are styles we embrace a matter of taste?
Or of values respected?
Hair styles and attitudes, how do they relate?
How well do we use our freedom to choose the illusions they create?
(Timbuk3)

Lessee, if the song's right and you can analyze people by which of the Three Stooges they most closely resemble, Xander's in a LOT of trouble. He goes through a Moe-ish phase in S5, probably brought on by his Zeppo situation and a desire to establish himself as a leader, in control of at least some portion of his life.

Dawn's Extra Shiny Hair is significant in at least two ways: First, the shinyness indicating her luminous glowy keyness, and second, the Extraness of it, indicating her bounteous nature.

Anya's waffling hair color is, of course, indicative of her vascillating loyalties. She tends towards BuffyBlondness through much of S6, when she is most in line with the Scooby gang's agenda. After Hell's Bells, her hair tends more towards FaithRavenTresses(tm), indicating her fall from grace and alliance with D'Hoffryn and company. However, she never achieve Faith's glorious depth of color or evil, and by the time of her death has returned to what appears to be her natural color (see Selfless, nordic flashback).

(this is fun!)

[> [> [> [> oops -- Vickie, 09:14:41 03/30/04 Tue

That should be "values rejected" of course. Didn't remember until I was singing it in the car on the way to work...

TMI?

[> [> [> [> Hairstyle Change as Existential Crisis in the Whedonverse -- cjl, 09:52:29 03/30/04 Tue

Excellent points, Vickie. Joss and Co. have been remarkably consistent regarding hairstyles, utilizing hairstyle change to indicate a progression or regression in character. It's been especially interesting to note the paths of Anya and Cordelia during their crisis periods in Angel S3/4 and Buffy 6/7.

As you noted earlier, Anya's hairstyle wildly fluctuates in the period from Hell's Bells to End of Days, indicating not only a conflict of loyalties, but a seismic shift in Anya's very sense of self. Anya's coloration (and wardrobe) swings are indicative of a newly-mortal woman reconstructing her identity: does she veer towards Buffy's bottle-blond goodness (see: Spike) or Faith's full-bodied evil brunette?

Similarly, when Cordelia is demonized in Birthday, she almost immediately undergoes radical changes in hairstyle, a vital clue to the transformation in process underneath. In one of ME's most ironic hairstyle-related plot developments ever, Cordelia's lightening hair color (her "Buff-ification") perfectly dovetails with Angel's mental image of Cordy as Romantic Ideal, setting up the literal climax of Angel's Perfect Day ("Awakening"). As Cordy is mentally transformed into Buffy, Angel is symmetrically transformed to Angelus.

I could spend all day discussing Willow's changing hair color in S6/7 or Xander and Giles' lengthening hair as signs of post-adolescent and mid-life crisis in S4, but I thought I'd give others a shot...

[> [> [> [> [> And of course, Spike -- KdS, 10:12:56 03/30/04 Tue

The relative tidyness of Spike's hairstyle during different periods of BtVS is in very clear inverse proportion to his level of moral grace. The effort he puts into bleaching and slicking his hair down to a shop-window-dummy degree when at his morally worst ties in to the constructed nature of his Big Bad persona, and when he lets out the romantic, vulnerable side he tries to hide he no longer needs to restrain his hair from becoming the tousled mop it secretly has always been in essence.

[> [> [> [> [> Hairstyle change as dramatic short-hand -- Vickie, 10:43:16 03/30/04 Tue

You bring up an important point, cjl.

In one of ME's most ironic hairstyle-related plot developments ever, Cordelia's lightening hair color (her "Buff-ification") perfectly dovetails with Angel's mental image of Cordy as Romantic Ideal, setting up the literal climax of Angel's Perfect Day ("Awakening"). As Cordy is mentally transformed into Buffy, Angel is symmetrically transformed to Angelus.

True film buffs are, of course, aware of the hair color convention of dark hair=wholesome wife candidate and platinum blonde hair=voluptuous home wrecker of the 1930s (think Jean Harlow). This convention continued with Marilyn Monroe and, to some extent, Gidget.

Typically, ME reverses this convention, standing the formula on its little, bleach-blonde head. Buffy, with her California-sun-streaked tresses, is the wholesome "good girl" while Faith of the Raven tresses stands for a literal "dark side".

Cordelia's raven hair lightens as her image aligns more and more with Angel's romantic ideal, until, at last, she's is blond and a martyr to the visions and the good fight through her demonization. Yet in Angel's vision, it is dark-haired Cordy who finishes his moment of perfect happiness. It is typical ME irony that he calls out Buffy's name, the name of his blonde ideal, as he rises from their bed.

[> [> [> [> [> Coming late to the party -- Isabel, 06:36:28 03/31/04 Wed

Good points about Anya's and Cordelia's hair colors reflecting their changes in allegience.

I do wish to add that I always suspected that Anya and Cordelia kept lightening their hair to be like Buffy not as a 'Good Guy' but simply because the men they were in love with (Xander and Angel) had been in love with Buffy before them. They were attempting to keep the attraction going.

Cordelia keeps commenting about Angel having a thing for cute little blondes. (Darla and Buffy. Did Cordy find out about Nina?) See, by that scale, Nina has a chance of a future relationship with Angel, she is blonde. (Since I am unspoiled, I don't know what's going to happen. This is a logical projection.)

I agree that it was after she started going blonde that Angel and Cordy fell in love.

In Anya's case, she dept getting blonder and blonder the closer the wedding date got. Perhaps she subconsciously sensed that Xander was getting cold feet and kept trying to keep him attracted by using ever blonder hair. In her case, she tried too hard. Note the Platinum Blonde Hair of Being Jilted, which looks extra bad with puffy, teary eyes. Xander's problems with marrying Anya weren't going to be fixed by Miss Clairol.

I was watching Season 1 Buffy last night. I keep forgetting that Willow was a mousy brunette. She started dying it red and cutting it shorter and shorter about the same time she got into magic. Perhaps she went red, not blonde, as a reflection of her awakening magical talent. Plus, she didn't want to replace Buffy in Xander's eyes. In "Propecy Girl," Willow wouldn't go to the dance with Xander after he was rejected by Buffy. Willow didn't want to be with him when he would be wishing she was Buffy.

[> [> [> [> a possible resource for the hair discussion -- anom, possibly taking this too seriously, 10:42:02 03/30/04 Tue

Last Thursday, I heard a radio interview w/Rose Weitz, a sociologist at Arizona State Univ. & author of Rapunzel's Daughters: What Women's Hair Tells Us About Women's Lives. It's the last segment shown on the page. Might shed some light on at least the women's hairstyles (she thinks it's less important for men).

[> [> [> [> [> If anyone can play this sound file -- Vickie, 18:35:02 03/30/04 Tue

Please send me a clue? I keep getting a "file not found" error.

[> [> [> Re: Yes, but-- -- Dlgood, 15:17:18 03/30/04 Tue

I happen to have many ideas on this an other topics - it will all be in my upcoming book...

Actually, no book yet. But I have feelings about hair. Long, beautiful shiny hair. What I'm more interested in - is what the disastrous crimping of Buffy's hair in S4 says about her overly affected self in that season.

[> Use me! -- Vickie, 18:07:23 03/29/04 Mon

I can be as trivial as anyone! er....

[> dread Locke -- MsGiles, 07:44:04 03/31/04 Wed

I've had to work my way through all sorts of unimportant stuff today, to get to this.

I'm not applying for the post, but I thought a little research might be useful:

Socrates was balding, with a big beard.

Pythagorus had thick curly hair and a shortish thick beard. The Greek look for philosphers seems to have involved a lot of beards. Plato had it as well, as did Aristotle, though his crop was shorter than the others.

Marx had a big big beard, short on top.

Engels had a huge aggressive bush of a Victorian beard as well, but in his youth he had a neat llittle round-under-the-chin hobbit number, and longish hair.

Descartes wore it long and curly, with a sort of straggly fringe.

Sartre: side parting and big round glasses, tended to degenerate into a comb-over in later life.

Locke had long curly hair, and on occasion a huge wig. It was the age of big hair for men.

Hume wore it short and curly, but had himself painted in a turban to compensate.

Bentham wore it long, as his preserved self still does.

Mill had mutton chops, and those little curly tufts above the ears.

Kant had one of those curls-at-the-sides but little-pigtail-at-the-back dos.

Nietzche had a huge mustache, and short hair sticking up on top.

Hegel had a rather thin and straggly look, as if he cut it himself, badly.

Kierkegarde had a rather romantic mid-length swept-back look.

Wittgenstein was short at the sides, sticky-up on top.

AC Grayling seems to have flowing shoulder-length locks.

[> [> Part 2: Philosophy: the lunatic fringe. -- MsGiles, 05:58:44 04/01/04 Thu

Further notes towards a paper concerning hair and thought. I propose the two must be related, since both occur in or around the head.

I will begin by summarising hairstyles and points of view in chronological order.

NB I deal here only with the male of the philosophy species.

Early philosophers had an obscured view of the workings of the Universe, reflected in their partiality for facial hair. In some ways we may envisage the whole development of human culture as a process of facial hair reduction. Early Man is invariably portrayed with a full, shaggy, unkempt hairdo and full beard, reflecting his unkempt, shaggy view of the world. How could he see his own dinner clearly, let alone the first principles of existence? By the time we get to the Ancient Greeks, the mane is trimmed a little round the edges, and elements of a coherent worldview can start to emerge.

Pythagoras (585-497 BCE) had a big beard, but the stuff on top was short. This helped to cool his brain, making his thinking clearer than longer-haired contemporaries. It also kept his eyes free for observing things.

Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.) also went for the big beard, but was even thinner on top. The heat-loss allowed his mind to be over-clocked, leading to intense new thought, including a major attempt to understand virtue, but since the government of the time, rather like ours, rather lacked any qualities that could be described as virtue, he went out of favour and had to drink hemlock (or possibly his brain just melted down).

Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was also thin on top, and walked about while he taught, to facilitate brain cooling (a method often employed by teachers today). he shortened the beard, meaning his students could often understand what he was saying. He was good at categorising things.

Epicurus (341-270 BCE) had a very similar hairstyle to Aristotle, but more hair and a grumpier expression. He believed the purpose of life was pleasure, ie having philosophical discussions all day and every day. His slightly thicker crop heated his head, and put him in a permanently bad mood.

Archimedes (287-212 BCE), famous for bathing, discovering pi etc, had a lot of hair cut in a pudding-basin style and a thick beard. He thought less about higher issues and concentrated on engineering.

Yaaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi(800-872) wore a turban, like many other Islamic thinkers, following the 'warm brain' school of thought. He favoured a beard, as well.

Fibonacci (Leonardo Pisano) (1170-1250) had hair, but favoured extensive headgear, in his case a hood. The resulting brain-heat caused him to see patterns in snail-shells, rabbits etc, thus revolutionising mathematics.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had very little hair, cool brain, and thought that reason and observation could usefully be applied to the world.

William of Ockham (1285-1349) had a tonsure and was clean-shaven, reflecting his obsession with razors.

NiccolÚ Machiavelli (1469-1527) introduced systematic ruthlessness, deception and cruelty in public life, ie invented modern politics. He had shoulder-length hair, but was clean-shaven, a devious new style.

Paracelsus (Phillippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim) (1493-1541) had a big hat and long curly hair. Hot brain. He believed medicine could be practised systematically, but he also believed he had created a homunculus in a jar.

RenÈ Descartes (1596-1650) favoured the long curly locks and dinky moustache-and-goatee of his time. He believed he could apply mathematical methods to achieve perfect certainty in human knowledge. Eventually he moved to Sweden and caught a brain-chill.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was interested in whales and proposed that wars could be avoided if everyone did exactly what they were told. He had the same haircut as Descartes, only thinner.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) had a beautiful head of hair, worn long and free. He believed we should strive for an impartial attachment to reason, but he himself was rather romantic and passionate, as indicated by the hair.

David Hume (1711-1776) had a wig, and believed in skepticism, mainly.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) also had a wig, surprisingly for a back-to-nature type, and thought modern civilisation was a Bad Thing.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was still part of the wig generation, either that or he spent a long time with curling tongs. He believed in the necessity of a perfectly universalisable moral law, and that that the possibility of human knowledge presupposes the active participation of the human mind.

Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste de Monet, Chevalier de (1744-1829) believed acquired characteristics could be inherited. It was long assumed his wig had heated his head and made him quite mad, but it's now recognised that inheritance may not be as straightforward as we first thought.

Sren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855) had a great bush of wavy hair, cut short at the back and long on top, dark intense eyes and a romantic manner. A conflicted character, his wit and vivaciousness covered private melancholy. The poster-boy of existentialism (though not yet invented), he decided truth was subjective, and freedom makes us miserable.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) had the most hair found in this survey since the ancient Greeks, facial and head. This caused him to want to throw out philosophy and have economics instead, for some reason (See Archimedes).

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), on the other hand, had very little hair. He believed in freedom of thought, and that doing the right thing makes you happy. Proto-hippy.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) had quite luxuriant hair cut short above his ears. He believed that if he added all the previous philosophy together and shook it, an Ultimate Answer would drop out. As he got older, his hair got thinner and his brain cooled, resulting in doubt about this.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) had a huge and aggressive moustache, which facially represented his belief in heroic emotion over and above logic. Also his hair stuck up (see Keirkegaard).

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) had a shortish cut, a haunted look, and proposed that the belief that language can perfectly capture reality is a kind of bewitchment. Thus, he thought, philosophy is properly a therapeutic activity.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) had a geeky comb-over and thick glasses, but somehow became associated with black polonecks and general cool. He followed the general 'face your anguish, forlornness, and despair' line (see Kierkegaard).

Foucault, Michel (1926-1984) had no hair, and thought rationality was a Bad Thing altogether. With Derrida and Althusser he followed Wittgenstein in taking language to new levels of incomprehensibility.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1924-1998) had short hair, a cheery expression and thought truth was misleading, and to be avoided.

[> YOU are a bunch of shaggy hippies who need haircuts almost as badly as you need ass-kickings! -- Coach Gyrus, 08:42:20 04/01/04 Thu

That's MY damn philosophy!

[> Philosophy and Hair - a poem to sum it up -- MsGiles, 03:22:24 04/02/04 Fri

Thomas Aquinas
John Stuart Mill
Both of them balding
of their free will
William of Okham
Michel Foucault
sharing the shinies, hair
gone with the flow

Locke, Hume and Kant
had hair that was scant
as folks will remark
so too did Lamark
but to keep their brains snug
they each wore a rug

Pythagorus and Aristotle
Marx and Socrates
brilliant debating
winning points with ease
scratching facial shrubbery
worrying about fleas

Hobbes and Descartes
terribly smart
logic and goatees
state of the art

Life is pain
we're free but doomed
Nietzshe, Kierkegaard
less well-groomed

[> [> *LOL* That was great. -- phoenix, 03:47:45 04/02/04 Fri

[> [> [> Thanks! Drifted a bit OT, apols to HH -- MsG, 04:29:00 04/02/04 Fri

[> Bind up your hairs with Haiku -- Ann, 06:13:36 04/02/04 Fri

I found
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/jul03_p19.html#15

Go about three quarters down the page to a thread started by Anneth entitled Official HairCare Haiku Thread

The Dark Age. -- Cactus Watcher, 15:51:15 03/29/04 Mon

"This is what happens when you have school on Saturday." Cordelia Chase

It seems to me that this episode has been worked over pretty well before, here. But, here are a few thoughts. The major theme of the episode matches pretty well with one of major the themes of season, namely, 'Just who can you trust?" Giles shows off his Ripper side to the kids for the first time. Jenny opens the episode ready for the next step in her relationship with Giles. By the end she literally takes a step back from even letting him touch her in all innocence. From Giles point of view it's even worse. First, they gently kiss. Next the possessed Jenny is crawling all over him at his place. Even at this point Giles tells Jenny that in his frame of mind he'd been taking advantage of her. When Eyghon reveals himself, he/Jenny does a lot more than make Giles "squirm." In the end Giles seems to have lost Jenny because of his sins of youth. But, even as she's backing away Jenny does say maybe sometime, they can talk about it. It's just not certain that she means it when the episode ends.

I remember how odd it seemed when I first saw this episode, seeing Cordelia stepping forward to help out. It seemed odd to Buffy, too. I guess even years later when she was doing it all the time on Angel, it seemed odd to me.

Don't try this at home! - Every time I see Ethan pour acid on his tattoo, I cringe. He definitely needed Buffy's connections. She walks toward the school saying she needs to get her tattoo removed and by the time she gets to Giles office, it's gone! Might have been nice if they let the costumer know before they started shooting. Either that or the make up crew. ;o)

Replies:

[> Re: The Dark Age. -- Anny, 06:40:26 03/30/04 Tue

Cordelia's helping the SG has never been explained by the writers or the character and I think it's better this way.
I find highly interresting that in a serie where everybody vocalised at least once why they were in the fight (or it was so obvious that it was not necessary),we will never know why Cordy was helping,only speculate.Was she so bored by her life and it was exciting? Did she do it partly to annoy the hell out of Buffy?Because she thought she could not "not help" and look at herself in a mirror?Because she cared?A mix of all this?Yeah,it's odd,but people are complex
and Cordelia is a very ambigous character.And later,in Ats,she never really vocalise either(except may be in "that vision thing") why she was risking her life.It takes a lot for Miss Chase to reveal to others her true feelings.

Same thing for Giles and his infamous double Ripper.Giles is more complex than Buffy,Willow or Xander(in my eyes)
He did a lot of dubious things in his youth and later in the serie(Ben's murder,...)Unfortunately,they stop developping his character after S5.
Like Cordelia,Giles doesn't share easily his feelings.At some point,in Btvs,I had the impression that he only said what Buffy wanted to hear.It's the only way I can explain his easy acceptance of Angel's return in the fold after Jenny's murder and Angelus'torture.They(the writers)never adressed the issue.Too bad.
In the Dark Age he reluctantly explained to Buffy who was Ethan for him,he could not hold on anymore on this image of the perfect "father's figure" .He probably wanted to protect her from the truth that he was less than perfect (or may be that it was nobody's business except his own?).Well,Jenny was less than delighted by the revelation which explains her break-up.

Giles,Cordelia,Angel(in Ats and only there!Angel in Btvs was a cliche),Connor,Lilah,Wes:they are my favorites characters probably because they have a part of mistery.They are very ambiguous and difficult to analyse and it's "fun"! .

[> [> Re: The Dark Age. -- CW, 07:04:29 03/30/04 Tue

Agreeing with much you've said. I have seen the season 3 episodes recently and Giles' reacceptance of Angel wasn't as easy as it seems without those eps fresh in your memory. It would have been interesting to see some real turning point along that line, but then Giles current reluctance to help Angel is more explainable if their never was one. It was a real shame from the stand point of the Giles character that ASH decided not to be a regular the last two years. It made it difficult to intergrate Giles at all into the story line. Particularly in season seven that led to the character becoming more isolated and even unpleasant.

Wolfram & Hart's apocalypse -- David, 11:25:41 03/30/04 Tue

I was wondering since it is the last season, do you think we will see W&H's apocalypse and do you think that dream in Soul Purpose where LA was on fire could have been some foreshadowing because if it was i think it'd be cool and i want the apocalypse to involve the world.

Replies:

[> Re: Wolfram & Hart's apocalypse **5th season spoilers** -- Evan, 12:21:00 03/30/04 Tue

I expect we will see it, but not necessarily in a literal sense. I don't think they're going to end Angel in the same way they ended Buffy - with the gang saving the world. That's not really what Angel is all about.

There does have to be some resolution to the issue, though. Ever since the very beginning of the series W&H have been trying to get Angel on their side for the apocalypse, and now he's as on their side as possible - he's the CEO!! This is the time for the senior partners to make their move, and I suspect that Angel is already somehow involved in their apocalypse, on the wrong side. The fact is, Angel made a BAD decision by joining W&H. He gave his son a better life, sure, but at what cost? Wasn't it really just him taking the easy way out of a situation (i.e. his relationship with Connor) that, as far as he could tell, would be unsolvable? It was a selfish decision and it has already led to such things as Fred's death and the emergence of Dark Wesley (who, perhaps, would not have reacted the way he did to Gunn's betrayal if he had the ability to remember how Angel reacted to HIS betrayal in the third season and learned from that experience that violence and unforgiving anger are not good ways to deal with your friends when they make a mistake).

Nothing in the Jossverse comes without a cost, and I think Angel's decision in Home is going to have a VERY VERY big cost, for him and his friends/family, and it will involve an apocalypse, both external and internal. But the finale won't be about saving the world, it will about saving Angel (.org).

[> [> Why An Apocalypse? -- Joyce, 12:36:02 03/30/04 Tue

I've always wondered why some of the Jossverse demonic villains and villainesses have bothered to bring about an apolocalypse. If one would look around the world today, there would be plenty of death, destruction and chaos for any evil entity to enjoy.

[> [> [> Re: Why An Apocalypse? -- Evan, 15:04:47 03/30/04 Tue

I'm not sure why the senior partners would want an apocalypse. "The world doesn't work in spite of evil, it works because of it". So yeah, why would they want to destroy humanity? According to W&H, we humans are as much controlled by evil as anyone else. But that's what the prophecy says, so the writers will have to figure something out.

I think the dream sequence in Soul Purpose is an interesting indicator of what could happen. That was sort of an exaggerated apocalypse with a glorified hero who fought to save the world and make it a Disney-type utopia. It's ridiculous, and I don't think it's necessarily the type of thing that the prophecy is referring to. Most interesting of all - it all took place IN ANGEL'S HEAD.

I don't know, we'll see what happens. I'm hoping the writers are going to blow me away with an absolutely brilliant story arc involving the senior partners in the remaining episodes. Ideally, it'll be something that I never expected and much better than I could ever think of, rendering this speculation pointless.

[> [> I'm not so sure he made a bad decision -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:22:02 03/30/04 Tue

First off, regarding Connor, I think that you must consider the fact that, even if Connor wasn't psychologically damaged beyond repair, there was still the fact that no progress could be made as long as he was trying to kill himself, and someone with Connor's abilities is hard to restrain for long.

Second, while it may have been a relatively easy path, the hard way is not always better. A very difficult way of handling the situation would be planting subtle clues all around Connor to make him start to rethink his life. The easy way out is sometimes also the most effective way out.

Third, while Fred probably wouldn't have died, Illyria's box would still exist. Whoever took over the law firm instead of Angel probably would also have helped the box get imported. Someone being infected and dying, Illyria emerging; those things most likely still would have happened, just to different people (quite possibly to people less able to handle the situation).

Fourth, we've been shown many examples of moral compromise since Season 5 began. Frankly, if ME just comes out and states that joining Wolfram & Hart was a very bad choice and they should never have done it, the audience will be getting exactly what they've expected. It would be far more daring and far more shocking if the merger was shown to be, if not good, at the very least ambigious enough not to warrant capital letters "BAD".

[> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure he made a bad decision -- Evan, 14:55:49 03/30/04 Tue

"while it may have been a relatively easy path, the hard way is not always better. A very difficult way of handling the situation would be planting subtle clues all around Connor to make him start to rethink his life. The easy way out is sometimes also the most effective way out."

You're right, it was the most effective way "out", but was that even the right "out" to take? Connor had an AWFUL childhood (raised in hell, like most kids think anyway). This was reflected in his teens, where we saw that he was prone to make morally questionable decisions. He may have even been suicidal. But the solution, the out that Angel took was to just get him out of his hands and stick him in a new family (thus erasing Connor's entire past, and altering the family's memories without their consent, not to mention his friends). Like all things on this show, they aren't only about the mystikal stuff, they're about real life. Connor was like a real teenager in many of the same ways that Buffy was in the early seasons of Btvs. And Connor & Angel's relationship was an arguably pretty realistic portrayal of a single father and his son who he doesn't make enough time for.

As a parent, I think Angel has made some bad decisions, and if you remove the fantasy elements of the story, few would approve of the type of decision Angel made in Home (and at other points in the fourth season) as a father. At least I wouldn't.

"Third, while Fred probably wouldn't have died, Illyria's box would still exist. Whoever took over the law firm instead of Angel probably would also have helped the box get imported. Someone being infected and dying, Illyria emerging; those things most likely still would have happened, just to different people (quite possibly to people less able to handle the situation)."

This is true, and I don't think Illyria's rise to existence was part of the "punishment" for Angel's bad decision. As we saw in Shells, she's not actually that big a threat anyway. The punishment was that it was Fred who died and not some W&H lawyer who would probably have been evil anyway.

"Fourth, we've been shown many examples of moral compromise since Season 5 began. Frankly, if ME just comes out and states that joining Wolfram & Hart was a very bad choice and they should never have done it, the audience will be getting exactly what they've expected. It would be far more daring and far more shocking if the merger was shown to be, if not good, at the very least ambigious enough not to warrant capital letters "BAD"."

This is a good point. I think Angel is going to end up paying more for the personal decisions he's made, such as with Connor and his friends, than the decision to join W&H. That's why I think the "apocalypse" will be more metaphorical than literal. But I still think it's going to happen, in some way or another. They've been talking about that Apocalypse since the first season!

[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure he made a bad decision -- heywhynot, 16:01:51 03/30/04 Tue

Is the choice to keep Connor less selfish than giving him up to another family? To me both choices are selfish. I am in the camp that all actions are selfish, there are no selfless acts. Anytime we make a choice, we weigh everything and decide on the path we want to take. A person that chooses to save another person's life does so because they would be racked with guilt if they did not try, they believe it is the just/right thing to do

For Angel, in the first case, he keeps his son & tries to rehabilitate him, during this time (and lets face it, it would of taken a very long time for Connor) his son is suffering/hating life, in pain. Basically in this scenario, Angel is saying the suffering is justified because they are together and in the end Connor will emerge ok. There is a lot of hope involved in this choice and some hubris thrown in also. The other choice, has Angel giving Connor up to a family where he won't suffer like he has being Angel's son. Overall Connor is happy but lacks knowledge of who he truly is, Angel suffers being alone, grieving for a son no one else knows he had. Either way, the choice was Angel's. In the first choice, he is not alone and in the second his son is happy. Angel chose to be alone, to cut himself off from those around him and for his son to have a better shot at being happy.

Basically, Angel put Connor up for adoption. Most mothers when they put their child up for adoption believe the adopting family will provide their child with a better life. I do not fault anyone who decides that as my mother was adopted. Of course, Angel knows how his son turns out with him & retroactively has his son adopted. The major problem is altering the memories of everyone else, including Connor, so that they don't remember Connor being Angel's son.

"This is true, and I don't think Illyria's rise to existence was part of the "punishment" for Angel's bad decision. As we saw in Shells, she's not actually that big a threat anyway. The punishment was that it was Fred who died and not some W&H lawyer who would probably have been evil anyway."

Knox did not seem enamored with W&H, he was using the firm to advance his own agenda. It could of very well of been some woman he met in a bar or online who became the shell for Illyria.

I am of the opinion the choice to join W&H is neither good and bad in upon itself, it is what you do with the power that matters. Do you wield it or do you share it? Do you become a patriarch or do you destroy the cycle? Wasn't that the lesson of Chosen?

[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure he made a bad decision -- dlgood, 07:03:34 03/31/04 Wed

As a parent, I think Angel has made some bad decisions, and if you remove the fantasy elements of the story, few would approve of the type of decision Angel made in Home (and at other points in the fourth season) as a father. At least I wouldn't.

The problem is, though, that you can't remove those fantasy elements without necessarily changing the story. What's the metaphor to fold those supernatural elements back into non-supernatural terms? Is he a Janissary?

the solution, the out that Angel took was to just get him out of his hands and stick him in a new family

I don't think it's nearly that simple, and a lot is missing regarding the details of the deal Angel struck.

Connor, by the end of S4, isn't simply some troubled teen who needed the TLC, and who got discarded by a bad daddy. Connor probably required institutionalization and containment - (1) because he posed such a danger to society, and not just himself and (2) because he required extreme and intensive therapy.

Therapy Angel is in no way capable of providing on his own. Is there a metaphor here with Connor, and other cases of psychiatric institutionalization. In the Jossverse, as in most horror, the sanitarium is not painted in a positive light - but it serves a purpose.

We don't really know the full details of Angel's deal - what the gamble was, what exactly his motives were. One could view it as horrific if so inclined. Perhaps, Angel was trying to cut the Gordian Knot. For me, the Jury's still out.

[> Re: Wolfram & Hart's apocalypse -- Alistair, 16:54:55 03/30/04 Tue

It is possible that the Senior Partners apocalypse involves their dominion over the entire Earth. They are not among the Old Ones, and this apocalyse wouldjust be a dramatic change rather then the demons coming back to Earth. The seniors partners already have the ability to come to Earth, so they probably plan some sort of massive global domination scheme which leads to Earth becoming just another dimension ruled by the Wolf Ram and Hart.

Lilah the Vampire -- Joyce, 12:57:58 03/30/04 Tue

I found this in a TV TOME review of "Calvary":

"If the episode had ended with Angelus biting Lilah's neck, there would have at least been some hope that she might come back as a vampire. Imagine that - someone as ruthless as Lilah in life transformed into a super-powered demon in death. That is one vampire who would give Angelus, the current reigning king of the heebie-jeebies, a run for his money."

Do you agree? Would Lilah had made an even more fearsome vampire than Angelus, Darla, Dru or Spike?

Replies:

[> Re: Lilah the Vampire -- Seven, 15:56:26 03/30/04 Tue

A very interesting question. I believe that she would...as long as she stayed away from Angel or anyone else who mattered for a couple decades. Angel and Spike and the like have had hundreds of years of experiance being what(ever) they are. Lilah would need to see that. However, knowing Lilah, she would probably see her newfound strength and abilities as a way to get at Angel or raise herself up in some way. She would definatly turn it to her advantage at first, but Angel would then have the power to just kill her, something he wouldn't do to her when she was human. (Though that might not be true nowadays - though we haven't seen Angel kill a human girl yet)

In all, she has the potential to be a Dru or Darla level vamp but she wouldn't last. Besides, her character was so appealing because she did the things that she did when she WAS human.

I love the idea of different characters being vamped. That 's why I loved "The Wish."

Who wouldn't love to see what VampWes would be like?

[> Nah, she's not repressed enough -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:52:30 03/30/04 Tue

Some of the most successful vampires acted very differently as humans. All the hate, dislike, and longing they felt as humans gets released in a sudden outburst when they're vamped. Lilah doesn't have that going for her, so I doubt she'd have the same sudden thrill that comes from being unbound. Besides, there are plenty of other vampires at Wolfram & Hart, even though some of the highest ranking lawyers are human; doubt it would be too much of a step up career-wise.

[> [> Was Liam repressed? -- Vickie, 22:15:35 03/30/04 Tue

I don't think so. He was very different from Angelus, but hardly repressed.

[> [> [> But he was very limited, trapped in a dead-end life -- Random, 22:36:26 03/30/04 Tue

[> [> [> I think he was -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:52:48 03/31/04 Wed

At least up until the moment his father kicked him out. It's heavily implied that, until then, he was bearing with his father's "upright and proper" lifestyle. I've always thought that Darla came to him not long after he left his father's house, so she caught him just as he was searching for a way to let his repressed desires out.

[> [> [> [> What different Liams you and I see! -- Vickie, 09:43:18 03/31/04 Wed

Finn thinks that Liam was indeed repressed:

At least up until the moment his father kicked him out. It's heavily implied that, until then, he was bearing with his father's "upright and proper" lifestyle.

I perceived no such implication in any of the flashback sequences. Can you point it out to me? I confess, I'm at work (and should probably be, you know, working) and cannot consult the DVDs. But my imperfect memory claims that Liam was a wastrel, that he spent his time drinking and womanizing. That he "dallied" with his family's one servant girl.

And all this is why his father threw him out. If not this, why did the dear old patriarchal tyrant toss his only son and heir into the street?

I agree with the latter portion of your post:

I've always thought that Darla came to him not long after he left his father's house...

It's fairly clear, I think, that Darla showed up just as Liam was starting to run out of money (having drunk it all) and was considering stealing his father's silver.

I just don't see Liam as particularly repressed. Angel, now there's somebody who knows how to repress!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What different Liams you and I see! -- Rose, 12:54:40 03/31/04 Wed

Why would the original human have to be a repressed personality to be an effective vampire?

I think that Lilah would make a first-class vamp. Perhaps even more evil than Angelus or Darla.

I also think that Darla, in her way, was just as dangerous as Angelus. She was more subtle in her cruelty. In a way, so was Spike. I had noticed in FFL that it had not taken him very long to learn how to get under Angelus' skin. A talent he had inherited from his mother?

And someone had pointed out that Drusilla was more sadistic than Angelus. I agree. Heck, even Dark Willow - whether human or a vampire - was more sadistic than Angelus. And Lilah definitely had what it took to be sadistic.

I even think that our two Watchers - Giles and Wes - would make very dangerous vampires. Much more dangerous than the Fanged Four. And both Buffy and Faith would have turned out to be the most violent of them all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I just can't see Lilah being much different as a vampire -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:55:54 04/01/04 Thu

She had already pretty much smothered her conscience to death and wielded power as a Wolfram & Hart attorney far beyond any additional strength she'd gain from being a vampire. I frankly can't see VampLilah being really any more dangerous than regular Lilah.

The repressed thing has to do with the vampires' drive. If you've got desires you want to unleash as a human, but don't due to morality, social norms, or the like, then your vampire self will indulge in them heavily. As soon as your conscience and will to fit in with society leaves, you're free to indulge your desires all you want, and will do so desperately to make up for lost time. This is what makes vampires who hid frustated desires as a human so dangerous: their drive is simply greater.

Also, while Dru and VampWillow may be more traditionally sadistic (what with the torture and bondage (although Drusilla seemed to be more of a taker than a giver)), Angelus was more into playing with people's minds and going for the emotional pain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The one thing I can see them building Vamp!Lilah around -- Lunasea, 08:41:06 04/01/04 Thu

is her fear of the Senior Partners. She doesn't want to carry out their orders, especially in regards to Angel, but she does. As a vamp is she still going to kow-tow to the Senior Partners to get what she wants? I can see a very interesting vampire being created who doesn't necessarily look at the long term picture anymore or is willing to do things because her favorite color is green.

Darla was into the view, but have we really seen vamps interested in money like Lilah was? Take out her need for money, based on her need for security because of her mother, and we might get a very interesting vampire. Not quite Angelus, because she doesn't need to prove herself like he does and not as intelligent as he is either, but there could be an interesting story there regarding her relationship with the Senior Partners.

She could even be built around her desire to be loved. Again, in the brief conversation we see with her mother on the phone, we get a glimpse of her issues. She isn't pure evil.

It all depends on where they want to go with Angel that season and how Vamp!Lilah could fit into this theme.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The one thing I can see them building Vamp!Lilah around -- Dlgood, 10:25:38 04/01/04 Thu

As a vamp is she still going to kow-tow to the Senior Partners to get what she wants?

Presumably, she has kowtowed to the SP for two reasons.
1) Because they can offer her something she wants.
2) They have power over her.

I don't really see how being turned into a vampire would alter this equation. To be honest, I don't really see how a Vampire Lilah would be all that much different from Vampire Darla. And beyond the biological drives, entirely that much different than Human Lilah - only perhaps slightly more ruthless than she already was.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The one thing I can see them building Vamp!Lilah around -- Lunasea, 19:56:37 04/01/04 Thu

1) Is she still going to want it?
2) will she care?

It really depends what ME wants to do. They justified a soulless vampire not doing evil every chance he got. They can justify anything.

The thing I see with Vamp!Lilah is Lindsey didn't like being Wolfram and Hart's puppet. Inside neither does she. I would like to see this explored and I can see if they were going to vamp Lilah they could easily go there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She doesn't like being a puppet, but she still likes the perks -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:31:26 04/01/04 Thu

In her opinion, the benefits from being a Wolfram & Hart attorney outweigh the bad (though that may change now that she's in Hell).

I just don't see being a vampire changing her position. I mean, human or vampire, the Senior Partners still wielded the power to kill her at will, and they still provided things she couldn't get on her own (such as the nice apartment; most vampires have trouble getting a nice place, what with being non-people and all). Actually, what would probably change would be that Angel, once he finds out Lilah isn't human, would kill her (he came close plenty of times even with the "humans off-limits" rule).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I just can't see Lilah being much different as a vampire -- Claudia, 12:42:52 04/01/04 Thu

"She had already pretty much smothered her conscience to death and wielded power as a Wolfram & Hart attorney far beyond any additional strength she'd gain from being a vampire. I frankly can't see VampLilah being really any more dangerous than regular Lilah.

The repressed thing has to do with the vampires' drive."

Who said that? Darla never struck me as a repressed human before the Master had turned her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And what Darla's most remembered for is being the Master's favorite and siring Angelus -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:21:19 04/01/04 Thu

She's never really been much of a Big Bad on her own. Her tendency to desecrate religious symbols is the only thing that really seems to make her stand out.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And what Darla's most remembered for is being the Master's favorite and siring Angelus -- Claudia, 16:07:22 04/02/04 Fri

"She's never really been much of a Big Bad on her own. Her tendency to desecrate religious symbols is the only thing that really seems to make her stand out."

I'm aware that the series had Darla state that Angelus had surpassed her as a vampire and that he was supposed to be the worst vampire in history.

The problem I have is that . . . I don't buy it. Not from what I've seen with my own eyes. Yes, Angelus is evil and sadistic. But so were other vampires shown in both series. Darla's evil had seemed more subtle and insidious . . . and in my eyes, more destructive. Although Spike wasn't as sadistic or destructive as the others, he was probably the most relentless vampire I have ever seen. And like Darla, he seemed to have possessed a talent for manipulation (when his patience was kept in check) and subtlety that reminded me of his mother. And of all the vampires I've seen, Drusilla seemed the most sadistic. Well . . . Drusilla and Vamp Willow. As evil and destructive Angelus was, I found him a bit overrated and bombastic. I certainly found Mr. Trick more impressive. And it's hard to take a vampire like Angelus, seriously, when he uses 1950s lingo in the early 21st century. Sounds ridiculous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And what Darla's most remembered for is being the Master's favorite and siring Angelus -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:59:45 04/02/04 Fri

Would you mind telling me, then, some examples of what seems to make Darla great evil worthy? The few things we've seen her do in the olden days were when she was in the company of Angelus, and he usually seemed to be the one with the ambition involved. As for modern day Darla, we got a little bit of her as one of the Master's flunkies and as an independent vampire for once. In Buffy Season 1, her only real standout performance was in "Angel", where she framed Angel, tried to bring him back to the dark side, and kill Buffy. While she did do a lot of evil in this ep, it wasn't really spectacular; nothing other villains haven't tried. As for her AtS Season 2 and 3 appearances, she spent a lot of those either as a pawn of Wolfram & Hart, weakened from fire damage, or pregnant and acting solely to satisfy her hunger. In the time when she was none of these things, she went on a small killing spree with Drusilla and attempted to recruit a demon gang. Evil, yes, but certainly nothing Angelus hasn't done before.

As for saying Drusilla and Vamp Willow are more sadistic, I think this has a lot to do with expliciteness. Dru and Willow got one brutal, onscreen torture scene each. However, when Angelus has partaken in torture, it's largely been non explicit. When he tortured Giles, we only got a few shots of Giles keeping a stiff upper lip; exactly what Angel did to him is left up to the audiences imagination. Then there's his torture of Drusilla; we've been told very few details about that. We know he killed her family, as well as the nuns she fleed to; we also have Angel saying "I inflicted every mental torture I could devise" and a scene of him telling Dru that she's irredeemably evil. Exactly what his torture of Drusilla involved is unknown. That's where I think our differing opinions come from. I found Angelus far more sadistic because I'm only shown the impact it had (driving an innocent girl to madness); I'm left to imagine what Angelus did to her after the confessional incident, which is far more disturbing and sadistic than anything they could have shown on TV.

Lastly, there's simply the creep factor. Angelus's manner of watching the characters, being so close to them without their knowing, and making himself known just enough so that they're always looking over their shoulder is definitely goosebump worthy. I guess I didn't catch any of this 50's lingo, ridiculousness, or bombacity. Exactly what has Angelus done to give you this impression (ignoring some of his more loserly moments in Season 4, when the writers had to be afraid of making Angelus too horrible for fear of people not sympathising with Angel afterwards.

P.S. Personally, Angelus isn't my favorite villain. I think he is, at times, the most disturbing (Faith and Warren are close seconds there, though).

P.P.S. Exactly what did Mr. Trick do to rate highly in your opinion? To me, he seemed to be trying too hard to be cool and modern, in the end just looking a little bit silly.

Vampire Slaying in the News -- Grant, 14:25:43 03/30/04 Tue

There have been many discussions here in the past on the legal implications of vampire slaying, so I thought everyone might be interested in reading this story from Romania in which the police have actually gotten involved in investigating an incidence of "vampire slaying." I think Buffy should be happy that the police in America never charged her with "disturbing the peace of the dead." But she is probably more happy that her vampires were easier to slay than the ones in Romania:

Ion Balasa, 64, explained that there are two ways to stop a vampire, but only one after he or she has risen to feed.

"Before the burial, you can insert a long sewing needle, just into the bellybutton," he said. "That will stop them from becoming a vampire."

But once they've become vampires, all that's left is to dig them up, use a curved haying sickle to remove the heart, burn the heart to ashes on an iron plate, then have the ill relatives drink the ashes mixed with water.

"The heart of a vampire, while you burn it, will squeak like a mouse and try to escape," Balasa said. "It's best to take a wooden stake and pin it to the pan, so it won't get away."

Then again, think of all the trouble they could have saved in Sunnydale by the judicious use of sewing needles.

Replies:

[> "Vampires occur everywhere, but in busy cities no one notices" -- skeeve, 12:08:19 03/31/04 Wed

[> Re: Vampire Slaying in the News -- Mighty Mouse, 00:51:06 04/01/04 Thu

The way I've read it in the past, occurances of families "slaying" Strigori (the supposed Vampire that haunts those parts) in fear of them coming back to kill them happen more often then local authorities would care to admit.

It's official: "Wonderfall"s move to Thursday is permanent (for as long as the show lasts)... -- Rob, 11:03:46 03/31/04 Wed

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?action=newswire&id=6489

Replies:

[> Yea! Now it has a chance -- tomfool, 11:39:30 03/31/04 Wed

[> It should do better with Tru Calling leading into it. -- CW, 12:16:46 03/31/04 Wed

Anything has to be better than that awful reality series. I'm not surprised they pulled the plug on it. Hope that show's producers 'get voted off the island.' (smirk)

[> Wonder-what? What Rob meant to say -- Merle, 14:05:35 03/31/04 Wed

is that TV's second-best drama, The Shield, remains scheduled on Tuesday nights at 9 central.

Or check fxnetworks.com's schedule for one of the several encore showings.

(a few disorganized thoughts follow:)

The acting, characterization, and plotlines in the Shield make WF look simply inane. I'm new to the series in Season 3, but I can already tell that Michael Chiklis's award for best male lead in a drama last year was well-deserved. Caroline D's line delivery last ep so so atrocious I was amazed. I liked her in the first ep, though. As for the rest of WF, it seems like it's trying way to hard to be quirky, but instead comes off as forced. It seems like something a college film student would come up with.

Even the basic premise is a little hard to swallow. Are we to believe that someone with the intelligence, education, and cynicism of Jaye just accepts without question that toy animals are talking to her (be they conduits for God/Satan/whatever)? At least on JoA, God proves his omniscience to Joan on a few occasions. Have the animals done anything to gain credibility with Jaye? Why doesn't she just toss them in a dumpster and get a restful sleep for a change?
It'd be more realistic if she'd go to a real doctor (not a shrink) to investigate the possibility of taking some sort of anti-psychotic medication. Or at least show her at the library researching what kinds of conditions might cause visual/auditory hallucinations. Someone as smart as Jaye is supposed to be would understand this to be a neurochemical issue. The excorcism bit was just insultingly stupid, to the viewers and to Jaye's character. Maybe next week she'll try leeches or trepanation. This is the elephant in the room this series must deal with if it wants us to take it seriously. To its credit, Millenium dealt with this exact same issue early in its run. Walkabout took that show's premise and extrapolated consequences in a logical way, which makes for a mature, thoughtful ep. I can't wait for WF to start doing the same.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that WF is more of a comedy and shouldn't be taken so seriously, it simply isn't funny enough to be an dramedy-leaning-towards-comedy. Gilmore Girls has brilliant comic dialog in most every ep. WF so far, with the exception of the "You don't have a larynx!" line, has been pretty feh.

I can only do a double-take at s'kat's suggestion that WF turns people off because BtVS and AtS never had jarring transitions of tone. Whaaaaah? These shows are famous for their mixing of tones in nearly every ep. Where else can you find the tense drama of a character threatening to kill her friends if they go near her sister one minute, then be lauging out loud at "shpadoinkle" the next minute? Maybe the reason WF seems jarring is not that that's a valid style the writers are experimenting with intentionally, but simply because they're not skillful enough to pull off the sharp juxtapositions the way B/A always did.

What a waste of William Sadler. I was excited when I heard he was cast, but they haven't given him anything to do yet. Consider, by comparison, that we had a firm grasp on each one of the nine characters introduced in Serenity. How come everyone except Jaye and possibly the bartender feels like a mere comic set-piece without a real person behind them?

Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see WF improve, but I really don't see it lasting the rest of the season. Tim Minear's efforts would be better spent on the Firefly movie instead, IMO.

I'll write back later if there are any other shows in the world I forgot to compare WF to. ;-)

[> [> Well, when she's followed their advice, good things have happened -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:41:14 03/31/04 Wed

*SPOILERS*

The first few commands in the premiere didn't really seem to do much good. But then she ended up finding a woman's purse, the same one an earlier command caused to be stolen. This is one coincidence it's doubtful a simple brain hallucination could produce. Then, after she set her sister up on a date after another command, it ended up giving four people happy relationships through unusual circumstances (the one for her sister especially goes to prove it; the odds of one lesbian randomly meeting another are 5% already; the odds of them recognising each other's orientation after a minute and falling for each other in two has got to be absolutely miniscule).

If that doesn't explain why she listens to the animals, there's still the fact that they're able to torment her if she doesn't (even if she throws them away, she still can't avoid seeing others).

As for the change in tone thing, I think that has to do with different styles of comedy. "Buffy" uses quips from the characters, bizarre situations, and some self-awareness of their situations to create humor. This is what I have long ago classified as "empathetic" humor, or humor where you're still supposed to really care about the characters. "Wonderfalls", on the other hand, seems to be of the "unempathetic" variety, where the characters simply serve to deliver the gag (see most modern episodes of "The Simpsons" as an example). "Empathetic" humor can go well with, and even spring naturally from drama. "Unempathetic" humor, on the other hand, does not, as drama absolutely depends on the audience caring about the characters, while "unempathetic" humor doesn't really care about the bodies servicing their jokes.

[> [> No offense, but how can you possibly compare these two shows? -- Rob, 08:52:52 04/01/04 Thu

The acting, characterization, and plotlines in the Shield make WF look simply inane.

The Shield is a dark, gritty, realistic drama and Wonderfalls a light, quirky comedy. When you pair the two up against each other, of course The Shield is going to seem more serious and, for lack of a better word, heavy than Wonderfalls. If you try to stack any sci-fi or fantasy show up against a more realistic one, you're going to have trouble convincing the average person that it is as important. A similar situation occurs with Alias and 24, Alias being more of a fantasy/sci-fi/spy meld, while 24 (although at times just as outrageous) has a darker, more serious, gritty edge. And those shows, being both spy shows of sorts, are more fair to compare to each other. Comparing the story of a dirty cop to that of a psychology major who hears voices coming from stuffed and plastic animals is like comparing apples, and, well, wax lions. [On a side note, I personally don't like The Shield, due to the utter lack of humanity in the main character. For a show centered around a complicated villain, who also happens to have a great deal of goodness in him, I watch Sopranos, which is a fair show to compare The Shield to, and IMO, has much more depth and artistic value.]

As for why Jaye listens to the animals, Finn did a very good job of answering that, as they have done a great deal to gain credibility. Why doesn't Jaye throw the animals away? (a) Because there are animal images and toys everywhere. It would be impossible to escape, particularly due to the fact that she works at a store full of them, and more importantly (b) despite the sardonic facade Jaye wears, she actually is a nice person and is learning to like helping people. Although she complains about the animals, a part of her is also curious about what they'll say next and where the next order or request from them will lead. So far, their words have lead to outcomes that were not only beneficial to other people, but to her.

It'd be more realistic if she'd go to a real doctor (not a shrink) to investigate the possibility of taking some sort of anti-psychotic medication. Or at least show her at the library researching what kinds of conditions might cause visual/auditory hallucinations. Someone as smart as Jaye is supposed to be would understand this to be a neurochemical issue.

Um, a neurochemical issue that gives her advice that ends up being right every time, including situations that she had no way of knowing would connect the way they would? "Break the taillight," for example, leading to the priest being arrested and discovering he has a daughter. Her setting up Sharon and Thomas on a date in the pilot leading to both of them finding partners and more importantly her learning about Sharon's sexuality and becoming closer to her, etc. etc.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that WF is more of a comedy and shouldn't be taken so seriously, it simply isn't funny enough to be an dramedy-leaning-towards-comedy.

That's just personal opinion. I happen to think that it is hands-down the funniest show on television right now, and that Caroline Dhevernas's (sp?) line delivery is brilliant. It isn't a dramedy-leaning-towards-comedy, it is a comedy with some dramatic elements, all of which are brilliantly undercut with comedy, keeping it from being moralistic in tone.

I'll write back later if there are any other shows in the world I forgot to compare WF to. ;-)

Again, no offense, but if you're going to compare Wonderfalls to any show, I'd pick one that actually has anything in common with it. s'kat, for example, whose post you said you didn't understand, compared the show fairly, with Buffy, another sci-fi/fantasy show that uses drama and comedy, although that show is more of a drama, with comedic elements, than the other way around, as Wonderfalls is. She actually makes very good points about why some people are turned off by the show, although I personally disagree with these "problematic" elements being problems at all.

Rob

[> [> [> I was comparing execution, not content -- Merle, 12:58:57 04/01/04 Thu

Did I insult your mother or something? Next time, I'll keep your name out of my subject lines (tongue-in-cheek though that was).

I can compare WF to any show I please. I don't think WF has to be dark and gritty; I just think it has to be as skillful in doing what it does as The Shield is in doing what it does (I'm not familiar with The Sopranos, Alias, 24, etc. I only know what I know). The specific things I mentioned about the Shield (good acting, realistic characterization, and interesting plotlines) ought to be universal to any fictional show regardless of genre or tone. The award-winning acting on The Shield creates, for me, believable characters whose stories I want to follow. The acting on WF just seems so cheesy that's it's off-putting. When Eric walks in on his wife cheating, e.g., his acting seems on par with what you'd see in a car commercial.
Introducing your entire cast is and hooking us to their characters is something that similarly should apply to any show, regardless of whose POV we're mainly in. Buffy made us instantly interested in 6 characters, Firefly 9, DS9 a whopping 10. WF supposedly has 6 main characters and I couldn't even name the other 5 (I had to look up Eric's name in an epguide). Who is Majandra? Surely these people aren't meant to stay as extras for the entire series?

"If you try to stack any sci-fi or fantasy show up against a more realistic one, you're going to have trouble convincing the average person that it is as important."
I don't know who the average person is, but I for one would easily place, say DS9 or the best of The X-files or Stargate (though those two are uneven at times)(I've never seen Farscape) as being as important as down-to-earth dramas.
BTW, Colonel O'Neill is one of the most difficult, sarcastic, and unlikeable characters I can think of, and I adore him for it! Sarcastic lead characters work wonderfully when written well.

Here's a comparison you might find fair: Gilmore Girls is a light quirky dramedy which I think is brilliant (might not be "avant garde" enough for you, though ;-) ). The characters are very quirky, funny, and have strange, stylized manners of speaking. But what makes GG work for me, is that under all the comedy, the Gilmores and townsfolk seem like real people, whose quirkiness actually stems from their characters, and doesn't feel like something tacked on just to trigger the laugh track. Even the ones that might seem at first like caricatures (Paris or Emily, say) let there human sides slip often enough that I sympathize with them as real people. The WF cast, apart from Jaye (and her only half of the time), just don't click that way with me.
Someone in another thread mentioned the Tyler family being a spot-on depiction of wealthy, emotionally distant New England socialites. Though I have no personal experience with such people, Richard and Emily Gilmore seem like realistic portrayals of the same type. Maybe I can't put my finger on exactly why, but there you have it.
I see Finn's point about unempathetic characters who "simply serve to deliver the gag" and that it works great for a cartoon. But live actors that I'm not meant to care about? I guess I just can't accept that. This is probably the exact reason I despise all modern sitcoms I've seen -- to me they don't seem like real people living out their lives in a way that just happens to be humorous; it's always so obvious that they're mugging for the camera. "Look at me! I'm reciting quips from the script labeled 'wacky neighbor #327' Yuk, yuk!" I guess I need my characters to be believable and relatable first, funny second.
I know this is just a feeling and probably not the kind of thing that can be argued.
If WF is going to go the route of having characters be merely bodies delivering jokes, as Finn says, the jokes had better be really damned hilarious to justify the use of live actors as nothing more than cardboard quip-machines. When Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel says, "My memory ain't been so good since I drank my thermometer, but I whittles what I sees", that's off-the-wall, not even remotely realistic, but it works because it's actually funny. WF, for the most part, just doesn't do it for me (though I still love the 'You don't have a larynx' line). De gustibus.

My bottom line is, WF isn't serious enough to be an engaging drama, and isn't funny enough to be an all-out comedy, which leaves it being not much of anything. Of course, it goes without saying that these are just my personal opinions.

As far as hallucinations go, I know that there's magic contained in the show's premise, but since Jaye is supposedly very cynical and is a *psychology major* of all things, I would have found it more believable if she had espressed a lot more doubt initially than she seemed to. If we're in her POV most of the time as s'kat says, can we really trust anything we see? Could a quarter really travel the length of a city block and end up right in someone's lunch bag? Maybe she's experiencing apophenia. Maybe she's unknowingly engaging in confirmation bias with regards to the animals' credibility, since sometimes following them leads to getting in fistfights and having the cops called, end of scene. What good came from that? Giving someone back an empty purse with no wallet or personal possessions left? Now given the show's premise, of course Jaye's doubts would ultimately prove false, but since she's a *psychology major* of all things, these are the kinds of issues she should immediately think of and ponder heavily on (can I really trust my own perceptions?), before just jumping on board with the 'talking animals send me on missions' gig.

I only commented on one paragraph of s'kat's post: the jarring switches in tone. I stand by my opinion that B/A both switched tones constantly and did it well. Ominous prophecy of death one minute, burger loa the next. Better yet, the burger loa is both ominous and funny (his angry scowl was so cute!) simultaneously. Good writers can have as many tones as they want per episode. Why jar viewers on purpose for no reason?

Again, don't get me wrong: though I don't know what specific elements of Angel and Firefly are the work of Tim Minear, if even a small part of the genius of those two shows makes it to WF, I'll want to see it. And if this board's analyses help me see something in it I missed (as so frequently happens with Buffy & Angel), that's great. I liked Caroline D. and Jaye in the first ep, and I'll definitely tune in tonight to see what happens. I derive no malicious glee from the fact that this show is as good as cancelled (if they turn it around and make me eat crow, I'll be delighted).

p.s.: Does anyone know of a WF transcript site?

[> [> [> [> Re: I was comparing execution, not content -- Rob, 14:07:15 04/01/04 Thu

Did I insult your mother or something? Next time, I'll keep your name out of my subject lines (tongue-in-cheek though that was).

I never said I was personally insulted by anything you wrote. I just strongly disagree with you. Neither did I say that you couldn't compare the two shows, but that IMO bringing in such a vastly different show in a discussion of Wonderfalls weakens your argument, because until you mentioned here that "I just think it has to be as skillful in doing what it does as The Shield is in doing what it does," I really did not understand what you were trying to accomplish or what point you were trying to make by comparing the two. Now I do, although I still disagree.

Now given the show's premise, of course Jaye's doubts would ultimately prove false, but since she's a *psychology major* of all things, these are the kinds of issues she should immediately think of and ponder heavily on.

Actually, she's a philosophy major, which although it is just a single word, makes a big difference as to why she is so curious about the source of the animals' voices. The fact that she is a philosophy major is really the crux of her character and her current existentialist crisis.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Oy, this happens all the time -- Masquerade, 17:00:28 04/01/04 Thu

I say "Philosophy", they hear "psychology" and ask me about my counseling career. And I don't think it's my pronunciation that is the problem. ; )

[> [> [> [> [> Tonight's ep was far better than last time -- Merle, 23:19:12 04/01/04 Thu

I don't have the eps in front of me to review, so I got the psychology major bit from your own post above! That's entrapment or something. In any case, I haven't noticed her doing large amounts of philosophizing about her situation either.

The latest ep improved where I hoped it would, but still ended up about 50% funny/interesting/poignant moments and 50% dumb/annoying/frustrating ones.

It's pointless to argue taste in humor, but a lot of the jokes worked: "I'm a Christmas and Easter Jew" or
"My dad got run over" "I'm sure you didn't mean to."

It's nice to see them starting to flesh out the mom and dad's characters in subtle but believable ways. I liked seeing their caring relationship with Jaye emerge.
I loved William Sadler in Roswell, DS9, and The Shawshank Redemption, and hope he gets the chance to do more good work on WF.

I didn't see the preview, but I'm more optimistic about next week's show than I was coming into this week's.

OTOH,

Some of the line deliveries still felt forced/unrealistic, especially from Majandra and a lot of the jokes either fell flat or were obnoxious. It wasn't necessary to have the dad wander around naked in a tranquilizer-induced haze.

I still don't have any real handle on who the sister, Eric, or Majandra are supposed to be. Apart from filling the need for An Ethnic Character, why are she and Jaye friends?

Caroline needs to learn a new facial expression. The bug-eyed thing is starting to grate.

I don't want to belabor this one point, but regarding the animals' credibility, if The Big Whatever in the Sky really wanted Jaye to get off her ass (presumably to help with the trashcans) so much that it would animate a dozen flamingos at once, that would have resulted in her dad not discovering the blood clot. If "get off your ass" really refers to something else (since it appears after the accident too) why would TBW send such an ambiguous message so forcefully at the one exact moment when it could have led to disaster?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tonight's ep was far better than last time -- Rob, 08:40:00 04/02/04 Fri

I don't have the eps in front of me to review, so I got the psychology major bit from your own post above! That's entrapment or something.

Oof! You're right. My bad. :-)

In any case, I haven't noticed her doing large amounts of philosophizing about her situation either.

That mostly happened in the first episode, particularly in her discussion with Majandra about whether she was going crazy, and in the scene where she asked them if they were God or the Devil. There haven't been any long monologues of her debating what is going on, but we do get small details here and there that she is questioning what is happening to her, as regards to the source of the voices, and whether these are all big coincidences, and if whether admitting they aren't means admitting there is a higher power at work, which she doesn't seem to want to believe.

It wasn't necessary to have the dad wander around naked in a tranquilizer-induced haze.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the humor, since this had me and the few friends I watched with last night rolling on the floor.

I didn't see the preview, but I'm more optimistic about next week's show than I was coming into this week's.

The next episode might interest you. Tim Minear has said that it is the one where the season's story arc begins. Up until this point, the show has mostly been standalone episodes with a subtle character arc developing, but apparently for the rest of the season, there will be a major story arc, which I'm kind of curious about, since I'm not exactly sure how they're going to do this: have an order from the animals that isn't completed in the episode in which she gets it, but she has to work at over a bunch of episodes perhaps?

I still don't have any real handle on who the sister, Eric, or Majandra are supposed to be.

Heh, and those are the very supporting characters who IMO have been fleshed out perfectly to my satisfaction, the sister, Sharon, mostly in the pilot and this episode, along with a few good character details in the second episode, "Karma Chameleon," Majandra in her reactions to Jaye in the first episode and in her actions in this episode, and Eric mostly in the first and third episodes, particularly during the "toilet seat confessional" scene. The father, mother, and Aaron on the other hand need more time to develop, although for the moment I am enjoying the whole cast.

I don't want to belabor this one point, but regarding the animals' credibility, if The Big Whatever in the Sky really wanted Jaye to get off her ass (presumably to help with the trashcans) so much that it would animate a dozen flamingos at once, that would have resulted in her dad not discovering the blood clot. If "get off your ass" really refers to something else (since it appears after the accident too) why would TBW send such an ambiguous message so forcefully at the one exact moment when it could have led to disaster?

Actually, what I find interesting is that if you notice, sometimes the animals will give a piece of advice that they know she won't follow, or that she'll try to ignore, so that she will listen to them later. For example, when they tell her, in the first episode, not to give the lady her money back, knowing that she won't listen to them. If she had, the results of the next two days would have been very different. Here, they say "Get off your ass!" knowing that she usually ignores them, and sure enough her ignoring them is the very thing that leads to his foot being run over. And of course later, when what they really need her to do is help Gretchen, then the moment the bass says "Get off your ass and help her," she jumps to attention. So, them knowing she'd ignore them at the start saves her father's life, and also gets her to really listen to them later. Similar to how last week, the wax lion told her to "Break the taillight," and her ignoring the advice is precisely what lead to the car rolling and the taillight breaking.

And I do have to laugh about one other thing regarding our differing tastes. Although I still enjoyed it, this was probably my least favorite episode of the four that aired! I swear, I'm not just saying that to be contradictory! :-)

Rob

[> Won't that put it directly opposite CSI? Sounds like a death sentence to me. -- Gyrus, 07:21:40 04/01/04 Thu

[> [> FOX doesn't operate on the same schedule as other networks... -- Rob, 08:31:11 04/01/04 Thu

They often air new episodes while other networks are on breaks, and start their seasons much later, so while it would sometimes be up against a new episode of C.S.I., that wouldn't always be the case.

Rob

Current board | More March 2004