May 2003 posts
Dangling plotlines and loose ends ( lets try
and tie them up) -- luvthistle1
( feel free to e-mail me, your theory!, 23:19:24 05/18/03
Sun
There are two more days until the final finale of Buffy. but most
of
the question, and plotline will not be answer in the only one
hour
finale.
what didn't make sense to you in season 7, what made you say "WTF".
were there things that wasn't mention that should have been? things
that were mention that didn't make sense? story arc, that was
drop,
or people that were introduce one way, and turn out to be another.
what did you noticed that made you your spider sense tingle, and
only
do be let down, because it drop or didn't make sense.
So guys and you help me out? by either mentioning a plotline,
or
answering one. ok.
Kit and Carlos:
They made an big thing about Dawn starting highs school, and
introduce her two new friends as "KIT and Carlos". Yet,
Kit and
Carlos are never seen again. what do you suppose happen to them?
Did we ever figure out who left the talisman in the ladies bathroom
in *Lessons*?
In "selfless" we are shown "two" buffy. one
in black and one in white. the one in black tried to kill Anya.
but the the first evil (as Buffy) always seem to where black as
well. could that have been the first evil Buffy, or could have
been two dimesion?
why Wood burried Jonathan? and why are there no records of wood,
prior to him going to sunnydale.In "first
date" Willow mention that to Buffy, but for some reason,
no one asked
why,nor check it out. it was never mention again.
Is that the real Giles, than why did he tell buffy about the bringer
attack the first time he came? also why haven he contact his spirit
guide, or people to try and help?
Dawn attack in CWDP. Joyce vist Dawn in CWDP, and Dawn was attack
by
something. Why? why was Dawn the only one attack in CWDP? and
by what?
Was that really Joyce, or the first evil in Cwdp.
why does Spike attack Giles when the Scoobies have already found
out
he is not the FE. he tells that Anya has told him he was the First,
that doesn't make any sense...
Beljox Eye's said the first was back, because the slayer lives.
so
what cause the problem in the slayer line?
in "showtime" the first evil told the ubervamp to kill
everyone
but "Her". who did he mean by her?
What did you think Spike mean when he mentioned to Xander in "STSP"
that he should hang onto his ticket because he would be needing
it
again?
Who's the frog?
did D'Hoffyne send someone to kill Anya?
Why did D'hoffyne change his mind?
Willow turned into Warren. why?
Was that Amy, or the first evil?
Who put the trigger in spike. was it the first evil, or did he
just act upon it.
Giles tells Willow "it's all connected", so considering
we recieved a crossover between Angel and Buffy this year, could
you connect the two shows, besides the amulet and sunnydale folder.
next?
[> Re: Dangling plotlines
and loose ends ( lets try and tie them up) -- baylee, 04:48:57
05/19/03 Mon
In Season 7(can't remember the exact episode) - a former classmate(who
I think was actually dead - and was the first)could see the future
- told Spike "Don't worry, some day she'll tell you"
- or something to that affect. Did she mean? - "Buffy will
eventually tell you that she does - and did care for you"
- well "End of days" didn't cut it - when Spike and
her are talking about the night they spent together, he asked
if she was "there" she never really said, "I cared
for you, or you are special to me"....she just said "I
was there, and I don't know what it means,does it have to mean
something" - Can someone clarify? - is this what that dead
girl meant by "someday she will tell you?" - or what?
[> [> Cassie said that
to Spike in "Help" -- luvthistle1, 11:17:38 05/19/03
Mon
...it was speculated that she might have meant "I believe
in you", or I love you". but we will never know. ever!
[> [> [> I thought
it was fufilled when Buffy told Spike "I believe in you"
-- Dochawk, 15:22:27 05/19/03 Mon
[> I really think this is
impossible to do until the last episode airs, but... -- Rob,
07:46:48 05/19/03 Mon
some of them have answers:
Kit and Carlos:
They made an big thing about Dawn starting highs school, and
introduce her two new friends as "KIT and Carlos". Yet,
Kit and
Carlos are never seen again. what do you suppose happen to them?
Dawn's still friends with them. In "Conversations With Dead
People," she is talking to Kit on the phone.
Did we ever figure out who left the talisman in the ladies
bathroom in *Lessons*?
No, that we don't know yet.
In "selfless" we are shown "two" buffy.
one in black and one in white. the one in black tried to kill
Anya. but the the first evil (as Buffy) always seem to where black
as well. could that have been the first evil Buffy, or could have
been two dimesion?
The first Buffy was a delusion of Spike's mind (or the FE) to
illustrate the split in Buffy's personality and how distant she
is slowly becoming at this point in the story. It's unlikely that
those were actually two Buffys.
why Wood burried Jonathan? and why are there no records of
wood,
prior to him going to sunnydale.In "first
date" Willow mention that to Buffy, but for some reason,
no one asked
why,nor check it out. it was never mention again.
In most likelihood, he found a corpse on the Seal of Danthazar
and so to try to prevent whatever spell or curse had occurred,
took him away from the seal and buried him. I doubt there was
anything insidious. His face when seen in retrospect can be not
evil, as we thought was possible the first time, but resigned
to his duty to fight the evils of the Hellmouth. And the lack
of records imply that he isn't really a principal but positioned
himself (how we don't know but by definitely illegal means) into
the job of principal in order to be in a place to fight what devours
beneath you.
Is that the real Giles, than why did he tell buffy about the
bringer
attack the first time he came? also why haven he contact his spirit
guide, or people to try and help?
He didn't tell her because he was severely shell-shocked when
he returned. The entire order of his world was being thrown out
of whack. Everything he ever came to rely on, including the Watcher's
Council, the Slayer line, etc., was being torn apart around him.
He dealt with this by being aloof and distant. And he has tried
to contact everyone and everything he could to fight the First,
including the coven in England, and they offered whatever help
they could, but nothing has been strong enough up until the end
of "Touched" to fight the First.
Dawn attack in CWDP. Joyce vist Dawn in CWDP, and Dawn was
attack by
something. Why? why was Dawn the only one attack in CWDP? and
by what?
That I think will be addressed in the last episode.
Was that really Joyce, or the first evil in Cwdp.
Again, I'd be shocked if that wasn't addressed in the end.
why does Spike attack Giles when the Scoobies have already
found out
he is not the FE. he tells that Anya has told him he was the First,
that doesn't make any sense...
That was a continuity slip. That's all. Spike thought he was the
First so runs at him to expose it to Buffy. The only way to rationalize
this is to say that Spike misunderstood Anya and thought she said
he was the First when she said that they found out he hadn't been.
Perhaps she started to tell him the story, and he ran out to get
Buffy before she was able to finish. That sounds Spike-like.
Beljox Eye's said the first was back, because the slayer lives.
so
what cause the problem in the slayer line?
The fact that Buffy lives. There might be more to this, to be
explained in the last ep, but for now, the Slayer line is weak
because Buffy has bucked the system by being brought back to life
twice. We don't know if this is because there are 2 slayers at
once...the First could probably have attacked earlier if this
were the case...so we need a little more clarifying, but if we
don't get it, we can just assume it is what we were told.
in "showtime" the first evil told the ubervamp to
kill everyone
but "Her". who did he mean by her?
Again, something I think might come up by the end.
What did you think Spike mean when he mentioned to Xander in
"STSP"
that he should hang onto his ticket because he would be needing
it
again?
Who's the frog?
Umm....what?
did D'Hoffyne send someone to kill Anya?
Yes.
Why did D'hoffyne change his mind?
Because he isn't honorable. He went for the pain, and then changed
his mind and sent someone in to clean up his mess.
Willow turned into Warren. why?
Because when she kissed Kennedy, she symbolically as if she was
killing Tara all over again by forgetting her and be with another.
Therefore, she equates herself with Tara's murderer and turns
into Warren. And the reason she could was because of the hex Amy
put on her.
Was that Amy, or the first evil?
That was Amy. They said earlier in the year that everyone must
pick a side in the battle. Apparently, Amy has chosen to side
with the First.
Who put the trigger in spike. was it the first evil, or did
he just act upon it.
Probably the First. Could be the Initative, but this doesn't really
matter that much, IMO. The fact that it was being used was important,
not who first put the trigger in place.
Giles tells Willow "it's all connected", so considering
we recieved a crossover between Angel and Buffy this year, could
you connect the two shows, besides the amulet and sunnydale folder.
This phrase had more to do with the interconnectedness of this
year's plot with those of earlier seasons. This whole season was
a huge metanarration on plots and character relationships from
earlier shows. Every episode had at least 3 or 4 parallels (sometimes
more) to earlier ones, and it was a statement regarding how everything
is coming full circle, all the themes are being played on, mixed
around, etc. Of course, the "Angel" plot this year also
played on similar themes, so these were connected as well. But
this was referring more, IMO, to the Buffy episodes' interconnectedness
rather than a crossover between the two shows.
Rob
[> [> Forget About It
. . . -- Rina, 08:10:43 05/19/03 Mon
If you're hoping for all plotlines to meet closure, by the end
of the series' run . . . forget about it. It's not gonna happen.
At least, according to TVGUIDE.
[> [> [> Um...the
previous post here is a bit more spoilery than I wanted to read...Just
a warning to others. -- Rob, 08:16:40 05/19/03 Mon
"I'd
rather make a programme... -- Marie, 01:10:48 05/19/03
Mon
...a hundred people need to see than a programme a thousand
people want to see."
My new favourite Joss Whedon quote - from S6 DVD.
Marie
[> To help keep Marie's
thought alive, I'll add this here -- CW, 06:27:48 05/19/03
Mon
The Arizona Republic devoted about a full page to an article and
accompanying photos praising the run of Buffy this morning. Unfortunately,
it's not yet on the net. How about it? Have other newspapers been
doing similar 'eulogizes?'
[> [> Nice Marti Noxon
quote (absolutely no spoilers) -- CW, 06:39:09 05/19/03
Mon
From the article.
When Marti first got her job with ME she got excited and called
her mother.
"Mom, I got this job on Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
"There was this long pasue, and then she said, 'Well, honey,
you'll do better next year.'"
[> [> Do you mean this
article......link inside -- Rufus, 07:01:19 05/19/03 Mon
Farewell
to the Hellmouth
[> [> [> Yes! Thanks
for finding it! -- CW, 07:54:09 05/19/03 Mon
Goodykoontz is the Arizona Republic's own tv reporter.
[> [> Lots of eulogies
-- tomfool, 08:41:57 05/19/03 Mon
Lots of tv critics are offering up their final tributes. Check
out www.slayage.com for a long list of them. This is a good site,
since they tell you which articles contain spoilers. Many are
using the same Joss quotes, so he must have given a 'pool' interview.
[> [> [> SF Chron
link (extremely vague spoilers for Chosen) -- tomfool, 09:11:26
05/19/03 Mon
One other article not yet linked at slayage was in the SF Chronicle
today by Tim Goodman, the Chron's tv critic.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/19/DD61367.DTL
Goodman gets Buffy and I generally like his tv commentary. He's
also a little disappointed in the last two seasons and that comes
through a bit in the article. He's seen the finale and seems to
be advising fans that it's very good, but don't go into it with
sky-high expectations or you may be slightly disappointed. Probably
good advise.
"But after much thinking about it, well, maybe the finale
is not the point. It was the journey to Sunnydale and the days
spent there that mattered."
[> [> Thank you, CW!
Just hate it when my thoughts up'n die! -- Marie, 08:46:41
05/19/03 Mon
Though more often, they do seem to just disappear into the ether...my
most-used phrases these days seem to be "What was I thinking?"
and "What was I doing?" Early menopause, maybe?!
Marie
[> [> San Diego --
DickBD, 11:54:38 05/19/03 Mon
Our Sunday paper had a three-page section on Buffy, with comments
from four different writers. One of them, Arthur Salm, is editor
of the book section and has written about Buffy before. The common
refrain is a lament on what Tuesday nights will be like from now
on. (But Buffy is like Shakespeare. We can re-watch this stuff
and continue to discuss the complexities into the distant future.
Sigh. And there is always Angel next year.)
[> Another quote. --
Arethusa, 11:49:46 05/19/03 Mon
"I hope I made people feel a little stronger; that was all
of my intent."
What a wonderful goal. And it worked, at least with me.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=b0bc1b7938efae56&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251582169&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630
Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- Mercedes, 09:22:23
05/19/03 Mon
So I was feeling all nostalgic today and looking over some Buffy
shooting scripts today and I think I've finally worked out what's
been bugging me so much about this season.
Is it possible that the Buffy writers have finally started taking
the fanbase too seriously? I mean, I'm aware that there was a
BIG backlash after season 6 (although I personally loved it)...and
Joss admitted at one point that maybe he did "go too far"
(or perhaps his exact words were "cross a line" or something
like that). It made me wonder.
This is what I'm talking about....
1. Taking the backlash after Tara's death too seriously, as evidenced
in the rather abrupt and awkward Willow/Kennedy relationship (am
I the only one who thinks this adds nothing to the show and reeks
of an attempt to declare "we're not homophobic!"?).
2. Too many "in-jokes" and unnecessary references to
previous seasons. e.g. use of the First to bring back so many
characters from other seasons, references to S2 in "Selfless"
and "Him", the flowery onion references in "Empty
Places" (did that actually make it into the episode? It's
in the shooting script, I know).
3. The continuation of Spuffy-ness. In season 6, the relationship
made sense. Post-attempted rape, it's just squicky, soul or no
soul. And some of the dialogue used to justify it (e.g. in "Never
Leave Me") is pretty fan-ficcy.
4. The decision to resurrect Sunnydale High. Blowing the place
to smithereens was a brave break with the conventions the show
established in the first three seasons (not always a popular decision
though) and it hasn't looked back since. Until season 7.
5. The inclusion of old-style, seasons 1/2-esque "Monster
of the Week" style episodes. "Lessons", "Him",
"Help" and "First Date" in particular feel
like rehashes. The return to the MOTW format is something I saw
advocated by fans from season 4 onwards.
6. Resurrecting the First (a villain seen previously seen in one
episode, four years ago) as the Big Bad, despite the writing nightmares
surrounding its essence, its ability and its apparent inefficiency.
7. Nicking the idea of Potential Slayers from the Buffy novels
and making them the focus of the season.
8. Somewhat gratuitous reapparances of "fan favourites"
not seen for ages in latter episodes(e.g. Faith, Angel, Clem).
9. Not nearly as much sex as previous seasons. I remember all
the way through S5 and S6 various people were complaining about
there being too much of it.
I'm going to stop listing things now, but there's lots more I
could say. I'm getting kinda riled, and this isn't suppose to
be me just venting about why I didn't like season 7. I'm genuinely
curious about if the show was to some extent trying to "give
the fans what they want" in the last season. Did they give
up on trying to make the show accessible to new viewers? Have
there been any hints in interviews as such? The general trends
of this season seem to have contrasted so sharply with the previous
"rules" that guided the show that I can't think of another
explanation.
[> Matter of Opinion
-- Rina, 09:50:21 05/19/03 Mon
It's all a matter of opinion.
While there are many who didn't care for Season 7, there are still
those who did (and I'm one of them).
[> [> Well, yeah, goes
without saying...wouldn't assume otherwise. -- Mercedes, 10:17:28
05/19/03 Mon
[> Has the show ever really
been accessible to new viewers? -- Rob, 09:52:30 05/19/03
Mon
What you list as being flaws I call the major successes of the
season, particularly the in-jokes and references to previous seasons.
This is the last season, so plot threads and themes must be tied
up and come full circle for the story to feel complete. This season
brilliantly paralleled earlier seasons; in many ways, it's a revisiting
of the early years of "Buffy," except now Buffy is the
adult, seeing the high school and teen problems she once faced,
through adult eyes. The repetition of plot and themes is meant
to comment on this, and to explore just how much the lives of
the characters have changed. The rebuilding of Sunnydale High
was an important reflection on the early years of the show, and,
further, never became the focus of the show this season.
Resurrecting the First, IMO, was a genius move, also. This was
a villain from the third season that never resurfaced. I read
many complaints about at the time and years later that this great
evil force was angered by Buffy and never did anything about it.
Now it finally has. Likewise, the "Potentials" were
not nicked from a "Buffy" novel. We knew since the first
episode that they existed. The Watcher's Council we knew kept
an eye on the girls that could be called. If they didn't, how
would they ever find the Slayer?
Reappearances of fan favorites, again, further strengthened the
the themes, and more importantly, it's the last year! Last seasons,
or the good ones anyway, ALWAYS bring back old faces. And I'm
glad. And I would hardly call Faith's reappearance gratuitous.
The fact that she is also a slayer is a major issue that Buffy
has to deal with. This is a plot to wipe out the Slayer line.
Faith can't be left out of that story!
Also disagree re: Buffy and Spike. Their relationship has always
been complicated. And the fact that he has a soul now is much
more important than you're making it out to be. Unsouled Spike
loved Buffy, but loved her as a vampire loves--a controlling,
possessive love. Buffy trusts in Spike's soul implicitly now.
And if anything they're going against the wishes of a great deal
of fans in having B/S potentially be together again. Same goes
with Willow and Kennedy. A great deal of fans don't want Willow
to be with anyone else ever again.
For me, this "back to the beginning" return to themes
and plots of the early years is what has made this season so brilliant.
It feels like a last season because of it. If it hadn't, there
would be no true sense of closure.
Rob
[> [> You kind of have
a point but... -- Mercedes, 10:46:48 05/19/03 Mon
It depends I guess...maybe the writers shared the same view as
you on what made Buffy great and that would explain all the looking
back we've had this season...
On the other hand...you're a fan...and you just said that they
gave you what you wanted this season...doesn't that kind of prove
my point?
On addressing old themes/bringing things full circle: I'd imagine
that, in Joss' opinion at least, season 1 was the one he saw as
the least fully formed. So if addressing the core of the show
is the priority, why so much focus on the REALLY early days? The
things that came to define it are things that developed continuously
throughout the series. And some of those things have been continuously
neglected in S7...Willow and Xander's friendship, Willow and Buffy's
friendship, Dawn and Buffy's relationship...
Buffy may have gone through the pattern of isolating herself every
season in times of trouble, but you'd think that now, in the last
season, this would be the time when she finally learns, not when
she repeats the same mistake AGAIN. Moreover, what Buffy's been
doing lately isn't just isolating herself...she's become slowly
dehumanised. Buffy doesn't even know the names of all the Potentials.
No wonder much of the audience doesn't care what happens to them,
Buffy herself is apparently not so fussed, making speeches where
she coldly resigns herselves to deaths and even admitting she'd
kill Dawn if the circumstances of "The Gift" were repeated...and
that's when, for me, she stopped being Buffy.
But mischaracterisation is a separate issue from what I'm talking
about here...retrospective-ness in S7. Resurrecting the First...you
heard "many complaints at the time" about this not being
done sooner? My point exactly. The real point I'm making, you
see, isn't whether or not this season was any good, but whether
or not it was based on fan wishlists...for some people that would
be a good thing. For me, it's not.
[> [> [> Okay, well,
fan complaints aside... -- Rob, 11:14:45 05/19/03 Mon
(and you're right, that wasn't the best way to argue my point
re: the First!), Buffy has never been a show that was too inviting
for non-fans, which is why it's so hard to hook new viewers. Almost
every episode is so dependant on knowing myriad reams of history
and backstory that joining it late is a daunting task to say the
least. I don't season 7 is any different than any season since
perhaps the second, in that regard.
About the First, this needed to be revisited IMO, because it was
a core thematic concern. Returning to the beginning involves a
final explanation on the First Slayer as well as what caused what
the Slayer fights, the First Evil. The First Evil is the living
embodiment of all that the Slayer, throughout the millenia, has
fought off, so it is a perfect symbolic representation to revisit
and reexplore the theme of the Slayer's power and her journey.
Buffy is for all intents and purposes this year fighting not just
a being but the very concept of evil itself.
And I couldn't disagree more about Buffy being out of character.
The divide between herself and her friends has grown stronger
since she was ripped out of heaven by the people who love her
the most. Especially now, fighting a villain that she has no tangible
way to fight, seeing all that she has fought and stood for being
ripped apart around her, seeing all these girls in her house,
all of whom will probably die, her response is to further distance
herself. But now this is changing, from the last portion of "Touched"
to now. Buffy is finally learning, finally realizing that this
is the wrong way to go about doing this. She's finally taking
Joyce's advice to heart, resting, before facing her battles. And
now being confronted with this mystical weapon that belongs to
the Slayers she feels more connected to the world than ever. She
has learned that the best response, the best way to protect the
world is not to separate herself from it but to love it and to
live in it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Hmm...we
didn't all kick off with "Welcome to the Hellmouth..."
-- Mercedes, 13:41:01 05/19/03 Mon
Not sure about Buffy generally being closed to non-fans. I mean,
I only started watching in season 3. I read posts from people
who started watching later. I think the vast majority of episodes
stand by themselves, although I do think the recaps at the beginning
are worse than useless sometimes.
Even up to season 6, I don't think previous viewing was necessary.
It's not that any episode was completely self-contained, but if
you compare them to things like Farscape (I tried to get into
it in the 3rd series, when everyone was raving about it), the
ME shows are comparatively very accessible. Essentially, everything
you need to know about "Buffy" is the title. She's a
vampire slayer. What else do you really need to know you won't
figure out during the course of the episode?
My problem with the First...it's neither one thing or the other.
That is, it's neither a concept nor the personification of a concept.
It's not some pure, undiluted raw thing (because it has next to
no power, isn't really evil itself so much as some undefined relation,
etc) and it's not some easily recognised vessel of evil (say,
like, every other big bad up to and including season 5).
Buffy is this year fighting evil itself? Nope. This isn't meant
to be spoilery for tomorrow's episode, but: when the First is
inevitably defeated, evil won't be done away with. Because, for
one thing, they'll be fighting it every week on Angel again next
year. And in another spin-off later on, probably. And if the scriptwriters
intention WAS to make the First Evil synonymous with evil, then
frankly I can't fathom their thinking. How could evil ever be
permanently defeated? Why does it need to be fought as a concept
for thematical coherency, when its personifications have already
been fought in every episode up until now?
As for the Buffy characterisation thing, I can't say I agree with
what you said, but I can only restate my main objection because
for me, it sums up the whole basis of my argument re: her behaviour.
In "Lies..." Buffy agreed with Giles that, if necessary,
to save the world, she would kill Dawn. I can't find any better
example of what I'm talking about than that, because it's the
clearest one. It's a complete reversal of a character trend that's
been in motion for six years. I just can't get past that at all.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Hmm...we didn't all kick off with "Welcome to the
Hellmouth..." -- Tom, 14:16:03 05/19/03 Mon
Mercedes,
The comment that you mention in Lies is open to interpretation.
I have always believed that Buffy would have killed Dawn if that
was truly the only way, but Buffy knew in her heart that it wasn't
the only way and she found the other way. If you check the episode(7.17),
you will notice that she says something to effect of "if
it was the only way". Also, the scene at the end of Lies
where Buffy runs her fingers through Dawn's hair is a very maternal
image not the image of someone who would accept the loss of Dawn
as merely an unfortunate incident.
JMHO,
Tom
[> [> [> Buffy's dehumanization,
isolation; minor spoiler, Touched -- rowena, 11:16:13 05/19/03
Mon
The issue of Buffy's isolation, her "lack of connection"
with others in her life and with her feelings, and her so-called
"dehumanization" come up over and over in these posts.
I can't read another one without noting that her lack of feeling
is the inevitable outcome facing the worst that can happen - over
and over again. I know this from experience (not that I've ever
been in the middle of an actual apocalypse). .... Getting personal
here, which I really hate to do, but will because it seems relevant.
I was in a 12-year abusive relationship, one of those in which
there's always a crisis. One crisis ends, another arises. Things
are the worst they can be, then you overcome the worst, move on
and think life will finally get better and the cause of your torment
will desist only to have "the worst" start all over
again. You get hurt; people you love get hurt - and despite all
your heroic efforts and best intentions, your world collapses
time and time again. The only way to survive this cycle is to
shut down emotionally. That's how you keep from falling apart.
Connecting, feeling will kill you ... at least that's what you
think. You don't talk to your friends or your family about your
problems because they wouldn't understand. You feel utterly alone,
cut off. Even when you want to connect, you can't. The shutting
down is all about survival and being able to continue the fight.
In Buffy's case, she really has something to fight for. I didn't.
... I know I am rambling, sorry about that ... this is hard...
My last point is that even though you shut down in order to survive,
what you really need is support from family and friends - and
you know it, but you have shut down so much that you don't remember
how to reach out and make the connection, get the support. To
top it off, your family and friends are used to your lack of connecting
and have quit trying to get through to you. I think Buffy was
at this place until Spike was able to reach her in Touched.
I hope this makes sense.
[> [> [> [> Umm,
Buffy's dehumanization, isolation; minor spoiler, Touched
-- rowena, 11:29:50 05/19/03 Mon
That diatribe was meant in response to Mercedes original post,
not Rob's answer. I know it seems out of place here.
[> [> [> [> Beautiful.
Very well said. Thanks for expressing that so well. -- newbie,
11:32:10 05/19/03 Mon
If anything, in this season of Buffy, I feel she is the most human
of any season. Not so much super-hero bravado. She is a flawed
human being dealing with things in the best way she can and sometimes
failing.
Very lovely post.
[> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- mamcu,
10:00:10 05/19/03 Mon
I agree with many of these, but I don't really think these are
the real cause of the less-than-greatness of the season. I think
we all know it's the finale, and don't have problems with old
characters and plots taking a bow.
One of the best episodes was Never Leave Me, which had some of
the above, yet worked because it was well written, directed, and
acted (by most, at least).
I think the creative heart has gone out of it, and they really
aren't working with it anymore. The writing is not original and
clever now, but formulaic. Sometimes the acting and directing
make me wonder if I've hit Charmed or Dawson's Creek by mistake--especially
if I see something like First Date right after something excellent
from an earlier season like Lie to Me, I really see the contrast.
But I also still see some really good things that make me glad
they didn't shut it down after S6. James Marsters is often really
excellent as Spike (aside from the Spuffy thing, there's still
his own character development). Anya in Helpless, Dawn throughout,
and even the concept of Storyteller (I know the anti-Andrewoids
will get me for that) made it worthwhile.
Maybe we should think of it as curtain calls rather than a season.
Forgive it the way we do S1.
After all, we REALLY hate it b/c it's the last one.
[> [> Season 7 --
Rina, 10:21:20 05/19/03 Mon
Actually, Season 7 was the first BUFFY season I had ever watched
("Potential" being my first ever seen episode). But,
I have seen most of the other episodes - with the exception of
early Season 4. After seeing most of the series, I must admit
that Season 7 is probably my second favorite, right after Season
5. I've noticed that most fans prefer the show's early years (Seasons
1-3). While I admit that Season 3 is my favorite of the bunch
(the Faith/the Mayor storyline really grabbed me), in the end,
I more enjoyed watching Buffy deal with life as an adult, while
dealing with her Slayer duties. It's rather interesting to see
how she views good and evil now, in compare to when she was a
student at Sunnydale High.
[> [> [> Agree, but
-- mamcu, 13:41:28 05/19/03 Mon
I agree that the adult Buffy themes are more interesting, but
I think the writing, directing, and acting were better in all
the other seasons than this one--except for a few episodes: Beneath
You, Selfless, Get It Done, and Storyteller all really worked
well for me. But I thought S6 really dealt much more with personal
themes of young adults--this season the maturity themes aren't
getting dealt with well. I was hoping to see something more done
with the way Buffy reacted to the threat of the FE by becoming
such an authoritarian, but that seems to have been shunted aside
into some kind of soap opera about Spike and Angel.
[> [> [> [> Again,
matter of opinion -- Rina, 14:00:40 05/19/03 Mon
I guess it's your opinion. But it's not mine.
For me, the most disappointing season was Season 2. I've heard
so much about the "outstanding" Season 2, which featured
the Angel/Spike/Drusilla story arc.
Granted, there were some exceptional episodes that season, like
"School Hard", "Lie to Me", "Passions"
and "I Only Have Eyes For You". On the whole, I merely
encountered either good episodes or those that didn't seem as
great as they were claimed. Episodes like "What's My Line"
and "Becoming". And the story arc, in whole, struck
me as being a touch shaky in parts.
But, I'm not saying that Season 2 was terrible or one of the worst
of the series.
[> [> [> [> [>
Agree again--S4 and 5 were the worst -- mamcu the Riley
hater, 15:56:36 05/19/03 Mon
Don't know why, but any episode with Riley and/or the Initiative
causes me to flip away from FX and check the weather! I liked
some of S2 and S3--esp. the Giles-Jenny parts.
Also, I just started watching at the beginning of S6. Maybe whatever
season we see first imprints us on the whole series, like baby
ducks who think a toaster is their mother. That would explain
me, since S6 must be the MOST hated of all seasons.
[> [> [> Re: Season
7 -- Eryn, 17:05:51 05/19/03 Mon
The season finale of S5 was when I started watching Buffy. I've
caught up on the prior seasons through the magic of reruns (still
missing major parts of S5 though). I relate more to the characters
now that they're not in high school and university. I also prefer
the darker feeling of the last couple seasons. Admittedly this
makes me a rarity among most other fans to whom I've spoken. I've
found things that I enjoy in each season, but S6 is the standout
for me.
It's true Buffy is a hard show to catch up on, but it's not impossible.
(It did, however, take a long time for me to find out why Anya
directed so much hatred toward rabbits in OMWF.)
Eryn
[> [> [> [> Re:
Season 7 -- Jane, 22:42:57 05/19/03 Mon
The last show of season 5 was the first episode I saw, and it
drew me right into the whole Buffyverse. Even though I wasn't
sure what it was all about, I was hooked. Watched all of the seasons
over the summer, so was ready for year 6. I don't have a favourite
season; I've enjoyed them all. It feels like I've been reading
a long engrossing novel, and the last chapter,Season 7, has been
a great one. I don't want it to end, but I think I'll close the
book with a satified sigh.
[> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- Arethusa,
10:06:33 05/19/03 Mon
The little refernces to the past remind us that we are seeing
the characters see the past through adult eyes. (Check out the
superb posts in the archives discussing Yates' Second Coming poem.)
Regarding the First's manifestations, it recently occurred to
me that by showing the First become the past Big Bads, we are
seeing how evil afffected each character, bringing out certain
aspects of their personalities and driving them into acts based
on how their personality was twisted-but this is just a thought
and not yet an idea, right or wrong.
Most of the items you list only make sense if you think of BtVS
as Buffy's spirtual journey. Everything being revisited is used
to show how adult Buffy has progressed since she was a teen-how
she has resolved some of the demon issues that plagued her as
a teen slayer, and how she is still working on others. Spike is
around because Buffy still has trust issues with men. The First
is amorphous because Buffy and the Scoobies are trying to come
to terms with the fact that evil is in every human and can't be
separated and staked like a vampire. It must be recognized and
controlled.
While the writers are not totaly indifferent to the audience's
reactions, the main thing guiding BtVS is the story Whedon wants
to tell. That's what determines what's on the screen.
[> [> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- Simone,
14:13:25 05/19/03 Mon
>>While the writers are not totaly indifferent to the audience's
reactions, the main thing guiding BtVS is the story Whedon wants
to tell. That's what determines what's on the screen.<<
I sort of agree with this but with some qualifications: while
fan opinions probably have no bearing on the major plot points
and story arcs, they HAVE seemed to me (and this is obviously
my very subjective impression) to unduly influence some of the
details of *how* the story is being told this season. The problem
is, the "hows" are just as important as the "whats"
and "whys" in making a good story.
Entirely too many times this year I've had the uncomfortable feeling
that ME was directly addressing fan concerns (or trying to set
up spin-off possibilities, or saving material for said spin-offs)
instead of just getting on with the story, which, sadly, has sucked
a lot of the emotional resonance out of the show for me. It just
didn't feel as honest and heartfelt, I guess, as pre-S7. Also,
I think there's been a bit too much ambiguity about too many things.
Some ambiguity, especially on the big philosophical issues, is
a good thing; asking the important questions makes writers look
smart whereas answering them only makes them look silly. Too much
starts to look like gutless fence-sitting designed to not completely
piss off any of the major fan groups (which is understandable,
given that ME is, after all, trying to produce a commercially
viable TV show and not just making art for art's sake, but nevertheless
somewhat disappointing to me, however unreasonable that may be).
But, hey, maybe that's just me. Maybe the finale will make whatever
problems I had with this season seem petty and meaningless, much
like "The Gift" did in S5. We'll see.
[> [> [> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- Rina,
15:36:08 05/19/03 Mon
Again, your opinion, not mine.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Destined-to-be-unpopular theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS
FOR S7) -- Simone, 18:36:47 05/19/03 Mon
I'm not quite sure why you felt compelled to point that out, since
I think I've made it more than clear in my post that I was only
expressing my own very subjective (and subject to change) opinion.
[> [> [> [> Personal
opinions -- Mercedes, 11:11:53 05/20/03 Tue
> Again, your opinion, not mine.
Not to be offensive or anything, but I think when we come to message
boards/usenet/whatever, we all assume that everyone is only speaking
for themselves. Our own opinions are the only ones we can give.
[> Emotions,where were the
F'ing emotions this season -- lunasea, 10:20:06 05/19/03
Mon
Great that we got several nods this season. I got really tired
of them after a while, though. I am still waiting for a slash
fiction reference and from what Jane Espenson said in the Succubus
interview they are saving that for the finale.
Joss said that he stopped because he was worried that the quality
would suffer. He stopped one season too late. This season isn't
back to the beginning. This is season 2 if Buffy after "Innocence"
had said "The jerk lost his soul. Who needs him? Hand me
a stake. I got me some killin' to do."
Shame on the writers for not telling him this stuff just sucked.
Even brilliant people have off years and need someone to tell
them when they aren't putting out their best work.
I'm glad that Angel is being left in Jeff Bell's hands. Joss needs
a long vacation. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with
in the future, but this season just reaked on so many levels.
I wanted to know how he would symbolize what really doesn't have
a symbol. I discovered how. It just can't be and any attempt to
do so results in suckdom.
[> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- alwaysafan,
21:15:31 05/19/03 Mon
Okay this is from someone who watched the very first episode and
have seen everyone since (in order not starting from the back
and working backwards) (not offense seriously Rina, but it really
makes a difference how you view the show..really) it is not that
I haven't liked seasons, though there have been some I liked more
than others. What I miss is the pure greatness of the show. It
use to be funny yet serious. Now they try to hard to be funny.
They acted more mature in high school than they do now. They use
to be very true to the characters personalities and past feelings
and shows and now they don't care so much for back stories or
who did what to who. I mean I love Spike (the old unwhpipped Spike),
but soul or no soul he tried to rape Buffy and no matter how I
look at it I can never forgive the writers for that or how everyone
on the show has conviently forgotten that. You know Buffy life
is so violent as it is it was nice to see her in loving relationships
like Angel and even Riley, but Spike's was violent and lustful
and was the kind you would warn your girlfriend to stay away from
before things get out of control. Not to mention I find it hard
to care for Buffy every since she came back to life. I don't know
if this is the writers doing or bad acting on Sarah's part. Spike
is now a wuss and Buffy treats him like crap and worse of all
he comes back for more. Of course she says she cares. Who would
want someone there telling you how much they care about you and
telling you how great you are all the time. I mean come on. Where
did the old characters I use to love go. Willow ...sweet, innocent,
smart/ nope gay and never allowed to use her magic which could
be very cool. Zander...funny, loyal, trustworthy/ now..BORING!!
Giles..very funny, smart, father like figure, trustworthy/ now...never
on for more than a few minutes and apparently is unneccesary.
Buffy..smart, brave, mature for her age/ now whiny, bitchy, cold,
boring. Oh well, I guess after tomorrow it won't matter what I
think anyway. Nice to see there are others out there that think
like me though.
[> [> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- sdev,
22:15:02 05/19/03 Mon
You seem to have conveniently forgotten how violent Angel was
to Buffy and those she loved.
And as I mentioned in an earlier post the violence in Season 6
cut both ways. Buffy beat the shit out of Spike in Dead Things
for no better reason than he asked for it. I guess I missed all
the discussions after the AR, but I still don't get why rape is
worse than all the times Spike and Angel murdered. Yet we forgive
them that. As bad as rape is, it is not murder. As bad as the
attempt was it was an attempt which Spike aborted as soon as Buffy
threw him off.
I think you are missing the point. Season 6 was meant to show
us mutual abuse and how violence begets violence as in abusive
parents or lovers who raise abusive children. Buffy hated herself
in Season Six and took it out on Spike. This created even more
self-loathing for using and abusing him which is why she ended
the relationship. Spike in Season Six was more in character. After
all, he was still a souless vampire who Buffy said (and she was
right)she could't trust.
I agree with you more about Season 7, Spike does seem to have
reached new heights of wussiness which Angel at his mopiest has
not approached. Wussiness must be a real theme here--Willow,Faith
and even Buffy (I deserve the betrayal). But Spike's self-denial
is truly appalling. No self-respect equals no respect from others.
[> [> [> Because the
attempted rape was directed specifically at Buffy -- Finn
Mac Cool, 04:37:03 05/20/03 Tue
As such, people have more of a reaction to it than if it were
just to some person out there.
Also, there were a surprising number of posters who believed that
it was totally out of character for Spike to try to rape a woman,
that he was too "gentlemanly" for that.
[> [> [> [> Not
exactly -- Sophist, 08:43:11 05/20/03 Tue
there were a surprising number of posters who believed that
it was totally out of character for Spike to try to rape a woman,
that he was too "gentlemanly" for that.
I don't think there were any posters who actually argued this.
I know my own "OOC" post did not; I made a very different
argument.
[> [> [> [> [>
Wasn't meaning to say all "AR was OOC" posts had
that reason -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:49:17 05/20/03 Tue
But I know I did read several that argued the "gentlemanly"
aspect. Of course, those all might have been written by one poster,
but I can't recall precisely.
[> [> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- Eryn,
08:04:46 05/20/03 Tue
"Where did the old characters I use to love go. Willow ...sweet,
innocent, smart/ nope gay and never allowed to use her magic which
could be very cool."
"Gay" does not negate "sweet, innocent, smart."
Eryn
[> [> The diminishing
roles of the major characters -- dream, 08:47:12 05/20/03
Tue
I LIKE season seven overall, but I think there are some serious
weaknesses. Your sense that we have lost the major characters
is dead on. There was not a single Xander-centered or Giles-centered
episode this season. There was one Andrew-centered, one Anya,
two (or arguably three, depending on how you read Sleeper) Spike,
one Dawn. A few were pure ensemble pieces - CWDP, Lessons. The
rest of the middle of the season was filled with the Potentials
and Buffy, with the other characters (except occasionally Spike)
seriously sidelined. Wood and Kennedy also added to the already
large cast. The return of Faith has added a lot to the season,
but it means that even more time has been taken from the other
characters. I don't feel that Xander or Willow has changed for
the worse; I do feel that I haven't been given enough of these
two characters to know them like I used to. As interesting as
the idea of the Potentials was, the size of the cast became quite
problematic, and most of my issues with the season stem directly
from that.
The change in Giles' character seems the most profound and the
least addressed. As the issues at play here (the end of the Watcher's
Council, the loss of authority) seem to tie so directly into the
big issues of the season, the complete lack of direction with
his character seems a serious failing. The neglect of Xander is
not as problematic, but is saddening as well.
[> [> [> Re: The diminishing
roles of the major characters - About Time -- Rina, 11:16:21
05/20/03 Tue
Funny, I can recall two Dawn episodes. And I certainly can recall
two Willow episodes.
But to me, this show is about BUFFY - and Buffy only. And how
everything in her life affects her. I'm not really surprised that
less focus were on the Scoobies this year. It was only a matter
of time, following graduation, beginning four years ago. As much
as I like the SG, it was time for Buffy to grow up. Depend less
on the Scoobie and more on herself. She's not a student at Sunnydale
High, any longer. And as much as others hate to admit it, being
part of something called the Scooby Gang at the ages of 21 and
22, while raising a younger sister, is a little . . . well, ridiculous.
It's one thing to have friends. It's another to have one's life
revolve around them. Especially if you're an adult.
[> [> [> [> Whoops!
-- dream, 12:13:16 05/20/03 Tue
I meant to say two Willow episodes - Same Time, Same Place and
The Killer in Me, yes? But what was the second Dawn episode -
Potential and ?
Considering that Buffy has a deeply stressful "job"
that her two best friends also "work" at, and that she
lost her mother, I don't think it's particularly strange that
she would be very close to those two friends. It was clear that
at the end of the summer, she and Xander and Dawn had formed a
sort of family of their own. That seemed pretty realistic to me.
Also, as a viewer, I am as invested in the other three core Scoobies
as I am in Buffy herself. I understand that she is the central
character, and her story ultimately the one that moves the others.
But Xander has had his own development through the years, as have
Willow and Giles. It seems unfortunate to me not to continue those
stories to some sense of closure. In Willow's case, I think there
has been enough focus on her to feel that her story has been well-told,
but I did feel that Xander was lost along the way. And Giles had
a major change in personality for which reasons were hinted at,
but never explored. That seems a waste to me.
Also, I have no complaints about more time spent on Buffy herself.
I just thought that Andrew, Wood, Kennedy, Faith, Amanda, Vi,
Rona, Molly, etc. added too many characters to allow the ones
that have been around longer to get their stories told.
[> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- manwitch,
07:19:12 05/20/03 Tue
I haven't read the responses to you yet (except for lunasea's),
so I apologize if I am just repeating other people. As far as
I can tell, the writers are not bowing to any kind of pressure
from the fanbase or to any kind of laziness. They are finishing
the show the way it must be finished, and the writing reflects
that. My opinion, anyways. The only show I know about that ever
did what Buffy is doing, namely end itself rather than wait until
it was so confused, tired and ridiculous that it had to be cancelled,
was Fawlty Towers, possibly the best pure farce ever on television.
They only made twelve because they didn't want it to die. They
wanted twelve pieces that would work and be memorable. Leave people
remembering it positively. Buffy is doing the same thing. I would
argue, and have, that its a seven season arc and always has been.
What is happening this season is the natural ending of the story
that they have been telling. As to your specific points:
1. Taking the backlash after Tara's death too seriously, as
evidenced in the rather abrupt and awkward Willow/Kennedy relationship
(am I the only one who thinks this adds nothing to the show and
reeks of an attempt to declare "we're not homophobic!"?).
Willow/Kennedy is neither abrupt nor akward to me. And the show
has no defence it needs to make about homophobia. That said, Willow's
sexuality is a reference to Buffy's psychological journey. So
she's going to stay a lesbian, because Buffy no longer requires
mediation of any kind, particularly male, for her spiritual grounding.
Kennedy is also an important step for Willow because after all
Willow has done and all she's been through, Kennedy is interested
in Willow, not the magic. It has always been Willow's fear that
she wasn't enough. Plus on the backlash front, the Tara lovers
are the one's who would be most irked at Willow's moving on, so
again, I don't think what they are doing is a response to the
backlash.
2. Too many "in-jokes" and unnecessary references
to previous seasons. e.g. use of the First to bring back so many
characters from other seasons, references to S2 in "Selfless"
and "Him", the flowery onion references in "Empty
Places" (did that actually make it into the episode? It's
in the shooting script, I know).
These never bother me. I am always wondering why their past experiences
occupy so little of their time and thought. But anyways, a lot
of these references are important. I don't think the references
to Season 2 are pointless. Don't know about the onion, but it
does raise a question for all you science folks out there: Isn't
the onion part of the same family as garlic? Hmmmmm. But still,
I think these references do exist in earlier seasons. How often
do we get references to Anya and Bunnies. There are loads of references
throughout the entire series to other characters. Also, this is
the year that it all gets tied up, when everything in Buffy's
life is sort of reviewed and overcome, when she will, I think,
cease to be the slayer. So I see it as natural to be reviewing
all she has been through.
3. The continuation of Spuffy-ness. In season 6, the relationship
made sense. Post-attempted rape, it's just squicky, soul or no
soul. And some of the dialogue used to justify it (e.g. in "Never
Leave Me") is pretty fan-ficcy.
Spuffy-ness is more important now than it has ever been. The sexual
energy of Season 6 was nice and all, but it was a vehicle towards
Buffy finding a love for the world again. Jumping Spike was like
jumping the battery. Now Spike has become the representative of
the world of opposities, of the obstacle that Buffy must overcome
to make her final step on the journey to spiritual bliss. The
relationship she has with Spike is totally different from last
season, but far more important. It was a disturbing, if unsurprising,
development to see Spike once again spurned and standing beside
the first evil as we approach the final battle. But it suggests
all the more that Buffy must acknowledge him before the battle
can be won. They don't have to get married and have babies, but
she has to find a way to grow to the point where she can love
the unlovable.
4. The decision to resurrect Sunnydale High. Blowing the place
to smithereens was a brave break with the conventions the show
established in the first three seasons (not always a popular decision
though) and it hasn't looked back since. Until season 7.
This is connected to the idea of back to the beginning. I did
a post a while back that sort of tied each season of Buffy to
steps on a spiritual path in a form of yoga. Its too much to go
in here, but at the seventh and final step in the form of yoga,
the energies of the very first step are used to achieve the final
step. That is, to me, what back to the beginning is about. Buffy
once again has to overcome her ego, but this time its the ego
of being the slayer that must be overcome rather than activated
as it was in Season 1. Anyways, sorry to not explain better. It'll
make sense to somebody, I hope. The show is giving us a lot of
reference points for the powers of season 1. The school, the hellmouth,
girls who haven't yet accepted their spiritual destiny. The writers
know what they are doing here.
5. The inclusion of old-style, seasons 1/2-esque "Monster
of the Week" style episodes. "Lessons", "Him",
"Help" and "First Date" in particular feel
like rehashes. The return to the MOTW format is something I saw
advocated by fans from season 4 onwards.
Here I just disagree with your premise. MOTW never left the show.
That said, there has never been a Season as dedicated to the serial
soap opera format as this one.
6. Resurrecting the First (a villain seen previously seen in
one episode, four years ago) as the Big Bad, despite the writing
nightmares surrounding its essence, its ability and its apparent
inefficiency.
Again, in the yoga vision of the show, the seventh and final stage
of Buffy's spiritual journey involves overcoming all sense of
self, of right and wrong, good and evil, and simply existing as
pure consciousness. To put in more understandable biblical terms,
she must find the path back into the garden of eden through the
tree of eternal life that is Christ, which is love (love your
enemies). We were expelled from the garden by the knowledge of
good and evil, and that is what now must be overcome in order
to return and walk again in the presence of god. So the first
evil is necessarily an abstract, its the idea of evil,
the idea that there is evil, that must be overcome. Again
the writers are doing a masterful job.
7. Nicking the idea of Potential Slayers from the Buffy novels
and making them the focus of the season.
Hardly nicking. And they aren't the focus of the season. Buffy
is. I agree that many more of them could get knocked off without
bothering me, but I don't think they're obscuring the story. They
belong there and they are doing about as much as they need to
for the story being told.
8. Somewhat gratuitous reapparances of "fan favourites"
not seen for ages in latter episodes(e.g. Faith, Angel, Clem).
First, I don't mind this, but in terms of the writers, I think
that again there is a degree of recap taking place in this to
remind us of what Buffy is about to do and experience tonight.
I don't see these as purely gratuitous. If they weren't there
everyone would say, "but what about, and what about."
Faith and Angel I expect are particularly important to the story
and not gratuitous at all. Faith is after all, the slayer.
9. Not nearly as much sex as previous seasons. I remember all
the way through S5 and S6 various people were complaining about
there being too much of it.
I like sex. I would like to watch lots of the Buffy characters
have sex. So I think the writers are not bowing to my interests.
The really sex-charged seasons were 2 and 6, with some in 4. And
in the yoga vision of the show, there is a very specific reason
for this, as those two steps, 2 and 6, along the spiritual path
use sexual energy to achieve their ends. The seventh and final
step does not use sexual energy, it uses pure love, which Buffy
must find in the span of tonight's final hour. And again, while
their very likely should be enough for everyone, it is specifically
Spike who needs the injection in order for Buffy to achieve her
spiritual goals.
I think there has been a boatload of emotion this season. This
last episode last week broke my heart in a number of different
places. The scene the week before between Buffy and Spike was
beautiful. Potential is just friggin wonderful, and if somebody
wasn't teary at that episode, its because their ducts were removed.
CwDP is one of the best epidsodes this show has ever done, packed
with power, emotion, humor, and fright. This season has been,
again, a brilliant piece of writing, both from week to week, for
the season as a whole, and as a finale to 7 wonderful years.
I admit I have rose-colored glasses. I don't have a worst episodes
list of Buffy episodes, as some do, because I don't think there
are any. This has been the closest thing to flawless television
for seven years that we could ever hope to see. Its so
far beyond everything else, in my opinion, that I do not choose
to dwell on the flaws that it may well have.
But as for the writers playing to the fanbase, to a degree that's
what any show does, but there has been no change in Season 7.
So there's my opinion on the matter.
[> [> 'I want my ducts
removed' or 'Why I love Voy' or 'Go, Manwitch' -- Tchaikovsky,
08:49:24 05/20/03 Tue
OK, manwitch, you almost made me cry there.
I agree with every word you wrote, give or take. The board over
the last two or three days seems to be taking a much more negative
attitude to the series and Season Seven in particular than it
usually does. There may be an element of pre-finale panic, or
an over-egging of expectations as to how good these last few episodes
could be. Also, I fully suspect that after this evening a lot
of people will rave about the finale, (well, Rob will anyway!)
I don't believe this Season has been an unwieldy appendage- Buffy
as a show feels seven seasons long to me, (incidentally, I was
delighted that Angel was renewed because that seems much more
than four seasons long). The emotions this year, for me, have
been spot on. My eyes are more prone to wateriness than most,
but I cried at 'Beneath You', 'Same Time, Same Place', 'Conversations
With Dead People' [the Jonathan bit], and 'Potential', and I've
currently only reached 'First Date'. 'Lessons' left me intrigued,
'Selfless' in awe, 'Never Leave Me' with a freat feeling about
Andrew, and 'The Killer in Me' with a great deal of respect for
Kennedy. I enjoyed the necessity of Buffy's actions in 'Showtime',
and farce of 'Him'. The line 'I can't cry this soul out of me'
from Spike in Sleeper left me amazed, the return of Giles in 'Bring
on the Night' cheered, and 'First Date' yearning for those old
days. Those of you ticking boxes will realise that's all of the
fourteen episodes I've watched.
There is a resonance to the writing, and the transforming chracters
well into the second half of a decade, which has allowed the show
to bounce along, building towards a hefty climax. The reason why
there should be a fuss about the finale is that the show has not
made itself redundant like 'The X-Files' or 'Friends'.
Which just leaves the 'Why I love Voy' part. In order to consolidate
my spoiled-ness, I went to Demens yesterday to read the Wildfeed
from Stiney. Let me say (no spoilers of any kind follow), that
their general dissatisfaction with Season Seven, their criticisms
of almost every plot point, characterisation, thematic arc and
character decision, and the level of abuse that they directed
at the participants is the show's manufacture left me breathless.
Firstly, I wondered why something for which they have so little
enthusiasm, which they hate so much that they routinely abuse
the creator Joss Whedon, still takes up so much of their time.
Secondly, I realised how lucky I was to be resident on a board
where sensible people [Darby, Sophist, countless others] make
well-thought out, calm criticisms, but also where posters are
able to react and praise something in a way which makes the show
more than it was before. Something which routinely uplifts me
like a post by OnM or shadowkat or fresne or cjl or yours above.
It's not just intelligence or articulacy, it's an ability to accept
that everything is flawed, but this work of art which we have
witnessed is not to be scoffed at. Because we won't find much
better easily.
So thank you manwitch.
TCH
[> [> [> Beautifully
said, manwitch and TCH -- Arethusa, 09:09:23 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> [> Re: 'I want
my ducts removed' or 'Why I love Voy' or 'Go, Manwitch' --
Sophist, 09:33:08 05/20/03 Tue
The board over the last two or three days seems to be taking
a much more negative attitude to the series and Season Seven in
particular than it usually does.
Hey, you should have seen some of the mid-S6 posts.
I too have been disappointed at the bashing of the show that I've
seen this season (not just in the last few days). Your point is
well taken -- if a poster sees no value in the season, why watch
and why post?
I love S7. Not that I think it's perfect. But my criticisms are
limited to saying "this scene didn't work because of X"
rather than "the show has lost its message".
I think the vast majority of us who still love the show have simply
stopped responding to the latter style posts. I know I have. This
tends to make the Board looks more critical than it actually is.
[> [> [> Positive
negativity -- Darby, 10:04:24 05/20/03 Tue
My "Revisited" posts started as ways to tie up things
that folks had said, weird connections my brain tends to make,
and script-to-screen variations. But the "Hey, look at this,
wonder what this could mean?" have largely slid into "What
the heck is going on? What happened here? They could have done
a better job with this." As much as I still love the show,
I've begun to feel like the prime regular purveyor of negativity
here, but I appreciate when I learn, as I did here, TCH, that
I'm not, I don't know, harming the enjoyment of folks I know and
respect on the board. Thanks.
Perhaps one of the most depressing occurances this season, for
me, was when the responses to my posts started to more and more
agree with my general feelings. I know there are people who do
not agree with me (and maybe they just stopped reading the threads,
skewing the responses), still, but as more and more see the end
is nigh with no time to resolve a big pile of plot holes and questionable
characterization thrusts (Giles?), fewer and fewer have the faith
that Joss will pull this out, and that makes me sad. Does that
make any sense?
[> [> [> [> Well...
-- Tchaikovsky, 10:31:24 05/20/03 Tue
Firstly, I think another thing that I love about this board, which
your post here made me realise, is that people have such individual
styles of posting, and each one complements the others. We have
fresne, who, when I'm a little drunk, comes across a bit like
Drusilla, but when I'm really concentrating, I realise it's a
brainy prose poem argument about something important to the topic
under discussion. We have shadowkat, who always comes across,
hours after the episode, as having watched it about 10 times,
and highlighted pertinent portions of the script with marker pens,
before composing her treatise on thematic relevance. On the other
hand, there's OnM, who takes ages, but you get your reward.
I would say that my style of posting is almost diametrically opposed
to yours. My attempts to be picky about plot strands always end
up being ruthlessly torn to shreds by someone better at it than
me, so in the Odyssey I restrict myself to literary allusions
and fguring out visual and verbal references back to other characters,
and parallels in themes. Your 'Revisited' Posts are precisely
what I can't do. It may be no co-incidence that I was below-par
on standardised tests as well.
I'd say there's a grain of truth in people not replying to your
posts, (although not to not reading them), because they leave
people like me baffled and in awe, but with precious little to
add. For what it's worth from me, being someone who's only seen
up to 7.14, but is thoroughly spoiled for the Finale, I believe
that this Season has the ability to be a satisfying whole, and
tie up all the plot themes which worry me personally. If I was
going to be didactic, (actually, I love being didactic), I'd counsel
people to remember how well Joss can tie up surprisingly big plot
gaps with tiny, delicate scenes, like in 'The Gift'. His brush-strokes
tend to be infinitely dexterous, and his writing is tighter, more
multi-layered, and less cumbersome than any other ME writer.
Ultimately, though, it probably comes down to a difference in
our perspectives. Were you happy with the end of Seasons Five
and Six, for example? I was happy because of the thematic unity
and ultimate tidiness of the message. The fact that this board
comtains multitudes both of opinion and perspective will always
be one of its greatest joys, for me at least.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Well... -- Darby, 13:49:38 05/20/03 Tue
I thought that the seasonal arc of Season 5, with the theme of
identity, worked very well right up to the climax.
Dawn, Glory/Ben, Buffy's roles, Faith & Buffy, Riley, Glory minions
and Buffy collaborators, all made up part of the story right up
to Giles' killing of Ben and Buffy's sacrifice for Dawn.
The problem for the last two seasons is that it never realized
a theme. 6 was about growing up, but the season never pulled together.
It should have been about power and isolation (and even in not
doing it it did better on that theme than S7), which would have
organically led to Dark Willow better than the MagicCrack. The
pieces were there but the puzzle didn't get completed.
For S7, there was a theme - Evil can't be fought with fists, and
everyone has their own evils to fight - that carried the early
season, couched in a "Back to the Beginning" that was
more set dressing than thematic. We were told about Power, and
Connections, and I'm sure these will pop up in the finale, but
how have those themes integrated show-to-show, moving toward a
logical conclusion? I don't feel that they have - there's a reason
that they have to keep invoking the words to remind us. Buffy
has wandered too long in a funk and a fog, undermining both the
character and the archetype.
The funny thing is that, looking back over the episodes, I remember
each fondly because each has some aspect of true Buffy flavor,
that extra something that makes even the weak ones worth rewatching.
But when I step back and look at the path, there's almost nothing
there in the tangle.
[> [> [> [> I read
you and appreciate you every day Darby! -- Rahael, 13:49:21
05/20/03 Tue
I don't post because I don't want to disappoint posters like Sophist
and TCH by, you know, being all negative and stuff. I have plenty
of positive stuff to say about BtVS still. I don't watch, but
then, when did that ever stop me? Most of my posts are made without
ever having seen the ep!
But my pov is that if all that people want is positivity in every
single post, with every criticism always appended with "but
of course, I still loved the ep", then they don't need to
read any of my posts, not even the positive ones. I loved reading
all sorts of posts here because I was really interested in what
various posters thought of the ep. Usually I couldn't get to see
it, so I always read with interest - who liked it, who didn't,
why, and what does it say about the ep? Yes, sometimes criticisms
exasperated me, but sometimes I used to read positive commentary
about an ep and think to myself "my goodness, I won't like
this ep!"
I completely understand why people don't want their buzz killed
by people who just don't agree or don;t like something they loved.
But one of the things I loved about this board was the way that
posts were valued for their content - it was the way that positive
and negative criticism was made, how insightful, how witty, how
elequent. I've often read criticisms of episodes I've quite liked
and laughed involuntarily. I loved AtS Season 4, but Cactus Watcher
is still one of my favourite posters. I can understand why people
have a strong reaction to an ep I loved.
Anyway, this is just a drive by posting to say "hey, my respect
for you is exactly as high as it was when we disagreed over Seeing
Red, when we debated memes, and when we agreed about various plots
or themes" Which is to say, very high indeed.
After all, I'd be in a very awkward place wouldn't I, if I didn't
enjoy discussing stuff with people with diametrical opinions,
what with d'H hating Season 6 nearly every step of the way when
I really enjoyed it. But there's no one else I more enjoy discussing
eps with.
I started reading and posting in the aftermath of Season 5. The
very first thread I posted in was a thread criticising the plot
holes in Season 5. It intrigued me, and made me stick around.
Then all through season 6, there was never a shortage of critical
opinion, often from some of the posters I most respected. I disagreed
with them again and again, but again, their posts were one of
the reasons I stuck around. It's not negativity plain and simple
that attracted me. It was the evidence of thinking, demanding,
minds, all approaching something they loved with alert, inquisitive
and creative minds.
I look back over this last two years, and to be quite honest,
the show means less to me than the posters here. The show has
meant a lot to me, so that's the measure of the compliment!
[> [> [> [> [>
Shpadoinkle! Thanks! -- Darby, 16:31:40 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> Extremely well
said. I couldn't agree more. -- Sophist, 08:53:20 05/20/03
Tue
[> [> My View on Favorite
Seasons -- Rina, 08:55:57 05/20/03 Tue
I have to admit that Season 5 was my favorite. I enjoyed the way
the entire Glory story arc was handled. I also enjoyed Buffy,
Spike and Dawn's development in this season. The season boasted
a mind-blowing finale, and it featured three of my all time favorite
episodes - "Fool For Love", "Intervention"
and "The Gift". Seasons 3, which featured the best villain
in my opinion, and 7, which features a villain even more insidious
than SW's Chancellor Palpatine and a more mature outlook on the
main character, are also favorites of mine.
My least favorite? This is hard, but I will have to say Season
4. Unlike many, I rather liked Riley Finn and found myself hoping
that he would develop into a complex character. And he did - somewhat.
But the problem with Season 4 is that like Seasons 2 and 6, its
story arc seemed a bit shaky. Like other seasons, it used the
formula that started with the Little Bad and ended with the Big
Bad - and included a Betrayer, close to Buffy. But Seasons 2,
4 and 6 did not seem to use the formula very effectively. I also
felt that Season's 4 Adam was a weak and rather uninteresting
main villain. But most importantly, as much as I liked Riley,
he dominated the season. And he shouldn't have. Season 4 seemed
as if it was "All About Riley", not Buffy. He was the
one who developed the most. He was the main character who had
to deal with betrayals. And the show is not called, "Riley,
the Vampire Slayer".
It's odd how many are complaining that Spike had more or less
took over Season 7. And yet, many of the discussions and debates
stemming from Season 7 have been centered around Buffy. Not all,
mind you, but most. But I can say without a doubt that what others
were complaining about Season 7, was actually true about Season
4. Only the character focused upon was Riley, not Spike.
[> [> [> But...
-- Tchaikovsky, 09:09:41 05/20/03 Tue
The final episode of Season Four was 'Restless', where Riley was
only there twice; as an opportunity for Joyce's joke about not
seeing him for so long, and to be the face of the patriarchy in
Buffy's dream. The Season concluded with an episode which was
palpably not about Riley, and what's more, it was more about Giles,
Willow and Xander, all of whom has their own dreams, as well.
I'm glad you enjoyed the character of Riley, (makes you and me
unusual), but I can't agree that he took over the Season. 'The
Yoko Factor' and 'Primeval' were all about the main four. There
was the Willow storyline, 'Superstar', the Faith duet, Oz' break-up,
Giles in 'A New Man', and of course 'Hush'. These storylines,
when not interesting enough in themselves, helped mediate Buffy's
storyline, not Riley's. 4.20 and 4.21 were about the separation
of Buffy from the others as a result of a mixture of college life
and diffidence. Oz' story meta-narrated on Buffy's with Angel,
and 'New Noon Rising' had the elegant twist of Buffy being shocked
by Willow's lesbianism, and then Riley being shocked by her dating
of Angel, leading her to realise how narrow-minded she was being.
'Superstar' took on the kind of person Buffy is; singular, unique,
flawed, precisely unlike the perfect James Bond Jonathan. The
Faith duet once again puzzled through the ideas of being Chosen,
being the Slayer, and how the deprivation of self can lead to
an isolation from others that leads to anarchy. Buffy= Faith +
Love, was the basic tenet, beautifully carried off. 'A New Man'
tackled Giles' isolation, also suggesting how Buffy's distance
was starting to her affect her relationships both with Giles and
Willow. Finally, Hush- 'when we stop talking, we start communicating'.
A universal theme, for a complex season. I agree with your criticisms
with Adam, but can't agree on your other point.
TCH
[> [> [> [> Re:
But... -- Rina, 10:58:36 05/20/03 Tue
Oh for God's . . . This IS MY OPINION. If you don't share it,
fine. Don't expect me to share yours. Okay? Can we all harbor
different opinions? I'm well aware of the episodes that were not
about Riley. But on the whole, Riley seemed to dominate Season
4 - at least TO ME. Okay?
[> [> [> [> [>
Rina- what do you want me to say? -- Tchaikovsky, 01:15:57
05/21/03 Wed
This is a posting board where we have different opinions. You're
allowed to post something that I completely disagree with, I'm
allowed to argue the opposite. That's the whole point. You've
written this same exasperated post about people having different
opinions about five times in the last week, and I frankly don't
remotely understand your point. The whole idea is to have our
thoughts mediated by interaction. You are perfectly entitled to
ignore my opinion, but please don't criticise me for expressing
mine- it just suggests someone who can't be bothered to come up
with a logical argument.
TCH
[> [> [> [> Eloquent,
thoughtful and reasonable as usual, TCH! -- Rahael, 14:04:18
05/20/03 Tue
[> [> Re: Destined-to-be-unpopular
theory on s7's bad points (GENERAL SPOILERS FOR S7) -- Mercedes,
11:50:04 05/20/03 Tue
"I apologize if I am just repeating other people"
Nope. Most people seem to have interpreted my original post as
"season 7 sucks" and responded as such. At least you've
responded to my main point.
"They are finishing the show the way it must be finished,
and the writing reflects that...What is happening this season
is the natural ending of the story that they have been telling."
The way it must be finished? Natural ending? This isn't biology
or chemistry. Television writing isn't a series of logically determined
events. It's not like a line graph, y'know, where there's a formula
and you have no choice where the finishing point is. The writers
can, twith some constraints, do what they want. If they'd followed
a logical path, we'd never have got to the point we'd reached
by the end of season 6, anyway.
Onto the individual points...
1. "Willow/Kennedy is neither abrupt nor akward to me."
Well, purely on a comparison to other relationships basis, it
came out of nowhere. Kennedy had been in three or four episodes
before they got it together. Oz, Tara, Angel, Anya, Jenny, Spike,
Cordelia...these guys had all been around for months and months
before they got together with their respective honeys. And in
each case, there was a certain subtlety to the build-up. Not a
half dozen blatant flirting episodes. The whole thing was rushed.
Aside from that, Kennedy and Willow have no chemistry. This isn't
a criticism of either actress, but of the scripts. Not to mention
that Kennedy doesn't fit in with the established introvert/outsider/quiet/quirky
pattern of Willow's "type."
"Plus on the backlash front, the Tara lovers are the one's
who would be most irked at Willow's moving on, so again, I don't
think what they are doing is a response to the backlash."
I'm not talking about Tara lovers, I'm talking about the fanbase
in general, but also about those critics (e.g. columnists on gay
websites, fans in the gay community, non-gay commentators, etc)
who objected to killing off half of the most prominent lesbian
couple on television. Whedon admitted before S7 started screening
that the response to Tara's death had affected the course of the
season (after tha backlash, any possibility of bisexual-Willow
was vetoed).
2. In-jokes, retrospective references. "These never bother
me."
Ah, but that's not my question is it? My question is are they
there to appease fans despite the fact that they alienate new
viewers. And since so many fans have defended them in these posts,
that kinda suggests the answer is "yes."
3. Spuffy-ness: "They don't have to get married and have
babies, but she has to find a way to grow to the point where she
can love the unlovable."
Oh like women who marry prisoners, you mean? How does personal
growth involve masochistic taste in men? You can't write off all
abrupt changes in attitude from one season to another as "natural
progress." Sometimes it's just nonsensical and forced.
4. Resurrecting Sunnydale High: I'll only say one thing. TV shows
don't follow the laws of yoga.
5. MOTW format: "Here I just disagree with your premise.
MOTW never left the show"
I don't think it ever deserted the show either, but the important
thing is that there was a perception, at least, amongst other
fans, that the overall format changed significantly. Specifically,
that there were less season 1-esque self-contained MOTW episodes.
Some of that feeling was evident in season 7.
6. The First Evil: the First Evil ISN'T a concept. Evil is a concept,
a "normal" villain (e.g. Glory, Adam, etc) is a personification.
The First is somewhere between these two things and for precisely
for that reason, it doesn't work. But whether it's a good villain
isn't the point. Whether or not it was brought back to appeal
to fans is.
7. Potential slayers: "They belong there and they are doing
about as much as they need to for the story being told."
Again, this isn't related to my original question, but for my
money the Potentials detract from, rather than adding to the Slayer
mythos. Buffy's central tragedy was always that the whole horrific
Slayer deal is dumped on a normal, teenage girl, at precisely
the wrong time, with no warning. And now we learn that not only
are the girls identified beforehand, they also get prepared and
trained. Lame.
But I still think it was transferred from novels to the show because
of fan popularity in its original outing.
8. Gratuitous-ness of Faith and Angel...I can't comment on the
latter without spoiling the finale, so I won't. As for Faith...she
could have easily been brushed aside had that been the writer's
wish. There were a dozen ways they could have written around it.
As it was, she's there and it's not enough to argue that she's
related to the central plot, she has to be made use of, allowed
character development/insight and all the rest of it. This hasn't
happened (somewhat unsurprisingly, given the size of the cast
by the time she turned up).
9. Sex...again, I'm not sure yoga's all that relevant. The relevant
thing is...is there less of it because of the attitude towards
the sex in season 6? Given that it was a widespread criticism
in season 6, and the fact that Whedon has publically apologised
for "going too far" in that season, I think so.
"This has been the closest thing to flawless television for
seven years that we could ever hope to see."
I'd say for four and half years, maybe. (halfway through season
2 to the end of season 6).
"But as for the writers playing to the fanbase, to a
degree that's what any show does, but there has been no
change in Season 7."
Well...there has definitely been an increase in homages/ references
to former seasons. Or at least, the ones there have been more
explicit. A lot of things (and it may just be coincidental) seem
to mirror things on previous fan wishlists. That's all I'm saying.
[> [> [> Well, it
was unpopular with me. :) -- Sophist, 13:43:32 05/20/03
Tue
Natural ending? This isn't biology or chemistry. Television
writing isn't a series of logically determined events.
You have to read manwitch's earlier post (he referred to it above)
to understand his point. Even if you didn't agree with him, a
series can still have a natural ending in the sense that it proceeds
with reasonable logic and continuity to a conclusion. I think
it likely that Buffy will end that way, but I'm unspoiled.
Well, purely on a comparison to other relationships basis,
it came out of nowhere. Kennedy had been in three or four episodes
before they got it together. Oz, Tara, Angel, Anya, Jenny, Spike,
Cordelia...these guys had all been around for months and months
before they got together with their respective honeys.
I think you're overstating things here. Oz appeared in 3-4 eps
before Surprise (when it became obvious that he and Willow would
be a couple). X/C went from mortal enemies to kisses in one scene.
Many people grokked that W/T would be a couple after Hush (Tara's
first ever appearance). Anya asked Xander to the Prom after just
2 episodes.
Kennedy and Willow have no chemistry.
To paraphrase a quote, this isn't chemistry, it's opinion. I think
they do.
I'm talking about the fanbase in general, but also about those
critics (e.g. columnists on gay websites, fans in the gay community,
non-gay commentators, etc) who objected to killing off half of
the most prominent lesbian couple on television.
I don't see how this avoids manwitch's conclusion. Those are precisely
the ones who might most object to Willow having a new lover (even,
as some see her, a rebound affair). Kennedy can hardly be a response
to that portion of the fanbase. And speaking of "fanbase",
it's hardly monolithic -- I have a hard time with your basic premise
that a unified fanbase actually exists and that it wants certain
identifiable things.
Oh like women who marry prisoners, you mean? How does personal
growth involve masochistic taste in men? You can't write off all
abrupt changes in attitude from one season to another as "natural
progress." Sometimes it's just nonsensical and forced.
Your sarcasm is uncalled for.
The odd thing is, many posters at the beginning of S7 criticized
Buffy for being too cold to Spike. Now you're claiming she's too
hot. Where's just right?
Buffy's understanding of the importance of a soul seems to make
her change in attitude entirely understandable.
TV shows don't follow the laws of yoga
Several of the writers have said publicly that they are fans of
the Promethea comics, which do, in fact, deal with principles
of yoga.
Whether or not it was brought back to appeal to fans is.
I certainly saw no outcry from the fans for a return of the FE.
In fact, a number of posters here criticized it early on as a
poor choice (since recanted). If you think it's such a poor choice,
why do you think that the rest of the (implicitly stupid) fans
would like it?
Buffy's central tragedy was always that the whole horrific
Slayer deal is dumped on a normal, teenage girl, at precisely
the wrong time, with no warning. And now we learn that not only
are the girls identified beforehand, they also get prepared and
trained. Lame.
You mean like Kendra? It's been clear for years that some have
received pre-training and some have not. The same is true of the
Potentials. The show has been perfectly consistent about this.
there has definitely been an increase in homages/ references
to former seasons.
I think you're overlooking a key point: the longer the show continues,
the more chance there is for an "in" reference. Such
references were perforce rare in S1, but have been increasingly
common since. That's natural, not a ground for criticism.
[> [> [> [> Plus
there's much more fodder to make references from -- Finn Mac
Cool, 13:51:57 05/20/03 Tue
Continuity references were rare in season one because there was
nothing to make reference too. With each season, there is more
and more that can be drawn from. However, I do feel this season
has been more reference heavy than most, I just happen to treat
that as a good thing.
And the Saturn
winner for the best TV actor is..... -- yabyumpan, 09:39:42
05/19/03 Mon
......David Boreanez :o)
Alyson Hannigan won best supporting actress
Cinescape's Faces of the Future Awards went to Buffy's Emma Caulfield
and Firefly's Nathan Fillion.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-05/19/11.00.film
[> Re: And the Saturn winner
for the best TV actor is..... -- Rina, 09:47:14 05/19/03
Mon
Who was his competition? Although, quite frankly, he would not
have been my choice.
Advice From
a Vampire (Season 2) -- Rina, 10:10:35 05/19/03 Mon
In one of the late Season 2 episodes, Angel gave Spike the following
advice: "To kill the Slayer you have to love her." Exactly
what does Angel know about killing Slayers? He's never killed
one. And why would he give such advice to a vampire who had already
killed two Slayers within a period of 77 years?
[> Not talking about ANY
Slayer, just Buffy -- lunasea, 10:23:37 05/19/03 Mon
I think it is fair to say that Angel knew Buffy better than Spike.
It isn't "the Slayer" as in a slayer or some generic
slayer. The Slayer is how they refer to Buffy. She is THE Slayer
(even though they know there are 2).
[> [> Re: Not talking
about ANY Slayer, just Buffy -- Rina, 12:00:58 05/19/03
Mon
Yeah. Except Spike still came closer to killing Buffy in "School
Hard", than Angel did during late Season 2. Of course, Angel
could give lessons on tormenting and maiming Watchers.
[> [> [> Not going
to argue -- lunasea, 12:46:24 05/19/03 Mon
The quote is before Angel even tries to kill Buffy and Angel doesn't
want to just kill Buffy. He wants to hurt her. If anything, he
probably wanted to turn her into another Dru. He had plenty of
opportunities. Angel comes just as close as Spike does in the
beginning of "Killed By Death" among others. A sleeping
Buffy in "Passion" really was no match for him either.
She wasn't exactly herself in IOHEFY.
The episode before this is "Surprise" in which Spike
states how he feels about Sunnydale and the Slayer. "I remember,
sweet. But Sunnydale's cursed for us. Angel and the Slayer see
to that."
This isn't a who's better, Angel or Spike thing. Angel taunts
Spike. Spike taunts Angel. That is their relationship. It is fun.
Update - Where
are you? -- Darby, 12:28:57 05/19/03 Mon
Not as much fun as the "Who are you?" thread, but it's
fun to know where folks are. We do this occasionally, and with
the series ending tomorrow, this seems like a good time. Masq,
if this thread hangs around, feel free to forcibly archive it
before the finale - you can do that, right?
Friends, posters, lurker - you can give your location with just
a subject line.
Below is the last update, cumulative over maybe a year and a half.
There will be names familiar to the newbies, missing friends to
the oldbies, and lots of folks who, far as I know, have only ever
posted to one of these threads - hardcore lurkers.
A8 - Baghdad by the Bay (SF)
agent156 - Dallas, Texas
Akita - SE Pennsylvania, Upper Bucks County
aliera - Albany, New York
anom - New York City
Aquitaine - West Island of Montreal
Arethusa - Houston, Texas
Arya_Stark - Central Connecticut
AurraSing - In the southeast Kootenays (British Columbia)
Belladonna - Chicago, Illinois
Bob R - Kansas City, KS
Brian - Louisville Kentucky via Troy New York & Boston
Buffyboy - Vallejo, California, 30 miles N of Oakland
Cactus Watcher - Phoenix, Arizona
Calluna - Port Orchard, Washington - Across Puget Sound from Seattle
caltrask55 - Randolph Massachusetts!!!
CaptainPugwash - Channels Islands (UK) - the original 'Jersey'
Caroline - Washington, D.C.
cat - Indianapolis, Indiana
Celebaelin - Kenilworth, UK
celticross - Middle of Nowhere, Kentucky - not far from the Tennessee
border
Cheryl - Phoenix, Arizona
Chew-lean - Atlanta/Decatur, Georgia (for 6-7 months out of the
year) & Florida
cjl - Brooklyn, New York
Clarity (and Polyhymnia) - Stafford, Virginia, USA...an hour south
of Washington D.C., an hour north of Richmond VA
Cleanthes - NE Florida
Copper - Phoenix, Arizona
Cydney - Milwaukee, Wisconsin
cynesthesia - San Jose, California
Cynthia - Manhattan, New York City, New York
Darby - Upstate New York, Northeast of Albany
Dariel - Brooklyn, New York
Dark Presence - Fife County, east coast of Scotland
darrenK, - Brooklyn, New York
David Frisby - Indianapolis
Dead Soul - Arcata, California, 80 miles south of Oregon
Deb - Kansas City, Missouri
Deeva - San Francisco, California
Dichotomy - Beautiful, sunny, Denver, Colorado, USA
Dochawk - Brentwood, California
Doriander - Queens, New York
Doug the Bloody - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
dream of the consortium - Cambridge, Massachusetts
Duquessa des Esseintes - Phoenix, Arizona
Dyna - Chicago
Earl Allison - Danvers, about twenty miles north of Boston, Massachusetts
eldersister2000 - SW Michigan
Eric - Oklahoma, from Santa Barbara / Sunnydale
Etrangere - Suburb of Paris
Exegy - Rockford, Illinois
FelipeRijo - Porto Alegre, the southernmost state capital of Brazil
Forsaken - Arkansas
fresne - San.Francisco. Bay Area, California
Gellis - Mckinleyville - California, maybe Oregon.
ghostdawg - Iowa City, Iowa
Graffiti - Upstate New York, Northeast of Albany
GreatRewards - Seattle, Washington, USA
grifter - Vienna, Austria
Hauptman - Boston, Massachusetts
Heather - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
heather galaxy - Chicago
Humanitas - Central Florida
Isabel - Schenectady, New York
J - Columbus, Ohio
Jane's Addiction - Raleigh, North Carolina
JCC - Ireland
Jen C. - Berzerkely California
JLP - Columbia, Missouri, halfway between Kansas City and St.
Louis
j.nina - State College, Pennsylvania
John Burwood - Portsmouth, England
Jon - Portland, Oregon
JoRus - Just N of Seattle, Washington
Julia - Portland, Oregon
Juliette - Birmingham, England
KdS - Borders of London and the county of Essex.
keldari - Dallas, Texas
Kimberly - Northeast New Jersey (Commuter Town)
Kitt - Brent, Alabama, S of Birmingham, E of Tuscaloosa
LadyStarlight - Rocky Mountains - Waterton Park, Alberta
lcolford - Seattle
Leaf - Perth, Western Australia
leslie - Santa Monica, California
Lilac - West Suburban Chicago
Liquidram - Saratoga, California (Silicon Valley)
LittleBit - Columbus, Ohio
Little One - By Dogs-Nest, Ontario (A Farmer's Daughter)
Loki - Manchester, England
Lumina - Sydney, Australia
Lunarchickk - Northwest NJ - Jersey girl, born & bred :)
lynx - Mississauga, Ontario. Canada
Lyonors - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
maddog - Portsmouth, New Hampshire
MaeveRigan - Raleigh, North Carolina
Majin Gojira - Just Outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Marie - N. Wales
Masquerade - San Francisco
matching mole - Urbana, Illinois, USA
Millan - Sweden
minasrevenge - Houston, Texas
monsieurxander - Ocean Springs, Mississippi
MrDave - Annapolis, MD
nay - between Baltimore & Washington DC, MD. USA
Neaux - Durham, North Carolina
newmoon - Portland, Oregon
Nightingale - Massachusetts
NightRepair - Melbourne, Australia
njbethany - Atlanta, Georgia
Non-Hostile Seventeen - Long Island, New York
O'Cailleagh - South Wales, UK
Off-kilter - Yokosuka, Japan
OnM - Southeast Pennsylvania, due west of Philadelphia
pagangodess - Small town Ontario, near Ottawa
ponygirl - Toronto
pr10n - Farmington, Utah (20 minutes from Salt Lake City)
Purple Tulip - Upstate New York, near Canada
Rahael - London
Rattletrap - Norman, Oklahoma
ravenhair - Just Outside Memphis, Tennessee
redcat - Honolulu, Hawai'i
rendyl - Just South of Montgomery, Alabama
Rob - Rockland County, NY...about 40 minutes from the City
Rochefort - Detroit, Michigan
Ronia - Washington, D.C.
rowan - Southeastern Pennsylvania, NW of Philadelphia
Rufus - British Columbia - Just Outside of Vancouver
Sara - Upstate New York, Northeast of Albany
Sarand - Queens, New York
Scroll - Mississauga, near Toronto, in school at Waterloo
Sebastian - Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The Second Evil - An hour west of Washington DC
shadowcat - Brooklyn, New York
Shaglio - Northeast Massachusetts -Danvers, MA
Sharon - Johannesburg, South Africa
Shiver - Northwest New Jersey (relocated from West Virginia)
skpe - Irvine California (5 minutes south of Disneyland)
Slain - A small village near the small town Chorley, Lancashire,
UK
Slayrunt - Akron, Ohio
solstice - New Orleans, Louisiana
Sophie - New York, New York
Sophist - Los Angeles
Spike Lover - East Texas
SpikeMom - San Diego, California
squireboy - Toronto, Canada
SugarTherapy - Suburbs of Minneapolis, MN
Talia - Atlanta, School in Philadelphia
tam - Newton, Massachusetts
Tchaikovsky - Winsley, near Bath, England
Tillow - Southeast NY/Bordering Jersey
tim - Columbus, Ohio
tost - Roswell, New Mexico
Tracton - Be'er-Sheva, Israel
Traveler - Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Tymen - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Tyreseus - Las Vegas
valkyrie - Fort Worth, Texas
vampire hunter D - Susquehanna Valley in Pennsylvania
VampRiley - Southeast Pennsylvania, North of Philly.
verdantheart - Provo Utah
Vickie - Santa Clara, California
Walking Ghost and the Pocket Editor - Dayton, Ohio
Wilder - Rock Hill, South Carolina
Wisewoman / dubdub - Vancouver, British Columbia.
Wolfhowl3 - Milton Ont, (about an hour away from Toronto)
yabyumpan(maybe) - Hackney, East London. UK
yuri - San Francisco to Montreal, Canada
ZachsMind - Dallas, Texas
zargon - Dallas, Texas
Zoey - Clemson South Carolina
zoomusicgirl - Warner, New Hampshire
[> Texas, but moving next
month to Australia -- Indri, 12:33:29 05/19/03 Mon
[> Manhattan, New York City
-- Dandy, 12:53:10 05/19/03 Mon
[> Little Rock, Arkansas
-- rowena, 13:29:11 05/19/03 Mon
[> Denmark -- pellenaka,
13:35:34 05/19/03 Mon
[> North Dakota. Someone's
gotta live here! -- Katrina, 13:47:13 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> Where in NoDak?
I'm from Grand Forks originally. -- Cheryl, 15:19:04 05/19/03
Mon
[> [> San Francisco (but
born in Fargo) -- tomfool, 15:53:34 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> [> Bay Area
folks stay tuned for possible mini-board meet -- Masq, 09:19:40
05/20/03 Tue
I heard a rumor d'Herblay may be coming into town sometime around
(but not during) the Vancouver meet. He will have to confirm,
but it's always a wonderful excuse for a party!
[> Bologna, Italy --
Plin, 13:59:14 05/19/03 Mon
[> West Hartford, Connecticut
-- Farquarson, Formerly Rhys, 14:16:47 05/19/03 Mon
[> Darby - think this should
be delayed til next week aftr the flood we will get tonight?
-- Dochawk, 14:24:26 05/19/03 Mon
Although I agree an update is important, can we take this thread,
which is bound to get really long off list for a week, because
I think there will be alot of desire of alot of posters to post
some emotional stuff they will want responses to. Boy was that
bad English
[> [> Tonight?! Wait!
No!! Tell me it's tomorrow!! -- dub, 14:46:56 05/19/03
Mon
This is Monday, right? Do you get to see it tonight, Doc?
[> [> [> You're right,
dub - it's on tomorrow or Tues. -- s'kat, 14:56:56 05/19/03
Mon
Doc's post made me question which day it was too and momentarily
panic.
[> [> [> mea culpa!
Sorry its tomorrow of course -- Dochawk, 15:20:16 05/19/03
Mon
Unless you are Rufus or Leoff or anyone else who has already seen
the wildfeed
[> [> I figured 24+ hours
til the flood, and after that, who knows? Plus... -- Darby,
working the calm before the storm., 15:00:54 05/19/03 Mon
...see the note to Masq in the original...
[> Minneapolis, MN (formerly
of Milwaukee, WI) -- Vegeta, 15:08:14 05/19/03 Mon
[> Park Slope, Brooklyn!
-- Lurker Girl,
15:33:06 05/19/03 Mon
[> South Carolina! with
timeouts in Chicago and San Francisco -- mamcu-luna, 15:50:45
05/19/03 Mon
My job's in Columbia, SC, but I spend a lot of time at Pawley's
Island, SC, and also in Chicago, and with my sons in San Francisco.
[> Denmark -- lakrids,
17:23:31 05/19/03 Mon
[> Eugene, Oregon --
WickedBuffy, 17:37:18 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> Vancouver, British
Columbia -- Eryn, 18:10:20 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> [> Vancouver,
B.C. (NT) -- Jane, 22:16:14 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> You
Vancouver folk should be interested in our post-finale meet in
June -- Rufus, 23:45:01 05/19/03 Mon
The link is above for more info....
[> Anchorage, Alaska
-- HonorH, 19:37:06 05/19/03 Mon
[> Pittsburgh, PA --
gillie, 20:28:45 05/19/03 Mon
[> Preston, NW England
-- MsGiles, 05:01:40 05/20/03 Tue
[> Ann Arbor, Michigan,
USA -- LonesomeSundown, 06:15:25 05/20/03 Tue
[> Urbana, Illinois (NT)
-- bell456, 07:44:27 05/20/03 Tue
[> Columbus, OH -- Shiraz,
11:42:38 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> Hey, me too!
-- BunnyK., 12:43:10 05/20/03 Tue
Spike's "evil"
-- Katlyn, 12:49:10
05/19/03 Mon
After Spike falls in love with Buffy, and get's his soul back,
his motives are constantly questioned. On this and other websites,
I have seen people comment that his actions in helping Buffy are
purely self interest. Also, characters on the show are awfully
judging of Spike with his redemption. Yet, Angel, who tortured
as many if not more people than Spike was never questioned in
his love for Buffy. And Spike loved Buffy equally with and without
a soul, which I am not saying means he loved her more than Angel
did, but it certainly should count toward his acceptance. He displayed
many selfless acts for Buffy (protecting Dawn, for example) out
of love way before he got his soul, which means his redemption
had already begun, or at least the motivation for it. The only
difference I see is that their first impression of Angel was not
evil, but they did eventually see his evil and accept him again.
[> When it was first revealed
that Angel was a vampire, there was much unacceptance -- Finn
Mac Cool, 13:57:52 05/19/03 Mon
After "Angel", there was an unspoken agreement between
Buffy and Angel to stay seperate after the end kiss. In "Invisible
Girl", Giles obviously felt some need to conceal who was
helping him with the research. Also, in late Season 1 through
early Season 2, there were several occasions where the Scoobies
expressed fear around Angel, though not necessarily dislike (in
"Prophecy Girl" and "Lie To Me", for example,
the quips made about Angel possibly drinking their blood aren't
entirely light hearted; there is some definitely real concern
in them).
However, as far as the online reactions go, here's my theory:
Angel spent two seasons on BtVS being brood guy (I was going to
say three seasons, but then remembered that Season 1 was only
half the normal length, and that he spent about half of Season
2 evil). When he finally got his own show, there had been so much
brooding on his part that getting out of brood mode was taken
as a relief and sign of growth. Spike, however, while he expressed
deep remorse in eps 1-5, as well as 8-9, the majority of his time
has been spent expressing his faith in Buffy and getting to the
point where he's not overcome with guilt. This is far less brood
time than Angel got and not enough so that people want to say
"stop brooding already!" Until people stop wanting to
see him brood, Spike must brood otherwise he will be interpreted
as recovering too quickly to have really dealt with his issues.
It's only when a reformed character's brooding starts to get annoying
that it's considered appropriate to stop brooding.
(and the record for most use of the word "brooding"
in a single post goes to . . .)
[> [> Re: When it was
first revealed that Angel was a vampire, there was much unacceptance
-- Rina, 14:10:54 05/19/03 Mon
Personally, I would not have been impressed if Spike had spent
most of his time brooding with remorse over past deeds. It seemed
better to me that he got on with his life by doing good. If other
fans preferred that he waste his time, brooding - well, that's
their perogative.
[> [> [> Re: When
it was first revealed that Angel was a vampire, there was much
unacceptance -- alwaysafan, 20:40:25 05/19/03 Mon
I don't think it is a matter of brooding. If we can all think
back to episodes when there have been flashbacks, Angel spent
decades trying to come to grips with all the evil he had done
and tried to make up for it by helping others. Spike has shown
very little remorse for what he has done in the past and he only
helps Buffy. Angel was always out doing other heroic deeds when
Buffy was not around, but not Spike. He spends to much time falling
Buffy around like a lost puppy.
[> [> [> [> Re:
When it was first revealed that Angel was a vampire, there was
much unacceptance -- Rook, 03:47:46 05/20/03 Tue
Yeah, like the time he save the people in the hotel from that
demon!
Oh, wait...
Or the time he saved that counterman from the robber...
Oh, wait...
BUT ANGEL SAVED A PUPPY!
Face it, Angel was never shown to have been running around helping
the helpless before he met Buffy. He was wallowing in self pity
and eating rats in New York when Whistler came along. He only
cleaned himself up and started doing good in order to help Buffy...Just
like Spike.
All of Angel's independent heroic actions have been on his own
show, Post Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: When it was first revealed that Angel was a vampire, there
was much unacceptance -- Rina, 08:07:14 05/20/03 Tue
Thank you!
May I also add that it seems amazing that so many have forgotten
Spike's remorseful brooding from early Season 7. Everyone is judging
him from what he said to Robin Wood in "LMPTM". What
did you expect him to do? Get down on his knees and beg forgiveness
to a man, who just tried to deliberately and slowly murder him?
And please, do not even bring up revenge. I understand why Wood
did it. But it does not excuse what he tried to do.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> "Spike does not negate Angel and Angel does not
negate Spike" -- yabyumpan, 10:42:59 05/20/03 Tue
I think the major difference between post-soul Spike and Angel
is that Angel had to do it alone where as Spike had the support
of Buffy. I imagine Angel's story would be very different if he'd
met someone like Buffy after he was re-ensouled, if he'd had the
support and faith of someone 'good'. Instead he got thrown out
onto the street by the woman he'd been with for 150 years and
left to deal with it himself for nearly 100 years. We have no
way of knowing what Spike would be like if Buffy had run him out
of SD and he was left to deal with having a new soul on his own.
The other advantage that Spike has over Angel is that he knows
he's not the only one. He knows that Angel has been through this
before him and survived. For over 100 years Angel has had to live
with the knowledge that he is the only Vampire with a soul, not
fully part of Vampire or Human society. It must be like being
the only member of a brand new species. Would Spike even have
thought about getting a soul if he didn't already know that there
was another Vampire out there who had one? Spike has a lot of
knowledge and support which Angel didn't for a long time. That's
where this sort of comparison falls down.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> And how they got their souls, of course --
mamcu, 11:11:27 05/20/03 Tue
I think it matters a great deal that Angel received his soul as
a curse, as punishment for a great crime--killing a family, including
children, as I recall. He had to feel remorse, and if he
is ever completely happy, he loses the soul (hence no Buffy, and
I assume no one else, either).
Spike, on the other hand, chose on his own to get the soul, and
endured a good bit of misery in the process of getting it. You
could say he earned it. He also had committed a crime, but he
recognized that himself and knew that he needed a conscience so
that he wouldn't do it again. The truly criminal response would
have been to find a way to really rape or kidnap Buffy, but he
didn't go that route. I'd say he started out with some of the
work done before he got the soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> And how they got their souls, of course --
mamcu, 11:33:56 05/20/03 Tue
I think it matters a great deal that Angel received his soul as
a curse, as punishment for a great crime--killing a family, including
children, as I recall. He had to feel remorse, and if he
is ever completely happy, he loses the soul (hence no Buffy, and
I assume no one else, either).
Spike, on the other hand, chose on his own to get the soul, and
endured a good bit of misery in the process of getting it. You
could say he earned it. He also had committed a crime, but he
recognized that himself and knew that he needed a conscience so
that he wouldn't do it again. The truly criminal response would
have been to find a way to really rape or kidnap Buffy, but he
didn't go that route. I'd say he started out with some of the
work done before he got the soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
Tiny baby and missionary family in China during the Boxer Rebellion
-- lunasea, 08:22:13 05/20/03 Tue
From Darla of all people. Angel not only saved people, but by
doing so he lost Darla, the one creature that meant the most to
him at the time. That was pre-Buffy and not long after being cursed.
But who cares? Why does Spike have to be on the same path as Angel?
Why does Spike have to be the Uber-Champion that loves Humanity
rather than just Buffy? He is an interesting character without
being Angel the Next Generation.
Different stories and I really hope if Spike goes over to Angel
the writers really give these two characters enough room to soar
on their own as interesting characters in their own rights.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Tiny baby and missionary family in China during the
Boxer Rebellion -- Rina, 08:45:02 05/20/03 Tue
Why would anyone have to love Humanity, in the first place?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Ask Buffy -- lunasea, 09:01:47 05/20/03
Tue
BTW, what is your definition of good? If it doesn't entail the
love of Humanity, what does it entail?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Ask Buffy -- Rina, 10:53:05 05/20/03
Tue
Spiritual self-realization. That's my idea of good.
[> [> Brood, brood, brood,
brood, brood, brood, brood... -- Random, 22:39:07 05/19/03
Mon
Brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood,
brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood,
brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood,
brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, brood, ad
infinitum, ad nausem
The record is mine!
[> Re: Spike's "evil"
-- Corwin of Amber, 17:02:58 05/19/03 Mon
Why did you put evil in quotes? Do you deny that Spike had done
evil?
[> Re: Spike's "evil"
-- Q, 17:11:40 05/19/03 Mon
My main problem with Spike is his unoriginality. I know it's unpopular
to say it, but I *still* find Spike to be Angel redux. Your post
says it all, when Angel... Like Angel... etc. etc. etc. ME promised
it would be different and much more interesting... To me it wasn't.
It was VERY similar, and MUCH LESS interesting.
What really gets me is that it WAS interesting watching a Soul-less
Spike struggle for redemption. I think the writers MESSED UP BAD
giving him a soul. It was like a HUGE reset button. Now, just
like with Angel, we can sweep everything under the rug and rationalize
it by saying "he didn't have a soul then." It made it
so simple! "Sure Spike tried to rape Buffy, sure such and
such happened... But that was before he had a soul!" I just
wish we could have had that yummy morsel of complexity of ACTUALLY
DEALING with that HUGE stuff instead of hitting re-set. Instead,
we sweep it under the rug, and revisit the ol' "nothing counts
because he has a soul and wants redemption now" debate. Spike
has bored me to tears ALL YEAR LONG!
You can argue that Spike deserves all of this credit because Angel
got it, but I'm not going to give Spike credit, because Angel
got it, and now I'm bored giving it. Spike will need to work A
LOT harder than Angel for me, and I don't see that happening with
one week to go. Sadly, if this would have unfolded WITHOUT the
soul-- Spike *would* have been working harder than Angel for his
redemption, and who knows what might have happened!!!
[> [> Re: Spike's "evil"
-- alwaysafan, 20:45:58 05/19/03 Mon
Very well put Q. As I posted above, Angel got his soul and felt
he had to make up for what he had done. Spike got a soul and all
he does is follow Buffy and has become her lap dog. As for giving
him the soul in the first place......Could they not think of anything
original and thought well it worked for Angel..so??? They should
have done something different like make him mortal or something.
I mean Buffy and Angel could not be together because he could
not offer her a future, but it is all different with Spike why?
Oh yeah, they can have sex. Their lives are complete now. Oh well,
I will have to live happily in the reruns.
[> [> Angel Redux?
-- Rina, 08:24:45 05/20/03 Tue
Angel redux? Huh? Sorry, I don't agree. I see too many differences
between the two characters. Thankfully. And with the soul or not,
Spike has always been interesting.
[> musings on greyness,
fundamentalism and war -- MsGiles, 04:55:46 05/20/03 Tue
I look forward to S7 with mixed feelings, regarding Spike. S6
has been interesting, but I think what you have to say about the
cop-out of giving him a soul has some truth.
An interesting theme in S6 has been the contrast between Warren
(human but increasingly obviously as murderous, opportunist and
amoral as Spike ever was) and a reforming Spike (that his motives
may be questionable doesn't change what's happening). The Scoobies
have a variety of ways of coping with this.
Willow doesn't seem that bothered by Spike. She doesn't treat
him any differently because he's a vampire, and actually seems
quite tolerant of him. She's compassionate when the Buffybot upsets
him in Bargaining, she leaves him to look after crazyBuffy in
Normal Again. Way back when he was first chipped and couldn't
get his bite on with Willow, she seemed more worried about her
effect on men than about him. But she kills Warren, no second
thought. Sure she'd have killed Spike just as readily, but she
wouldn't have seen a human/vamp issue. Tara was pretty much the
same. Maybe this is the Wicca perspective, encompassing as it
does an awareness of the reality of magic and other dimensions.
Buffy in S6 is the diametric opposite. She sees, and articulates
very clearly, an absolute difference between the souled and the
unsouled. It is OK to kill vampires and demons, and wrong to kill
humans. By implication it would be OK to kill Spike, and only
sentiment holds her back from doing this. However, it is wrong
to kill Warren, whatever he has done and threatens to do. One
law for vamps and demons, another for humans. This is Buffy's
creed. Buffy in S6, though flawed and lost, is still the leader
and the hero, and her word holds sway, not just over Xander, but
over us, the audience. When she says something so definite, and
is not contradicted, it must be canon.
But must it? So much of S6 inherently questions what she is saying,
and her motives for saying it. In S5 she began to seriously question
her calling as a Slayer. Her gift was Death. Not seeing, at first,
what that might mean, she felt the phrophecy, or insight, as a
huge weight. In season 3 she first had to kill something that
was not evil and other, a person, her lover Angel. It seemed like
a one-off, a horrible synchronicity. In S5 she finds that her
beloved sister is not human, and may be the sacrifice needed to
save the world. She finds herself unable to do it, eventually
offering herself instead.
So by S6, Buffy has contradicted the rules she asserts. She has
killed a human, because it was the right thing to do, and she
has refused to kill a non-human, Dawn, because it would be wrong.
Does the exception prove the rule, or discredit it?
It's easy to see where Buffy's motivation for making this rule
could have come from. her inescapable destiny and role, revealed
to her in S1, is to slay vampires and demons. It's in every intro
to every episode. 'She alone will stand against
the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness. She is the
Slayer.'
So her work is to kill sentient beings. If she comes to doubt
the rightness of this, she won't be able to do it, and darkness
will cover the earth. But in order to believe in the rightness
of killing, and yet not be dehumanised, made callous and evil
herself, she must believe in the evilness, the inhumanity of what
she kills. She kills without judgeing: there is no time to judge
each case. Therefore she cannot believe there are exceptions.
If she thought she was killing the not-quite-evil, the unfortunate,
even the innocent, then it would destroy her. She would either
be unable to carry on, or she would become a conscienceless killer,
the fate she feared for Faith when she killed a human, and for
Willow, killing Warren.
So she separates the humans and the vampires/demons. The humans
are her kin, the vampires are Other. This is how war operates.
We are human. They, our enemies, are Other, inhuman, evil. it's
not wrong to kill them. It's also how being a carnivore operates.
If we believe animals are Other, we can kill and eat them. If
they become kin, sentient co-workers (like horses, dogs and cats
in our culture), we can't do that any more. It becomes abhorrent.
Where the lines are drawn isn't absolute. It's arbitrary, pragmatic.
Buffy's rule is not absolute either. It's pragmatic. She doesn't
accept that, but its clearly true. At the start of S6 Spike is
astonishingly nice. He's been so shaken by her death, snarkiness
has vanished. When she comes back, he thinks of her well-being
first, he asks her the questions that the others fear to: How
does she really feel? Where was she? Never mind does he have potential
for change, he has changed. Not totally, but significantly.
She fears this, because it challenges her rule. It really is loving
the enemy. In wartime, loving the enemy is treachery punishable
with death, and this is why. It is accepting the enemy as family,
as a sentient co-worker. It makes war far more difficult, and
removes all triumph from victory.
The Mahabarat deals with this, as others have pointed out. The
epic deals with the buildup to, process of, and aftermath of,
a huge battle. There are the heroes and the villains; the forces
of chaos and of preservation. It is a family war, a civil war
(as they all are, at root). Slowly, slowly, as the story progresses,
boundaries are crossed, compromise destroyed, war made inevitable.
the lines are drawn up, the first battle must start. Then suddenly,
there is a moment of revelation. Arjuna, the warrior hero, born
for war, who has spent his life preparing for it, sees both sides,
drawn up. His family are there. On both sides. To win, he will
have to kill people he loves. His nerve fails. Krishna talks him
through it, and the war carries on.
What the Mahabarata faces here, is that this is the truth of all
war. It's not to say that war is always wrong, but that this is
the price. We kill each other, not demons or vampires.
A war has to be important enough to be worth that.
In Buffy of course the war is worth that, and it is with
demons and vampires. That's OK then. Black hats, white hats. Except
that Dawn, Anya, Spike, Clem, are not quite human and not quite
the enemy. And Warren, who is human, is. So Buffy's 'one
rule for us, and another for them' is already looking a little
questionable. In past religious wars, the idea that someone not
of your religion is 'other', and therefore OK to kill, (unless
they convert) has been espoused by leaders of both Islam and Christianity
(and probably not only by these religions). Buffy's reasoning
seems to have echoes of this. So the questioning of it is very
important.
An afterthought:
Spike gaining his soul is like him converting to Buffy's humanocentric
religion. That, I suppose, is one end result of fundamentalism
like Buffy's: conversions for pragmatic rather than spiritual
reasons.
[> [> (S6 perspective
above, spoilers S6) -- MsGiles, 04:58:15 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> Affects of Spike's
Soul -- Rina, 08:39:21 05/20/03 Tue
You don't understand what affect Spike's chip had on the story,
do you? It's had a great affect - especially upon Buffy. For years,
she had believed that with a soul, a person had the ability to
be good. A prime example of this is her adolescent belief that
souled vampire = good; and unsouled vampire = evil. Despite all
that he had done in Seasons 5 and 6 without a soul, Buffy refused
to accept that he had the potential for redemption, unlike Angel.
Once Spike received his soul, she seeemed more willing to accept.
And yet, by mid Season 7, she found it more difficult to accept
Spike's brooding and it all came out in "Get It Done",
when she lambasted him. What did she say? That she wanted some
of his old killer instinct back. That he was more interesting
when he was trying to kill her. What was Buffy really saying?
That Spike needed to get over himself and learn to accept both
the light and dark within him. Something that she has learned
to do for herself. Finally, Buffy had got rid of that simple-minded
view on morality. She has finally learned to accept that morality
is a lot more complex than she had originally imagined.
[> [> [> there may
be an S7 spoiler in there -- MsGiles, 09:32:17 05/20/03
Tue
So I've avoided reading your full post. But I don't think the
chip has any relevance here: it's the Bufverse perpective on 'one
law for vamps, one for humans' i'm talking about. I'm saying that
the series as a whole queries this pov, even though Buffy appears
to support it, and I'm talking round this issue. Spike's whole
arc would have been different without the chip: he would never
have acted as he did, never have got close to the Scoobies, probably
never have crossed the line from killing to preserving. But up
to the end of S6 he is still a vampire, and Buffy's problems with
that are very clear, chip or no chip.
[> [> [> [> Chip??
What Chip? -- Rina, 11:04:37 05/20/03 Tue
Excuse me, but I thought I was discussing Spike's soul, not his
chip.
Pop Quiz Hot
Shot! What would you do?!! -- neaux, 13:37:23 05/19/03
Mon
Here is a pessimistic question the day before the finale, but
could provide some humorous answers.
What would you do if there was an all night power outage in your
area at 7:55 pm this Tuesday nite?
(I'd fall to my knees and scream "WHY ME?" and look
to the Gods as tears streamed down my face)
[> Go read the Wildfeed
summary and decide if I should come here to beg -- lunasea,
13:49:23 05/19/03 Mon
for some kind soul to lend me a video or I might have my in-laws
download it for me. I could call Mom and ask her to tape it for
me, like I did when Angel got pre-empted by Basketball.
Wait, I already did that (sneak over to Wildfeed). On second thought,
I would get down on my knees and thank the gods for sparing me.
I should just stick to my policy of not watching finales. M*A*S*H
is still going on for me. So is St. Elsewhere and many other shows.
I've heard about those endings, but since I never actually saw
them, they never really ended.
I do want to thank Joss though. The end helps me get over my obsession.
I guess in a way it did empower me and make me love more, just
not his show.
[> "It's the ultimate
jinx!" -- Katrina, 14:00:10 05/19/03 Mon
... "As long as nothing bad happens." :)
We'll be watching in Chicago with my sister-in-law (who kept us
in tapes while our area was UPN-less). But now that you bring
it up, maybe we should put it on the Tivo too, just in case. I
mean, the entire center of the USA can't suffer a power outage
at the same time. And if it does, I guess we'll have bigger worries.
[> I think I might start
smoking again! -- dub ;o), 14:01:37 05/19/03 Mon
[> Turn on a very large
flashlight, grab a pen, and start writing my own finale. --
Farquarson, Formerly Rhys, 14:06:28 05/19/03 Mon
[> Hmm.... -- pellenaka,
14:32:27 05/19/03 Mon
Nothing particularly, really.
I already have the finale right here on my computer. My sis and
I have decided that we'll wait till Tuesday at 8, six hours before
it airs in the US, to watch it.
She's all, "OMG! The download is gone! We have it right here!".
I'm pretty cool and we'll see.
My feelings are really ambiguous - on one hand, I really want
to see more Buffy, on the other hand; it's the end. I think a
lot of people feels this way.
Damn, that's a long pop-quiz answer.
[> Just the usual --
CW, 15:19:49 05/19/03 Mon
Add to the neighborhood children's abilities to swear in six languages,
that they've already started learning from me through the walls
of their homes when my computer RPG characters die at inconvient
times.
[> Came really close last
week! But more realistically, chat -- mamcu, 15:47:50 05/19/03
Mon
So I figured out what to do--teleport to a calm weather area,
or even the public showing in SF/Oakland! Maybe we should all
do that anyway.
But a real possibility for all is that we won't be able to log
on to chat. Of course us East Coasters will have the advantage
there (always wanted to be a coaster). What can we do then? What
are the limits of chat?
[> I'd wait until 9:30 PM,
find it through Kazaa, and start downloading. -- lost_bracelet,
16:29:28 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> There are faster
ways to download the finale, I've already seen it -- anon,
16:39:17 05/19/03 Mon
[> Turn on my trusty 'lil
Powerbook (batterycharged) & watch the copy I have safely filed
away! -- WickedBuffy :: "always prepared" ::, 18:10:05
05/19/03 Mon
unwatched so far - but it's good to be ready for everything or
anything!
[> Wait about a year (maybe
more) -- Celebaelin, 20:23:40 05/19/03 Mon
Still mainly unspoiled.
Willow has just 'done' Warren - she was never sexier than when
she strode away from the house determined and lethal (I worry
about myself sometimes). What did happen to Warren's skin anyway?
AtS S3 hasn't started showing yet on terrestrial TV.
btw Scythe? Father Time or The Grim Reaper?
[> [> "Death is
your Gift"...So I'd say Grim Reaper -- RadiusRS, 22:48:50
05/19/03 Mon
[> [> Contentious (presumably,
I hope) -- Celebaelin, 16:55:25 05/20/03 Tue
[> Wail and gnash my teeth!
-- mrfh, 06:31:33 05/20/03 Tue
With all the rain here in Atlanta, this is actually a possibility
for me! I actually saw a news story yesterday about a family who
couldn't watch the season finale of The Bachelor because a tree
fell in their yard and cut the power lines. I laughed at them
for wanting to watch The Bachelor, then I realized that they were
only 2 miles from my house, and I wouldn't find it so funny if
the same thing happened to me tonight!! I'm keeping my fingers
crossed....
[> I would immediately email
Dochawk! ;o) -- deeva, 08:18:51 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> Dochawk: He saved
our butts. A lot. -- dub ;o), 08:36:31 05/20/03 Tue
[> Weep in the fetal position,
having given up hope on all that is good in the world... --
Vegeta, 08:26:44 05/20/03 Tue
O/T to aliera,
LadyStarlight, Leslie, OnM, resh, and Shadowkat -- dub ;o), 13:57:38
05/19/03 Mon
I've just received the most wonderful surprise...a whole basket
full of treats that will keep me entertained and nourished for
weeks! There are things to read, and watch, and listen to, yummy
things to eat (chocolate! yeah!!), wonderful things to lounge
in the bath with, beautiful things to look at, and a chance to
go shopping online at Amazon!
There are no words to convey how much your kindness, thoughtfulness,
and generosity has lifted my spirits. And, of course, this all
could not have come at a better time, with tomorrow's "deadline"
looming for us all.
I think of how much we all revere Joss Whedon's ability to create
a show so compelling, intriguing, and entertaining that it has
kept us all captivated for seven years. I know that a major part
of that, for me at least, is the portrayal of the Scoobies as
a group of diverse individuals evolving into a unit with the strength
of family; people who can count on each other in any situation.
I can't help but think that his inspiration must have come from
people like you, who understand the true meaning of friendship.
Thank you all, so much, my friends.
With love and gratitude,
dub ;o)
PS: Hope you don't mind the public thank you, but I don't have
personal e-mail addresses for all of you. And I hope I haven't
left anyone out! Please let me know.
[> Re: O/T to aliera, LadyStarlight,
Leslie, OnM, resh, and Shadowkat -- aliera, 18:50:15 05/19/03
Mon
That would be a big right back atcha', dub... and lifting a glass
to you and the rest of the members of the board... all unique...
all who make it the place it is. Salud.
You have mail on those addresses; but, I took the liberty of passing
this on to Resh since I'm not sure how often she has time to stop
by these days. :-)
[> [> Thank you, Sweetie!
-- dub ;o), 19:27:18 05/19/03 Mon
Opinion on
the First Slayer -- Rina, 14:56:06 05/19/03 Mon
I have read at least two different viewpoints on the First Slayer
in two essays:
One essay merely dismissed the First Slayer, comparing her to
some primitive figure, whose traits that Buffy needed to avoid.
Another saw the First Slayer as someone who represented the best
in all slayers. Like Buffy, she possessed such valuable traits
as heart, mind, spirit and hand, but within herself, instead of
within close friends.
What do you think?
[> Re: Opinion on the First
Slayer -- M., 16:37:25 05/19/03 Mon
I think that the first slayer was in many ways portrayed as a
victim.(please feel free to argue.) Becoming a slayer was not
something she chose, but something that was done to her. She was
"chosen" to by the shadowmen to be their victim. Then
the shadowmen (the first watcher?) sold her bill of goods about
the slayer having to be alone, "No ... friends! Just the
kill."
Yet with all this the first slayer still seemed to prevail against
evil, and to set the pattern for all the slayers to follow. It
seems pretty heroic to me.
(PS. Are those essays that inspire this question online? It would
be interesting to read them)
[> [> Was there a HUGE
evolutionary leap between the Shadowmen & The First Slayer?
-- WickedAnthropologist, 18:03:53 05/19/03 Mon
They were so kingly in their bright robes and shiny clean faces,
communicating with Buffy with no problems at all.
The First Slayer appears to never have seen a comb, frequently
rolls around in cowpoo and has a hard time getting anyone to understand
just "what" she wants to say.
I wonder if she was always like that. Or if she was in similar
appearance and social skill as the Shadowmen until she swallowed
the demon dust. Were all men back then more advanced than women?
::koffaccordingtojosskoff::
Immediately after the dust? or gradually? Did the Slayer slowly
regress into something more primitive because of all the gruesome
slaying she had to take care of.
[> [> [> Re: Was there
a HUGE evolutionary leap between the Shadowmen & The First Slayer?
-- Veronica, 18:33:04 05/19/03 Mon
There are two possible explanations that I can see off the bat.
Here for your amusement...
One:
The shadow tale spinny thing that created the portal also facilitated
communication with Buffy, and may have caused the shadow men to
take on an appearance that is pleasant-looking to Buffy. I doubt
they looked like kindly Bedouin merchants way back when they created
the First Slayer. And I don't believe that those were the actual
shadowmen - I think they were aspect of the original sorcerers
trapped in the spinny thing or some vacuole (hey, there's a robert
jordan term for ya). That would explain their single-minded purpose,
and the head shadowman's statement of limitations - no knowledge,
only power.
If you believe the whole apparatus was facilitating the connection,
that puts the First Slayer's communication with Buffy in a new
light - since she sppears to be communicating without magical
aid, I'm impressed that the spirit of the slayer gets through
at all (nevermind a little static).
Possiblity Two:
The process of imbuing the First Slayer with demonic energy may
have caused her to take on a more primitive, animalistic appearance
and personality. Over time, as the demonic essence was passed
from Slayer to Slayer, this demonic influence may have been reduced
somewhat and have increasingly less influence of the girls who
are called. We have only the First Slayer's spirit to judge by,
but perhaps if we could see the First Slayer in the flesh (time
travel?) she would easily kick Buffy's butt. Maybe that's why
the shadow men portal spinny story thingie was created - they
knew the demonic essence would fizzle out over time and they wanted
a way to give a recharge!
Do you think Buffy would take any comfort in knowing she might
only be x% demon, while the First Slayer was way more%
demon? Nah, I don't think so either.
Just some ideas to mull over....
-V
[> [> [> [> I was
musing in the direction of #2, but #1 is eyeopening! Thanks.
-- WickedBuffy, 19:02:12 05/19/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> Or
alternatively -- KdS, 02:28:45 05/20/03 Tue
The First Slayer may have been brought up socially unstimulated
in some way so that the tribe wouldn't be losing someone they
cared about (nasty ideas inspired by what happens to Hinzelmann
in American Gods).
[> [> [> [> [>
Or being outcast from the village because of her part-demonness
-- Finn Mac Cool, 04:40:24 05/20/03 Tue
Unlike Buffy, everyone knew who the First Slayer was, and she
was not allowed to enter human society after the demon dust knocked
her up, which meant she basically had to fend for herself. This
leads to dirt/mud on the body, unkempt hair, and a basically less
civilised demeanor.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Or being from some other village. Also, what about Lurky?
-- mamcu, 06:22:57 05/20/03 Tue
Maybe the FS came from a little country village but the proto-Watchers
were from a city--or maybe even from different parts of Africa.
You could still easily find that much contrast in many parts of
the world today. She looks ethnically a little different to me,
too, though it's hard to see through all the paint and dirt, but
the men seem more North African and she looks almost Australian
to me.
While we're talking Africa, though, is there some reason that
Spike found Lurky in Africa and that it's also the original home
of the slayer? Is it just that Africa is the original home of
humanity?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> The First Slayer's "Uncivilized Appearance"
-- Rina, 08:02:01 05/20/03 Tue
Pardon me for sounding harsh, but what in the hell is up with
you people obssessing over the First Slayer's uncivilized appearance?
She had lived over a thousand years ago, for Pete's sake! Does
this make her inferior or what?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> No, it was another question -- mamcu, 09:43:29
05/20/03 Tue
The original question had to do with the difference between the
FS and the Shadowmen--why she couldn't speak, but they were very
articulate; also, differences in dress. But I agree that we should
watch for cultural assumptions when discussing the characters.
But also our fellow posters! A gentle correction is a lot more
likely to be accepted than a harsh one. This is the kind of interaction
that's used for justification when people put down "political
correctness." If you make the accusation that the other poster
is using unacceptable language, you'll polarize the discussion,
but if you'll just explain your point without judging the other
posters, they might listen to you and learn from you. And that's
the goal, right?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Original Question -- Rina, 10:50:44
05/20/03 Tue
Actually, the original question was about a comparison to the
two viewpoints on the First Slayer - a primitive who should be
dismissed, or a Slayer whose methods Buffy should consider utilizing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Right, but I meant the question about
her language and appearance -- mamcu, 12:02:41 05/20/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Track the question/comment people are
answering using those small marks to the left. Line them up.
-- VOYPRIMER, 14:37:44 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> The squeaky wheel -- Cleanthes,
10:52:11 05/20/03 Tue
ME took criticism from the fashionably irritated for making the
FS so (supposedly) crudely primitive. The Shadowmen therefore
became less primitive looking by way of retconning PCness. Had
the FS been shown again, she'd no doubt look like Oprah after
successful cosmetic surgery.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: The squeaky wheel -- Rina,
11:07:56 05/20/03 Tue
He-he! You got that right!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Was that fact or satire? -- Cozener
Feint, 15:24:41 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Don't know; cynical view not
necessarily probative -- Cleanthes,
11:43:09 05/21/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re:
Was there a HUGE evolutionary leap between the Shadowmen & The
First Slayer? -- Rina, 07:52:16 05/20/03 Tue
"The process of imbuing the First Slayer with demonic energy
may have caused her to take on a more primitive, animalistic
appearance and personality."
Why are so many obssessed with the First Slayer's "primitive
appearance and personality"? And someone else stated that
she set the tone for the other Slayers. That's not the impression
I got. Unlike the others, she didn't have or need a Watcher. What
does that say about her?
[> [> [> [> [>
The Shadowmen were the original Watchers -- V, 08:35:04
05/20/03 Tue
[> [> [> "evolutionary
leap"? -- M., 18:37:37 05/19/03 Mon
No, I think her "primitive" look was something she cultivated,
part camouflage, part psychological warfare. In "Restless"
Buffy found that mud in the bag she keeps her weapons in, she
even says she has weapons in the bag. I think this means we are
suppose it interpret the mud/war-paint as a weapon. As for her
ability to communicate, it may simply be that the shadowmen had
access to more powerful magic that she did, lets not judge people
by their ability to speak English.
[> [> [> [> Let's
not judge anyone at all, ok? -- W., 18:55:52 05/19/03 Mon
"As for her ability to communicate, it may simply be that
the shadowmen had access to more powerful magic that she did,
lets not judge people by their ability to speak English."
Not judging anyone on their ability to speak English. In fact,
I have no idea what they might have been speaking, it could have
been all telepathic piglatin for all I know. It came out
as English on my television set.
I'm speaking about her communication level with Buffy, and vice
versa, compared to the Shadowmen.
[> [> [> [> [>
Exactly. -- M., 21:05:27 05/19/03 Mon
My point is that their respective ability to communicate with
Buffy demonstrates their level of magical prowess, and not necessarily
reflective of general intelligence or "evolutionary"
position. (the use of the word evolutionary in this context makes
me very uncomfortable).
The shadowmen used some kind of magic to communicate with Buffy
within some kind of alternate dimension. The First Slayer used
"magic" (or mystical means) to communicate with Buffy
within some kind of dream state. Remember that her communication
with Buffy includes everything that Tara said in that dream. The
image of Tara was a magical means for the first slayer to communicate,
no different than the telepathic subtitles used by the shadowmen.
Admittedly the shadowmen were much "spiffier" in appearance
than the first slayer, but that may have been all it is, appearance.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks, then. :) -- WickedBuffy, 21:21:45 05/19/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Symbolic appearances.... -- Briar, 01:47:25
05/21/03 Wed
I saw it as the sort of social-cultural strata that has always
tended to be a part of human concours:
When you look at the Romans and Egyptians and even the Celts/Druids
and most native cultures - you find that the "learned"
and therefore most powerful magically and traditionally are always
better dressed and in better physical shape and dwelling than
those "under" them.
In the case of the First Slayer, she would not only be of a non-educated
part of society, but she also has the distinction of being made
to blend with the shadows to survive and carry out her duty.
This is also portrayed in the modern day military, to some extent...
The grunts wear the camo and get to stay in the shadows and the
higher up the force's chain you go, the more white and shiny metal
start to fit into the clothing on a day to day basis.
I always saw the difference between the Shadowmen and the First
Slayer as being the SM were tribal leaders, knowledgable, powerful
and thus used to having (by right of status) some form of grandeur
to their clothing, speech and dwellings. The FS did not. She was
a warrior and even though she may have been respected (?) she
wasn't in the same class as the Shadowmen would have been. She
was a tool, not a scholar.
[> [> [> It's the
demon essence -- Sofdog, 21:03:42 05/19/03 Mon
I'm sure the infusion of demon power made her feral. According
to the story in "Tales of the Slayers" graphic, a woman
from the same village is garbed much like the Shadow Men and explains
clearly that they're afraid of her and want her to stay away.
She wasn't at all animalistic, just primitive. Maybe the trauma
of being invaded by the demon essence was too hard on her as opposed
to her successors all being born with it.
[> [> [> [> That
keeps making the most sense to me, too. -- WickedBuffy, 21:20:42
05/19/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> The
First Slayer -- Rina, 08:19:28 05/20/03 Tue
Are you saying that the Slayers that followed the First Slayer,
were an improvement? How so? Because they looked "less primitive"?
At least the First Slayer possessed all the attributes of a successful
slayer - heart, mind, spirit and hands. Those that followed her
only possessed the attribute of hands - including Buffy. Who has
a chance, by the way, to follow in the First Slayer's footsteps
and find the other three attributes within her.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The First Slayer -- Sofdog, 11:04:17 05/20/03 Tue
I'm saying the First Slayer was a prototype and there were still
some bugs to work out.
Why can't the later Slayers be considered an improvement? They
are more human, at least by the more recent centuries. These girls
can function in human society, they have speech and they are able
to combat the forces of darkness.
I disagree that Buffy and Faith have only hand. The whole reason
Buffy continues as the Slayer is because of her heart and spirit,
her mind makes her good at it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: The First Slayer -- Rina, 11:28:44 05/20/03
Tue
"The whole reason Buffy continues as the Slayer is because
of her heart and spirit, her mind makes her good at it."
One, this is what makes the First Slayer better than the others.
Two, if Buffy already possessed these attributes as a Slayer,
why would she need Willow (spirit), Xander (heart) and Giles (mind)
to defeat Adam in "Primeval"?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: The First Slayer -- Sofdog, 12:25:09
05/20/03 Tue
Well, the spell was designed to combine essences of separate entities.
Conveniently Buffy had enough allies to fill the appropriate roles.
She was cast as the hand because she was physically the strongest.
Giles had the linguistic skill necessary for the Sumerian spell.
Willow had the magic skill necessary to cast the spell. And Xander
filled the first spot, and, well, he is pretty brave.
That Buffy needed to harness the power of all the other Slayers
in order to be physically strong enough to defeat Adam is no surprise.
If every Slayer were a match for every demon, there wouldn't be
a line of succession. The First one would never have been defeated.
I don't understand your comment, "One, this is what makes
the First Slayer better than the others."
Anyway, 'better' is a highly subjective word. The First Slayer
all but lost her capacity for speech. She described herself as
destruction, being dedicated only to killing. Buffy needs more
than that. Faith needs more than that. Perhaps it was enough in
ancient times to roam the wilderness battling feral demons. And
maybe there's just no place in the modern world for that kind
of Slayer. The demons have adapted to bars, clothes and cable
television. Why can't the demon hunter.
Which brings us back to the point of evolution.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> sofdog. most excellent points pointing to
the point in question. -- Cozener Feint, 14:47:50 05/20/03
Tue
[> [> [> Re: Was there
a HUGE evolutionary leap between the Shadowmen & The First Slayer?
-- O'Cailleagh, 08:06:29 05/20/03 Tue
Its possible that the girl chosen to become the First Slayer had,
what we would call today, learning difficulties of some kind.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that these people were singled
out in tribal societies as special, destined to become shamen.
That, together with the demon dust and the living-the-hunt thing
would probably result in the First Slayer's apparent lack of 'evolution'.
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> Very good
points as usual -- lunasea, 09:42:12 05/20/03 Tue
In "Restless" the spirit of the First Slayer is barely
capable of speech. I see her as a creature complete driven by
instinct. This is often referred to as being animalistic, but
it really depends on what those instincts are. Some animals have
instincts that make them more humane than humans.
The shadowmen on the other hand are representative of logic. They
are powerless because they don't have information, which is what
logic depends on. Man didn't have the knowledge to defeat the
demons, but they did know how to rise above this using instincts.
They aren't willing to become this themselves, so they pick someone
who doesn't have a well developed sense of logic. She will be
powerless to fight the overwhelming instincts that possess her.
Enter in the Guardians. The Shadowmen are looking to encourage
certain instincts over others. They want to turn the Slayer into
a killing machine. The Guardians try to prevent this from happening.
The Scythe is more than a weapon. I was thinking that maybe it
is the Guardians that send Buffy the Slayer dreams. Those dreams
have saved Buffy time and time again, not only physically, but
emotionally.
I don't think the First Slayer was quite what the Shadowmen were.
No young girl is going to have a well developed sense of logic.
She is just a normal girl for her time, much like Buffy was for
hers pre-calling. She played with her friends and helped her mother
find food and tend to her brothers and sisters. After she was
possessed, instinct took over. She could not fight what was done
to her.
Not sure if any Slayer prior to Buffy could. Buffy wasn't a potential
and she had a good foundation before she was called. She keep
that foundation alive by fighting for her "normal" life.
Buffy's strength comes from merging that with her slayer instincts.
[> What do we have to go
on? -- Veronica, 08:47:42 05/20/03 Tue
Part of the problem with evaluating the First Slayer, particularly
relative to Buffy, is that we know so very little. When she appears
in what we assume is her "normal" appearance, she is
hunched over. She looks dirty, whether through lack of modern
grooming supplies or deliberately for some mystical purpose (e.g.
Buffy spreading mud on her face). Her speech is brusque, her ability
to make herself understood to Buffy is poor, and her advice is
isolationist and violent (i.e. No friends. Just the kill.).
I don't have many shows taped, so I forget which visions were
the First Slayer vs. Buffy's spirit guide. Please someone with
a library or a better memory help clarify.
I think that if the First Slayer appeared to speak through a third
party - such as Tara - we are too likely to assign the characteristics
of that third party to the First Slayer, without having a reasonable
basis to do so.
Rina, you've wondered a couple times in this thread why people
seem so focused on the First Slayer's appearance. I think it's
because there is so little else to go on. The striking contrast
between the First Slayer's clothing, style of movement, and speech
pattern relative to Buffy and other Slayers we've met is likely
to indicate that there is something significant to be gained from
understanding the difference. Not an obsession, just a conversation.
-V
[> [> That was great,
Rina. I completely agree. -- WickedBuffy, 09:34:52 05/20/03
Tue
I haven't read many of the ME interviews except when posted here.
.... has anyone from the show talked about the First Slayer very
much?
[> [> oops I meant GREAT
VERONICA ...*not* Rina. Sorry VERONICA. my bad -- WickedMonikerMangler,
10:25:27 05/20/03 Tue
[> [> Dreams in the Buffyverse
(spoiler Orpheus and End of Days) -- lunasea, 13:02:14
05/20/03 Tue
If there is any single element in the Buffyverse that fascinates
me it is dreams. Until "Orpheus" I was still a little
fuzzy on how the dream state in the Buffyverse operated. In "Orpheus"
we see Angel and Angelus. They even physically fight. We know
they aren't separate entities, but in the dream state, they are.
In the dream state, the individual dissociates into her individual
personas, much like what happens IRL. This is what we see in "Restless."
The First Slayer isn't the actual First Slayer. It is the SPIRIT
of the First Slayer that is passed down to each Slayer. It is
the part of Buffy that Buffy hasn't begun to understand. The other
components, Joyce, Riley and Adam are all representations of various
parts of Buffy. The interaction of Riley and Adam is particularly
interesting.
But Tara is something else. Tara is giving things that Buffy doesn't
know on any level to direct her to the next level of her development.
Until "End of Days" I would have said that this came
from the PTB. Now I would say that Tara is representative of the
Guardian that probably planted the dream.
Buffy's dream is last. Buffy was joined mystically with the Scoobies.
Their dreams are the Slayer Spirit either trying to sever that
link or taking advantage of it to remove those other parts of
Buffy. It is a fight for dominance that often goes on in dissociatives.
In the other dreams, the other Scoobies are present. Only in Buffy's
are they absent. This absence is important. It is Buffy's dream
that saves them all. I can see the Guardian sending her this so
that her heart, spirit and mind aren't overwhelmed by instinct.
The point, in there somewhere, is that the First Slayer in Restless
or Get it Done isn't The Actual First Slayer. She is a symbolic
representation of something in Buffy.
To see how dreams are used in the Buffyverse, we can look at another
one that came true, Dru killing Angel in "Surprise."
It isn't Dru that kills Angel, but the part of Buffy that could
be represented by Dru, an insane vampire.
The more I start to look at dreams, the more I think they are
sent by the Guardians, which could be why Buffy was in Angel's
dream in "Amends." The Guardian did it.
That may be why it is important symbolically for Angel and Buffy
to reunite briefly in the Guardian's temple and for Caleb to be
defeated there with the weapon the Guardian forged.
[> [> [> "Restless"
- Dreams and the First Slayer -- Rina, 14:27:45 05/20/03
Tue
I've read this interesting essay by Shadowcat about the episode,
"Restless" and Buffy's dream, specifically. It's very
interesting:
http://www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs/restlessb.html
Current board
| More May 2003