May 2003 posts
The
third of the four players -- elabou,
15:55:17 05/23/03 Fri
Angel was forced on the path of redeemption via a gypsy's curse.
Darla's material instincts guided set her on her's.
Spike, ol' man of purifing light, embraced it and left romantic
desire..
Drucilla, the third of the four players in the vampiric-damnation
game is left.
Poor Dru, vampire trapped in a cage of insanity. Would some one
place a gypsy's curse on her?
Or give her a child to love?
Like her child/lover she was innocence of character before her
turn.
Would Spike have any compassion on her? And teach her redemption's
path to learn?
Potentials
-- Jenny's Love, 20:01:48 05/23/03 Fri
Just wanted to add to a thread below about how much I too adore
Vi ("LOOK AT ME--THIS IS NOTHING", magnificent!!!).
Also, I enjoyed Caridad (the Hispanic girl) in 'End of Days' after
the explosion. I really noticed her during Xander's dream in 'Dirty
Girls' (her accent, pretty distinctive) and was thrilled they
gave her some action in 'End of Days' and she got to fight. I
sorely missed her in 'Chosen'. Also, everyone seems to have liked
Amanda as I did. However, I didn't once think that the Slayer
Buffy sees fall dead w/her eyes open was Amanda and was surprised
and didn't want to believe it when everyone on this board referred
to that girl as Amanda. I accept now that it was her, but still
very sad to see her go. Overall, I didn't dislike any of the Potentials,
really, even Rhona and Kennedy. The only time I ever really disliked
Rhona was saying "ding dong, the witch is dead" and
not being mature about removing Buffy as leader. As for Kennedy,
well we naturally wouldn't like her b/c she's involved with Willow
and her name is not Tara MacClay (or MacCray??? I always forget).
Sure, she's pushy but all I see is a willful spirit with a lot
of confidence who just needs to learn to handle authority a tad
better. I adored the way she rallied the frightened Potentials
in 'End of Day's to prepare to fight the Turok Han ("we can
take one of these, remember the training, everyon--get ready"),
even if they didn't stand a chance.
Has anyone
seen 'Chance' Yet? -- cougar, 21:28:29 05/23/03 Fri
You know, the movie that Amber Benson made last summer, JM was
her romantic interest, other scoobies involved too. I keep checking
my local University cinema but it's never appeared. Video? dead
duck? anyone?
[> No but I keep checking
for it. -- deeva, 09:29:36 05/24/03 Sat
The last I heard, which I think it was at the cast finale party,
Amber said that they are shopping it around for distribution.
Whether that means independent theaters or direct to video, I'm
not sure. Either way I'll be sure to watch it. From what I've
heard of it so far it's an entertaining little film. I might go
so far as to buy it on DVD rather than renting it. I'm crazy like
that.
[> [> here's hopin'
-- cougar, 09:51:53 05/24/03 Sat
[> Re: Has anyone seen 'Chance'
Yet? -- punkinpuss, 12:22:22 05/24/03 Sat
Soon!
AB will be showing it at Moonlight Rising, a Buffy con in the
Catskills June 6-8. "Chance" will be shown on the 8th
in a double bill with her "Ghosts of the Albion" BBC
collaboration with Christopher Golden.
[> [> I'm programming
all the ME actors names into my Tivo. None will slip thru!
-- WickedBuffy, 14:44:40 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> [> I saw 'Harvard
Man' last night. -- Cactus Watcher, 16:20:01 05/24/03 Sat
Maybe SMG should have begged Joss to keep Buffy going. ;o)
Seriously SMG was fine as a mobster's daughter, but the movie
sort of got lost in its own artiness. Maybe, now that movies aren't
just a summer job for her, SMG can start getting some better movies
to work in.
[> [> [> [> What
type of movie do you think SMG would do best in? Worst in?
-- WickedBuffy ::wondering::, 16:33:51 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What type of movie do you think SMG would do best in? Worst
in? -- CW, 18:45:47 05/24/03 Sat
I think she could do a wide variety of roles. It just seems that
so far she's been involved with pot boilers. I hope that now that's
she's got more time she'll aim for a little better films. Scooby
Doo was big budget, and the sequel will earn her a lot of money.
but they're not going to win her any critical acclaim. She has
the skills to do A list movies if she doesn't get type-cast as
a B-movie star. About the only thing I've seen her try in acting
that she can't do is belly laugh. She should be able have a long
successful career without that skill. ;o)
Favorite quote
of the series -- Maya, 21:41:53 05/23/03 Fri
Just because, I feel nostalgic and I think it would be interesting
to know what quote touched you all the most or made you laugh
the hardest. Don't even be limited to just one :o)
Mine (Becoming Pt. 2...I know I've mentioned this before):
Angelus: Now that's everything, huh? No weapons, no friends...no
hope. Take all that away...and what's left?
Buffy: Me.
Ahhhh such good stuff. Everytime I see this scene I get all tingly.
-Maya
[> Ditto, that's the most
important one... -- Sofdog, 22:35:01 05/23/03 Fri
[> 'Without passion, we'd
be truly dead.' -- Nino,
23:18:10 05/23/03 Fri
[> Re: Favorite quote of
the series -- Tar, 23:19:35 05/23/03 Fri
I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when
the floods roll back.
[> [> Concur: Sneezing
and firemen. -- pr10n, 09:07:22 05/24/03 Sat
[> Re: Favorite quote of
the series -- Dead Soul, 23:33:45 05/23/03 Fri
Three are leaping to mind at the moment:
from The Freshman:
Thanks for the Dadaist pep talk. I feel much more abstract.
from Bargaining I:
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!
and from First Date:
I guess you'll just have to dress for the ambiguity.
So much of my pleasure in BtVS was in the creative use of language.
Although all my non-Buffy friends do wonder why my grammar has
gone to hell over the last couple of years.
[> [> All my non-Buffy
friends wonder why my grammar has gone to hell over the last couple
of years. -- Haecceity with a hearty 'ditto', 18:14:38
05/24/03 Sat
[> cup of tea, cup of tea,
almost got shagged, cup of tea -- Rochefort, 00:03:02 05/24/03
Sat
[> Shpidoinkle -- Ray,
02:22:01 05/24/03 Sat
Xander while looking at Glory's tower.
[> [> That's actually
a reference to Matt Parker and Trey Stone's 'Cannibal: The Musical'
-- Rob, 14:21:55 05/24/03 Sat
...and it's opening number, a parody of "Oh What A Beautiful
Morning" from Oklahoma, entitled, "It's A Shpadoinkle
Day!"
Rob
[> Re: Favorite quote of
the series -- Wizard, 03:30:41 05/24/03 Sat
Oh, dear...
(No, that's not one of mine, just a statement)
Can I put forward the entire scripts of "Hush," "Restless,"
"The Body," and "OMWF"?
(I'll have more definite ideas tomorrow, when I've had a chance
to think.)
[> Re: Favorite quote of
the series -- Wolfhowl3, 03:57:35 05/24/03 Sat
"Your Not Friends, You'll be in love until it kills
you both. You'll Fight, and you'll Shag, and you'll hate each
other until it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends.
Love isn't here children, It's Blood screaming in you to work
it's will. I may be loves Bitch, but at least I'm man enough to
admit it."
Spike, Lover's Walk
That speach has always had special meaning for me, because I know
that I am so Love's Bitch!
Wolfie
[> [> 'The hardest thing
in this world is to live in it.' -- Rob, 14:24:08 05/24/03
Sat
[> Re: Favorite quote of
the series -- mucifer, 06:04:15 05/24/03 Sat
Giles' speech at the end of "Lie to Me" about the ambiguity
of good and evil. (sniff sniff)
[> 'Breathtaking. It's like
somebody slaughtered an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue.' -D'Hoffryn,Selfless
-- SugarTherapy, 17:47:37 05/24/03 Sat
Hysterical the first time, still makes me laugh every time.
[> besides everything Oz
ever said ?... -- ANDREA,
19:54:57 05/24/03 Sat
from Innocence
Giles: No. I don't believe it is. Do you want me to wag my finger
at you and tell you that you acted rashly? You did. A-and I can.
I know that you loved him. And... he... has proven more than once
that he loved you. You couldn't have known what would happen.
The coming months a-are gonna, are gonna be hard... I, I suspect
on all of us, but... if it's guilt you're looking for, Buffy,
I'm, I'm not your man. All you will get from me is, is my support.
And my respect.
and Becoming part 2
Buffy: "It never stops....."
[> [> Re: besides everything
Oz ever said ?... -- Eryn, 20:56:53 05/24/03 Sat
My favourite--off the top of my head-- is from Dopplegangerland,
when VampWillow grabs Willow, who is wearing that truly tragic
sweater: "I'm all pink and fuzzy." I'm paraphrasing
but you get the idea.
Eryn
[> My entirely obscure favourite
-- Tchaikovsky, 06:00:32 05/25/03 Sun
From the King, (or Queen?) of episodes, 'Restless':
Giles: [singing]
'Willow- look in the chronicles
Some reference to a warrior beast
And Xander help Willow
And try not to bleed on my couch I've just had it steam-cleaned.
Of course, 'Restless' paints the four main characters with a psychological
depth and intensity of no other episode in the canon, but for
me these for lines are the pure epitome of Giles.
TCH
Some math
(Spoilers for Chosen) -- Cynicor, 23:19:54 05/23/03 Fri
I guess I hate to be thought of someone who picks apart brilliant
episodes, because frankly I loved Chosen and I love Buffy and
I have always loved Joss's work. But...
This is not the first time I have wondered about the thinking
behind the Scooby's plan, but this time I really felt I have to
comment.
So she gets the idea that the First is focused on making her believe
she is alone. She conceives that there is a possibility of the
SITs sharing her power. Great! The research on the scythe and
what the Guardian said leads her to realise that it contains the
essence of the Slayer's strength, and that Willow can use this
to gift all the SITs with her power, make them a force unparallelled.
Now here is the plan starts to make a little less sense to me.
We know from the First that Buffy has roughly 30 SITs 'under her
command'. We have no idea how many Ubervamps there are, but from
Buffy's vision, and the images we were getting in the cavern we
could make a conservative guess at ten thousand.
Although the Slayer's strength has never been accurately quantified,
we know that they can kill almost any kind of demon given enough
time or the right weaponry. We also know from episodes 7.10 and
11 that one Ubervamp was more than a match for the Slayer. Buffy
hasn't been that badly beaten up since she fought Glory, and even
then she got off much lighter - physically anyway - in the earlier
season.
Ok, so back to the plan. You have 30 girls, including Faith and
Buffy, each with the power of the Slayer. Now, let's play with
the statistics a bit.
Assuming that one Slayer can kill 10 super-vampires, we have approximately
300 kills. This discounts any of the innumerable other factors
that would occur in the battle. We still have over 9000 battle-ready
vampires.
Say we take an unbelievable leap of faith (excuse the pun) and
say that each Slayer can kill *100* Turok Hans. This is indeed
an enormous leap, given that just one gave Buffy so much trouble,
and she is the greatest Slayer who ever lived (Joss's words, not
mine, though I happen to agree). But even then, we only get 3000
kills. Slaying nonstop for 100 consecutive kills would tax even
a Slayer's legendary endurance, to put it mildly. From the battle
that we all saw, we have at least two Slayers who died, and we
could say with an unsubstantiated guess that 100 vampires stormed
the ledge.
Thus we return to the question: What was Buffy thinking? A leisurely
stroll down into the cavern, wake up thirty or so Potentials,
wipe out the army and be back in time for tea?
I would also appreciate knowing how these super-vampires suddenly
became easier to kill than ordinary vampires. We have seen again
and again that one vampire is a match for several ordinary humans,
and at the very least is not an five-second job for a Slayer.
But in Chosen we not only saw new-born Slayers taking multiple
*ubervamps* down, but also Anya, Dawn, Giles and co slicing heads
off with merry impugnity. A bit of differentiation between Slayers
and humans would have been a nice way to indicate that the SITs
had actually gained something from their new power.
I would hate for people to read this and think that I have nothing
better to do than try and bring unwanted reality to the sublime
unreality of Buffy. It just so happens that by day I am a cynical
student and after the emotion of the episode is over and I have
watched it again ten times, I start asking a few questions. Perhaps
this is a good time to ask you for yours...
[> Re: Some math (Spoilers
for Chosen) -- Nino,
23:53:12 05/23/03 Fri
I totally agree...it is ridiculous to expect me to believe this
was Buffy's plan...even more ridiculous to believe that Giles
and crew would support such a plan...they didn't even wanna go
back to the vineyard to face Caleb, but they think itll go down
good to battle 10,000 ubervamps? Sorry Joss, I love ya, but that
aint gonna cut it...gimme SOMETHING...anything! Just some little
explanation as to why the Ubervamps werent at full strength, or
how Buffy was gonna use a bomb or something at some point, and
i woulda went with it...
ps)who thought it woulda been cool if part of the First's plan
was to become a corporeal entity? What an awesome fight it woulda
been, Buffy vs. an ever morphing First...from Jenny to Joyce...Buffy
woulda had to kick her deceased loved ones asses...just a thought...
[> Re: Some math (Spoilers
for Chosen) -- Rook, 02:09:11 05/24/03 Sat
The show has ALWAYS had these discrepancies.
Sometimes One on One fights go badly for Buffy:
Heavy Metal Vamp (FFL)
Spike (School Hard)
Kakistos (FH&T)
Mr. Trick (Consequences)
Luke (WttH)
And sometimes she beath the Hell out of whole groups:
The Pimp and Hooker Vamps (Into the Woods)
The basement Vamps (Sleeper)
Ken's guards (Anne)
The Gravyard Vamps (The Harvest)
So, maybe there are discrepancies in how many vamps a Slayer is
able to take on at one time, but it isn't even remotely inconsistent
with the way things have been done on the show since the very
first episode.
[> [> Re: Daylight (Spoilers
for Chosen) -- Brian, 06:17:22 05/24/03 Sat
I asumed that the vamps weren't at their full strength as it was
daylight when the attack took place.
[> [> Buffy's fighting
ability depends on her mental state. -- Corwin of Amber, 19:10:12
05/24/03 Sat
In her first tangle with an UberVamp, she had gone problably 24
hours without sleep. Except for the tiny nap when GhostJoyce showed
up. That was a sub theme this season...Buffy was so concerned
with command, that she didn't rest, which impaired her judgement.
[> You're making a false
assumption (spoilers for Chosen) -- Sophist, 07:27:08 05/24/03
Sat
Buffy didn't lead the Potentials into the Hellmouth with the intent
of wiping out the Ubers. In fact, she was hoping not to confront
them at all; watch the very beginning of the scene, where the
Ubers notice them only by chance.
The sole purpose of having the Potentials there was to protect
Spike until the amulet -- the real plan -- could do its cleansing
thing.
[> [> But, -- CW,
09:15:08 05/24/03 Sat
No one knew what the amulet would do. All Buffy knew was what
Angel told her. No one spent hours researching it beyond what
W&H told Angel about it. They knew it would help in the battle.
Buffy did not have known it was the one thing that could win the
battle for them. For example it might have just augmented Spike's
normal strength enough to allow him to fight as well as Buffy.
In which case they all would have died.
I blame Joss for being sloppy again (unexplained gadgets key to
the final battle, the Lofty Craig syndrome, etc), but the episode
still worked for me.
[> [> [> Make that
'Buffy could not have known...' -- CW, 09:32:47 05/24/03
Sat
[> [> [> Re: But,
-- DEN, 09:33:19 05/24/03 Sat
At some risk of privileging plotholes, I think the amulet is pretty
well established midway through CHOSEN in what might be called
a fairytale context: that is, a super-gizmo in which everyone
can safely repose ultimate trust even if its appearance is both
recent and convenient. It's kind of nostalgic: for the last time
in the series Joss asks us for "willing suspension of disbelief!"
[> [> [> [> Yes
-- CW, 09:43:29 05/24/03 Sat
But, I can't entirely blame anyone, who unlike us, finds their
disbelief of the events of invasion of the hellmouth more than
they are willing to suspend. ;o)
[> [> [> Ruining the
surprise? -- skyMatrix, 11:56:07 05/24/03 Sat
My first reaction, the Joss-defense one, is to defend this not
on the basis of internal consistency, but on the basis of how
we react to it. Basically, it seems one of many cases where Joss
values surprising us, the audience, over explaining it (as I was
arguing to d'H, they give us no solid clues that the Scythe can
diffuse the Slayer essence in order to surprise us there too).
Obviously, if Joss had the Scoobies research the amulet and find
out exactly what it did, it would ruin the surprise. It would
be kinda like being spoiled during the episode! So the question
becomes, could Joss have found a more nuanced method? Such as,
the Scoobs do some research and get an inkling but not a full
idea of what the amulet will do? Or, they figure it out but we
hear Buffy's speech afterwards, as was done with Willow's spell,
and is a favorite tool of Joss' (see "The Gift" of course).
But you can only have one of those in an ep I'd guess. Also, regarding
character, I don't think Joss wanted Buffy to go in there with
the intention of sacrificing Spike. So is there another "third
way" it could have been conveyed? Probably...
[> My theory...seriously
(Spoilers for Chosen) -- SS, 11:03:01 05/24/03 Sat
When I saw that scene....I wondered that too.
But then I got to thinking, I thought I heard somewhere...maybe
on the show?....maybe through this board, or some other board?....
That as a Slayer was called...the Slayer would be stronger than
the last Slayer...because that Slayer wouldn't just have the original
strength of the first Slayer, but a bit of the original personal
strength (however small) from all the other Slayers since then?....
If that is the case, then couldn't all of the Slayers become Uber-Slayers
cause they not only got powers from The Linage, but be able to
channel power from each other as well?
That is my theory...Maybe also fanwanking...
:)
SS (with major caffeine overdose)
[> [> Re: My theory...seriously
(Spoilers for Chosen) -- Cynicor, 16:13:47 05/24/03 Sat
I haven't heard the theory, but just from analysing the show,
I would tend to disagree:
You need only view Kendra's performance in Becoming Part I to
see the contrast between her and Buffy. Faith fought Buffy four
times over S3 and 4, and while it can be argued that she threw
the fight in the third battle, Buffy was clearly her better in
each fight.
The mystic transference of strength that occurred in Prophecy
Girl with Buffy's revival clearly made her a stronger Slayer.
Yet Kendra and Faith did not inherit this increased strength;
they were, "ordinary" Slayers, while Buffy was something
special, an "uber-Slayer", if you like.
[> [> [> The pure
energy directly from the Scythe could have been a major factor,
also.(Spoilers for Chosen) -- Archilochian, 16:30:09 05/24/03
Sat
[> [> [> Disagreeing
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:13:32 05/24/03 Sat
Here are the fights I can remember:
"Revelations": fight interrupted by Gwendolyn Post,
no way to know who was better.
"Enemies": stalemate with the knives thing, again, no
way to know who was better.
"Graduation Day I": Buffy does win, but, then, she did
bring a weapon to the battle, so it's hard to judge.
"This Year's Girl" Campus Fight: Faith runs away when
cops arrive, once more no way to judge the better.
"This Year's Girl" House Fight: Faith wins (though she
throws the last punch while in Buffy's body), however we must
keep in mind that she was at least a little prepared for the body
swap, while Buffy was taken completely by surprise.
"Who Are You": Hard to say. For one thing, the issue
gets iffy when one Slayer is in the other's body. But it also
must be taken into account that Buffy-in-Faith didn't seem to
be fighting back, perhaps surprised by Faith fighting vampires,
or that she had gained insight into Faith due to living her life
and wanted to talk, not fight.
In cases of major characters who have superstrength, like Buffy,
Faith, Angel, or Spike, the writers usually prefer to leave it
ambigous who would win if it came to a no holds barred fight.
Even Spike, whom many seem to see as less powerful than Buffy,
has beaten her on two occasions ("School Hard", where
she was only saved by act of Joyce, and "Out of My Mind",
where Spike would have taken a good bite into her neck if the
chip really had been out).
[> [> [> [> Re:
Disagreeing -- Cynicor, 06:01:53 05/25/03 Sun
Hmm, not my take on those fights, but I guess it is largely subjective.
Revelations: While the outcome is unresolved due to Gwen's donning
of the glove, Buffy has a clear counter for most of Faith's moves
and hammers most of her own past Faith's defence. When they are
talking later in Faith's hotel room, Buffy has a red woundy sort
of thing around her eye; Faith's jaw is nearly swollen shut and
she has a black eye.
Enemies: Not really a fight, more kind of a Mexican standoff.
Neither seemed to be ready to make a move.
Graduation Day Part I: This was the closest fight I saw between
the two; a near-constant exchange, blow-for-blow. Buffy did bring
the dagger to the fight, but when she pulled it out Faith seized
up a stave to even the odds, so there was no clear instance of
advantage in that fight. Buffy won when she caught Faith off guard.
This Year's Girl - Campus: Again not really enough to make comparisons.
There was again an outside factor of the cops (and Willow), enough
to send Faith looking for an exit, but once again you will note
that most Faith's attacks are blocked while Buffy's strike home.
You could argue it as a matter of greater skill/experience as
opposed to greater strength though, I guess.
This Year's Girl - House: Faith really went all out at the start
of the fight, and it was less about exchange of blows than throwing
each other into furniture and trashing the house. Faith definitely
threw the end of the fight, knowing that once she swapped, she
needed to be able to knock out Buffy with one punch.
Who Are You: This was pretty much the same deal as the end of
the fight in the previous ep. Buffy was ready to swap bodies with
Faith, so she let her hammer the crap out of her (e.g., the body
of Faith). Faith obviously at that point was not thinking clearly,
because when she attacked Buffy-in-Faith, she wasn't attacking
Buffy - she was attacking herself, or the image of herself. But
again - no valid means of determining who was the better in that
battle.
Because of this, I largely discount the S4 fights and concentrate
on S3 as the indicator. If you need a further example, you need
look no further than Kendra, Faith's predecessor. Their fight
in What's my Line Part I consisted of about four kicks, three
of which were to Buffy and one to Kendra.
One thing that might make things a bit clearer is to compare a
common factor like vampire stakage. Its a shame we never get to
see Faith patrolling by herself; whenever she stakes a vamp its
always when Buffy is around (save for WAY in S4 when she's in
Buffy's body), and they both seem fairly even in the dusting.
In Becoming Part I though, Kendra fails to outperform even the
regular humans when the library comes under attack. And while
it is true Buffy was never tested against Drusilla, Kendra did
succumb to her in a miniscule amount of time. I think we can accept
Faith as being stronger than Kendra, which tends to put paid to
the whole theory of each Slayer being stronger than the last.
To sum up I guess you could say it is a belief rather than a well-substantiated
fact; still, we have Buffy's performance over the period stretching
between S2 and S5 as evidence that she was something more than
'just any' Slayer.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Disagreeing -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:16:34 05/25/03
Sun
First off, I think you're being a little hard on Kendra. For starters,
their fight in What's My Line wasn't as uneven as you make it
sound. At any rate, they both ended up in the same place by the
end, looking to be in the same condition. As for her fight with
Drusilla, it wasn't a question of strength there, it was a question
of Dru's hypnotic power. If it had been solely a battle of strength/skill
vs. strength/skill, it would be a different story, but the fight
we saw was strength/skill vs. strength/skill/psychic powers. We
saw in "Prophecy Girl" that a vampire's ability to hypnotise
can greatly alter the outcome of a fight.
I also disagree on some of these battles. Over the seasons, I've
noticed a clear pattern for fights between Buffy and equally matched
foes. It usually starts off with one of them in the lead, really
pounding on the other, then the other comes back and starts pounding
on the first one, than the first one starts pounding on the other
again. You can see it in the Buffy/Faith fights, the Buffy/Spike
fights, and the Buffy/Angel fights. As such, if the fight is interrupted,
and one appears to be in the lead, that doesn't necessarily mean
that one is the better, just that they're currently having their
turn on top.
Also, how did Faith throw the house fight in "This Year's
Girl"? As I recall, Buffy and Faith seemed to be hurting
each other pretty equally until the sirens turned up. Then Buffy
tried to hit Faith, and Faith blocked the punch with her hand.
That's when the bodyswap occured, at which point Faith-in-Buffy
knocked her to the ground.
[> I hate math, so I speculate.
(Spoilers for Chosen) -- WickedBuffy, 16:24:27 05/24/03
Sat
1) Buffy grew stronger over the years since Glory. Her strength
seems to wax and wane, but it might not be inconsistancy in plot
as much as it could be attributed to whatever emotional traumas
she's going through at the moment. Her hairstyles usually reflect
her current angst, also.
2) We didn't get to read that thick file Angel brought along from
W&H. Without even explaining it specifically, the information
might have been enough to support a very optimistic view of the
amulets power.
3) When The First Evil faltered, so did all its minions - the
UberVamps. Without the added power source of FE, they became much
easier to kill.
4) In the tunnel after the explosion, a SIT was grabbed by a UberVamp
and several of them turned around from the live SITs to start
tearing up (eating?) the probably-dead SIT. .... ok - that many
UberVamps - milling around shoulder to shoulder- getting very
hungry & grumpy - suddenly some fresh uber meat starts raining
down from above onto the Ubers still below - and it becomes an
All You Can Eat Sushi Cannibal Buffet. The Ubers are busy feeding
amongst themselves when old Sol dusts them.
5) imho
[> A few things I disagree
with -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:25:03 05/24/03 Sat
First, that there were ten thousand Turok-Han. From watching "Get
It Done" and "Chosen"; I estimated their number
at around 1000. This changes things a little.
Second, that Buffy intended to take on all of the Turok-Han at
once. It's quite possible she intended more of a scout and destroy
mission, that they'd sneak into the Turok-Han dimension unnoticed
and dust each vamp they ran into. The Turok-Han being gathered
together and attacking en masse, as well as noticing the Slayers
before they had a chance to re-strategize, was a piece of really
bad luck.
Third, this one is a bit more fanwanky, but the Turok-Han who
made it up into the school were probably the weaker ones. Why?
Because they were the ones who ran away. Remember, this isn't
when the First Evil decided to launch an attack. The Turok-Han
running up through the Seal of Danthalzar weren't rushing to do
the First's bidding; they were trying to run away from the battle.
The weakest of the Turok-Han are the ones most likely to be scared
enough to run away, and as such the ones most easily dealt with
by the non-super powered Scoobies (plus, panic, not exactly something
that helps people fight well).
Fourth, there's still the Scythe factor. After Willow performed
the spell, Kennedy rushed the Scythe back down to the Turok-Han
world, which implies it still contained mystical properties. The
first time Buffy fought with the Scythe she killed three Turok-Han
in about ten seconds. And, during the course of the final battle,
she knocked five Turok-Han over the side of the pit with it. Like
the Slayer's strength, how powerful the Scythe is has never been
quantified, but it appears to make Buffy at least three times
as powerful as she is without it, and perhaps more so.
And, if all other explanations fail, there is always the classic
"experience something mystical and come away stronger"
device. Buffy had one in "Prophecy Girl", Neo had one
near the end of "The Matrix", and it's possible the
power-sharing spell was like that for the potentials.
[> [> Re: A few things
I disagree with -- Cynicor, 16:47:39 05/24/03 Sat
I agree with your thing about the Turok Hans being weaker than
the original, and also gives a good reason why the First didn't
just crack open the seal and bring forth its army ages ago. There
were clearly different looking ones in the battle, which is mildly
inconsistent with Buffy's vision, which appeared to be Camden
Toy's vamp just CGIed over and over.
Still, two problems: one, is that the 'ubervamps' that fled up
into the school were less trouble in combat for ordinary humans
than regular vampires...second, Buffy's vision clearly showed
one enormous cavern, chocka with super-vampires; no tunnels or
the like to creep along, dusting vampires as they went.
Using the number 1000 does change things, it is true: but that
is still expecting 30 Slayers to take out roughly 30 ubervamps
each. Even believing - as clearly we all do - that the scythe
spell uberfied the Slayers, that is still major ask. Even though
the show has been inconsistent with ordinary vamps vs. the Slayer,
we know that just like each Slayer is different, each vampire
is different, so we can expect that there would be some that were
super-tough like the nameless one from eps 9-11, while some would
be much easier.
But it just seems a nagging weird with me that you would go to
all this trouble to emphasise the power of the Turok Hans: "ferociously
powerful killing machines, as single-minded as animals...they
are the vampires that vampires fear". We saw one do what
few demons have ever done to Buffy, then they turn around with
no fair explanation (or implication) and make them just weak footsoldiers.
I vaguely recall an interview or somesuch that was done with Joss
before the start of the season, where he commented on how they
weren't going to create any new sort of super bad-guys to challenge
Buffy. That being said, they then created a demon that was as
powerful as a Slayer, an ancient, primordial vampire that was
not bound by the laws that afflict "ordinary" vampires
(interesting sidenote: vampires seem to be the only demons in
Buffy that are bound by innumerable 'rules'). Seems almost like
they were heading one place before, say episode 11, then abruptly
they turned around and went someplace different because an army
of Slayer-strength demons would wipe out anything that came against
them.
I've now watched
'Chosen' four times. Anybody ahead of me? -- HonorH, 23:42:46
05/23/03 Fri
It just keeps getting better and better, IMHO. Joss, you done
good!
[> Re: I've now watched
'Chosen' four times. Anybody ahead of me? -- Anne, 23:51:33
05/23/03 Fri
Just making it my fifth now. But each time I watch it again something
new and plot-holey shows up...
[> [> And yet you continue
to watch. -- Rook, 01:42:39 05/24/03 Sat
I can understand people spending large amounts of time and energy
on something that gives them pleasure, but why the Hell are you
watching it 5 times if it bothers you that much?
[> [> [> Re: And yet
you continue to watch. -- Anne, 02:11:14 05/24/03 Sat
I didn't say that it bothered me...I said I keep seeing plot holes...Didn't
stop me from loving the Gift, and it sure as hell doesn't stop
me from loving Chosen. I can enjoy something without losing my
cyniscm...
[> [> [> [> Re:
And yet you continue to watch. -- Jenny's Love, 07:12:56
05/24/03 Sat
I have watched the last fifteen minutes about thirty times since
Tuesday. And as for plot holes, etc.: if those and logical inconclusiveness,
implausibilities, and discontinuties ever made the fans stay away,
then Buffy would have no viewing audience whatsoever, lol.
[> Four? -- Valheru,
02:20:09 05/24/03 Sat
God, that makes me feel like such a geek. I saw it four times
the first night. I'm up to seven now. Today, I had to re-watch
Surprise and Innocence just so I could get the Buffy
part of my brain to think of something else. Each time I see Chosen,
a new layer presents itself, but it got to the point where the
layers were jumbling in my head and I couldn't keep my thoughts
on one specific meaning. I felt like Dru...
[> six, 4 of which were
the day before the airing -- gillie, 05:59:28 05/24/03
Sat
yes, i am a glutton for punishment.
and yes, i snivel more over anya every single time.
[> Pathetic. I saw it more
times than that the first night :-) -- lunasea, 09:13:50
05/24/03 Sat
I stopped counting after a dozen :-P
Such are the benefits of not having a paying job.
It is best seen when you watch "Dirty Girls" onward
back to back with no bathroom breaks and lots of food around.
[> [> You've found the
perfect recipe -- CW, 09:29:59 05/24/03 Sat
for me to gain a lot of weight I don't need. Oh well, when I have
my heart attack, I'll die happy. ;o)
[> Four times (once close
captioned) so far - but with the long weekend now . . . <g>
-- Cheryl, 09:21:15 05/24/03 Sat
Like everyone else, I'm finding new things each time I watch.
[> We're dead even, at the
moment. -- Dariel, 12:45:29 05/24/03 Sat
Heaven or
Hell for those who died in Chosen (spoilers) -- Ray, 02:41:58
05/24/03 Sat
Anya: Can she be held accountable for her demon actions? Has she
done anything as a human to balance things?
Spike: Can he be held accountable for things done while soulless?
Does he get bonus points for good deeds he did while soulless?
Has ever done anything bad while souled (I can't think of anything)?
What are your views? I know Spike's coming back, but what about
Anya? Where do you think she'll go?
[> Option number three:
Vallhala -- fresne, 11:59:16 05/24/03 Sat
[> Which religion? --
mamcu, 15:31:27 05/24/03 Sat
I don't really know much about any religion, so this is all guessing.
If she were Christian, even a death-bed repentance would get her
through the pearly gates. All you need is faith (small f).
If she were Buddhist, maybe she'd get to be an animal next time
around. She's definitely ready to move up from hell-being. She
had some pretty awful karma to work off, but she also repented
and tried to make amends.
Muslim--case is hopeless. Infidel.
I know even less than that about other religions--hope someone
else will step in.
[> [> I was thinking
Anya would be reincarnated. As The Easter Bunny. -- WickedBuffy,
15:42:21 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> Re: Which religion?
-- Eryn, 20:45:14 05/24/03 Sat
It's true that in many denominations of Christianity, all you
need is faith, as Mamcu says, but Catholicism is big on good works,
too. (Not that Protestants don't do good works, blah blah, standard
"all religions are valid" disclaimer.) I'm guessing
that since Anya embraced vengeance and violence so passionately,
but later redeemed herself through love of humanity, as far as
Catholicism goes, she'd not necessarily go to hell, but probably
would be relegated to Purgatory for a long time.
I may have buggered this up beyond recognition, so anyone else
who knows Catholic theology might want to step in here.
Eryn
Death, Loss,
and the Series Finale (Spoilers to 7.22) -- RadiusRS, 06:39:50
05/24/03 Sat
As I was rewatching the series finale, I realized something about
the Core Four, how they really have been the Uberbuffy from Primal
all along. I read in some interviews that Joss said that the last
episode really hinged upon the Core Four and was all about going
back to the beginning and coming full circle. So I started thinking
about where the characters were when we met them, what happened
in this episode, and what the Core Four have gone through in the
past seven years. When we first met Buffy (in retrospect), she
had just dealt with becoming a Slayer, how that changed her life
by causing her to burn down the gym and run away from home when
she was a freshman, how this behavior sent her to a mental institution
and tore her family apart, and how she was dealing will losing
her father from her life (Fate rearing it's head here). I believe
that that is the template for the cycle Buffy repeats throughout
the show's run, and that the Core Four all parallel this cycle.
Let's where the core four were when they first met Buffy. When
Xander first saw Buffy, he hurt imself as he instantly fell in
love with her. Xander getting hurt because of Buffy. Willow is
taunted by Cordelia, yet Buffy protects her and defends her, later
on giving Willow the inspiration to take an opportunity to balance
the scales by a rather mean trick (getting Cordy to erase her
paper). When she first meets Giles, he iterates how she must accept
her destiny and do something she doesn't want and shouldn't have
to do, all the while reassuring that he will give her tools to
fight. In this episode, Xander and Willow lose a close friend
in Jesse, though it hits Xander more. As the season progresses,
we find out Buffy how Buffy deals with the death of a loved one
when she finds her that, well, her boyfriend already died.
Fast foward to the end of season one: The gang have all been affected
by the Master. Xander risks his life for Buffy, then ends up losing
her AND saving her. Angel also loses Buffy, thereby tying his
journey to the buffy's and the gang's. They all lose someone they
love to Fate, especially Xander and Angel because of the way they
loved her (and probably Willow, too though she would never have
admited it to herself at the time) as well as Giles for his fatherly
feelings towards her. But it doesn't really count, it just gives
them a taste of what's to come.
In season two, Buffy and Angel, Xander and Cordy, Willow and Oz,
and Giles and Jenny all show the gang falling in love with another
person in that romantic sort of way (or in that horny kind of
way if you look at Xander and Cordy). After Buffy and Angel have
chosen to sleep together, Buffy essentially kills him in a moment,
losing another loved one through her actions, and he destroys
her (or tries to at least but succeeds on some levels). Soon thereafter,
Giles is still mending his relationship Jenny after having lost
her due to her betrayal, when her life is senselessly taken by
Angelus. Neither Buffy nor Angel/Angelus nor Giles deal well this
hand Fate has dealt them. Both Buffy and Giles lose a lover, Buffy
twice if you count her sending Angel to hell at the end of the
season. This season, though, Xander does not deal with losing
Jenny well since he refuses to tell Buffy that Willow says there
is hope for Angel because of his hatred for Angel. Willow finds
that she is prone to bite off more than she can chew when her
deep connection to magic begins. Buffy loses the trust of her
friends and family and so runs away, unable to deal with so much
loss. Season 3 finds everyone looking back, growing up, and moving
on. Angel returns, and he and Buffy deal with the demise of their
relationship (interestingly, Spike is the one who points it out
to them). Spike also causes Willow and Xander, Willow and Oz,
and Xander and Cordy to re-evaluate themselves (in the meantime,
Giles gets Buffy's mom; hey moms and librarians need sex too!
I know the thought's icky but that's just just the way things
are). Xander loses Cordelia due to his actions, which in a chain
reaction create the universe of The Wish, where essentially EVERYONE
dies. Interestingly, it is precipitated by Anya(nka). It also
deserves mention that only through Giles' actions and last shred
of hope are things set right. Xander loses his virginity to Faith,
after which she goes evil (paralelling Angel/Buffy and Giles/Jenny).
Willow loses her virginity to Oz, and he doesn't go evil (except
slightly the following season). Giles loses his position as Buffy's
Watcher due to his love for her. At the end of the season, all
the characters are stronger, more focused and decisive, showing
they have learned their lessons. Interestingly, it is in his reaction
to losing Faith that The Mayor-slash-Snake Demon is defeated,
showing how on Buffy everyone, especially the villains, reflect
the main themes.
The fourth season found our characters in re-evaluation mode,
and begining to splinter apart as they went through growing pains.
More than anything, I see it as a transition year, tying the more
mature themes of later seasons with the more innocent themes of
earlier ones. Xander begins a serious relationship with Anya,
who will become his true love. Giles finally gets more tail as
well as a mid-life crisis. Buffy gets a boyfriend that's good
for her, yet is ultimately unfulfilling. Willow loses Oz, and
doesn't deal with it too well, almost becoming a vengance demon
in the process. But she eventually finds herself discovering her
true nature when she falls in love with Tara. Spike also becomes
a more integral part of the gang's lives this season. In order
to defeat this season's Frankenstein stand-in Big Bad, the Scoobies
had to mimic him by putting all THEIR splintered personalities
together. To me that is the turning point of the series, as it
effectively binds them together forever and makes a pretty solid
statement about who the show is really about.
Season 5 if fairly simple, but also subverts this theme of losing
someone by reversing it and suddenly adding a person to the gang's
lives. The addition of Dawn changes everyone as Xander has more
positive qualities brought out in him by her, as well as Willow
more maternal, Giles more fatherly (though he wasn't a good babysitter),
as well as giving Buffy a different kind of love to focus on,
especially after Riley. This season, Buffy and Dawn lose a mother,
someone who had been a dream mother to Willow and Xander, a lover
and friend to Giles, and even a friend to Spike. When Glory attacks
them, Willow loses Tara and goes nuts and Buffy loses dawn and
goes nuts too, but they get over it. At the end of the season,
they all lose Buffy, and so can't deal with it that they bring
her back.
Season 6 begins with an emotionally bleak Sunnydale. Giles is
leaving because he can't take it anymore, Dawn is pretty much
an orphan, And Xander/Willow and their girlfriends decide to bring
Buffy back because they can't deal with her loss. Willow takes
the brunt of this task upon herself, a fact which, more than anything
I believe, causes her to lose Tara later on. Once again, the theme
of loss is subverted as this time it's Buffy herself who was "lost"
and is now back, but now SHE is more lost than ever. Giles has
also been lost, though he returns now and again. It is through
her relationship with Spike and thanks to Tara that Buffy begins
to return to life. But Willow eventually loses Tara due to magic,
and Xander and Anya end up losing each other after their aborted
wedding. Anya even loses her humanity (again). Then Willow loses
Tara senselessly and brutally, much in the ways that Giles and
Buffy lost their lovers in previous seasons, and in a way similar
to Xander's loss. As she did before, Willow goes off the deep
end, though this time it's in a major way. Giles sacrifices himself
in an effort to save the world, and Xander also risks his life
for the same. Once again, the character find their salvation in
love, reminding them that its lack is what they have been missing
all year.
The Seventh season is sort of a mixed bag. A desperate Spike sacrifices
his demonic nature for love and regains a soul, thereby paralleling
Angel, and going through the same sort of suffering that our heroes
have gone through in their lives. Willow and Anya deal with the
consequences of their negative actions. Dawn deals with the world
as Buffy deals with Dawn. In essence, Dawn is the child of all
of the core characters. She has the strength, love, and fire of
Buffy, the spirit, passion, and compassion of Willow, the bravery,
quiet fortitude, and normalness of Xander, and the intelligence,
resourcefulness, and grit of (Ripper) Giles. Giles is left to
dealing with the destruction of his life mission, which, by the
end of the series, it semms Buffy was born to do. The Watchers
Council has been a part of Giles' life since birth (his Father
was one) and his story parallels Buffy's in that he too has been
chosen for something against his will. It's hard to believe that,
even though he hasn't worked for them in years, their sudden destruction
hasn't deeply affected and disturbed him, and THAT might explain
his odd and pessimistic behavior all year. In order for Buffy
to be free, she had to make her father figure's place in the world
irrelevant...interesting. Buffy, once again subverting the lost
theme, finds a love with Spike that she never realized she'd lost,
a love that she did everything to prevent occuring. Spike finds
his redemption by losing himself in his love for Buffy. Willow
finds peace of mind with Kennedy, who teaches her how to embrace
life after her actions following the death of Tara, and from Buffy,
Xander, and Giles gets the confidence to empower women everywhere.
Xander realizes the importance of Anya in his life and she redeems
herself by loving him truly and deeply. Her sacrifice redeems
her for the many evils of her life, a theme echoed in Selfless
earlier in the season. Her sudden, brutal, and senseless death
brings the Core Four full circle: now they have all lost their
lovers. Interestingly, the usually hot headed Xander deals with
it better than any of the others did. He also got hurt, this time
in a major way, when he came to Buffy's aid.
So sorry for this somewhat rambly post but the past seven years
of Buffy have been running through my mind lately, trying to show
the overall patterns now that this part of the story is finished.
And the way the Core four have gone through many of the same changes
is apparent to me, especially in light of the events of Chosen,
even though I'm still not sure why it's important that these characters
have echoed each other's paths in life. It also explains why Tara,
Jenny, and Anya all had to die to serve the greater story (as
well as a believable way to end the Buffy/Angel relationship without
him really dying).
[> Good Summary -- CW,
08:58:36 05/24/03 Sat
While I'm not sure it's correct to say that everyone has lost
their loves, I think it is fair to say that as far as the Scoobies
are concerned the demon domination of their lives is mostly broken.
Giles' emotional connection with demons was always second hand.
If Buffy had lived a normal slayers life, his life's work would
have been those few years when Buffy was truly his responsibility.
When her need for him waned his sense self worth seemed to disappear.
Now as he rides off into the sunset, he's found his calling again
as more of a teacher of slayers than as a fighter of demons. Buffy
still has a close realationship with Angel, but the fire has faded.
Spike no longer tugs at her heart nor makes her feel guilty. For
Willow its been a slow painful progression from demon lovers to
the normal, from the pure evil demon in the computer system, to
Oz who was a demon three nights a month, to Tara who only thought
she was part demon, to Kennedy who has become a slayer, but in
a world which will find slayers more normal. Xander was simply
a demon magnet. Even Cordelia his normal high school girlfriend
eventually became part demon. With Anya things went the other
way. She was an ex-demon by the time he really got to know her.
He was the one who tried to teach her how to be human again. But,
that was entirely dependant on his support. When he broke her
heart, she immediately decided to become a demon again. But, she
found that she really no longer belonged with the demons either.
I think it's debatable whether Xander and Anya could have ever
been a real couple again. They certainly yearned for each other,
but I got the feeling that in the end neither really loved the
other any more. Now that the initimate connections between the
demon world and the Scoobies are mostly gone, perhaps all of them
not just Buffy can have something like a noraml life.
[> [> Thanks, and I like
your perspective. I still stand by the fact that they all lost
true loves, tho. -- RadiusRS, 09:47:45 05/24/03 Sat
Request for
Rufus -- mamcu,
12:21:13 05/24/03 Sat
Rufus, a long time ago you mentioned that you had written about
the goddess Tara somewhere else. I couldn't ever get that link
to work. Any chance you could repost it here? Or tell how to make
the link work?
[> Here you go... --
Rufus, 16:37:28 05/24/03 Sat
Date Posted: 03:03:30 04/20/02 Sat
Author: Rufus
Subject: The Symbolic use of Tara.....
I have been watching the boards with great interest while people
slug it out regarding ships in the Buffyverse. The death of Tara
and fall of Willow into darkness has been seen as a slam against
homosexuality. I think ME has been far brighter than the addiction
storyline has shown so far. We know that Willow has been playing
with dark magic since season 2. Willow has always been able to
resist the temptation of losing her will to primal forces. But
not this year, she will find out how little power she has had.
In season 4 a conversation form Fear Itself interested me....from
Psyche's Transcripts...
Cut to UC of Sunnydale. Willow and Buffy are walking into the
cafeteria.
Willow: "I've got the basics down - levitation, charms, glamours.
I just feel like I've plateaued wicca-wise."
Buffy: "What's the next level?"
Willow: "Transmutation, conjuring, bringing forth something
from nothing. Gets pretty close to the primal forces. A little
scary."
Buffy: "Well, no one's pushing. You know, if it's too
much don't do it."
Willow: "Don't do it? What kind of encouragement is *that*?"
Buffy: "This is an 'encouragement' talk? I thought it was
'share my pain'."
Willow: "I don't know. Then again, what is college for
if not experimenting? You know, maybe I can handle it. I'll know
when I've reached my limit."
Oz comes up to them: "Wine coolers?"
Buffy: "Magic."
Oz: "Ooh, you didn't encourage her, did you?"
Willow: "Where is supportive boyfriend guy?"
Oz: "He's picking up your dry cleaning, but he told me to
tell you that he's afraid you're gonna get hurt."
Willow with a smile: "Okay, Brutus. (Oz just looks at
her) Brutus - Caesar? (Willow looks form Oz to Buffy) Betrayal
- trusted friend? (Makes stabbing motions with her banana) Back
stabby?"
Oz: "Oh, I'm with you on the reference, but - I won't lie
about the fact that I worry? I know what it's like to have
power you can't control. I mean, every time I start to wolf out,
I touch something -deep - dark. It's not fun. But just know
that what ever you decide, I back your play."
Willow used magic like a controlled science experiment, to be
weighed, measured, used like a recipe. But the dark magic is scary
because it finds the worst in the user and amplifies it leading
the person to nothingness. Willow said she would know her limit
and know when to stop....sounds pretty much like what we are seeing
this season...the end result of denial. In flooded even Giles
tells Willow that she may be playing with primal forces way beyond
her control. In season four Willow playfully calls Oz a "Brutus"
or backstabber for talking to Buffy about his concerns about Willow
and magic. In Flooded Willow faces Giles and his objections to
her use of the dark arts and her reaction to his cross words is
a bit more sinister...
WILLOW: The magicks I used are very powerful. I'm very powerful.
And maybe it's not such a good idea for you to piss me off.
Clearly the signs of Willows descent into darkness are more clear,
but then lost in the seemingly simplistic addiction analogy in
Smashed. I see that Smashed is just a way of showing us that power
can feel just like a drug...ME just showed us that by comparing
Willow to a junkie. But her story is headed for a more tragic
end.
Now for Tara. I remember in Restless, Buffy's dream showed Tara
as a form used to guide Buffy along her path...
ANGLE: TARA
Appears opposite Buffy on the dune, walking toward her. She is
dressed in Indian garb, midriff and skirt. Again, preternaturally
calm.
If Tara had been shown in other dress I wouldn't have made the
next comparisson, but in Indian garb and her actions make me think
of the goddess Tara. Tara who saves sentient beings and brings
them to enlightenment...the Tara who is perpetually in female
form.....a form who guides.
contrary
to the advice given her that she must pray to be reborn as a man
in order to further her spiritual development, she made the vow
to continue saving sentient beings in the form of a woman. She
became so good at saving beings that Amoghasiddhi gave her the
name of Taaraa, the name by which she has been loved and recognised
ever since.
Tara in Buffy has been shown to be wise beyond her years, a calm,
compassionate woman who happens to be in love and is loved by
Willow. If you only see their relationship as just a "ship"
the point ME is making about love and the preoccupation with gender
is missed. Instead of seeing Tara as a representation of Compassion
and Divine Love, some may only see Tara the gay murder victim.
Tara is more. She has been used as a guide, she has also been
consulted by Buffy and been the one to comfort Buffy when she
disclosed her relationship with a demon. Tara doesn't judge she
loves.
I know that Tara will be killed by Warren and here is where the
story of Willow will turn to that of a fall into darkness started
by the need for revenge, then the loss of the self in darkness
because she can no longer close the door to the primal forces
like before. Tara may be dead at that point but it is her influence
that will save the day, it may be in the form of Xander a childhood
friend, but the love is what is Tara. Why so many are quick to
judge Willow is because we hold her to a higher standard because
she has always been so gentle. It is a trial that we must go through
to appreciate just how destructive the primal force of hate and
revenge are, and how healing love in it's pure form can be.
If, as moderns, we understand Taaraa's
vow as an assertion that the state of being a woman is superior
in terms of spiritual efficacy as compared to that of being a
man, or as indicating the primacy, for Buddhists, of feminine
symbolism, we would be in danger of undermining the central Buddhist
principle of 'no-self' (anaatman). The fact that the individual
has ultimately no fixed nature is implicit in Taaraa's opening
statement, 'Here there is no man, there is no woman, no self,
no person, and no consciousness'. The significance of Taaraa's
vow is perhaps best understood as an encouragement away from any
over-identification with our sexual form, whether as male or female.
Tara represents love that bridges gender and form, compassion
that is equal for all. Willow may kill Warren, but she is just
as eligable for redemption as any demon or human in the Buffyverse.
The love that will redeem Willow won't be carnal in nature but
the love of a childhood friend who finds that love that Willow
contains, the love that made her capable of finding Tara in The
Gift. Tara will be dead as a human form, but the divine, eternal,
love she personifies goes on in the actions that keep the primal
darkness at bay. Willow will always find Tara because she will
always live in Willows heart.
[> [> Tara, Willow, and
the Goddess of Compassion -- mamcu, 07:13:20 05/25/03 Sun
Thanks so very much for reposting.
Wow!Accurate predictions! From the date, it appears that you wrote
that before the last four episodes of S6 had aired, but you made
great guesses! Esp. re Xander. But, not knowing whether or not
you had been spoiled, that's not my main point.
The concept of Tara as the symbol of anatman is even more
important when we look at what happened to Willow in S7. That
the FE could not appear as Tara, but only as Cassie shows us that
even dead Tara is different from the others, and that her link
to Willow was different. Even her appearance could not be used
as pathway for evil.
Here's another thought about the significance of Tara in Tibetan
Buddhism:
It is important to remember that in Buddhism, the male energy
is potential only - latent and inactive. It is the female energy
that activates this potential into movement and creativity. Hence,
Tara is the energizer of Avalokiteswara, the bodhisattva of compassion.
(from http://www.crystalinks.com/tara.html)
I have to wonder if the influence of Tara as well as the coven
was helping Willow achieve her goddess-like state of magic.
Or is this too weird: Most of us know of Green Tara, but there
is also White Tara. Could it be that White Tara is what Willow
became for a moment?
Since White Tara in mythology came from a lotus growing in the
lake that was formed by the tears of compassion, and since White
Willow's action was ultimately an act of compassion, this would
fit.
[> [> [> and in Tantra
-- mamcu, 07:39:34 05/25/03 Sun
I don't know enough about this to be sure of what I say, but look
at this information about Tara:
http://www.kaliya.com/kaliya_ang/lexique_ang.htm#tara
According to the Tantra, she is "what leads to the other
shore".
Also sounds like the function of Willow-as-Goddess.
[> [> [> [> O/T
btw, mamcu .... -- WickedBuffy, 12:13:29 05/25/03 Sun
(I just wanted to slip in an appreciative thank-you for all the
intriguing information/ideas/thoughts you share and the
wonderful way you communicate during some of the more heated discussions.)
[> [> [> [> [>
Wow, thanks, WB!! That made my day! -- mamcu, 16:47:20
05/25/03 Sun
Have to say you are really one of the bright parts of the board
for all! Esp. loved the caricatures, but also lots of your litte
asides.
Did Buffy
kill The First? -- The First Evil, 14:18:04 05/24/03 Sat
So at the end of Chosen when Sunnydale was reduced to a pile of
rubble did that mean that the First was destroyed as well? My
take on it is that the First's army was destroyed therefore it
no longer had the capability to dominate the world as it had planned.
But I don't think the First was destroyed for good. Joyce said
something to Buffy in a dream about how evil was already here
and would always be here. I don't think it's even possible to
kill a non-corporeal entity that's existed since the beginning
of time. But Buffy was undoubtedly successful in shutting down
the Hellmouth.
[> No. And I think that's
the point. -- Rob, 14:28:10 05/24/03 Sat
As Joyce and the Beljoxa's Eye said, the First can't be destroyed.
It will live forever. You can't destroy evil. Now, however, not
only is its army and minions crushed and the Hellmouth sealed
up, but whereas it first only had two Slayers to protect the world
and hundreds of little girls to slaughter, now an entire army
of Slayers is there to keep the First from regaining power. I
thought that was a pretty brilliant way to acknowledge that evil
will always live on in the world, but things can be done to keep
it from gaining power over good.
Rob
[> [> Plus, if you were
dead, you might have noticed it by now. -- contumelious (though
the dead do love to post here), 14:38:35 05/24/03 Sat
[> OK, that wasn't me
-- Masq, 15:45:33 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> That narrows it
down to one of the other three posters. -- Cozener Feint,
15:59:37 05/24/03 Sat
Question re
responses to 'Chosen' (possible spoilers) -- KdS, 15:14:41
05/24/03 Sat
I'm waiting until I've seen the episode to write anything, but
has anyone anywhere on the web mentioned the word PyrE (note capitalisation)
in relation to Chosen?
[> I did, in conversation
to Rah. -- d'Herblay, 15:37:16 05/24/03 Sat
You can ask her, but I'm not sure that it would be a credible
establishments of my priority.
Actually, my personal hope for the ending was that Buffy would
give her power to all 6 billion humans, rather than to a select
few elite, and that the responsibility for fighting our own demons
and for making the world a better place would come to rest where
it belongs, with each and every one of us.
[> [> I think that counts,
as a fair amount of my conversations with Rah take place 'on the
web' -- d'Herblay, 15:38:29 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> Well, even if Buffy
doesn't do that, we could certainly start the trend right here,
right now! :> -- WickedBuffy, 15:53:51 05/24/03 Sat
[> Yes, and... -- Rahael,
15:47:19 05/24/03 Sat
I even mentioned his thoughts (though I didn't say where he got
his inspiration) somewhere in the Buffy Kali thread.
[> [> Of course it would
be you two ;-) -- KdS, 16:01:00 05/24/03 Sat
Get ready for my post-Chosen piece next month - I was getting
real Foyle resonances.
[> [> [> Excuse me--what
does 'PyrE' stand for? -- Farquarson the Ultra-Bewildered,
16:23:29 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> I can't
recall if it actually *stands* for anything -- d'Herblay,
16:50:19 05/24/03 Sat
In Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination PyrE is a thermonuclear
substance that can be detonated by thought alone and has the power
to destroy the entire world. The protagonist Gully Foyle possesses
it, and at the end of the novel he faces a choice: he can keep
it for himself, thus making him the most powerful person in the
universe, or he can turn it over to "responsible" authorities.
Instead, he takes the third path: he reveals the secret of PyrE
and delivers it into the hands of the entire human race,
forcing all of us to be ultimately responsible for our
own survival or transcendence.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Excuse me--what does 'PyrE' stand for? -- KdS, 16:58:03
05/24/03 Sat
OK. Now I've mentioned it, I should give a brief explanation.
I plan to go more deeply into it once I've actually seen Chosen.
There's a well-known 1950s SF novel by Alfred Bester called Tyger!
Tyger! or The Stars My Destination, depending on the
edition. The plot is too episodic and messy to describe in detail,
but by the end the novel's antiheroic protagonist, one Gulliver
"Gully" Foyle, finds himself in possession of a large
quantity of an Ultimate Weapon known as PyrE, an explosive which
is ultrasensitive to detonation by telepathy, even by those with
no apparent psionic gifts. He is variously courted and threatened
by a number of factions, none of whom are the type of people who
you would trust with an Ultimate Weapon. After some confusion
over what to do in this dilemma, Foyle uses his power of psionic
self-teleportation to distribute samples of the material to a
huge number of people around the globe, delivers a stirring speech
to a New Year's Day crowd on the subject of liberty and self-actualisation,
and retires to a small religious community to get his head together,
leaving humanity to rearrange its organisation and way of thinking,
or slaughter each other, as they see fit. It's still viewed as
a major piece of libertarian fiction, and the parallels with Chosen
should be obvious.
Real Life
Stories: Experiences with Buffy geek-ness -- Briar Rose, 15:42:04
05/24/03 Sat
Okay - now that we have all gotten over the finale' somewhat,
and before we get back to serious discussion on the first season,
I was wondering how many of the posters have had "Buffy geek"
moments among friends, family and strangers in real life!
My favorite moment was when I went to California Pizza kitchen
a couple of days ago on a date:
The waiter walked us to a table that hadn't actually been cleared
yet.
He grabbed the pail of crayons and the paper that had been left
on the table for the party with children before us.
He stands there holding the pail as I sit down. I glance down
and see a yellow crayon that he's missed half hidden by the salt
shaker.
I pick it up and look at it. Before he can move away I say, "OH!
Here's the yellow crayon.... It's the most important one!"
and start grinning like an idiot to myself.
The waiter looked at me like I might need restraints. "Uh.
Okay. Thanks." He plops it into the bucket and scurries away
looking back over his shoulder.
My date looks at me and says, "Yellow's important?"
"It saved the world..." I say brightly.
My date looks at me with a twisted eyebrow, "Excuse me?"
So now I am blushing and muttering, "You have to be a Buffy
fan I guess...."
Everyone's turn! What are your stories of real life Buffy geek-dom
and how others have reacted to it. Remember, you are NOT alone!*L
[> LOL BR! These should
be collected & sent to Joss! -- WickedBuffy, 15:50:30 05/24/03
Sat
[> That's what happens when
you try to mate outside the species -- mamcu, 16:10:30
05/24/03 Sat
I'm sure you realized it before you got close to that point, but
still! Be warned!
[> well my entire family
hates that i Watch Buffy aparently im too intense -- ANDREA, 19:16:21
05/24/03 Sat
but i dont get why i mean yes i watch it a lot but is not like
i talk to them about it, but whrenever im staring at the tv like
an idiot, every single one one of them make this arghh noise .
i hate it
ok i know ths aren embarassing moments , but still they piss me
off
[> Different strokes
-- tomfool, 21:38:08 05/24/03 Sat
Our extended family was vacationing at a lake cabin in our historic
Minnesota stomping grounds. I was having a Buffy jones and was
thrilled to find a rerun of Bargaining I on the 13" TV. Everyone
was humoring me for watching this teenage horror show. My 75 year-old
uncle was a game warden in Montana for many years, and the world's
sweetest man. After the show was over, he said, "Any show
that has someone killing a deer with a knife can't be all bad."
I let it go without comment, cuz, what do you say to that? It
was a very abstract moment.
[> [> *LOL See there
IS something for everyone on BtVS, tomfool! -- Briar Rose,
23:43:47 05/25/03 Sun
[> I´m kinda like
Anya -- grifter, 05:17:36 05/25/03 Sun
I´m afraid of bunnys...I´m allergic to them, which
I only recently became aware of (never had much contact with the
little monsters before). So, whenever I get an allergic attack
(which isn´t fun), I think of Anya´s fear of the ´lil´
creepies (which is fun). Kinda helps.
[> [> I´m kinda
like Anya, too, except in a different sense ... -- Liz, 18:13:02
05/25/03 Sun
... which is to say, I'm socially inept as all hell (I have Asperger's
syndrome (which is what IMHO Anya has) [1]). And I was dealing
with that over the past two years (and I only started watching
Buffy last summer). I wouldn't say that Anya's existance really
was critical in helping me to cope with it or anything, but it
was definately nice.
(This is also why I'm so pissed off about the way her character
was massacred this season. I identify with her, and when they
play her character completely for laughs, they're in part making
fun of me....)
- Liz
[1] But that's another thread. Which will probably be gotten into
sooner or later, but not right now.
The Beginning
of RedemptionSpike -- RadiusRS, 16:55:50 05/24/03 Sat
I've been rewatching some season 5 Buffy episodes lately and seen
the seeds for the Spuffy ship being planted and came up with some
questions. In -Fool for Love and -LMPTM we see that William's
repression of his emotions and sublimation of his emotions towards
his mother has created a proverbial diamond in the rough, a passionate
soul that was always looking for the Other to make his soul effulgent,
to burn bright. This human William had a lot in common with Buffy,
especially when Drusilla gives him the choice of receiving her
dark gift. She sees his effulgence, or perhaps his potential,
and sees how it could be used for evil. Or perhaps she sees a
light so bright it will burn her (which he eventually does in
Crush), destroy her and end the endless torment Angelus crafted
for her (see -Darla in season 2 of Angel for those exact words
from his lips). Or perhaps Drusilla sees that the light in William's
soul might save her someday, and some part of the demon might
be willing to risk its destruction because, well, she's nutier
than the Planters Gentleman. I didn't think the last theory was
a possibility until I rewatched the episode -Intervention, scripten
by Jane Espenson.
At this point in the season, Spike's crush for Buffy is full-blown.
Harmony leaves him and goes to Angÿ
[> PART 2 - Spoilers up
to BtVS 7.22 and NotWKCS for Ats Season 5 in this post and above
-- RadiusRS, 17:02:32 05/24/03 Sat
At this point in the season, Spike's crush for Buffy is full-blown.
Harmony leaves him and goes to Angel to actualize her potential
(and if internet postings are to be believed, she'll be showing
her face around L.A. in the near future). Drusilla laments that
even her darkness cannot restore Spike. Buffy spurns with the
same words that Cecily said to him that sent him on his fateful
way to meet Drusilla. So he has Warren create a BuffyBot so he
can have his way with her. It's brilliant forshadowing for the
way Buffy uses him in Season 6. Spike has been bitchslapped by
the Chip, and in being forced to act human, has begun to take
on human character traits such as his protectiveness towards Dawn
as well as his sympathy for Joyce. But these actions are ultimately
motivated by his desire for Buffy. In -Intervention, we meet the
BuffyBot, Buffy's doubts about her ability to love are tested
when she goes on a Vision Quest to learn that Death is her Gift
(Giles did the Magic Hokey-Pokey, love ya Jane!), and Glory's
Leper Hobbits mistake Spike for the Key. When Buffy learns that
she is full of love from the Guide (symbolically portrayed by
the First Slayer) and returns to find that her friends had a hard
time distinguishing her from a robot, she perhaps realizes that
she needs to start showing more emotion. When she finds out that
Spike has been captured, she is convinced that he will give the
Key up, and so are we. But he surprises us all by telling Glory
that the Key is Bob Barker (Jane, you da wo-man!). Spike refuses
to tell her the truth because he knows that if something happened
to Dawn, Buffy would be in too much pain for him to stand it.
Even though his motives are still focused on Buffy, he has begun
to act like a man. Buffy cleverly tricks him into revealing his
true motives by acting like the BuffyBot, where she discovers
that, even though he is a demon, he commited a good act. This
is not to say that the demon is gone as there is a lot of evidence
of his evil in both seasons 5 and 6. I believe it is in this moment
that Buffy takes Spike on as a lost cause (like a rabid, wounded
puppy one sees at the pound and wants to nurse back to health);
the guide tells her to Love because "You are Full of Love.
Your Love burns brighter than the flame. Love is Pain. The Slayer
forges her weapons from Pain. You must Love because it is in your
Nature" (an approximation but that's the gist). In that moment
where she sees the spark of goodness in an undead demon, perhaps
Buffy flame is resparked, and she allows herself to see Spike
as he truly is and perhaps sees there's a chance that his spark
canned be fanned into a flame for Good. She kisses him on the
lips, and that "thank you" is real, part of the post
Vision Buffy. She tells Spike that the robot was obscene. But
she adds that what he did for her and Dawn, that was real. By
acknowledging the reality of his action, she sets him on the road
to true redemption, and she sets in motion events that will prove
that even vampires can be redeemed through their own actions,
and not the actions of others like in Angel's case. This kind
of sets up a redefinition for her whole job description huh? If
vampires can be saved and redeemed like Angel and Spike, should
she stop killing vampires and try to help them? I hope some of
these questions are asked on Angel next season.
I think that moment at the end of -Intervention (for all this
happens during the last scene and we know how important those
last scenes are in ME shows) begins a cycle for Buffy and Spike
that culminates in -Chosen, in an acknowledgement of that first
moment when Buffy's thanks was real, only this time she says it
with "I Love You" (and I believe it's true on some level)
instead of with a kiss. Spike's comment acknowledges her, but
says the thing that will give her closure and make her suffer
the least by saying she doesn't, releasing her. But that fiery
touch I think proves otherwise. Spike sacrifices himself so that
Buffy will have an opportunity for a better life, to redeem his
evils, and even to let her be with Angel, who he knows she truly
loves. I like that Spike and Buffy cuddled each other twice. Then
there is a scene in -Chosen in which Buffy is on the porch, thinking,
after having given the Potentials her plan and a choice. She then
enters the house and goes to the basement. She stops at the foot
of the stairs and stares at him as he stands up and stares at
her from across the room. Fade to black. Suddenly were at the
school the next day and the battle's about to begin. Did Buffy
sleep with Spike? I think so, and while she has many reasons for
doing so (Maybe hoping he'd be charged up for the trinket to work?
Maybe out of lonliness? Maybe to thank him?) but maybe to give
him something real, since she has confessed that he is in her
heart (in my interpretation, since -Intervention when he doesn't
give up Dawn) and he deserves at least that much, both Demon Spike
and Souled Spike has a lot and the least the Universe can give
him is one happy moment. I think that's indeed what we were intended
to believe, though in typical ME fashion, the answer will probably
remain ambiguous. Any more ideas or thoughts on Spuffy or some
of these questions?
Why the trio
were not an abandonment of the Outsider (Spoilers S7) -- KdS,
17:02:11 05/24/03 Sat
I was saving up this essay 'til after Chosen, but it doesn't
particularly depend on seeing episodes still to come, and seeing
The Matrix Reloaded this evening put me in the mood. There's
been some concern over the last couple of seasons, which recently
came out in a controversial Salon essay, that the rather
negative portrayal of Warren, Jonathan and Andrew saw BtVS siding
with the majority against the geeks in betrayal of the S1-3 ethos.
What these people are missing is that there are several types
of "outsider". There are the people who are actually
a member of some excluded group who will never fit in barring
major changes in society, whether that means sex, religion, sexual
orientation or skin colour. That's not the type of "outsider"
ME have been talking about most of the time. What ME have been
talking about is the person who has every qualification necessary
to get into the in-group, but is left out because of something
to do with their personality or surface cultural tastes.
Now there's nothing wrong with being that way, I think virtually
everybody here is to some degree. But as you grow up you become
more socially skilled, you become more tolerant of other people's
eccentricities and they become more tolerant of yours, or you
find some community of people who are more congenial to you (much
of the reason why school is such hell for "outsiders"
is because it is the only stage of life where everybody is forced
together for most of the day regardless of their talents, personalities
and tastes). Nevertheless, many people still don't fit into the
mainstream (if anyone really does). The mainstream isn't inherently
superior, don't think I'm arguing that. Being socially or culturally
out-of-the-mainstream doesn't make you a bad person. But it
doesn't, in itself, make you a good person either.
If your personality, cultural tastes or philosophical opinions
don't fit with the mainstream, it's easy to make yourself feel
good about it by believing that the mainstream is in itself inferior.
That most people just aren't as intelligent, or refined, or sensitive,
or moral as you are. It's a good way of keeping sane. When it
becomes toxic, though, is when you don't just accept that the
mainstream disagree with you, but that you start believing that
they are, literally or metaphorically, cast into outer darkness
for it. When you start believing that you're part of a tiny natural
aristocracy. A few years ago, John Casey published a book called
The Intellectuals and the Masses, based around the theory
that modernism and stylistic experiment in the early 20th century
was the result of a subconscious effort to maintain the exclusion
of the newly literate lower classes from high culture. It isn't
entirely convincing, and often it comes across as merely reactionary.
But Casey collects a number of remarkable passages from respected
modernist writers and thinkers in which the uncultured mainstream
are portrayed as unhuman, inherently inferior to the enlightened
outsider. Once you're sensitive to that tone you can see it everywhere
(pop music/ TV/ film criticism is an especially rich source nowadays).
And when you start thinking that way, there are two ways you can
go, and neither of them are good.
The first is towards amoral misanthropy, the belief that because
the great mass of people are useless, stupid and malevolent, you
have the right to prey upon them like the sheep they are. In the
Buffyverse, one sees it most blatantly in Warren and Andrew, and
to a lesser extent in Faith during her evil period. (Vamps think
the same way, but not having even vestigial consciences they don't
need to view themselves as morally justified.) In the real world,
one can imagine most of the criminals and exploiters in jails
or out thinking this way, and the cruder followers of the likes
of Anton LaVey.
The second is that you have a responsibility to elevate the mass
of people to your level, or to guide them benevolently if that
isn't possible. Now this is a noble impulse, and the root of all
education. But it only works if you actually view the people you
want to elevate as individuals who, however ignorant, are worthy
of respect as human beings. If you believe that their ignorance
and unfeelingness bar them from the status of true, living, human
beings (I had not thought death had undone so many) then
whatever measures you take to awaken them, or give them a better
life, are justified, even if that means some of them losing their
life. It's the attitude that, in the Buffyverse, lies behind the
uglier elements of the Watchers' Council, or Jasmine. In the real
world, it's probably the underlying belief system of every genuinely
idealistic and well-meaning totalitarian or terrorist. When Andrew
wanders around Sunnydale in his supervillain's leather, we see
him as a parody of Spike. But the butcher addresses him as Neo,
and I don't think that's a shallow joke. I've just seen Matrix
Reloaded, and both that film and its predecessor are remarkable
for how gently they lull you into my second mindset. Our heroes
are fighting for the liberation of humanity, and they never show
the faintest concern or guilt for the dozens of passing Matrix-bound
humans who get killed in the crossfire between them and the Agents,
or rival rogue programs. Why should they? The lives of these people
are worthless, merely meaningless illusion and bondage. The films
were conceived before 11th September 2001, but they have a new
relevance now if you think about it. If you watch them with total
approval of Neo and co., you come probably as near as you possibly
can to what it must feel like to be a member of al-Qaeda, or (to
be religiously even-handed) the anti-abortionist assassin who
was recently jailed, fighting a desperate battle against the mass
of damned and lifeless infidels. That isn't necessarily a bad
thing, I fervently believe in G K Chesterton's concept of spiritual
growth through the conscious attempt to empathise (not sympathise)
with the evil instead of treating them as inexplicable other.
But I don't think it was something the film-makers planned. (And
I'm entirely aware that, to muddy the waters still further, I
may be guilty in this paragraph of some of the things I'm criticising
others for by claiming superior enlightenment.)
Yes, BtVS has shown the dark side of conscious outsiderness. But
given the way that the general positive portrayal of those unlike
others has continued in parallel, I don't see that as a betrayal.
I see it as a warning that awareness of the evil in mainstream
prejudice, in social institutions, in the economic system, shouldn't
blind you to the fact that a few people are socially excluded
because people who meet them realise on some level that they have
reason to be afraid. And that while you shouldn't feel inferior
for being an outsider, you shouldn't feel inferior either. And
next time you wax furious about what ought to be done to people
who read the Daily Mail or watch reality TV, have a second
thought.
[> Re: Why the trio were
not an abandonment of the Outsider (Spoilers S7) -- Sariel,
23:45:22 05/24/03 Sat
Hm. Nice. Very nice. It's something I see a lot amongst my own
friends- whether queer, pagan/agnostic/atheist or left-wing, or
geeky or gothic- a prejudice as rabid and as frightening as anything
they are responding to. Reminds me that we're all "just people",
and to quote that master geeky outsider Morrissey "it's so
easy to laugh, it's so easy to hate, it takes guts to be gentle
and kind."
A good pick up about the Matrix, too. It's possible that because
this is all a boy-geek fantasy, we'll never see any acknowledgement
of the people Neo et. al. have killed in their attempt to "free
the world". But in real life, that way, madness lies.
[> [> Re: Why the trio
were not an abandonment of the Outsider (Spoilers S7) -- yabyumpan,
03:32:13 05/25/03 Sun
Agree. That sort of thinking is just what caused my disillusionment
with the whole 'new age' movement, something I was heavily involved
with for many years. there is a very prevelant view that if only
'they' would 'wake up' and see the world as it truely is, i.e.
as 'we' see it, then the world would be a better place. It's a
mindset that The Matrix draws on in a very literal way. (thanks
KdS, you've articulated a lot of what made me uncomfortable about
the film) For me it's a problem with 'beliefs', believing that
something is 'right'. Whether it's religious, political, philosphical,
in fact anything that claims to be 'right' or 'the truth'. Once
you have that mind set about anything then it's to easy to see
people who don't believe as you do, who see things differently,
as being 'wrong', 'misguided', 'inferior'. I think a lot of the
time, those feelings are unconscious and usually benevolent but
they do produce an 'us/me' and 'them' way of thinking.
[> [> [> There is
a little justification for it -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:34:13
05/25/03 Sun
There are basically three types of people who are killed by the
good guys (excluding Agents and other programs):
Innocent Bystanders: I don't really hold these against the Zionites,
since it isn't as though they set out to kill these people, but
sometimes you can't help it if a battle erupts where people are
standing around to get hurt.
People Possessed By Agents: The Agents don't actually have their
own bodies within the Matrix, rather they take over the virtual
bodies of humans. When an Agent is shot or otherwise severely
injured, they don't die, they just take over a new human representation,
and the only person actually killed is an innocent human the Agent
took over. I think the good guys can be excused for these deaths,
since forcing an Agent to hop to a new body (hopefully one very
far away) is often their only means of self-defense.
Humans Serving The Matrix: These are the deaths that are the most
morally ambigous. The Agents, while very powerful, often use human
soldiers and police officers to do their will. These humans don't
know they're helping computer programs enslave humanity; they
think they're hunting down dangerous criminals and terrorists.
While on many occasions these humans have appeared in the capacity
of attacking the Zionites (making a self-defense argument usable),
there are some cases where Neo and Co. are the ones who go in
shooting, like the security guards helping the Agents hold Morpheus
captive. There is still some justification, however, since these
people were still unwittingly helping the Agents in a plot that
would probably spell the end of Zion and all free humans.
All in all, there is only one case in either movie where I've
had a problem with the heroes killing a human being. That was
in the very beginning of "The Matrix: Reloaded", where
Trinity's motorcycle crashes into a security office, killing the
guard inside. My problem with this one was that it seemed a little
gratuitous. Yes, she needed to shut down the power plant in order
to save the lives of Neo and Morpheus (and, by extension, the
human race), but it wouldn't have been much more difficult to
knock him unconscious with a well placed kick/punch like she did
on the others.
However, while I have seen a great deal of "these people
are working with the Matrix, therefore killing them is sometimes
necessary to stop it", I can't recall ever getting the impression
that they believed "these people won't wake up and see that
the Matrix is false, so who cares if they die?"
[> [> [> [> Re:
There is a little justification for it -- KdS, 14:00:09
05/25/03 Sun
Innocent Bystanders: I don't really hold these against the
Zionites, since it isn't as though they set out to kill these
people, but sometimes you can't help it if a battle erupts where
people are standing around to get hurt.
OK. Firstly, in the run-up to the climax of Matrix Reloaded,
the characters sabotage a power station with a bomb so gratuitously
destructive that the whole complex is levelled (just blowing up
a couple of junction boxes wouldn't have been spectacular enough).
No way does that not involve killing working stiffs. While I saw
it in the cinema, and can't check again, I'm sure that at one
point in the motorway scene Morpheus cold-bloodedly shoots a human
driver to get his vehicle out of the way (may just have imagined
it).
And while we haven't had any specific statement about the attitude
to random passers-by, we've never seen any expression of positive
concern or regret. In most cases, it's not just a case of a battle
just happening to erupt, the characters make a conscious decision
to start or continue a battle in a place where there are large
amounts of random humans.
[> [> [> [> [>
The power plant thing . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:19:06
05/25/03 Sun
I admit, I had forgotten about the power plant. However, in the
planning stage, Morpheus did state that there was a shift change
at midnight. It's possible this was either an attmept to do the
plan when no one was hurt, or at least an attempt to minimize
the deaths caused, which does show some regard.
I'm pretty sure I don't recall Morpheus shooting anyone to get
their car during the chase scene. Also, while the Zionites did
take the fight to the freeway, it was really a choice of doing
so or being gunned down by the ghost twins. And, while they haven't
shown any real concern about the casualties, the issue was at
least briefly addressed in "The Matrix" when Morpheus
shows Neo the simulation of the Matrix and explains about Agents
and how the battle works.
[> [> [> [> [>
The car/motorcycle/truck chase -- mamcu, 16:44:07 05/25/03
Sun
How many people died in free-way smashes and pile-ups? i guess
the answer would be again that these people were the unfortunate
casualties of war, but somehow at that level it doesn't work for
me. Too many deaths, too horrible.
How would we have felt about the destruction of Sunnydale if there
had not been evacuation before the Big Bang?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Well, then the rouge programs and Agents shouldn't have
been trying to kill them -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:03:52 05/25/03
Sun
All the Zionites were trying to do was run away with the Keymaker.
The Ghost Twins and the Agents gave chase and the humans had to
fight for their lives. Naturally, when you're fighting in and
on top of moving vehicles, accidents are going to occur and people
will be hurt. They could have avoided the deaths, but that would
require giving up, which would get them killed and put the Keymaker
back in the hands of the Mergovingian (who would keep him from
fulfilling the Matrix destroying prophecy) or the Agents (who
would most likely kill him before he could help in the prophecy).
Yes, it is sad that so many people died during the chase, but
the Zionites really didn't have much in the way of other options.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> extension of logic -- mamcu the expendable,
17:38:29 05/26/03 Mon
Naturally, when you're fighting in and on top of moving vehicles,
accidents are going to occur and people will be hurt.
But that's the argument. Is it really OK to say,well, these people
weren't really people, they were just things that happened to
be around while we were having our grand shoot-out? Probably not,
from the bystanders' POV. And I think that's the thing that's
so hard to keep in mind. Yes, the whole plot sequence can be argued--but
you notice, again, that Joss took care of that problem in Chosen
by having the city evacuated. So what I'm saying is that the "collateral
damage" is not inevitable if you're writing a screenplay.
The only reason to let it happen is to signal that some people
are expendable. And that's a statement of the values of that world.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Or perhaps you just enjoy writing mass destruction
and death -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:11:20 05/26/03 Mon
Frankly, if there weren't lots of innocent bystanders around,
the chase sequence wouldn't have been nearly as cool as it was.
Without all them around, we wouldn't have gotten the Agent crushing
that moving car he jumped onto, or the people morphing into Agents,
or the vehicle hopping, or dodging between cars. I guess the difference
is that you see this as "Reloaded" making a statement
about people/society, while I see it more as a cliche of action
movies (for example, in "Die Hard", do we ever get to
see the girlfriends and/or wives of the thieves worrying about
them or grieving? No, because part of the enjoyment of the movie
is that these villains are unsympathetic bastards. Likewise, the
enjoyment of "Reloaded" would be lessened if the writers
took measures to assure innocent bystanders weren't hurt, as the
action sequences would be less large and cool).
[> [> [> [> I haven't
yet viewed the new Matrix movie. I would have appreciated spoiler
labeling here. -- Robert, 10:13:21 05/27/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh. OK, very, VERY sorry. Won't happen again. -- Finn Mac
Cool, 14:15:23 05/27/03 Tue
We make so many references to other TV shows, movies, or books
on this forum that it can be easy to forget that those count as
spoilers as well.
Again, very sorry.
[> An excellent post
-- Tchaikovsky, 03:26:35 05/25/03 Sun
[> Yes, an excellent post
(Spoilers for all aired S7 eps to Chosen) -- Rahael, 05:25:43
05/25/03 Sun
More to say later, but I just wanted to say that the themes you
identified were an essential and complementary part of BtVS' theme
of Otherness in general. And it's been there from the beginning.
There are many different kinds of otherness, but Buffy and her
friends have always shown that otherness can only be transmuted
into specialness if one keeps on caring about the society that
might have rejected you.
The highest point of this, I think comes when Jonathan says it
doesn't matter if people still reject him. He'll still care about
their safety.
But it's there in Earshot, where Buffy shows Jonathan that he's
not the only one in pain.
And finally, by sharing the power in Chosen (a plot development
which delighted me from the moment I was spoiled for it, because
it affirmed my feelings about the power in the Slayer) Buffy shows
that Otherness does not mean one individual against society. It's
not about isolation. It's about taking the feelings of alienation
and pain, recognising that others share it, even the people who
reject you, learning to empathise and understand with your friends
and your enemies and learn to care more about other people
because of your feelings of otherness.
Because suffering does not ennoble. Because trauma and pain damages
people, it does not make them saints. I liked that Morrissey quote
from Sariel. Being kind takes guts. Having suffered but learning
to have 'lovingkindness' takes guts. It's a quality that I appreciate
more every single year.
[> [> Lovely -- KdS,
06:49:48 05/25/03 Sun
[> [> Re: Yes, an excellent
post (Spoilers for all aired S7 eps to Chosen) -- aliera,
10:57:32 05/25/03 Sun
Thanks, Rah. I think you got it exactly right.
[> [> Beautiful.
-- sassette, 20:15:52 05/25/03 Sun
Buffy and her friends have always shown that otherness can
only be transmuted into specialness if one keeps on caring about
the society that might have rejected you.
Beautiful insight.
[> Very true! Thanks
-- mamcu, 09:56:20 05/25/03 Sun
Not only in art and high culture, but also in higher education
we see this deliberate attempt to exclude masses of people. Having
come through the honors classes, the private liberal arts college,
and grad school I saw one side; teaching in a community college,
now I see so clearly the other side: how the "masses"
are systematically excluded by tests, tracking, etc. This is probably
a conscious ploy to some, unconscious to others. But the effect
is the same. Those who early on show promise are separated from
the others, given the best goodies in the system, and thus become
even more superior, etc.
Yet at the same time, it cuts two ways: driving to work last week
I was behind a car whose bumper sticker read "My kid beat
up your honor student." So there's a point at which being
elite ceases to be the inside and becomes the outside, and the
perps become the victims.
To some extent, I think this is what happens with the Trio: first
they are excluded, then they begin to compensate, and develop
ways to become superior (their gadgets etc. make them "Supermen");
then they re-define themselves as elite and everyone else as inferior.
It also reminds me of the Stockholm Syndrome (hostages beginning
to emulate their oppressors). They do to others what they imagine
has been done to them.
What I loved about ME's handling of the Trio is that it shows
how this process appears ridiculous on one level, but can quickly
become tragic (as with Hitler).
Buffy to a certain extent meets that same temptation in S7 as
she becomes Generalissimo Buffy, but rejects it when she allows
herself to be thrown out of the group and thus made a outsider
again. That leads to the great strategy: the empowerment of many
in the attempt to end the destructive divisions between the Chosen
and the un-chosen (or the Preterite, as Pynchon calls them in
Gravity's Rainbow).
[> Wow. Great ideas.
-- sassette, 20:12:53 05/25/03 Sun
I hadn't read the Salon article, but a friend told me about
it the other day. Something felt very wrong to me about it, like
they were missing something, and I think you totally hit on what
it was.
What ME have been talking about is the person who has every
qualification necessary to get into the in-group, but is left
out because of something to do with their personality or surface
cultural tastes.
That's a really great insight, and it makes a lot of sense. I
wonder if Tara is an exception, as an out lesbian (at least I
got the impression she was out from a pretty young age) who stutters?
And, if the reaction of the SG to her (particularly in "Family")
also says something about their role as "outsiders"?
Being socially or culturally out-of-the-mainstream doesn't
make you a bad person. But it doesn't, in itself, make you a good
person either.
Yes! I think this is the part that was missing for me. Okay, this
is particularly close to my heart because, as a grad student,
I am now living in a world in which social hierarchies from high
school are turned upside down. And, as one of the only people
I know who actually enjoyed high school, I'm at the bottom of
this new hierarchy :). But, leaving aside my own issues, that
is a really great point. There is nothing inherently noble in
the SG being different, just like the fact that William the Bloody
didn't fit into his society didn't make him a good man.
Okay, I'm very sleepy, so anything else I say would be babbling.
But, thanks for this!
[> agree--thanks for this,
kds! & some q's. -- anom, 23:48:17 05/25/03 Sun
It's easy to get self-righteous or defensive to the point of saying,
"I'm not inferior! You're the one who's inferior!"--which
of course accepts the premise that someone has to be inferior.
I've heard/read people affected by racism describe racists in
much the same terms racists use for what they consider inferior
races. It can get to the point where you're more the mirror image
than the opposite of your enemy.
"(I had not thought death had undone so many)"
Where is this from? If it was referenced in another post, I missed
it.
"I fervently believe in G K Chesterton's concept of spiritual
growth through the conscious attempt to empathise (not sympathise)
with the evil instead of treating them as inexplicable other."
This sounds fascinating (& difficult)! Is there a specific book
of Chesterton's you'd recommend on this concept?
"And next time you wax furious about what ought to be done
to people who read the Daily Mail or watch reality TV, have a
second thought."
Thanks. Can't be reminded too often about this.
[> [> Re: agree--thanks
for this, kds! & some q's. -- Rahael, 05:52:47 05/26/03
Mon
Absolutely, Anom re the mirror image. A slightly tangential point
is that its not just those who suffer racism who sometimes characterise
racists as inferior. It's done all the time. Because if racists
are some strange misbegotten breed, ugly in a way that normal
people aren't ugly, ignorant, uneducated, 'not us', then, we aren't
racists! Ordinary, normal, educated, good people can harbour no
such thoughts or feelings. Whereas in fact, everyone comes into
contact with prejudice. Everyone has unjust thoughts. And extending
this, all of us have unjust moments/thoughts to all sorts of people.
The thing is to face up to this - if one can't handle the fact
that everyone of us can be both unfair and wrong, then the other
person is always deserving of bad treatment, of prejudice (of
whatever kind). Because we are good and can never think wrong
things.
I come at this from a different way to a lot of people because
the first experiences of racism I had was not related to colour,
but to culturally designated (and entirely spurious) groupings.
The very first person I got to argue with was the grandmother
I loved so much. One minority oppressed by a larger majority.
And oppressed indeed, to the point where there were massacres
going on. And yet, that still did not justify what the oppressed
minority did next. Not only a mirror image, but a worse monster.
Sometimes I get westerners telling me that anyone who fought against
such an oppressive government should be supported. And my reply
would be: please, allow us a route that does not involve total
passivity, nor a kind of maniacal violence. Because both routes
involve us being dead.
And even my 'us' is circumscribed by the fact that I am not 'us',
and did not belong. I was half and half, my father belonging to
one group, my mother to another. And as an object lesson in what
prejudice and injustice towards another can do to yourself - my
father was imprisoned, tortured and hunted all his life by his
own community. My mother assassinated by her own.
The bottom line - do not fight prejudice because of noble sentiment
(or indeed, 'fashionable irritation'), if one is of a pragmatic
disposition, you'll fight it because one day, they'll come for
you.
And don't we all harbour things that don't 'belong'?
[> [> [> i agree,
rah -- anom, 21:59:44 05/26/03 Mon
Just didn't have time to get into that much detail. Although I'm
not sure everyone's prejudice reaches a degree that could be called
racism--or at least one that I would call racism.
"The bottom line - do not fight prejudice because of noble
sentiment (or indeed, 'fashionable irritation'), if one is of
a pragmatic disposition, you'll fight it because one day, they'll
come for you."
I'd rather fight it because it's wrong. But it can be hard to
distinguish that from fighting it out of supposedly high-minded
righteous indignation. Maybe the difference is not needing to
feel that you're perfect, or even that you're better, in order
to oppose what you believe is wrong.
[> [> [> [> Right
- and why I stick to milder forms of the word -- Rahael, 01:03:45
05/27/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> hmm,
rethinking -- Rahael, 01:16:43 05/27/03 Tue
You may be right in my overstating the case. I think I'm overly
influenced by what I saw in the past - perfectly mild prejudice
allowing people to stand by and justify horrors, and yet, never
in itself becoming more than mild prejudice.
Personal persectives sometimes do skew how you see an issue. I've
also been thinking that I take all this way too seriously!
[> [> [> [> [>
i don't think that's what i meant -- anom, 10:21:58
05/27/03 Tue
"You may be right in my overstating the case. I think I'm
overly influenced by what I saw in the past - perfectly mild prejudice
allowing people to stand by and justify horrors, and yet, never
in itself becoming more than mild prejudice."
I don't know if the prejudice is any milder because those people
aren't directly participating in the atrocities themselves. It
may be more a case of denial, as you described--"I'm not
prejudiced, I'm just on the side of the oppressed/the legitimate
gov't."--or a belief that the punishment should fit the crime,
or that violent overthrow is the only way to overcome the greater
power of an oppressive regime/violent repression is the only way
to suppress terrorism.
"Personal persectives sometimes do skew how you see an issue.
I've also been thinking that I take all this way too seriously!"
Well, you've seen how serious it can get. Maybe all of us should
take it as seriously as you do. In other words, you're not overstating
the case that you've experienced.
[> [> References
-- KdS, 06:09:33 05/26/03 Mon
"I had not thought death had undone so many" is a quotation
from the opening section of Eliot's The Waste Land, in
which the narrator of the poem watches City workers streaming
through the streets of London in the morning and sees them all
as dead.
The Chesterton thing - comes from the prologue and epilogue to
Chesterton's book of detective stories The Secret of Father
Brown, in which Chesterton uses his fictional detective Father
Brown as a mouthpiece to explain his reasons and justifications,
as a devout Christian, for writing crime stories. I hope that
I don't get reported for breach of copyright if I quote a condensed
version of the passage in question.
"[Brown discusses "scientific" criminology,
and dismisses it for studying the criminal as an Other who needs
rational and detached explanation] I don't try to get outside
the man. I try to get inside the murderer... [...] No man's really
any good till he knows how bad he is, or might be; till he's realized
exactly how much right he has to all this snobbery, and sneering,
and talking about criminals as if they were apes in a forest ten
thousand miles away; [...] till he's squeezed out of his soul
the last drop of the oil of the Pharisees; till his only hope
is somehow or other to have captured one criminal, and kept him
safe under his own hat.
[...]
There are two ways of renouncing the devil, and the difference
is perhaps the deepest chasm in modern religion. One is to have
a horror of him because he is so far off; and the other to have
it because he is so near. And no virtue and vice are so much divided
as those two virtues."
Chesterton claims, in this source, to have been inspired himself
by some writings of Pope Leo XIII, although I haven't followed
this up. I read that piece at a very impressionable age and still
enjoy it, and it strikes very close to what I like about ME's
work, and dislike about many other good vs evil stories. I think
I mentioned it before in an essay on Warren Meers which got lost
in the archiving, and some off-topic remarks about Patricia D
Cornwell (although that thread got a bit bad-tempered, and you
may not want to read it).
[> That was excellent KdS!
-- ponygirl, 08:08:59 05/26/03 Mon
Your essay could also be used as the best explanation of Buffy's
"superiority/inferiority complex" that I've seen. It
is a very hard line to walk in making aesthetic and even moral
judgements about society, yet trying not to extend those judgements
to include the people who hold differing opinions. As you and
Rahael point out, our empathy is the key to seeing ourselves as
somewhat outside society but not above or beneath it.
The Beginning
of Jasmine -- RadiusRS, 17:16:34 05/24/03 Sat
I was recently rewatching Angel season 2 and noticed something
kind of chilling. In the episode -The Trial, Human-but-DyingDarla
is sitting in the inner courtyard of the hotel, when Angel comes
up to her to tell her about The Trial. She is holding a flower
and says "Jasmine. Blooms by night. I know it well."
Jasmine mentioned that she had been following Angel since The
Trial with Darla, and probably had a hand in manipulating the
outcome to her advantage. Were this reference not in this episode
I would dismiss it, but the connection is undeniable, and makes
you wonder how far in advance these things are thought out (two
years ahead seems like a decent guess). In this scene, Angel tells
Darla that he will save her. Years later, Jasmine makes Angel
the same promise in the same place. It gives me chills I tell
you! Anyone else want to chip in with any similar sightings of
this foreshadowing?
An interesting and somewhat unrelated tidbit: I recently went
to see X2 at a movie theater in L.A. And right across the street
was Sony Pictures Studios. Their main building is the Wolfram
& Hart building in Angel! Any time you see the exterior of W & H,
it's that building. Though that might change as they probably
will need a new exterior where they will be able to shoot without
problems. A block away from this building was a street named Jasmine...weird
huh? Or maybe I'm just grasping at straws?
[> Re: The Beginning of
Jasmine -- Rook, 18:39:24 05/24/03 Sat
The same line is in IOHEFY, only spoken by Drusilla and Angel.
Drusilla: Wow! (walks through) Look. Jasmine. (holds a flower)
Angelus: Night blooming. (plays with some pruning shears)
Drusilla: Like us. Oh, Angel, it's fairyland. (turns in excitement)
Ooh!
[> [> Good point, but
the timing is eerie -- RadiusRS, 17:02:49 05/25/03 Sun
HMM...interesting...I guess it stands to reason that even though
Dru also said it, there's no connection here since Angel didn't
even HAVE a series then. I've pretty much watched all the episodes
since -The Trial and now, and I've got to say...I still think
there's a connection here. I have read that Amber Benson and Kristine
Sutherland knew their characters were going to die two years before
they did. SMG also said she knew about Dawn two years before she
was introduced, and the show references Dawn in the episode where
Buffy and Faith share the dream that gives Buffy the key to defeating
the Mayor. I think it stands to reason that, even if they didn't
know the exact details of who Jasmine was going to be, they still
had a name and an idea going. I think the mention in this episode
is too close to be coincidence (I don't believe in coincidence
anyway). Besides, only a few episodes later, Angel and Darla conceive
Jasmine's father (kind of as a result of Angel's conversation
with dead Holland Manners...hmmm), so the theory isn't THAT off.
[> [> [> Re: Good
point, but the timing is eerie -- Wasn't agreeing or disagreeing,
just giving the info, 18:29:04 05/25/03 Sun
[> Pretty sure this one
doesn't go back that far -- lunasea, 10:40:35 05/25/03
Sun
Just creatively using the backstory, as usual. Jasmine has both
the night blooming references with vampires and the connotation
of happiness. I think the name was chosen more for the flower's
connotation than how chick vampires have been thinking of it as
their own flower.
It is fun to think that things go back that far, and often they
do over on BtVS, but from interviews this seems to be something
they pulled out of a hat the beginning of this season (maybe even
to fix all the Cordy stuff).
Connor: do
we really want him back? -- Corwin of Amber, 19:29:32 05/24/03
Sat
This post was inspired by the "Bring Back Connor" banner
on the main page of ATPOBTVS...
Do we really want Connor to come back on Angel? Vincent K. is
a really impressive actor, and the character he portrayed made
for two seasons of angsty goodness on Angel...but I for one couldn't
stand another season of El Broodo. I love the show, but I think
it's gotten dark and angsty enough for me...no more, no more,
please!
[> Oh yes! -- Tyreseus,
20:05:10 05/24/03 Sat
I realize that Masq and I may occasionally be in the minority
on this one, but yes, I really do want Connor to come back.
For four seasons, the show has played on the concept of redemption
- angel's specifically, but others have had their own paths as
well (Faith, Wesley, Lindsey, Darla, etc.). And now we have a
new character who has seriously turned to the dark side - a character
so haunted and tormented and mistrustful that he has literally
killed innocent blood, his own daughter and more in his attempt
to find answers. And rather than finding redemption, his memory
and entire existence was altered and taken out of this world.
I just don't buy it. In Buffy, we can see all the characters as
mirrors to Buffy on some level. I think the same is true of Angel
- they're all mirrors of him on his quest. Connor represents both
Angel's past mistakes with his father and the future potential.
By removing Connor from his world, he denies his own failures
with family (another strong theme on the show) and despairs of
any hope for the future. Angel is trapped in 'the now' - which
may be a step forward from being trapped in the past - but symboliically,
he's not looking ahead.
I've been trying to craft many disparate thoughts on symbolism,
Connor and Angel into an essay - but I still haven't processed
the finale for AtS completely yet.
Angel has a problem with sweeping his problems under the rug.
He bottles his emotions and shuts himself off from his friends
and family (do I even need to present examples, he does this practically
every episode).
From "City of..."
Doyle looks into the refrigerator that holds two bags of blood:
"Because now Im going to tell you what happens next. You
see this vampire, he thinks hes helping. Fighting the demons.
Staying away from the humans so as not to be tempted. Doing penance
in his little - cell. But hes cut off. From every thing. From
the people hes trying to help."
Angel: "I still save em. Who cares if I dont stop to chat."
Doyle: "When was the last time you drank blood?"
Angel whispers: "Buffy."
Doyle: "Left you with a bit of a craving, didnt it? Let me
tell you something, pal, that craving is going to grow
and one day soon one of those helpless victims that you dont really
care about is going to look way too appetizing to turn down. And
youll figure hey! whats one against all Ive saved? Might as well
eat them. Im still
ahead by the numbers!"
Doyle came to Angel in episode 1 because Angel couldn't connect
to anyone else since Buffy. Angel's come a long way. But he's
nowhere near finished on that journey. And at the end on season
4, he keeps his secrets, keeps his own counsel, and has banished
all memory of his son from all his freinds because it was too
painful to continue dealing with.
Anyway, yes, I want Connor back. I want Angel to work through
these issues, not bottle them up and wlak away. I want angsty,
brooding, sneering Connor to call his dad out on the stupid sh*t
he does. I want lonely, dark, existential Connor playing devil's
advocate to plans, operating procedure and the very thought processes
of the Fang Gang. And I want virgin-murdering, mother-surrogate-bedding,
goddess-daughter-killing Connor to find his own path to redeption,
not any "easy fix" like a whole new identity and past.
Mistakes were made, the universe demands atonement.
[> [> agreed!!!!!!
-- WickedBufffy, 21:40:22 05/24/03 Sat
[> [> Oh My Yes!
-- Wizard, 22:45:04 05/24/03 Sat
It may just come from knowing ME for seven years, but Connor's
story is not done. If they leave it where it is, then he will
be a big question mark. He killed an innocent girl. He saved the
world. He was arguably the most essential person to AI ever since
pregnant!Darla showed up in the Hyperion (not so much for himself,
but for all the dominoes that his birth and life set to falling,
ex. the Wes/Lilah relationship). Now, the story is getting interesting,
because there is a young man out there who doesn't know who he
truly is, whose father took away what he gave to the world a day
earlier, who may be obliged to pay for his sins even though he
isn't that person anymore. This is what would be most interesting
to see- Connor regaining his memories, feeling guilt over the
things he did, even though he isn't that person anymore and *he*
never did those things- just like Angel feels guilt for Angelus.
[> [> [> Not real
sure.... -- The First Evil, 23:22:48 05/24/03 Sat
I'm kind of torn. On one hand it was good to see Connor happy
for probably the first time in his life. But I agree that if he
ever regains his memories that will traumatize the poor kid all
over again. He'll probably feel even more angry and embittered
toward Angel (if that's possible!) for having taken away his true
memories and replaced them with a lie, albeit a very fulfilling
lie. I think it would be interesting to see Connor work through
his issues and find redemption but at the same time it would be
sad to see Connor taken from the happy place he was in at the
end of Home and dumped back into the mess that was his former
life.
[> [> That is why Connor
had to be dealt with -- lunasea, 10:32:51 05/25/03 Sun
He is Angel's past and Angel's past is completely a lost cause.
If Connor was redeemable, like every other character, that would
mean that Angel could make up for his past. He can't, therefore
Connor can't be redeemable. There will be other vehicles for Angel's
development, including WKCS.
It would be great to think that everyone is redeemable, but it
just doesn't work that way IRL, so why should it on Angel? I thought
it took a lot for ME to have an irredeemable character. Sometimes
you just can't save everyone, as Connor tells Angel. It is a hard
decision and it is difficult to accept that we can't save everyone.
I thought it showed a tremendous amount of maturity that Angel
could accept that Connor was a lost cause. As he said about Fred
in "Magic Bullet" She gets to live until we find out
why she rejected Jasmine's love. There was a lot of foreshadowing
and explanation given for what Angel did. It wasn't a cop-out.
Angel's problem isn't that he doesn't deal with his past. It is
that he keeps exchanging one identity for another. He needs to
be unbaked cookie dough, rather than the Champion. It will take
him a while. He has a lot of Karma to work through.
[> [> [> Agree about
Connor -- Dariel, 12:09:27 05/25/03 Sun
Connor was lost to despair; redemption was no longer a possibility.
Redemption is about making the right choices for yourself, something
Connor was incapable of. IRL, we can lock people in prison, keep
them from hurting others, and maybe, just maybe they will change.
In Angel's world, Connor could not be contained like that--he
was too strong and too dangerous.
[> Screw Connor...I want
Cordy! -- Nino,
21:53:29 05/24/03 Sat
I concur...i was ecstatic to see the end of "Home" and
even more so when I saw Vinny K taken off the list of regulars...how
bout a "Bring Back Cordy!" campagin???
[> [> Re: Screw Connor...I
want Cordy! -- The First Evil, 23:32:59 05/24/03 Sat
Cordelia is with me...nourishing me with her lovely nightmares.
*evil grin*
Seriously, I hope to see more of Cordy next season too. Wonder
if she'll ask about Connor when she comes out of her coma? And
what's Angel gonna tell her?
[> [> [> Re: Screw
Connor...I want Cordy! -- Laura, 21:18:15 05/25/03 Sun
Keep in mind that Charisma has her baby right now and he comes
first. I doubt Joss and co. don't want her back but I think they
understand her priorities.
[> That link seems to be
broken now, incidentally -- KdS, 03:34:54 05/25/03 Sun
[> [> Just remove the
stuff after html (%0A). Then it works. -- pellenaka, 15:12:18
05/25/03 Sun
[> Re: Absolutely and...
-- aliera, 07:16:17 05/25/03 Sun
...perhaps more importantly, that story doesn't seem done.
[> I do (WKCS AtS season
5) -- lunasea, 09:58:19 05/25/03 Sun
Spike will take up the role of son and it will be a more adult
relationship, so Connor isn't needed for that any more.
However, a few cameos where Angel has to decide whether to offer
his son a job and the resultant conflict this brings him could
be interesting. I can see them being able to develop an actual
father-son relationship, now that Angel isn't his father. I can
just see a really sweet scene where Connor is at Wolfram and Hart
and calls his Dad to tell him all about his great boss and Angel
overhears it.
Then there is the purely evil part of me that wants Buffy's next
relationship to be with Connor. Oh, the possibilities there are
just too good to pass up.
[> [> Re: I do (WKCS
AtS season 5) -- Oil Can, 10:36:44 05/25/03 Sun
Quote Lunasea, "Then there is the purely evil part of me
that wants Buffy's next relationship to be with Connor. Oh, the
possibilities there are just too good to pass up."
I would prefer Conner to start dating Dawn. They now have similar
"backgrounds/foregrounds" so a story with them together
would be awesome.
[> A question about the
spell -- Dariel, 12:17:56 05/25/03 Sun
I wasn't clear about the nature of the spell from watching Home:
Was Connor's whole existence a do-over, or just his memory? If
it's the former, then I think Angel made the right choice, and
that Connor owes no debt in terms of redemption. His evil deeds,
in this case, never took place. If the spell only created new
memories for him and his "family," then perhaps he is
culpable for his crimes. I think ME would then have to deal with
it in some way and bring VK back, at least for awhile.
[> He should stay gone,
he sucked -- 110v3w1110w, 14:50:02 05/25/03 Sun
[> Absolutely! -- Rob,
21:26:49 05/25/03 Sun
[> CONNOR WHO? -- Wes,
Fred, Gunn and Lorne, 16:48:21 05/26/03 Mon
how much did
they earn?? -- ANDREA,
20:00:43 05/24/03 Sat
does any of you know how much did the scoobies earn per episode?
[> Re: how much did they
earn?? -- Sofdog, 23:15:47 05/24/03 Sat
I don't know about the rest but EW did an article circa '99 that
mentioned SMG was renegotiating for $75K an ep since the show
was a hit. (It was season 2.)
[> Re: how much did they
earn?? -- jnk, 18:05:05 05/25/03 Sun
According to imdb.com, AH made $250,000 an ep; NB $300,000; and
SMG $350,000. There was no data for JM or ASH.
[> [> Ummmmmmm, NO!
-- Dochawk, 11:30:23 05/26/03 Mon
Being posted on imdb just means that someone posted it. There
are no fact checkers on imdb and on the face of it these are false.
First, AH makes more than NB, thats why she is at the end of the
credits. Secondly, ME would be bankrupt if they really paid these
salaries. Assuming ASH was in 1/2 the episodes (he made the most
of the nonSMGers) thats over 1 million dollars just in salaries
of the big 4. JM would be making close to what NB makes and MT
and EC would be making at least 1/2. That leaves essentially no
money for writers, production people, directors, production values
(sets cost money), ME (you think Nick makes more than Joss?).
I can buy SMGs salary (the above would be 7 million a season),
it fits in an appropriate range, though I actually would guess
a little higher. Aly would be next, but no where near that figure,
maybe $125,000 or so, thats 3 million a season, folks
Does anyone
know if Christophe Beck scored 'Chosen'? -- HonorH, 22:34:11
05/24/03 Sat
Because it sure sounded like his work. The music was beautiful.
[> Re: Does anyone know
if Christophe Beck scored 'Chosen'? -- aliera, 07:50:38
05/25/03 Sun
Robert Duncan I believe. He's also did the finale last year, Beneath,
and CWDP...?
More....
discussion
thread on 7.22 music
get
out of my face mp3
robert's website he'll
be posting season seven stuff eventually.
For those
who wonder what a Rufus looks like..........link inside --
Rufus, 03:06:16 05/25/03 Sun
A friend of mine had to share this little article he found at
theonion.com.......
All
About Rufus
Dept. of Homeland Security Deputizes a Real Mean Dog
WASHINGTON, DC-Unveiling its newest weapon in the fight against
terrorism Monday, the Department of Homeland Security announced
the deputization of Rufus, a big ol' mongrel ornery enough to
make Al Qaeda think twice about carrying out an attack against
the U.S.
"Rufus here has one wild hair up his ass 'bout most everything,"
said Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, as he introduced the
dog, a Rottweiler-pitbull-Doberman mix, to the White House press
corps. "But I got a feelin' Rufus has a 'specially wild hair
to fetch him up some of them Ay-rab terrorist types."
"Don't you, boy?" added Ridge, yanking hard on Rufus'
choke chain as the dog barked and jumped to nip at his face. "Huh?
I said don't you, boy? Hell, yeah!"
Attorney General John Ashcroft applauded the announcement, praising
Rufus for his commitment to fighting terror, as well as for his
unswerving loyalty to Ridge.
"No one can touch Rufus 'ceptin' Tom," Ashcroft said.
"He plumb loves Tom. And he don't always growl at me no more
since I done okayed his appointment and give him scraps of my
beef jerky. But I sure as hell ain't goin' to try and pet him,
on account of I need that hand to wipe my ass."
The primary role of Rufus-previously employed by a Georgetown-area
Gas 'N' Go to intimidate drunken late-night patrons and would-be
shoplifters-will be one of deterrence. Beginning June 1, the dog
will be deployed to various U.S. bridges, national monuments,
and other potential terror targets, where he will be chained to
a pair of cinderblocks and instructed to bark, growl, and leap
at potential terrorists-defined as individuals who come too close,
make eye contact with him, or just don't smell right.
"The hijacker ain't been born that won't load up his overalls
when ol' Rufus here up an' come at him," Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld said. "And if'n they don't run, well, they
gonna be explainin' to the Muslim St. Peter why they's got a hole
in 'em big enough to throw an angry cat through."
"That ol' dog's so mean, he ain't done nothin' but eat nails
and shit nickels ever since he was born," added Ridge, holding
back Rufus as the animal lunged at the throat of CNN commentator
and former Clinton press secretary Paul Begala. "Lookit him
go! Ain't he a caution? Two hunnert pounds a mean in a 80-pound
bag, I swear."
Rufus' appointment has caused a considerable stir on Capitol Hill.
"That thing almost bit my fingers clean off," said U.S.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who required rabies shots after offering
Rufus one of his barbecued ribs in a gesture of bipartisan friendship.
"It oughta be destroyed right quick-like. Or given overseas
duty. This here's a civilized country."
Ridge, peering from beneath the bill of a "War On Terrorism"
mesh trucker's cap, dismissed the complaint as "typical liberal
hand-wringing."
"What, I ask you, do you expect?" Ridge said. "I
trained Rufus up mean for deputyin' and catchin' the enemy. Done
it right, by havin' a Secret Service boy rassle him up dressed
in the sweaty old clothes of Guantanamo Bay prisoners every time
I fed him. Which weren't any too often-we gotta keep him mad and
hungry. Ain't my fault some Demmycrat sweat might smell just like
the Taliban kind to Rufus."
Rufus is widely regarded as the meanest dog employed by the State
Department since Bocephalus, a hard-on of a coon hound who was,
by all accounts, crazier than possum fuck. Bocephalus made worldwide
headlines in October 1979 when he attempted to tree the Ayatollah.
[> LOL! -- AurraSing,
07:31:19 05/25/03 Sun
All bite and no bark makes Rufus one mean son-of-a-gun!
I knew a RCMP police dog a long time ago that was a lot like the
'Rufus' of the article.His mom bit off part of his ear when he
was a pup (aiming for the whole head-trying to save the world
from him?) and he was a nasty,nasty dog by 6 months of age.Went
through training and got a rep real early for biting anything
that moved-including a couple of fellow officers!
They claimed he would go out of his way to bite an old lady crossing
the street if he suspected her of jaywalking....
[> [> Re: LOL! --
Rufus, 00:47:39 05/26/03 Mon
His mom bit off part of his ear
Holy Crap....aren't you glad that I don't bite....plus the real
Rufus is not nearly so violent, just don't touch her or get too
near her....she tends to be moody (not me the real Rufus).
[> ::hastily recaricaturizing
Rufus in my head:: -- WickedBuffy, 10:41:11 05/25/03 Sun
[> heehee! i read that article
yesterday... -- anom, 11:16:08 05/25/03 Sun
...& never once made the connection between the dog's name & your
posting name, Rufus. I guess the idea of you as a cat is so entrenched
in my mind that it just wouldn't occur to me!
[> [> Re: heehee! i read
that article yesterday... -- Rufus, 00:50:12 05/26/03 Mon
I guess my friend ignored the dog part and may have been commenting
on my temperment.....though I just can't see what's wrong with
mine at all....plus it was a cute doggie.
[> 'Here kitty kitty...
mmmm... they're better than chocolate!' -- cougar, 18:16:51
05/25/03 Sun
[> [> I'll try to pretend
I didn't see that......;):):):):):):) -- Rufus, 00:48:51
05/26/03 Mon
The First
and balance of light and dark SPOLIERS for 7.22 'Chosen' --
cjc36, 07:45:32 05/25/03 Sun
Someone on another post questioned whether activating the potentials
would have dire consequences later on....Did Buffy alter the balance
of good/evil by changing the One Slayer at a time rule.
I think The First did things, uh, first (no pun intended). By
deciding to abandon the previous relationship with "good"
(whether good lives in another principality or just in the hearts
of humans is beyond the scope of this tiny little missive). The
First swung the balance by seizing on the problem with the Slayer
line (I assume this is the existence of two Slayers at the same
time). The price, one could argue, of activating all Potentials
to full Slayer status has already been paid by the creation of
all those Jacksonesque Turok Hans.
Discussion humbly requested.
[> Consequences, though
not necessarily dire (spoilers Chosen) -- lunasea, 09:26:34
05/25/03 Sun
When Willow tries to explain things in "Afterlife" she
says "Think of it like, the world doesn't like you getting
something for free, and we asked for this huge gift. Buffy. A-and
so the world said, 'fine, but if you have that, you have to take
this too.' And it made the demon."
That is not saying that for every good action a bad one has to
happen or vice versa. It is saying that for everything there are
consequences, results. It doesn't mean those consequences are
bad. They are just logical.
What is the logical consequence to an army of Slayers? No more
demons. The Scythe is the important part in this. I was thinking
about what Buffy gave to the girls of the world. If it was the
same things that drove her, that isn't really that nice a gift.
There are things that go with the demon essence that I wouldn't
wish on anyone, including the need to hunt. The Shadow men made
one Slayer by infusing her with demon essence. That is what makes
Faith and Buffy. That spirit will probably go from girl to girl
all the way down to Fray. That is why there is only one Slayer
when we get to that point.
But the girls of the world received something different. They
got the power of the Slayer from the Scythe, what the Guardians
put there to protect her, not the demonic side-effects the Shadowmen
forced on the First Slayer. It is a one-shot thing, used to start
the pendulum in the opposite direction. The Scythe was used to
kill the last demon that walked the earth. After this, Man became
complacent and the demons came back. "Chosen" represents
the apex of evil. One more millimeter and there is no Man.
As Angel tells Doyle in "Heroes" "You never know
your strength until you're tested." Buffy was tested by the
First and she rose to the occassion. She pushed the pendulum in
the other direction.
The consequence lies in the perpetuation of the cycle. It isn't
a one shot thing with army of Ubervamps being paid for by army
of Slayers, like "Afterlife" or "Superstar."
The army of Slayers will clean the earth of demons (I hope that
this involves collaboration with Angel and Riley and happens on
the big screen). There will be some major pushes as evil becomes
desparate. We still have the prophecies of the Scroll of Aberjian.
However, eventually the earth will be cleansed. This will lead
to complacency and eventually the world of Fray.
Where Fray finds the Scythe and starts the pendulum going back
in the other direction, the Scythe that killed the last demon
in the first cycle and started the second one by enpowering the
girls of the world.
[> [> This is my impression
on the situation -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:53:11 05/25/03 Sun
I believe that, in understanding "Chosen", it is necessary
to look back to "Potential".
BUFFY
You're right. You don't have slayer strength. But that doesn't
mean that you're not strong. You have inherent abilities that
others do not have.
MOLLY
(taking notes on a pad) Not like you do.
BUFFY
No, not yet, but it's there. You have the potential. You have
strength, speed, instinct. You just have to learn to trust yourself.
This is key to understanding the events of "Chosen".
"Potential" implies, at least to me, that there isn't
one Slayer essence. There isn't some mystical power that leaves
a Slayer at death to enter another. The Slayer spirit is inside
every potential slayer, it's just that they're not able to fully
use it. Yes, they aren't full fledged Slayers, but the Slayer
spirit is inside of them, even if the amount of strength it lends
is negligible compared to what it gives Faith or Buffy. This is
what differentiates what the Shadowmen did from what Buffy did.
The Shadowmen called up the shadowy presence that, when it penetrated
a girl, gave her the essence of the Slayer, and, through some
means or another, this essence got passed down, so that it lived
within many girls. However, due to the nature of the Shadowmen's
magic, only one girl at a time was able to use the power of the
Slayer; in the rest, the power was suppressed to a more human
level. This led to the existence of potential slayers.
What Buffy did was different. The Shadowmen were the ones who
put the Slayer essence into one girl, who passed it on to legions
of others. What the Scythe spell did was cause a worldwide Calling.
The power that lay dormant in these girls was brought out. The
Shadowmen gave the power in the first place, but it was Buffy
and Willow who showed these girls all over the world that they
had the power, that, deep within, they are Slayers. After all,
what use is power if you don't know how to use it or even that
you have it at all?
[> [> [> Here's a
radically different take on the origin of slayer powers....
-- WickedBuffy, 12:42:35 05/25/03 Sun
though I'm not sure where the writer came up with the information.
In this case, Buffy would have been restoring the slayer
powers back to their original accessibility. It casts a different
light on Shadowmen - and power - and also leaves a historical
place wide open for the Guardians to step in as the original creators
of the powers.
From CHUD.com
"Sharing! What a bizarre concept in this day and age. And
what a female concept. That was another aspect of the empowerment
at the end of the show - Buffy learned that the Watcher's Council
was the modern descendants not of the men who created the Slayer,
as she had always thought, but of the men who had chained her.
Back at the dawn of time, when homo sapiens had just quit hitting
the snooze button on the alarm clock of evolution, the power of
the Slayer was an open and free one, not limited to one girl per
generation. But the Shadowmen, those mysterious shamans, limited
the power to one girl at a time. These men couldn't let a force
like that go unchecked. They had to control it. (By the way, it
was no accident that in the second to last episode the last of
the pre-Slayer women was killed by Caleb. We had the ultimate
example of patriarchal monotheistic masculinity killing the last
of the matriarchal pagan earth mothers.)"
by Devin Faraci, CHUD.com
chud.com/news/may03/may22buffy.php3
[> [> [> I see it
a bit different (spoiler Chosen) -- lunasea, 14:06:19 05/25/03
Sun
It is more than a matter of just realizing you have it. All the
Potentials know they have something and they aren't quite Slayers.
The girls in the montage felt something, a change. It has to be
awoken. Even if they aren't aware, they felt it.
The Shadowmen didn't create potential. It is either something
girls are born with or something that develops from being picked
on and/or being afraid or sad. It would be interesting if ME ever
explored why girls were called or had potential. What the Shadowmen
did was take one girl that already had potential and tap into
that with the essence of a demon. That didn't maximize her full
potential, just in certain areas. The Slayer is only Manus.
The Guardians rose to counter this. They tried to nurture other
aspects of the Slayer's potential. The Shadowmen awoken Manus
with the spirit of the Slayer. The Guardian's Scythe was designed
not just to be a weapon, but to maximize the other parts of the
Slayer. When regular people hold it, they get nothing. When Faith
and Buffy do, it is powerful and they feel it is theirs. They
are feeling their own potential (which is theirs), potential that
the Slayer Spirit doesn't bother with. It isn't just Spike's speech
in "Touched" that changes Buffy. It is the Scythe itself.
What happened in "Chosen" was this Scythe was used to
awaken that potential in all the girls that have it. It wasn't
just what the Slayer spirit gives to the Slayers, but something
that isn't rooted in darkness. The Shadowmen were able to tap
into the potential of the First Slayer, but they did this through
darkness. This had other effects for both Buffy and Faith, things
that can still be explored. This spirit will still get passed
down and eventually will reside in Fray.
The Slayer is refered to as the Chosen One. The slayer spirit
is what does the choosing. It is attracted to girls that have
this potential. If the First kills all the Potentials, when Faith
is killed, the spirit will have no where to go. The Slayer line
will be kaput.
The mass calling is a one shot deal. In order for other girls'
potential to be awoken, another spell would have to be done. This
isn't automatic, like it is with the Slayer spirit.
The girls are called Slayers because they have had their potential
awoken. They don't really have the spirit of the Slayer, meaning
the demon essence. Instead they have the spirit of the Slayer,
spirit like school spirit.
[> [> [> [> Reply
-- Finn Mac Cool, 16:23:42 05/25/03 Sun
First, I meant the "realize they have the power" thing
as a metaphorical interpretation. On a literal basis, the Slayer
essence inside each potential was awakened and made accessible
to them. On a metaphorical level, it's people/women realizing
that they have the power to fight back and succeed.
Second, so, if the Shadowmen's magic opens up the "Manos"
aspect of the Slayer, what exactly is the supposedly extra stuff
the Guardians/Scythe magic try to set free?
[> [> [> [> [>
We saw Buffy in 'Becoming' -- lunasea, 17:57:05 05/25/03
Sun
When we saw Buffy Called, she was already Chosen. Did she look
remotely like any of the girls that we saw awaken? The girl abused
on the floor and the girl at home plate exuded one thing mainly
after they were awoken, confidence. We saw the same thing with
all the frightened Potentials in the Hellmouth.
That was one thing that Buffy had to earn (for lack of a better
word). It wasn't awoken by the demon essence of the Slayer spirit.
It was what Buffy herself was lacking this whole season, a real
belief that she would win. The Guardians awoke the Potentials'
belief in herself.
The Shadowmen weren't concerned about the Slayer as a person.
They probably didn't even see her as a person. She was the vessel
for the demon essence. They didn't care how she felt. They just
wanted her to hunt. The Guardians and their Scythe gave the Slayer
what she needed to stay a person.
That confidence translates to more than Manos. It is also heart,
mind and spirit. Buffy pulls from love because it is bright and
she doesn't think she can handle it. If she thinks she can, she
won't pull from it. Buffy is convinced she isn't smart. When she
gets over this, she is able to come up with creative solutions.
She was worried her spirit was too weak and wanted someone to
give her something to sing about. When she got over this, she
found everything to sing about.
Confidence. It is the one thing that holds everyone back. It doesn't
come with being Slayer, but the Guardians helped her by infusing
the Scythe with it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> It depends how long it takes between Chooding and being
approached by the Watcher -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:12:24 05/25/03
Sun
I don't think the sudden confidence we saw was a permanent thing,
but a sudden perk at the transformation. Assuming Buffy's Watcher
didn't get to her until at least the next day, or even the next
week, the effect of becoming the Slayer may very well have worn
off. You seem to be assuming the confidence is a permanent effect,
which I don't think there's enough evidence to support.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> You're assuming it isn't though -- lunasea,
11:40:21 05/26/03 Mon
Even Faith seems to be affected by it. Faith is second guessing
herself in "Touched." She seems to be more able to share
her feelings than she ever has before when we get to "End
of Days."
I would think that when Joss empowers the females of the world,
this confidence is a permanent thing.
I also got the impression that it took Buffy's Watcher a while
to locate her. Your idea is compatible with canon, but it is also
an assumption. Not saying what I said is THE answer. It is just
how I see things, including the role of the Guardian.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> What is included in the 'empowerment' package
the Slayers get. -- WickedWondering re: the 'confidence' thing.,
14:02:46 05/26/03 Mon
Is it all physical - and the emotional and psychological follows?
Or can more intangible boosts be given, or even created, if not
there already.
Is everyone boosted to the same amount of empowerment? or is it
the same specific amount given across the board to slayers and
so the natural abilities they had pre-empowerment would be what
makes them a little more stronger, or confident right from the
start.
[> [> Re: Consequences,
perhaps missed ones (spoilers Chosen) -- BMF,
19:51:49 05/25/03 Sun
I'm not so sure that the transformation effected via the Scythe
was a one shot thing. I'm sure that Buffy said, as she described
her plan, that "from now on" any girl born with Slayer
potential would be a Slayer. In other words, there would no longer
be potentials, per se, just Slayers who don't know that they are
Slayers yet because no one told them. Maybe I heard this incorrectly
(I didn't record "Chosen" so I can't check), but if
that's what was said then the whole lineage and sucession system
has been completely altered.
[> [> Mutli-Slayer consequences
-- Stephen (spoilers for Chosen and maybe Fray), 21:42:34 05/25/03
Sun
An idea I recently had regarding the mass-Slayer activation's
consequences are maybe, for each prematurely-activated Slayer,
there would be an indeterminite amount of time without one. Which
is why there are no Slayers until Melaka Fray's time.
to use a bad example that'll get the point accross, It's kind
of like using a lot of power in a generator at once. Use a tiny
bit at a time (or have one Slayer at a time) and you'll have no
real problems. But use a lot of power at once, and the generator
will lose a lot of its power and need to recharge. So the Slayer
generator might need time to recharge itself after activating/powering-up
so many Potentials at one time, as opposed to just one or two
at a time. So a few centuries go by Slayerless because the generator
needs to reach full power.
Did that make any sense?
[> [> [> Spoilers
above for Chosen and possibly Fray -- Stephen, 21:58:10
05/25/03 Sun
I accidentally forgot to put the Spoiler warning in the title
and got it in my name instead. I just thought I should mention
it like this just in case it got missed because of that.
[> [> [> In that case,
the real question would be ... -- Liz, 16:29:48 05/26/03
Mon
How long does the effect last?
I'm somewhat at a loss here, as I've followed neither Fray nor
AtS, but would there be any idea as to when the Slayer-less period
would begin?
And could it in fact begin in the middle of a slayer's lifetime
-- i.e. could she actually lose her power due to the magic (or
what have you) being depleated?
- Liz
[> [> [> [> Re:
In that case, the real question would be ... -- Stephen, 23:05:14
05/26/03 Mon
Well, in that case, the Slayer-less period would begin the instant
the final current Slayer died.
[> [> What if the Multi-Slayer
Calling *is* the Consequence? (Spoilers) -- Sofdog, 22:50:11
05/25/03 Sun
What if the mass-activation is the consequence of the First Evil's
attempt to tip the scales? Who said that only the heroes have
to pay?
Also, no one said that the mass-activation was limited to those
Potentials currently living. I interpret "from now on, every
girl who could be a Slayer" to apply to everyone going forward.
So every newborn Potential is really an empowered Slayer. It would
be much easier to deal with such power if you always had it.
The final disposition of "Chosen" leads me to assume
that the Slayer who removes all magicks in "Fray" (if
that story is true, which the comic plausibly implies it may not
be) is someone else in the 21st Century. It's only 2003.
And then there's the question of who the current Slayers are.
This implies that not only are little girls and teens activated,
but grown women of all ages as well. That has interesting implications
for the world, the initiation of mature individuals.
[> Why is the balance so
important, anyway? -- sassette, 19:58:17 05/25/03 Sun
Really interesting idea about the FE already upsetting the balance,
in a way that justifies what Buffy and Willow did.
I've never really gotten why the balance was so important. All
it seemed to do was lead to apocalypse after apocalypse being
narrowly averted. Personally, I think the whole "balance
between good and evil" thing was mainly a ploy to keep the
people in power in power. After all, if evil is conquered (or
even vastly outnumbered) the CoW are out of a job. They need the
evil to keep on coming so they'll have prophecies to avert.
I think there's a beauty in Buffy and Willow saying, "Screw
the balance. The balance has gotten us nowhere. What the world
really needs is more good." And then they gave the world
more good, and made the forces for good more powerful than the
forces for evil.
It seems to me that the balance wasn't working. Maybe it's just
because I tend to see the balance between good and evil like a
two-party government, with one party having 48 seats in the Senate
and the other 52, and nothing every really changing, because what
really concerns both parties is keeping power concentrated in
the hands of a very few. So, to me, Buffy and Willow were like
a third party coming in and overturning the entire system. It
seems to me that the balance has to be upset for any real change
to be made.
But I'm really tired right now and haven't given this much thought.
I've just always thought the talk of "the balance" was
about as reliable as the idea that vampires are totally different
creatures than the humans they were before, or that Slayers fight
best without their friends and family.
[> [> TOTALLY AGREE!!!!
(Spoilers for 'Home') -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:58:59 05/25/03
Sun
The thing I've never understood is the assumption some people
have that balance between good and evil is a desirable thing,
and that, if either side gets too powerful, the world will become
a place not worth living in. I mean, saying balance is desirable
is basically another way of saying balance is good. By this definition,
good is support of the balance, which means, when good and evil
are balanced, good is actually winning, which makes things out
of balance. See the paradox? It reminds me of an idea I had for
a fanfic once where Whistler, still working on his mission to
"even the score between good and evil", tries to create
a powerful new adversary for Buffy, in order to balance out the
increased amount of heroic Champions in the world.
Plus, it hardly bodes well for balance when W&H (kings of corruption)
told Lorne that balance was very, very important. Do you honestly
think they'd support a philosophy that was worth living by?
[> [> Balance? What balance?
-- Darby, 09:34:05 05/26/03 Mon
We've spent over 6 years being shown that the Buffyverse is full
of greys. Not all Demons are Evil, and not all of these Slayers
will be Good. This hasn't necessarily upset the balance, but it
sure will have shifted the secrecy factor of this Shadow World
Buffy used to deal with that everyone else ignored.
So eventually, maybe we'll have hero demons dealing with rogue
Slayers (in Angel & Faith, we already have a preview). Please,
Mr. Predatory-but-Conflicted Vampire, save us from this evil girl,
and we'll give you lots of blood!
The thing about this sort of Balance is that it has a life of
its own.
[> [> Sort of like drug
companies treating symptoms, but hiding the cure.... -- cjc36,
06:05:43 05/27/03 Tue
That way, there's always enough sick people around to keep the
money coming in.
But onto balance. I suppose I have my Judeo-Christian upbringing
to thank for this, but I have an innate sense that good and evil,
in their eternal struggle, end up achieving a sort of equilibrium.
And the pre-established rules of the Slayer mythos: One Girl,
etc, I took it to mean that whatever Principalities exists (PTBs,
etc), they intended, or went along with the single-ness of the
Slayer calling. Sure, GOOD can always have a champion in the form
of a Slayer, and this force will be forever renewable, but there
can be only ONE at a time.
Take this, mortal world, it's all you're getting. Before S7 I
thought that to want more Slayers would probably be akin to wishing
for three more wishes. A Bad Thing in the Good/Evil balance dept.
Why did I think this? Because, until Kendra/Faith, there had always
been only one. Had to be a darn sensible reason for this or GOOD
(or BAD's other half merely playing the opposing side) would have
made Slayer armies before.
From "Chosen" it is now known that this limitation was
placed upon the "Slayer-line" by the men who created
the first Slayer. No Principalities involved, as far as we know.
But the First, in the form of Cassie, stated he/she was tired
of 'balancing the scales,' or something related. So that got me
thinking that BAD - in the form of The First - decided to make
a run for the castle, if you will, by attempting to end the Slayer
line and taking over the mortal plane of existence. Perhaps The
1st realized that, since Buffy and Faith existed at the same time,
one could replicate Slayers, make an army, and run the castle
themselves. Maybe the First was doing a GWB, with Buffy playing
the role of Saddam, the WMD the Scythe. But enough geopol.
To end this ramble, I guess I need to reset my filled-in mythos
with what has now transpired. In my head the Slayer still comes
from GOOD, the WC a fuddy-duddy bureaucracy but not really a symbol
of patriarchal repression of the female. Now I realize things
as Joss intended. It'll take me a while to let it sink in.
There oughta be a play (Chosen and WKCS AtS
season 5) -- lunasea, 08:38:36 05/25/03 Sun
I've been thinking a lot of what they are going to do with Spike.
What form he comes back as and what he does are pretty much irrelevant.
What is interesting to me is how they will use Spike appearance
on Angel to both further Angel's story and to give him one of
his own.
What they did with both of them on "Chosen" was perfect,
but to keep resorting to this will reduce Spike to just comic
relief. He is great at that, but I don't think they will invalidate
his noble sacrifice this way. They both have to go forward and
find a way to relate to each other that has nothing to do with
Buffy. The underlying snark will remain, much like it often does
in adult child-parent relationships that were once so volitile.
It is something they haven't really addressed on the shows, what
happens when the rebellious teen grows up and reconnects with
Dad. We aren't talking the Prodigal son, where the son was totally
in the wrong. Both parties have made mistakes. In many ways, Angel
did become his father. We saw him try very hard not to with Connor.
We saw what a "good" father Angelus was with Penn in
"Somnambulist." We also saw how Spike pushed Angelus'
buttons in season 2 and in FFL and how Angelus reacted to this.
Spike thinks of Angelus as his sire, his father, but I don't think
that Angelus ever approved of him as such.
Spike and Angelus just rubbed each other wrong. It can be seen
as a father-in-law/son-in-law relationship because of Dru or it
can be the disappointing son. With Angel's back story, the second
would be much more interesting for both characters. With what
Spike just did, can Angel find the words to express approval for
Spike even though as a person they just don't mesh? There are
so many levels to this: Angel was supposed to be the one that
wore the amulet, Angel still doesn't like Spike as a person, has
Spike ever interacted with Angel without insulting him, can Spike
admit that he wants Angel's approval, the Buffy factor, just off
the top of my head.
With the corruption angle next season this could get interesting.
Spike was able to be "good" because of Buffy. He really
isn't one to follow his own moral compass. How will this play
out without Buffy around? Will Angel try to keep Spike from going
over to the dark side? Will Angel be able to let Spike make his
own mistakes, or will he play the over-protective dad? How will
Spike react to this? Could Spike be the one that keeps Angel from
selling out?
Moving these two to an adult son and father relationship could
be very interesting. Angel lost one son this year. He still has
issues to work out. He unconditionally loved Connor. Since souled,
he hasn't been able to show any of his children the approval he
wanted so badly from his own father.
I don't want to see them as enemies. Been there done that. I don't
want to see them as buddies or brothers. That is what Angel and
Wesley are. I have faith that ME will use Spike to explore something
we haven't gotten to yet that won't invalidate the sacrifices
and growth that either character has made.
[> from your lips to ME's
ears -- gillie, 10:42:19 05/25/03 Sun
i am still not terribly keen on having to
watch "angel" just to find out what happens
next, but the themes and dynamics you just
spelled out would definitely be worth
watching for.
[> Completely with you.
-- HonorH, 11:35:51 05/25/03 Sun
I've written Spike and Angel myself, and I've always found it
fascinating to delve into the dynamic between them. I've always
seen them as having a sort of father-son relationship. Spike called
Angel "my Sire, my Yoda" in "School Hard".
I'd like to see that explored.
Certainly, they'll be prickly around each other. After all, they
competed from Day 1 for Dru and for the position of Alpha Male.
Angel has always won. He's won every fair fight he and Spike have
ever had (and fortunately for Spike, he rarely fights fair), and
as good as Spike is at verbal warfare? Angel is better. We've
seen him goad Spike into attacking him three times (WML part 2,
Lover's Walk, In the Dark). Then there's the Buffy issue, which
is even more emotionally-charged and complex. Prickly is fun,
and I expect they'll provide great entertainment as they butt
heads and act somewhat less than their great ages.
But I also want to see some of their underlying emotions--Angel's
regret about Drusilla, which no doubt extends to Spike, Spike's
grudging respect for Angel, and hopefully, Angel's pride that
Spike was finally able to redeem his vampire existence.
I'm now going to indulge in the height of bad taste and quote
myself, from "Ties that Bind". Angel and Spike have
just fought, and Spike let slip just how guilty he feels about
Buffy's death in "The Gift":
"Angelís eyes were clear, full of naked emotion, as
was his voice. For the first time, there were no barriers between
the vampires. For the first time, Spike knew exactly what Angel
felt, and knew Angel knew what he felt. And he knew Angel felt
for him. It was as if Spike could touch the intangible bond that
could never be broken between them. All the complex emotions theyíd
had for each other over the years: animosity, disdain, affection,
raw hatred, grudging respect, love.
"Spike stood, stock-still, absorbing all of this into his
suddenly-clear brain. It was too much, this moment of understanding.
He wanted to remember the Angel he despised, the one who despised
him. To see the one he loved, would always love, no matter how
much he wanted to be free of him . . ."
Anyway, I hope I'm not Jossed. I don't think I will be.
[> [> This might help
resolve one of the "Why Connor Should Return" issues.
-- WickedBuffy (Spoilers/Home), 13:03:23 05/25/03 Sun
One issue brought up by some who thought the Connor ending was
a cop-out can now be explored in the Angel/Spike relationship.
Especially from the father/son angle.
The things you pointed out you would like to see happen between
Angel and Spike are all ones that Angel and Connor might have
been exploring - if Connor came back. Not *exactly* the same,
but there are so many parallels.
Both loving the same woman (Buffy/Cordy), competition as to who
is strongest, bravest, vampirestosteronish clashes, loving and
hating each other at the same time.. plus the added bonus of being
ensouled thrown in.
I echo your sentiments about seeing deeper, underlying emotions
surfacing between the two.... in addition to the no-doubt witty
banter.
Not the same as Connor, but the oppportunites for Angel to explore
similar themes will be more easily available. I'm really looking
forward to it all!
[> [> [> "Vampirestosteronish"?
-- HonorH, 13:07:55 05/25/03 Sun
Somebody's been neologizing!
[> [> [> [> ayup
.... neologizing, armologizing and earologizing constantly!
-- WickedWickologist, 13:41:12 05/25/03 Sun
[> [> Re: Completely
with you. -- sk, 16:34:57 05/25/03 Sun
Interesting
Angel has always won. He's won every fair fight he and Spike
have ever had (and fortunately for Spike, he rarely fights fair),
and as good as Spike is at verbal warfare? Angel is better.
Not completely true.
1. Becoming PArt II - Spike tricked Angelus into thinking he was
on his side and incapcitated. He made a truce with Buffy. Knocked
Angelus out briefly with a wrench and
got Dru out of there.
2. What's My Line Part I & II - Spike captures Angel, lets Dru
Torture him and manages to use Angel's blood to revive Dru before
Buffy saves Angel.
3. Surprise - Dru and Spike get the upper hand on Buffy/angel
and they barely get away with their lives.
4. School Hard - Spike wins that fight, Angel takes off.
Buffy's mom Joyce is the one who wins the fight against Spike.
5. In The Dark - Spike captures Angel, manages to get the AI gang
to bring him the ring. It's the guy Spike hired who betrays Spike
and takes the ring and Angel defeats. Not Spike. Spike lost by
chance.
So uhm...the only battle I've seen Angel win against his protegee
Spike was well, in flashbacks.
[> [> [> What I'm
saying is: -- HonorH, 18:17:07 05/25/03 Sun
When they've been mano-a-mano, with neither one having minions
on his side, Angel has won. ItD is a good example of this: when
Spike shows up the first time, without a vampire gang, Angel defeats
him handily. In all the above scenes, Spike's had minions or uses
trickery to defeat Angel. Like I said, Spike rarely fights fair,
which is to his advantage when he's faced Angel.
[> [> [> [> Re:
What I'm saying is: -- s'kat, 21:36:05 05/25/03 Sun
Hmmm...So you're saying Angel is just the more physically strong
one here? I'll go along with that. Except we've only gotten one
maybe two fight scenes.
Come to think of it - no one has bested Angel without using trickery.
Well except for Caleb. Caleb did manage to win the fight with
Angel in Chosen, knocked him clean out and so did the Beast and
JAsmine. Wonder what that means?
Probably nothing. It's irrelevant in the scheme of things, I'm
sure. Fun to play with though. Personally I'm with Buffy - I want
a scene with the two of them naked in a room rassling it out and
with oil. ;-) Yes...Buffy has great taste in vampires. So does
Drusilla for that matter. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Well, Buffy beat him pretty good in "Innocence".
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:41:18 05/25/03 Sun
She hit him in the very sensitive place.
Something I always find difficult when trying to measure a character's
strength/fighting ability is the different fight dynamic of the
two shows. On "Angel", everyone can jump higher, throw
stronger punches, and seems more versed in slow-mo martial arts.
As such, a character, while on "Angel", may seem like
a lot better fighter than on "Buffy".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You're right on both counts...I noticed that too
-- s'kat, 22:01:28 05/25/03 Sun
Something I always find difficult when trying to measure a
character's strength/fighting ability is the different fight dynamic
of the two shows. On "Angel", everyone can jump higher,
throw stronger punches, and seems more versed in slow-mo martial
arts. As such, a character, while on "Angel", may seem
like a lot better fighter than on "Buffy".
I agree. On Angel - Angel appears to be super-vamp. He has enhanced
smell, eyesight, can jump tall buildings in a single bound - he's
batman. Yet on Buffy - all of this is sort of scaled back a bit.
Granted WB has nicer sets than Paramount, but still.
It always hit me as odd - that we got no mention of Spike's enhanced
vampire abilities, yet tons on Angel, to the extent that I occassionally
forgot Spike was a vampire.
Examples:
Angel - I'm allergic to garlic and don't eat or drink.
Spike - eats flowering onion, wings, pizza, and drinks all sorts
of alcoholic beverages.
Angel - no smoking
Spike - smokes
Angel - can leap tall buildings and dash very quickly about.
Spike - well he did get on top of that tall fence in Entropy,
but outside of that...rarely see it.
Angel - can see in the dark
Spike - apparently needs a lighter or flash-light
Angel - can smell it
Spike - rarely mentions this
If they bring Spike back as a vampire? I want consistency!
Of course - this could be a reason not to....;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> a little too black & white (on these shows?)
-- anom, 23:25:08 05/25/03 Sun
I don't think the differences btwn. Angel & Spike are so clearly
drawn.
"Angel - I'm allergic to garlic and don't eat or drink."
We've seen him drink coffee, & if he didn't drink alcohol, he
couldn't have been slipped the "bliss" drug in Eternity.
"Angel - can leap tall buildings..."
Don't remember seeing him leap over any buildings. Can you give
an example?
"Spike - apparently needs a lighter or flash-light"
The only time I can think of when he needed a flashlight was when
he & Buffy went down to the decommissioned Initiative HQ. Even
nocturnal critters, which can see w/very little light, can't see
in complete darkness. Angel wouldn't have been able to either.
I do remember 1 scene in a recent ep where Spike used a lighter
to see something, but I don't remember how much ambient light
there was.
"Angel - can smell it
Spike - rarely mentions this"
Um...what are the "it" & "this"? Can't comment
until I know!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: a little too black & white (on these
shows?) -- Rook, 05:12:10 05/26/03 Mon
>>"Angel - can leap tall buildings..."
>>Don't remember seeing him leap over any buildings. Can
you give an example?
I don't remember seeing him jump any buildings...but he's survived
really long falls (Apoc nowish, Lonely Hearts, a few others).
Then again so has Spike (The Gift)
>>"Spike - apparently needs a lighter or flash-light"
I remember when Angel says he can see in the dark in Choices...and
then he's the only one not looking in the right direction when
the Mayor walks in. Just a goof, but still pretty funny.
>>"Angel - can smell it
>>Spike - rarely mentions this"
I'd assume blood (Reptile Boy, for example), but maybe people
too (Chosen). Spike also does this occasionally (School Hard).
I think we've seen similar abilities from both of them, but naturally
less from Spike, as he's a supporting character while Angel is
the main.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> A few occasions of jumping -- Finn
Mac Cool, 08:16:21 05/26/03 Mon
Take "Salvage", for example, where Angel (as Angelus)
jumps about thirty or forty feet up to the rafters of a warehouse.
Or there's "Habeas Corpses" where he practically shoots
up the vertical escape hatch into the Wolfram & Hart building.
And let's not forget the large amounts of jumping done in the
Faith vs. Angelus battle in "Release".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> The Age Factor? -- Laura,
20:47:01 05/28/03 Wed
We've seen on a few occassions that older vampires sometimes have
things about them that others don't. Often they seem stronger,
which may be because of their age.
The two of the oldest vamps on Buffy had even stranger traits
about them. The Master not looked odd and never showed his human
face, had thrall abilities (like the ones Dru used on Kendra and
Giles), and when he was staked he left his bones behind that could've
been used to resurrect him. Remember Kakistos, the master vampire
that wanted to kill Faith? He was so old that his hands and feet
had become 'cloven' (I think that was the term). He also couldn't
be staked by a normal-sized piece of wood. It took a wooden beam.
They both were incredibly old but they had different quirks. Perhaps
as vampires grow older they change, but not necessarily in the
same way. Perhaps the reason Angel is stronger (besides the fact
WB may have better special effects) is that he has over a hundreds
years on Spike.
The garlic thing with Spike may be a blooper or a maybe he has
developed a tolerance.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Probably their biggest mistake Season 6 --
lunasea, 08:30:46 05/26/03 Mon
If the writers wanted us to remember that Spike was an unsouled
vampire, they really should have played this up more. This season,
they have played up his vampireness a bit more. In STSP they use
his ability to detect blood to track down the Gnarl. In "Never
Leave Me" how he is fed the blood is just foul. The last
line in that episode is "Now Spike, wanna see what a real
vampire looks like?" In "Touched" he tracks Buffy
by smell.
Angel doesn't smoke, but Angelus does. He not only bites the whore,
but lights up in Innocence when he is reunited with his family.
Smoking isn't a vamp thing. It is characteristic of a rebel.
Angel is also over 100 years older than Spike. As vampires get
older, they get stronger and better. It could be one reason the
original Turok-han was so hard to defeat, but the ones from Chosen
were wimpy. They were basically clones, new vamps that just weren't
what the original Ubie was.
But all of this really just depends on the needs of the plot.
I think the writers screwed up not having Spike in vamp face more
often or having lots of reminders that Spike isn't human. Over
on Angel his vamp powers are used creatively to remind us that
he isn't human yet and to give explanations, such as how Angel
knows that Wesley and Lilah are a couple.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Query -- Tchaikovsky, 08:35:55 05/26/03
Mon
As vampires get older, they get stronger and better.
Interesting. Really? I always just imagined that all the weaker
vampires got rooted out eventually, so to live for as long as
Angel(us) or the Master, one would have to be significantly stronger
than the average vampire. Is there any evidence for your version,
or can I assume that the text contains multitudes?
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Interesting.... -- WickedBuffy,
10:47:17 05/26/03 Mon
I never gave it a second thought until now - about vampires getting
stronger the longer they lived. (I believed it.)
Now I'm realizing that my vampire lore is getting confused and
there are most likely more points I've clumped together. In Rices
novels, and in The Anita Blake series, they get stronger as they
age.
Is there a place online (here even?) where the vampires of ME
are specifically described, point-by-point? As in numbered list?
I'd love to have it handy.
c'mon....someone here must have written a doctorate on it, eh?
:D
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> If in doubt, ask Masq...
-- Tchaikovsky, 11:11:54 05/26/03 Mon
Or her super-brilliant comprehensive Bible which inspired the
Discussion Board in the first place. Masq's vampire metaphysics
page is:
http://www.atpobtvs.com/vampires.html#va
Haven't had time to flick through to see if she confirms one way
or the other yet, but it may be in there somewhere.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Like all the wise people...
-- Tchaikovsky, 11:15:01 05/26/03 Mon
She prevaricates a bit!
Older vampires like The Master and Kakistos have been depicted
as stronger than younger vampires, but this is simple (un)natural
selection--weak vampires will die before they ever get to be that
old; so we'd expect there to be a greater percentage of weak vampires
among the young than weak vampires among the old. However, an
individual vampire might also grow stronger with age. Dru is physically
older than Darla, who was sired a few short months ago. At some
point, though, it's likely that
...Darla was just pretending to be weak to get Lindsey's attention
and to get access to his Wolfram and Hart files (Lucille, 1 Mar
2001 18:48).
She kind of goes with my argument and then leaves herself the
'it's likely' and 'at some point' loop-hole!
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Like all the
wise people... -- WickedBuffy, 12:03:26 05/26/03 Mon
I guess it "depends" then. :>
In the Anita Blake vampire books, vampires do get stronger with
age, but some get stronger faster - or reach a "cut-off"
point where they stop getting stronger, or slow down to imperceptible.
Others continue on.
She (Hamilton/author) creates a clearer trait than Joss does about
age and strength. (Then there's always those loopholes for drama!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Probably their biggest mistake Season
6 -- s'kat, 12:05:01 05/26/03 Mon
Would agree with you on this:
If the writers wanted us to remember that Spike was an unsouled
vampire [in Season 6], they really should have played this up
more.
I think that was one of their biggest mistakes in S6. Instead
of "telling" us that he's a soulless vampire, they should
have "showed" us. If they had, I think there might have
been less confusion. I understand why they didn't - the whole
we're in Buffy's pov bit. But they did a much better job of it
in S4, S5 and as you point out in S7 - they did a far better job
of pointing out what a vampire is than previous seasons. Similarily
in Ats S4 - I thought they did a better job of pointing this out,
although I do agree with the people who mentioned Angelus S2 was
better than Angelus S4 in some of the episodes. (Except for Soulless
which continues to rank amongst my all time favorites and showed
once and for all that Boreanze can act.)
As for vamps getting better as they get older? No consistency
on this. Buffy had an easier time killing some of the really ancient
vamps than some of the younger ones.
Luke was pretty ancient. So was Darla - course Angel killed her...so
maybe not a good example. Kakitos - they managed to kill without
too much effort. Balthazar as well. Trick took a lot longer and
he seemed to be pretty young.
Spike - when he was unchipped and evil seemed to escape both Angel
and Buffy's stakes. So did Harmony. And Drusilla.
Not to mention Angelus himself. Hmmm...methinks this has 0 to
do with fighting ability and everything to do with writer favortisim.
They just don't want to kill certain vamps. Lucky for us - or
I'd have lost some of my favorite characters.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> The writers really misread the audience
-- lunasea, 13:19:11 05/26/03 Mon
They needed to really play up what motivated Spike more. If it
looks like a duck and walks like a duck, people thought it was
a duck. They didn't stress the selfish and possessive nature of
vamp love until much later. By then, some thought it was just
a reaction to Buffy being a bitch.
How many times did we see Spike in vamp face seasons 4-7? It is
a pain for the actor to have to wear that, it takes time to get
into and it does make it more difficult to act through the yellow
eyes (and as a wearer of hard contacts, I can tell you they are
a real pain to wear), however, they forgot how to use it properly.
Angel was in vamp face when he killed Jenny for a reason. Seems
the only thing they use vamp face for any more is to show that
Spike or Angel can't beat whatever it is they are fighting and
has to take it up a few notches by vamping out.
If anything, how they used vamp face S2 made Angelus that much
more terrifying. The contrast between vamp face and his wonderful
Angelic one was spine tingling. The opening sequence of "Passion"
was incredibly well done.
Spike can't vamp out to feed, but that isn't to say that he can
only vamp out when he is fighting. Vamping out isn't the only
characteristic that distinguishes vampires. Fitting in "Prom"
that Buffy runs into Angel when he is getting his blood, thus
reminding the audience why they can't be together. Over on AtS
as Angel acts more human, they put in more reminders that Angel
isn't human.
Have we ever seen Spike not have a reflection? That has been artistically
used on both BtVS and AtS with Angel. With Spike, the sunlight
thing is just something he deals with, nothing more than a nuisance.
It was well used in "Afterlife." Over on AtS, it has
been better utilized, from "City of" and "In the
Dark" the first season to Angel walking in the hot lights
on the set where Cordy was doing a commercial and being safe on
Pylea second season to Cordy bringing Connor into the light and
Angel not being able to follow third season to permanent midnight
and what happens in "Home" this season.
Not only are we constantly reminded that Angel isn't human, but
it is incredibly well done and used to really highlight something.
The writers tried to make Spike more human than other vampires
so that we would accept him and went overboard. They didn't create
a balance between Spike trying to be human and accepting his lot
in unlife and how that lot really did affect him.
Luke was pretty ancient.
And would have killed her if it wasn't for Angel's cross. Buffy
couldn't beat Luke on strength and had to use cunning. He was
one of her more difficult kills.
So was Darla - course Angel killed her...so maybe not a good
example.
Hard to say how chick vampires fit and we never really did get
to see Darla fight anyone other than Angel. Human males tend to
be stronger than female, so it might follow that vamp males are
stronger than vamp females.
Kakitos - they managed to kill without too much effort.
I wouldn't say that. The only thing that saved them was teamwork.
Faith staked him from behind with a really big stake. He seemed
to play with both of them like they were little dolls and could
easily take any hits they gave him.
It is pretty lame that the only thing that would change with age
is that they lose human features. The older vamps are made out
to be a really big deal. Joss borrows all sorts of things from
other vampire mythology. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that
he took this as well.
Balthazar as well.
I don't think he is a vampire. Wesley refers to him as a demon.
Usually vamps are called vamps. The vampires who follow him used
to be part of a cult, but when their numbers dimished, they started
following him. That is what I remember, any way.
I agree that it has everything to do with writer preference, but
isn't it our job to figure out some rationale beyond this to explain
our favorite show?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Not the writers... -- Malandanza,
01:18:34 05/27/03 Tue
I don't have a problem with Spike never being in vamp face. He
tries very hard to be a part of the human world that never wanted
him, so it seems natural enough that he would not often walk around
in vamp face.
"They needed to really play up what motivated Spike more.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, people thought
it was a duck. They didn't stress the selfish and possessive nature
of vamp love until much later. By then, some thought it was just
a reaction to Buffy being a bitch."
I really don't think this was the writers' fault -- in the early
seasons, they did have Spike treacherous, crude, selfish, jealous,
possessive -- pick an unflattering term, Spike was that. Even
with Dru, the "love" was ultimately selfish. When Spike
saw Dru choose Angelus over himself, he joined Buffy -- not to
save the world, he was fine with destroying the world when it
was just him and Dru, but to get back at Angelus who had stolen
"his" woman. Had it been unselfish love, he would have
respected her wishes and stepped aside for his rival. In Season
Four, we saw Spike join forces against the very people who had
protected him from The Initiative, repaying their charity with
betrayal. Well, he's a vampire -- what did we expect? The Scoobies
forgive and forget and we move to Season Five.
Spike watches Buffy and Riley -- hangs outside their window while
they have sex. Does his best Iago impersonation to help strain
the relationship. Slips inside Buffy's house when she's out and
rummages through her clothes for his Buffy shrine. Dresses his
girlfriend up in Buffy's clothes for some roleplay. Chains Buffy
up and threatens to kill her (well, let Dru kill her) if she doesn't
say she likes him -- yet we see JM subvert Spike's character.
At the end of the episode, we see Buffy strong and defiant, shutting
the door in her stalker's face with the supernatural equivalent
of a restraining order. A moment to remind us of the Mission Statement
of the show. And then we see Spike's face -- the disappointment
and shock. It's sad, and, suddenly, the victim becomes the bully.
How dare Buffy hurt this poor, flawed, mistreated creature who
so obviously really cares about her? I don't think the writers
anticipated the sympathy he would gain. In fact, the following
scene at the Magic Box, where all the Scoobies (including Dawn)
turn their backs on this ungrateful creature and Giles tells him
in no uncertain terms that they are "not his way to Buffy"
shows that the writers thought they needed some extraordinary
act of redemption from Spike to get him back into the group --
enter the sex toy and kidnapping/torture.
I asked in chat once if anyone thought Warren might have taken
the Buffybot on a test drive before handing it over to Spike --
the response was general disgust. It would be just like Warren
to do something so disgusting -- comments along that line.
Why would Warren be vile and disgusting for having sex with an
inanimate object made to resemble a woman he barely knew while
Spike is showing how sensitive and caring he is by bullying Warren
into making a sex toy resembling a woman who rejected him? Because
he was "tender" with his sex toy (in a manner resembling
his treatment of Dru when she was helpless and dependent, but
diametrically opposed to his treatment of "actual girlfriend"
Harmony) -- and the writers' contrivance to get Spike back into
the group, the torture, ends up erasing everything evil thing
Spike ever said or did in the minds of the Redemptionistas.
In Season Six, the writers haven't forgotten who Spike is, even
if some of the viewers have. His early dialogues with Buffy read
like Warren's later remarks and Caleb's from Season Seven -- for
his inspired and repeated use of the word "bitch" alone
to refer to any woman who in any way fails to cater to his desires,
he is misogyny personified. Like Warren and Willow, he tries to
dominate and control the object of his desire. But unlike Warren,
Spike has JM making Spike look like the victim in the aftermath,
even after we see Buffy climbing out of the grave only after Spike's
impeding influence is gone (and some of the best, subtle imagery
of that season was Spike forever obstructing Buffy's progess --
physically blocking her progress just as he blocked her spiritual
progress). Think back to Warren's rampage through the Bronze when
he gets his magic orbs -- we get back story about Warrens past.
Picked on and abused, just like William. Derided and abandoned
by women -- now he has power -- just as Spike had the power
when he became a vampire. Warren uses the power similarly -- looking
for a fight with the most powerful woman he can find (as Spike
sought out slayers), to slap her down to prove his manhood. But
Warren is not sympathetic -- there are no legions of Warren fans
accusing Katrina of being a bitch and excusing Warren as a consequence.
Of course, Warren had a soul.
Which comes to the problem for which I believe the writers are
to blame in Season Seven -- making the soul irrelevant. Souled
Spike is just not that different from chipped Spike. He looks,
acts, talks, behaves like the Spike we all knew. We see a few
tears of remorse during his insane phase, but he gets over it
and goes back to blaming Buffy for his problems. The soul that
makes such a difference in Angel/Angelus doesn't seem to matter
for Spike. I can't recall any acts by Season Seven Spike that
would seem overtly out of character for Season Six or Five Spike.
The towel speech from Season Seven comes to mind -- having a soul
won't keep him from leaving towels all over the house, but it'll
make him feel guilty about it. Except we don't see much evidence
of guilt from Spike. Not much evidence of the soul until he gives
us the "I'm a real boy"speech in the finale -- he says
he can finally really feel it (so what was he trying to dig out
of himself that burnt him so badly in his semi-lucid ramble at
the start of the season?).
Even in Season Seven, the writers remind us what Spike was like.
Drinking the pig's blood while tied to a chair was the most revolting
feeding scenes in the show's run. Certainly a far cry from sipping
warm blood from a novelty mug (with Whetabix crumbled into it
for texture) during his Season Four captivity. We even got a debunking
of Spike's claim to fame -- that he killed two slayers. Not quite
as cool when you see the damage that resulted.
So I think that the writers did try to make Spike unlikable. The
failure lies with the directors who allowed JM to turn the villain
into the hero, and turn our heroine into, to use the words of
that great courtly lover, Spike, a "bitch".
Not that JM was alone in this -- AH also managed to turn the most
vile Willow moments into sympathy, by the sheer force of her acting.
I was reading through Television Without Pity's Buffy archive
and found a pretty positive review of Tabula Rasa. I read through
it, expecting to see some quality Willow bashing. Certainly, there
was some anger directed Miss Rosenberg's way:
"She totally promised Tara she wouldn't do magic for a
week and she's at it again already, without an ounce of hesitation
or ambivalence. Grrr. What a little liar."
"She casts a spell to wipe Buffy's and Tara's minds of 'pains
from recent slights and sins.' She's wiping Tara's memory again?!
What an utter bitch. That conversation with Tara meant nothing
to her. She's like an alcoholic confronted about her drinking
and her response is, 'Oh sure. I will give up drinking. Just as
soon as I take this bottle I've got hidden beneath my coat, drink
all of its contents, and then beat you about the head with it.'"
But at the end of the recap, this unsympathetic TwoP reviewer
(Ace) says:
"In the bathroom, Willow furrows her brow in pain, corners
of her mouth turned down as a few errant tears escape, and I know
that she brought it on herself but I can't help feeling the tiniest
bit sorry for her. I think we've all been in a situation where
we've lost something dear to us because we've screwed up so very
totally and completely"
What changed? My view is that it was AH's acting. Reading the
shooting script or transcript leaves me feeling sorry for Tara
and angry at abusive girlfriend Willow, but it's hard not to feel
sorry for Willow when you see AH huddled in a corner and sobbing
(tears of self pity, no doubt, but it's still sad to see her hurting)
and Tara ceases to be the victim.
By contrast, characters like Dawn who were played exactly the
way the writers wanted her played, in spite of MT's dislike of
screaming, whiny Dawn, have less of a following. MT could have
softened Dawn's annoying qualities, subtly, had she wanted to.
Similarly, Warren could have been played a bit more like a victim
(imagine if Danny Strong's character, Jonathan, had been chosen
by ME to be the bad guy). JM is going on to AtS, MT is not. There
is a rationale for making Spike the victim at the expense of the
show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not the writers...
-- lunasea, 08:39:53 05/27/03 Tue
I don't think the writers anticipated the sympathy he would
gain.
But that is the writer's fault. They should have compensated for
the sympathy JM's portrayal of Spike was generating. They did
it in "As You Were," but by then it really was too late.
The start of their sexual relationship was well done in "Wrecked."
Marti is the Goddess of all things twisted. "I knew. I knew
the only thing better than killing a slayer would be f-"
Somehow from that people get that Spike really luuuuvs Buffy?
As sick as I was of hearing "Spike has a soul now" this
season, I was even more sick of hearing Spike say that he loved
Buffy season 6.
I agree with everything you have said. Most Spuffy shippers come
to the show in later seasons and the writers couldn't assume that
they knew Spike's history. They were shocked that people forgave
Spike so easily, when some people were never mad at him in the
first place. The steps they took to make Buffy even give him the
time of day were too drastic.
I think the problem is that a lot of that audience is vampirephiles.
We like them because they can act out the shadow side that we
all have and can't act out (or it wouldn't be our shadow). We
saw Buffy getting to do that and some thought of this as a good
thing. We want to do this, so we want Buffy to do this. Buffy
can live out all our fantasies for us. Thing is Buffy ISN'T a
vampire. She isn't the shadow, she is the hero. Vampires can live
out this, the hero cannot. At some point, this should have become
more obvious, beyond the hot chemistry between the two actors.
I agree with everything you said, but that a good percentage of
the audience didn't see this shows there was a serious fault that
the writers took steps to correct much too late. At such a point,
they really shouldn't have had Buffy physically beat Spike up
in "Dead Things," even if it was important symbolically.
I can think of one thing that would have shocked the heck out
of the Spuffy shippers. When Angel kissed Buffy in "Angel"
the passion overwhelmed him and he turned into vamp face. It was
an intense moment and another example of how the writers used
to know how to use this characteristic. What if that happened
to Spike season 6? It would be a great reminder that Spike was
a vampire and what motivated him.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> How much does Spike get
away with because of his looks? -- WickedBuffy (re: viewers),
09:33:40 05/27/03 Tue
Sometimes I wonder about that - after reading about how taken
some are by his looks and "moves". And then reading
replays of the negative actions he's taken part in or initiated.
How much does his appearance affect how much his behaviours are
excused, justified or downplayed?
For instance, if Spikes character was played by the actor who
played "The Master", exact same lines, moves, etc, would
more viewers dislike him? Would he still "get away"
with so much?
Seriously.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think it's
his looks so much as... -- Indri, 12:50:49 05/27/03 Tue
His capacity to emote and to draw in many viewers so that they
experience those emotions with him. Actors who can do this are
always going to be fascinating to watch, regardless of how pretty
they are.
Even if the character is wretchedly ugly---Gollum in LOTR, for
example---people can feel enormous sympathy as long as they can
read the nuances of what the character is feeling. I think the
epitome of this is the Phantom of the Opera musical, where the
protagonist is a hideously deformed man who wears a mask throughout
much of the production. People still swoon after him anyway.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I would find this more
convincing, but -- Sophist, 10:08:07 05/27/03 Tue
for some crucial facts.
Most important to me is that the writers very often directed the
episodes they wrote. In such cases, they had the responsibility
to make sure a scene played as intended. If a writer/director
wrapped a scene, that says to me that he/she intended it to be
played that way.
Even if the writer did not direct, the overall responsibility
for BtVS remained with the production team (mostly Joss, a lot
Marti in S6). Again, if a scene didn't play the right way, it
was their responsibility to re-shoot it or correct a misimpression
in later eps. This was not a show where actors or others called
the shots on issues like this -- if we saw a scene played a certain
way, I think we can believe the creative minds intended it that
way.
These factors coincide with JW's public statements about the character
of Willow. It's clear that JW saw the character very differently
from the way you did. In particular, TR showed us a fundamentally
sweet and good person who made a serious mistake.
I think that bringing in Willow's character undermines your argument
about Spike. For one thing, we have good public evidence about
the writers' intent for that character that contradicts your interpretation
(not that authorial intent is definitive or anything). For another,
the more characters you identify as "subverting" the
writers' intent, the harder it is to believe that the writers
were that careless about the depiction of their intent.
Damn, it pains me to have to use the past tense to describe these
things!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I would find
this more convincing, but -- Malandanza, 17:40:38 05/27/03
Tue
"Most important to me is that the writers very often directed
the episodes they wrote. In such cases, they had the responsibility
to make sure a scene played as intended. If a writer/director
wrapped a scene, that says to me that he/she intended it to be
played that way."
In such cases (and I don't know how often the writers directed
their own episodes, or whether or not it was a recent phenomenon),
I would blame the director rather than the writer. That is, I
think that being a good writer doesn't automatically make you
a good director (and I recall JW's anger about the Buffy movie
when actors rewrote his lines -- he was angry because actors are
not trained writers, so they made mistakes that a professional
would not). So an episode with a transcript that is critical of
Spike might reflect the writer's ability to get a message across
while watching the show might also reflect the writer/director's
inability to transfer that message from the written word to TV.
With the shooting scripts, we can seen some of the intent better
than the transcripts as the writers include stage direction and
parenthetical asides to flesh out the scenes. Like this stage
direction from Crush:
BUFFY: Spike... The only chance you had with me was when I
was unconscious.
Spike registers his disappointment. Why hadn't he thought of that?
Then, his rage building, he ROARS:
SPIKE: GaaaAAAAAAAHHH!
He angrily FLINGS the stake against the wall.
SPIKE: What the bleeding hell is wrong with you bloody women?
What the hell does it take? Why do you bitches torture me?
Why hadn't he thought of that? That was Fury's direction. Did
JM convey that impression to the viewers?
"Even if the writer did not direct, the overall responsibility
for BtVS remained with the production team (mostly Joss, a lot
Marti in S6). Again, if a scene didn't play the right way, it
was their responsibility to re-shoot it or correct a misimpression
in later eps. This was not a show where actors or others called
the shots on issues like this -- if we saw a scene played a certain
way, I think we can believe the creative minds intended it that
way."
I think that if you look at an episode penned by David Fury (the
writer least sympathetic to Spike) which ends with the impression
that Spike is the victim, not based on what is in the script,
but by JM's expressive features as Buffy shuts the door in his
face, it is not too difficult to believe that the writer did not
realize the impact that the scene would have on the viewers. The
actual scene Fury wrote:
SPIKE: And there's nothing either one of us can do about it.
Like it or not, I'm in your life. You can't just shut me out.
He suddenly SLAMS UP against the invisible barrier at the threshold.
He looks at BUFFY, who eyes him, coldly. REVERSE ANGLE ON SPIKE
as she closes the door in his face, taking us into...
BLACK OUT.
END OF SHOW
just doesn't compare to the scene we saw. JM made Spike the sympathetic
figure in that scene. I don't believe it was the intent of the
show to say the woman with the restraining order refusing her
obsessed stalker is the villain while the poor, confused suitor
is the victim. I think there was even a JM interview where he
said that he realized that the people who got air time were the
ones fighting or kissing Buffy, so worked with that end in mind.
As for correcting misinterpretations, we've seen so many calls
of "retcon!" on this board when the writers bring up
some unpleasant aspect of his personality that it seems to me
that the writers were trying to correct what they believed was
an inaccurate interpretation of the character. Spike's behavior
in early Season Six, the attempted rape, his Season Seven confession
that he had done something nasty to girls Dawn's age -- these
were reminders from the writers that they had intended Spike to
be evil.
"These factors coincide with JW's public statements about
the character of Willow. It's clear that JW saw the character
very differently from the way you did. In particular, TR showed
us a fundamentally sweet and good person who made a serious mistake."
I agree that Willow made a serious mistake. I believe she suffered
as a result of that mistake. But I don't think Willow was the
victim in TR, and I think AH's performance made it seem so. The
reason I quoted TwoP was because I found Ace's response to TR
remarkable similar to mine -- Willow was clearly in the wrong,
yet at the end, she came off more like an injured party than did
Tara. I believe that ME wanted us to see Tara as the victim --
hence the parallel story lines with the Trio using mind control
and Willow using the forget spell at the end of the date rape
episode. TR was preempted in Arizona when it first ran, so I read
about TR before I saw it. From the reviews and comments on the
board, I watched the episode prejudiced against Willow, yet I
found myself won over by AH's acting. This is the scene from the
shooting script:
Willow sits, fully clothed, on the tile floor of the bathroom
crying. She stands up and looks in the mirror.
Is it the same scene we saw?
"I think that bringing in Willow's character undermines
your argument about Spike. For one thing, we have good public
evidence about the writers' intent for that character that contradicts
your interpretation (not that authorial intent is definitive or
anything). For another, the more characters you identify as "subverting"
the writers' intent, the harder it is to believe that the writers
were that careless about the depiction of their intent.
Writing is important, certainly. But I believe that the actors
can subtly alter the scenes and characters to their liking (just
ask the actor who played Doctor Smith on Lost in Space) -- particularly
AH and JM. Their characters are the least sympathetic on paper,
but the most charismatic on the screen. Had Spike been played
by Marc Blucas and Riley by JM, I think Season Five would have
ended very differently. The actors do make a difference. The writers
react, in part, to what they see on the screen. (And I don't remember
reading any interview by the writers contradicting what I said
about Willow -- I believe the writers meant for Tara to be the
victim of TR, just as they meant for Buffy to be an empowered
woman at the end of Crush).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> William the
Bloody Sympathetic -- Valheru, 02:39:37 05/29/03 Thu
Writing fiction is a madmanís chore. Ideas fly through
the imagination with their tongues out, defiant, daring the writer
to make any sense of it all. It takes indomitable skill to catch
them, calm them, and arrange them in neat little coherent lines.
On paper, itís all Wizard of Oz--yellow brick roads,
emerald cities, ruby slippers, ìwhat a wonderful land you
have here, Glinda, but Iíd like to go home now, please.î
But in the mind of the writer, itís Apocalypse Now--the
heart of darkness touches all. By the storyís end, every
writerís a little bit Willard. The good writers just manage
not to become Kurtz.
The Buffy writers are considered some of the best on television,
and Joss is commonly ranked among the top three or four. Itís
not because of the jokes, or the drama, or the horror. Itís
because these people can take water, oil, and a third unmeshable
thing, and somehow bake a cake. Often, itís a two- or three-layer
cake. And those times when Joss pulls a twelve-layer confectionerís
extravaganza out of the oven...surprise, itís a party!
These people survived the writing. Producing it is the easy part.
James Marsters is a very good actor. He deserves an Emmy, and
heíll probably get one someday. But the Buffy staff
are pros. They know how to write, write for actors, and write
for actors well. And theyíve been writing for these particular
actors for a long time now. This isnít stage, where the
writer and actor often scramble atop one another in desperation
for the headline, then move on, hardly ever to meet again. This
is television, where the writing staff and the cast must join
forces to battle the evil 18-34 male demographics of American
Idol. The show is the mission, the mission comes first, and
if the missionaries arenít preaching from the same Bible,
then youíve got a whole lotta Jerusalem (and Iíve
got myself a whole lotta strange metaphors). James Marsters would
sooner stop using SweetíníLow in his peroxide than
he would veer drastically from a script.
I don't believe it was the intent of the show to say the woman
with the restraining order refusing her obsessed stalker is the
villain while the poor, confused suitor is the victim.
In a way, that actually is the intent. ìCrushî is
shown to us primarily through Spikeís POV. Heís
the protagonist of the episode. Weíre supposed to sympathize
with him. If we werenít, weíd see it through Buffyís
eyes.
Let me back up a bit...Season 2, ìSchool Hardî. Spike
crashes through the ìWelcome to Sunnydale!î sign,
waltzes into the factory, establishes his evil steet cred, then
offers to kill our sweet blond heroine. ìWell, hereís
a dashingly evil rapscallion,î the television audience mumbles
to no one in particular, ìBuffy will surely kill him in
an amusing fashion.î And then Drusilla floats in, a wraith
of innocence, wickedness, and insanity. They smile at each other.
They worry, they laugh, they lick each otherís blood. They...almost...almost...kiss....
Gentle viewers want to know: are Spike and Drusilla in love?
ìAh, theyíre so cute! Let Buffy kill them next week.î
Spike and Dru are the first vampires (besides Angel) the show
ever asks us to have an emotional attachment to. We feel their
love just as much as we do Buffyís and Angelís.
ìSure, theyíre evil, but who cares? Theyíre
in love!î Dead birds become romantic gifts the world over.
Suddenly, the audience doesnít think itís so black
and white as Vampire Slayer = dead SpikeíníDru.
ìSure, she can kill them if she has to, so letís
hope she never has to.î
From the very beginning, Spike was a character to identify with.
We werenít always supposed to like what he did, but we
were supposed to understand why he did it. His wheelchair-bound
depression. His jealousy of Angelus. His drunken loveís
bitchiness. His turns as Dickensian outcast, Oscar Madisonian
roomate, and Evil Spike Lite. His off-again, really-off-again
relationship with Harmony. When were we ever not to feel
for what Spike was going through?
So Spikeís role in ìCrushî is double-edged.
On one side, his motivations must be in keeping with his character
arc and understandable on a basic level. On the other, his actions
must be reprehensible, or questionable at the very least. The
audience needs to get the why and, like Buffy, hate the
what. Weíre supposed to like the idea of him going
on a date with Buffy, but not that he tricked her into going and
then lied about it. Weíre supposed to support his decision
to confront his feelings, not to chain and threaten the objects
of those feelings. Throughout the episode, his heart is in the
right place, but his evil-head keeps screwing things up.
We donít see much of this through Buffyís eyes.
All we know of her feelings are ìSpike! Eww!î Thatís
how the whole ìrelationshipî has been since ìOut
of My Mindî: Spike thinks and acts, Buffy only re-acts.
We donít sympathize with Buffy often because 1) she doesnít
know about his problem, and 2) her position is straightforward.
We already know how Buffy feels about Spikeóweíve
known since ìSchool Hardîóso thereís
no need to get into her head with a bunch of ìWhy do I
not like Spike?î ruminations.
Does Buffy seem a bit cold to him? Yeah. But itís not as
though we donít know why. Similar thing in ìWild
at Heartî: Willow seems a little harsh towards Oz, considering
that he was being possessed by his wolf-form when he fooled around
with Veruca, but from Willowís POV, her attitude made perfect
sense. In ìCrushî, although we are instructed to
sympathize with Spikeís POV, we can completely understand
Buffyís. But since we are in Spikeís POV,
Buffyís actions will appear mean.
I don't believe it was the intent of the show to say the woman
with the restraining order refusing her obsessed stalker is the
villain while the poor, confused suitor is the victim. There
are two victims in ìCrushî: the poor, confused suitor
and the woman with the restraining order. There are two villains:
the obsessed stalker and the uncaring beloved. Buffy and Spike
are both being presented on two different metaphorical levels.
But Spikeís ìvictimî level is the one ME had
gone with since ìOOMMî, so itís the one ìCrushî
is primarily shown on.
And it is Spikeís ìvictimî level youíre
having the problem with. Youíre identifying with Buffyís
"victim" level, with Spike as ìvillainî.
Which is completely valid, especially considering that that was
how they portrayed Spuffy in S6. But in S5, the primary POV is
on Spikeís "victim" level, so Spike is supposed
to gain the audiences sympathy, oftentimes making Buffy appear
a little harder than normal. Marsters has nothing to do with that
decision: it began with the crazy writer people.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very
nice post! -- ponygirl, 07:48:47 05/29/03 Thu
As viewers our perspective is always limited to what we are shown.
Where the camera goes so must we follow. So if we see a scene
that explains a character's motivations or state of mind then
we are meant to have some sympathy or at least understanding.
Crush is a good example because while we are supposed to see Spike
as pained and conflicted when Dru kills the girl (that's directly
from the shooting script) we are also supposed see Buffy as genuinely
and understandably creeped out by the shrine in the crypt.
The choices made by an actor may be quite organic, but the choices
made by a camera are always going to be deliberate. This is equally
true of the choices made in editing. Why was Jonathon the most
sympathetic of the Troika? It wasn't just because we knew him
from seasons past, it was also because shots were included that
showed his face registering doubt and fear. Any doubts I had about
the Mayor's love for Faith were gone in GD2 when the camera stayed
on him as he desperately repeated that she'd be alright. Another
interesting example is in AYW, the shooting script ends on Spike
alone in his crypt, the show ends on Buffy going out into the
sunlight. By changing the order of these two shots, the audience
gets a very different message and a shifting of sympathies. What
we are shown or even more importantly what we are not shown dictates
our response. Of course as wonderfully aware viewers we are not
taken in by any sort of manipulation ;) but it is necessary to
acknowledge these things when discussing authorial intent.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah...another
interesting post. Well done Val. -- s'kat, 08:58:21 05/29/03
Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: William
the Bloody Sympathetic -- Simone, 19:31:41 05/29/03 Thu
What was it Blake said about Milton? Something like - he wrote
the demons more confidently and compellingly than the angels because,
being a true poet, deep down he belonged with the demons, without
even realizing it (wish I could remember the exact quote).
Which is to say that, even if ME didn't realize exactly what they
were creating with Spike (and I'm inclined to think they did),
I've no doubt that what ended up on the screen is a reflection
of what they really wanted, deep down, to create.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't doubt
that JM is good enough to steal a scene -- Sophist, 18:53:08
05/27/03 Tue
For that matter, AH is too.
The problem is, if you argue this point too strongly -- that Spike,
say, subverted many scenes -- then you undercut your point
from the other direction: that portrayal actually becomes the
character.
I can see the actor affecting one scene. I can't see it affecting
the whole show. Ultimately, the show is what we actually see on
screen. If it's happening all the time, I think we have to conclude
that the writers intended that (even if a particular writer may
not have).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sophist
is right. Some concrete proof on tv production -- s'kat, 22:51:11
05/27/03 Tue
I've read quite a bit of interviews related to how TV shows are
created, specifically Btvs and Ats. I also saw a documentary on
Trio network this weekend on the creation of the Shield and Andy
Ricter Controls The Universe.
While it may be possible for an excellent actor to steal a scene
or two - it's unlikely in certain tightly budgeted tv shows. Soap
operas? Yeah, no problem - they only do one or two takes and the
writers don't mess that much with it.
But Btvs, Ats and most television dramas? Highly unlikely.
My proof? Look at the interviews - two with Anthony Stewart HEad
who is a notorious scene stealer and loves to improve.
He has stated in two interviews - first one in 1999 with James
Marsters, the second this past fall in SFX. The first can probably
be found on Spikespotting.com, the second may be found in SFX
Head interview and I believe aspects of this interview may have
appeared in other Head interviews on slayage.com. Head said that
he attempted to do a little improve with a prop in the episode
This Year's Girl - Whedon was furious with him and cut it. He
and Marsters once tried to go outside the script or use different
facial expressions and Whedon told them if they didn't follow
directions - they would get the next close-up the back of their
head.
In the Sheild documentary - it was made clear that the actors
had to follow the script and the director to the letter. They
leave out a line - simple as say "mean" in the line
" I make a mean grilled cheese" - they do take after
take until they get it right. The writer - unlike films or the
stage - actually is on the set with the actors and tells them
exactly how to read the lines. The actor may control the work
on the stage. The director may control it on film. BUT the writer
controls it on MOST tv shows - specifically ones where the writer
is also the creator and executive producer and makes a point of
directing the episodes. Do you know how many takes they did for
that sex scene in Smashed? Want to guess? 25 at least. So no,
Marsters didn't do anything that he wasn't told to do.
They film these things quickly guys. Movies - 3 months.
A play maybe even a year or a few months of rehearsal.
A drama like ER or NYPD Blue? 9 days. A lower budget drama on
cable like The Shield or Btvs or ATs? 7 days. One day over? They
have to cut costs, which means jobs, effects, scenes, etc.
Here's a break-down:
A weekend to write the script. Sometimes less the 24 fours depending
on time and how far behind.
Goes to production - the production crew breaks it down
and decides who to cast, what props, what costumes, what sets,
etc - this is done in a day
Shooting Script, Writer, Director, Cinematographer go meet with
actors and they film the thing - they do it as fast as possible.
Start at 4:30 am on Monday with Makeup and end at sunrise at 5
am on Sat - see AH interview on Craig Kilborn, assorted JM interviews.
Everything is choreographed.
After the thing is shot it is digitized in the computers, editors
go through it, then we get a directors cut, then the creator (in
the Sheild - Shawn Ryan, on Btvs Joss Whedon, Marti Noxon or Tim
Minear) goes through it and makes his edit. He has a problem with
it - they reshoot, which costs money. Whedon btw re-shot Beneath
You,
he rewrote it and directed it - he brought everyone back for the
last scene a mere two hours after it was shot.
So, sorry, guys, I seriously doubt that the actors get away with
much of anything on these shows - everything we see is dictated
by the creators. That's the wonderful world of TV. Fast. Grinding.
And a writer/producers world.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm
not exactly in the Spike is "good" camp but -- Dochawk,
00:46:40 05/28/03 Wed
I think ME got exactly what they wanted on both Spike and Willow.
it took them several years to know that they had actors that could
pull it off, but I think with Spike they wanted ambiguity. He
is really a classic character, the bad boy with a twinkle in his
eye (and now he is the bad boy who can be redeemed, talk about
the fantasy of about half the single women I know, they keep trying
to be the girl that makes the bad boy good [just sample any singles
site], too bad it doesn't happen in real life which has always
been my problem with Spike). JM is a good enough actor to pull
it off and I think thats exactly what they were going for. So
in a way, all your examples are right Mal, its just that's what
ME was going for.
Willow is a different problem, Joss decided he wanted to take
her evil, but not so evil that she couldn't come back. So even
when she did horrible things, she had to be sympathetic. And AH
delivered. I think its why Willow's story got so mixed up in the
middle of Season 6. The writers were looking for a way to make
her evil actions palatable, so they tried addiction, they tried
power-hungry etc. But like Angelus this season, they didn't want
to go too far (they actually went further with Willow, at least
she actually kills someone, we never see Angelus do more than
drink the dead Lilah's blood. The one blond girl he was about
to drink escaped). So I agree with Soph and SK, the actors didnt
overstep their bounds, they delivered exactly as intended. its
just that too many didn't even catch the ambiguities and found
Spike all good by season 6.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Got what they wanted from the actors, probably even more
-- lunasea, 06:07:25 05/28/03 Wed
But not the audience. I get the impression that the writers are
rather impressed with how the actors interpret their characters
and often adapt the characters to the actor (Joss has said as
much himself in regards to Buffy). The writers are all fans too
and when they see Spike do X, they think something. Some fans
don't agree with that something and see something else. As long
as it isn't important and doesn't really clash with where the
writers are going, they let is slide. Subtext is great.
Season 6 Spike audience perception got out of control, turning
Buffy into the villain and Spike into the "good" guy.
Some writers were pretty vocal about this not being their intent.
Why this happened is something that should be studied and discussed.
It is important both from a sociological standpoint and a literary
one. How better could the writers have written Spike so that he
was ambiguous, but not so much that Buffy was turned into a villain?
How to have Buffy explore her darkness a bit without going to
far into it?
Unfortunately such discussion quickly turn into "Spike is
good at heart and Buffy mercilessly abused him." I think
playing up the vampire angle more would have helped diffuse this.
The writers can remember that Spike is an evil, soulless vampire.
Doesn't mean that an audience that loves vampires to begin with
and wants every creature to be redeemed did.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Got what they wanted from the actors, probably even
more -- leslie, 09:52:50 05/28/03 Wed
I think perhaps the problem of who was the "good" one,
Spike or Buffy, lies more in the way Buffy was written than Spike.
She became unsympathetic because there was too much of a disconnect
between her words and her actions--if she was so revulsed by Spike,
why did she keep going back? If she kept going back, why did she
keep shrieking about his lack of soul? I understand the disconnect
between her need to feel something and her moral reservations
about what she was doing, but from the moment she told Spike he
was just "convenient" to the moment she said "ask
me again why I could never trust you," there was little development
in her understanding of herself and what was happening to her.
The story of Spike coming to terms with his own feelings became
more prominent that Buffy's; we saw him trying to figure
out what was happening, and the process was a continuation of
the long road from his first realizing he was in love with her,
methodically trying one approach after another to see what would
work, and then, when something did work to the extent of a sexual
relationship, trying to understand why the emotional level wasn't
there as well. Buffy's reactions were more along the line of a
sensationalist drug movie: one toke of a joint and five seconds
later she's mainlining heroin and she just can't help herself,
it's all the fault of the Evil Drug. End of story. Buffy became
much more sympathetic this season, when she did try to figure
out what her feelings were for Spike, although as I've said before,
there did reach a point where the "he has a soul now"
bit just started to sound too reminiscent of Cordy's "senior
boys have cars!" line. "When I go shopping for
a vampire boyfriend, I always have to have the one with a soul,
not because a soul creates the capacity for moral judgment and
empathy, but because it's right."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Agree...Had exactly the same impression --
s'kat, 14:35:44 05/28/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> You're brilliant -- auroramama, 19:40:12
05/28/03 Wed
Just had to let you know. I read out that last line in my best
Cordy voice, and my husband went into hysterics.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> concrete
proof -- Malandanza, 09:44:19 05/28/03 Wed
"He and Marsters once tried to go outside the script or
use different facial expressions and Whedon told them if they
didn't follow directions - they would get the next close-up the
back of their head."
Here I was speculating that JM might subtly have tried to subvert
the character of Spike, and go ahead and provide actual proof!
And JW sure knows how to hit an actor where he lives -- back of
the head, indeed! Anyway, saying that JW caught JM and ASH once
doesn't mean that JM never tried it again -- perhaps some time
when JW was busy with Firefly, AtS, Fray or his new family.
Next, the rapid schedule you describe, the tight budgets, the
deadlines, all suggest to me that (like the soaps) it's easier
to get away with a subtle change -- not a rewrite or improvisation,
but a facial expression that a director less experienced
or hyperaware than JW might not have caught. Also, watching the
commentaries and reading some of the interviews it is clear that
the actors sometimes make changes in the character that the writers
did not intend. ED provided the initial lesbian subtext -- the
writers noticed and decided to go with her tacit rewrite of the
character (although I remember a stage direction from one of the
shooting scripts telling the director/actors to keep the subtext
very sub). The scene where Faith smiles at the mayor at the end
of Enemies was also not planned by the writers -- it was
an addition by the actress that they kept. The Character of Andrew
was supposed to be the leader of the Trio -- but the writers completely
changed their perception of the character when they saw Tom Lenk's
version. I suspect he had more control over his character in Season
Six than did many other actors simply because he was the one who
created Andrew.
Jonathan Harris (Doctor Smith from Lost in Space) is, I think,
the best example of an actor who changed his role. He said in
interviews that he knew from past experiences that unsympathetic
characters like the one he was playing were killed off early.
He intentionally began adding humor to the character in an effort
to keep his character alive -- and the director did eventually
notice, called him on it and told him he liked it, so keep doing
it. The infamous saboteur from the first episode became a lovable
rogue, primarily comic relief, occasionally doing evil things
but never successfully enough to make us hate him. My feeling
is that JM followed the same route -- when he says that he knows
the person with the screen time is the one fighting or kissing
Buffy and his character ends up doing both, it leads me to believe
he had a hand in his own destiny.
I agree with Doc that ME wanted a "bad boy with a twinkle
in his eye" but I believe JM is the one who put the twinkle
there in the first place. The writers eventually followed the
changes JM made in the character. But I think ME made a deal with
the devil -- they wanted the misogynist with the heart of gold
and they got it -- and more. As Lunasea says:
"Season 6 Spike audience perception got out of control,
turning Buffy into the villain and Spike into the 'good' guy.
Some writers were pretty vocal about this not being their intent."
Jm went beyond being a charming rogue -- he became the victim.
And that's what really bothers me in both the Willow/Tara and
Spike/Buffy scenes -- the real victims are lost as we sympathize
with their attackers. Spike and Willow become sympathetic at the
expense of those they hurt.
To say that we saw nothing on the screen but what the writers
wanted us to see is to take credit away from JM's acting ability.
JM is the person who made Spike popular -- he had help sometimes
from sympathetic writers (while writers like Fury worked against
him) giving him good lines, but I think that had JM landed the
role of Riley, the current fanfic would be all about Riley and
Buffy living in Iowa and raising fat grandchildren, playing bridge
with their neighbors, going to church on Sunday and fighting vampires
at night.
And I think JM changing his character would explain the otherwise
inexplicable direction he was given at the end of Season Six --
to play the role as though he were in Africa to get the chip out.
Even then, there were moments when Spike seemed sympathetic --
worn out but still struggling, beaten and battered but still fighting.
Had JM known that Spike was in Africa to become a real boy and
be the man Buffy deserves, I suspect the enduring image of Season
Six would not have been Buffy crawling out of the grave, but Spike
weeping with joy that he finally had a chance to prove himself
to Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What the writers were up to... -- Dariel, 21:02:44 05/28/03
Wed
And that's what really bothers me in both the Willow/Tara and
Spike/Buffy scenes -- the real victims are lost as we sympathize
with their attackers. Spike and Willow become sympathetic at the
expense of those they hurt.
I'm not clear on why you think the audience was more sympathetic
towards Willow than towards Tara in TR. Because posters on this
Board felt bad for Willow? Because you did? Feeling and expressing
sympathy for Willow, a major character, isn't equivalent to seeing
her as the victim. If anyone promoted the "Willow as victim"
concept, it was the writers with their addiction storyline. A
storyline, I might add, that was universally reviled by fans as
a cop-out. Despite AH's charm, fans saw a Willow who was being
seduced by her own desire for power, and not a victim of the magics.
In an earlier post, you mentioned Crush, and the audience's sympathetic
reaction to Spike. This episode is, actually, a great example
of how the writing, and not anyone's interpretation of a character,
created certain audience perceptions.
I love the character of Spike, as you may have noticed from my
posts, and I felt that sympathy you mentioned at the end of Crush.
Still, I saw a huge logical problem with the episode. Spike really
messed up there. This episode showed Spike as a clear danger to
Buffy--he tasers her, chains her up, threatens her, and nearly
gets her killed. So, when Buffy gets free, what does she do? She
punches him and shuts him out of her house like she's punishing
a bad pet. In the next episode, her friends, well, her friends
don't even threaten to kill him. They're mean to Spike.
My point is that, logically, Spike should have been staked in
this episode. (I'm of course glad he wasn't.) His behavior was
over the top, yet just a few episodes later, he's back in Buffy's
good graces. This did not come about because of cheekbones or
JM's acting. It came about because the writers decided that he
should be forgiven.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: concrete proof -- Rufus, 05:03:54 05/30/03 Fri
Jm went beyond being a charming rogue -- he became the victim.
And that's what really bothers me in both the Willow/Tara and
Spike/Buffy scenes -- the real victims are lost as we sympathize
with their attackers. Spike and Willow become sympathetic at the
expense of those they hurt.
No kidding.....when I saw how bad it was getting I feared for
the show itself. But the situation isn't uncommon....if you can
get the sympathy of a majority of people you'd be amazed at what
someone/or fictional character can get away with. I'll have to
say that the actors involved seem to be as surprised at the backlash
against Buffy (the character) as I wasn't. When you get lots of
people more concerned with Buffy apologizing for the beating in
Dead Things than considering the scores of murders Spike has committed
you know that some of the audience has become invested in a villian
to an extent the writers had to compensate for.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Of course I have to add what happened with Spike already
had been done with Angel.... -- Rufus, 05:12:23 05/30/03
Fri
Angel wasn't supposed to be a long lived character til they saw
that SMG had great chemistry with the actor. Angel was then shown
to have a tragic past without any visual reference...leaving the
audience to see the situation from Angel and Buffy's point of
view as lovers. This was explored more in Angel the Series when
we got just a bit more of an idea of what Liam/Angelus/Angel was
all about. So, Marsters isn't the first demon in the show to get
a break because of looks or chemistry.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Of course I have to add what happened with
Spike already had been done with Angel.... -- s'kat, 08:58:19
05/30/03 Fri
I remember a comment on both the A&E Tvography and a documentary
program called Nite Bites.
On Tvography - Marsters states how shocked Joss Whedon was by
the audience reaction to the characters of Spike in S2 and Angel
in S1 Btvs. Whedon had planned to make all vampires evil - but
the audience, no matter what he did, got thrilled by the vampire.
Then on Nite Bites, we have Marti Noxon who joined the show in
S2, admitting as a youngster she fantasied about a vampire biting
her and the most sexually alurring scene she'd seen in a film
was Dracula coming in and seducing Lucy in the Frank Langella
version.
In re-watching S1 and 2 - and seeing the ratings, I'm struck by
something, which a new viewer stated when she watched these episodes
for the first time with me:
"If they hadn't developed the vampire characters - this series
would have just been, okay what new monster or vamp do we kill
this week." And if you think about it - that was most of
S1, and S1's ratings weren't that great - sort of on the cusp.
Whedon re-worked it and the ratings spiked in S2.
So, yes they took the on-screen chemistry and magnetism of DB
and JM and marketed it. But, if they wanted to de-emphasize that
- they could have done so easily. JM's vamp face is not attractive
at all. They could have emphasized that more than they did. They
certainly do so in S7.
Also as for the beating scene? They filmed it in such a way that
it was very difficult not to feel sympathy for Spike.
Compare this scene to Faith's beating of the vampire in Faith
Hope and Trick - in that scene, you're sympathy is with Faith.
Why? The vampire never goes into human face, you don't get a close
up of his face. The camera is focused on Faith's face and Buffy's.
In Dead Things - we get a close-up of Spike's bloody damaged "human"
face and not one but several close-ups, we get the line - "you
always hurt the one you love", we get the set-up of her wandering
in the police station and realizing Spike was right. Then we get
her in the scene with the SG, realizing it was Warren and repeating
Spike's line as evidence. Prior to this we get scenes - where
Spike follows her and helps her in a fight and she accidently
hits him. The actor would have had to bend over-backwards to make
himself unsympathetic in this scene. It was shot, edited, directed,
costumed, makeup, choreographed and written with the sympathy
placed on Spike and Buffy mutually. Pretty much all Spike in the
alley scene. Buffy in the Bronze scene. And believe me - Whedon
was involved - he made them re-film the alley scene four times.
And if they wanted to make Buffy more sympathetic there? Easy
- show less of Spike's face, show it as a vamp face, show it hardly
bloody at all, have Spike fight her back, any number of things
could have been done to lessen the impact to the audience. I'm
sure the actor who suffered a severe whiplash because of it, wouldn't
have minded.
As for Angel - same thing. Never fails to astonish me how fans
still loved him - after he broke Jenny's neck and almost killed
Buffy. But they do. And the writers, director, etc filmed it that
way. They did romantic close-ups, they made the actors look pretty
with make-up and costumes (if you see these guys without the make-up
and costumes - they aren't nearly as great looking and look much
older), great lines - that's what TV is all about, roping in an
audience, getting them enthralled, making them tune in each week.
So I think to state that it's the actors fault for this is somewhat
silly, if you consider all the other ingredients that go into
to creating the character and show.
JM isn't Spike. Spike is the creation of the actor, the makeup
artist, the costumer, the set design, the writer, the director,
the mix of other characters, the hair stylist,
the stunt coordinator, the stunt man, etc. Same with DB.
This is a collaborative piece.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Short term and long term -- Sophist, 10:54:45 05/28/03
Wed
Your example of Jonathan Harris makes exactly the distinction
I was trying to make. Sure, the actor initiated the change. The
director, however, retained control. The long-term image we saw
of Dr. Smith was the one the director wanted us to see. Harris
would not have been able to subvert the role if the director hadn't
approved.
So it was with Spike. I have no doubt that JM brought aspects
of his own character to the role of Spike (he and JW have both
said so in interviews). I have no doubt that he and other actors
on BtVS had their own ideas of what should happen with their characters
(I remember AH and SMG both making comments about their characters).
But in the long run, the characterization we saw was the
one JW wanted us to see. Whether by commission or omission, it
can't be any other way.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Exactly -- s'kat, 14:01:59 05/28/03 Wed
What you need to remember is JW and his writers are the ones in
the editing room. JW didn't like what they did with the performance
in Beneath You - so he went back and re-filmed it. MN was known
to re-do scenes in S6. SMG had major reservations about Dead Things
- but ME told her how they wanted to play it. AH also had reservations
about Willow going dark, but not much control. Whoever is in the
editing room and does the final edit controls the work. They don't
like something? It ends up on the cutting room floor. That scene
in Smashed where he goes and bites the girl? They could have easily
edited out the speech and just shown him try and bite her.
Every commentary I've seen on Btvs seems to suggest this.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Short term and long term -- Malandanza, 09:03:48
05/29/03 Thu
I'm going to reply to a couple of different posts here instead
of making several separate posts:
Sophist: Your example of Jonathan Harris makes exactly the
distinction I was trying to make. Sure, the actor initiated the
change. The director, however, retained control. The long-term
image we saw of Dr. Smith was the one the director wanted us to
see. Harris would not have been able to subvert the role if the
director hadn't approved.
I think we're almost on the same page here -- I began my remarks
by saying the writers were not responsible for Spike's transformation,
but that the directors were. JM made the changes initially, but
the directors let him get away with it. As with Dr. Smith, the
directors/writers would have said no had JM asked to make Spike
into Heathcliff, but it's easier to forgiveness than permission,
so once the changes had been made, he was retroactively given
permission. I don't see much difference between JM and Jonathan
Harris -- each had an agenda and each achieved that agenda (JH
wanted to keep his character alive, JM wanted the same -- plus
more screen time as the person killing or kissing Buffy). What
difference I do see is that Spike as the misogynist hero undermines
the Mission Statement of the show in a way that JH's goofy, self-centered,
cowardly Dr. Smith never did (not that there was much of a Mission
Statement to undermine in Lost in Space).
Sophist: "I have no doubt that he and other actors on
BtVS had their own ideas of what should happen with their characters
(I remember AH and SMG both making comments about their characters).
But in the long run, the characterization we saw was the one JW
wanted us to see. Whether by commission or omission, it can't
be any other way."
I think the actors do have more control over their characters
than you suggest. To use the most drastic example, AB refused
to reprise her role as Tara because of the damage she thought
EvilTara would do to her character, and the CwDP suffered
dramatically as a result. Furthermore, I think with Spike there
was a deliberate attempt to make him less sympathetic in Season
Six. For example, every time they put the word "bitch"
in his mouth they tried to dispel his romantic aura. I don't blame
the writers for failing, except when they also directed.
Dariel: "I'm not clear on why you think the audience was
more sympathetic towards Willow than towards Tara in TR. Because
posters on this Board felt bad for Willow? Because you did?"
I came across the Television Without Pity recaps late this season
after someone on the board mentioned them, so have been reading
through them recently. The recappers truly seemed to hate Season
Seven, but as I headed back to previous episodes, I found some
positive reviews along with the negatives. When I saw that the
recapper had had the same impression of Willow at the end of TR
that I had, I decided that the sympathy for Willow was more widespread
than I had previously believed. I don't think the writers intended
AH to make Willow quite so contrite in the scene, since in the
next episodes Willow says (to Amy the Rat) that Tara left her
for no good reason.
Dariel: "I love the character of Spike, as you may have
noticed from my posts, and I felt that sympathy you mentioned
at the end of Crush. Still, I saw a huge logical problem with
the episode. Spike really messed up there. This episode showed
Spike as a clear danger to Buffy--he tasers her, chains her up,
threatens her, and nearly gets her killed. So, when Buffy gets
free, what does she do? She punches him and shuts him out of her
house like she's punishing a bad pet. In the next episode, her
friends, well, her friends don't even threaten to kill him. They're
mean to Spike."
I felt that Buffy's response was in perfect character for her
-- she had just been through one of the most humiliating moments
of her life and just wanted to get out as quickly as possible.
She hasn't seen Spike as any sort of threat since he was chipped
and has problems with staking people she knows anyway. Sure, she
had reason to stake him (along with Dru and Harmony), but also
remember why she was in Spike's crypt -- Joyce and Willow suggested
that she had led Spike. She was there partly to correct the misconception
and partly because she believed she was to blame for his obsession.
As for Buffy's friends, I think there was enough of an implied
threat in Giles' remarks to pass for being more than just mean
to him. Spike still came off sympathetically in that scene because
of the look on JM's face when he saw that all the Scoobies, even
Dawn, were united against him.
The writers contrived to bring him back into Buffy's good graces
with the torture scene. Given that he endured torture without
giving up Dawn, he had earned a second chance to be a Scooby.
I would have preferred they not make him a martyr and had him
face consequences for his actions, but I don't find Spike being
back a couple of episodes later as problematic as I find Buffy
dropping Dawn off at Spike's crypt after the attempted rape. In
the former case, the writers justified their actions, in the latter
they did not. I understand that the AR was a last minute addition
to SR, but the writers had an obligation to make sure that future
episodes were rewritten to take this change into account.
Valheru: "There are two victims in ìCrushî:
the poor, confused suitor and the woman with the restraining order.
There are two villains: the obsessed stalker and the uncaring
beloved. Buffy and Spike are both being presented on two different
metaphorical levels. But Spikeís ìvictimî
level is the one ME had gone with since ìOOMMî, so
itís the one ìCrushî is primarily shown on."
I'm going to paraphrase Jane Austen and say that I feel there
was just enough merit between Spike and Buffy in Crush
to make one good person -- and that person was Buffy. The stalker
is not the victim, the woman who exercises her free will to reject
unwanted advances is not the villain. I don't believe Buffy was
any more wrong to reject Spike in this episode than Katrina was
to reject Warren in Dead Things (and Katrina was quite
a bit harsher than Buffy was with Spike in Crush). I don't
anyone should blame Jody Foster for not giving John Hinkley jr.
a chance, calling her the villain and him the victim. I think
it is to ME's discredit that they allowed a stalker/attempted
rapist to become the victim while the actual victim (and the feminist
icon of the show) became the villain for rejecting his advances.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Short term and long term -- Valheru, 13:25:58
05/29/03 Thu
You bring up the Magic Box scene in "I Was Made to Love You",
which is an interesting episode in itself. First, let me backtrack...
Spike's "Buffy love" is generally portrayed sympathetically
from "Out of My Mind" to "Listening to Fear"
because we see the whole thing from Spike's POV. We watch him
stalk, snoop, and pester Buffy, and though his actions are often
reprehensible on their own morality, the show asks us to care
for the underlying emotion. "Every villain is the hero of
his own story," as the saying goes, and when it comes to
Spike's interactions with Buffy, the story is his. If we were
seeing it through Buffy's POV, 1) we wouldn't have any idea what
the hell is going on because Spike is acting completely out of
character compared to late-S4 and early-S5, and 2) Spike's actions
would appear negatively both morally and emotionally.
"Into the Woods" is the first time we see the POV shift.
Instead of seeing Spike from Spike's perspective, we see him from
Buffy's and Riley's. His late-night stakeout at the Summers' tree
is not presented humorously. His stalking of Riley is shown in
omnipresent POV, revealing the stark creepiness of both of their
actions. We see Spike standing ominously in Buffy's doorway through
her eyes, as do we see him lead her to the bordello; we don't
know why he takes her or what he's thinking as he does,
we only know that Buffy is scared as hell. At the end of the scene,
when Spike's motivation is revealed, although he thought he was
helping her, the episode heavily condemns him. At Spike's crypt,
Riley has the POV and Buffy is the subject, while Spike just acts
boorish--he is not there representing himself, he's there to mirror
Riley.
From "Triangle" to "Crush", we re-enter Spike's
POV. Once more, he is funny, sympathetic, and multi-layered. He
is the hero of his own story again.
"I Was Made to Love You", however, shows us Spike primarily
from everyone else's POV. He is crude, obnoxious, and wholly un-romantic
in his opening scene with Buffy at the Bronze because we're in
Buffy's POV. April tossing Spike through the window is funny,
he had it coming, because we see it from an omnipresent POV sympathetic
to Buffy and April. The scene in the Magic Box is from the Scoobies'
POV, where to them, Spike's the guy who stalked Buffy, kidnapped
her, and is now using his Buffy encounters to insult her. His
feeble attempts at "explaining" the situation aren't
sympathetic--we're not in Spike's POV--but are instead pathetic--we
hear them from Giles's POV. So when Giles turns up the Ripper
and out-intimidates Spike (Go Giles!), Giles is the hero.
By the end of the episode, we are given Spike at another low point.
Getting Warren to create the Buffybot is presented as the last
resort of a obsession-crazed evil loser, not the misguided intentions
of an unrequited suitor. Why? Because we're in Warren's POV. Warren.
The guy who has the absolute worst ideas of "romance".
He thinks Spike is evil. And so the episode's end
is a heavy moment, rather than light as it would have been in
Spike's POV.
You can't watch BtVS and take things episode by episode
or scene by scene. The characters carry over. "Crush"
might end on a "Buffy was mean to Spike!" note, but
"IWMTLY" establishes where Buffy isn't mean enough.
ME likes to shake things up. Who else would make Angelus
sympathetic in "I Only Have Eyes For You"? It was just
for part of an episode--by "Killed by Death", we aren't
supposed to continue to feel for him. And it's not like David
Boreanaz subverted the scenes to steal that sympathy.
S5 ends with Spike weeping over Buffy's body. This was not a scene
gained by a few mis-reactions from James Marsters. It took work
to transform the Spike of "School Hard" to the Spike
of "The Gift". "BB&B", "IOHEFY",
"Becoming", "Lover's Walk", "The Initiative",
"Pangs", "Something Blue", "Doomed",
"The Yoko Factor", "Restless", "Out of
My Mind", "Fool for Love", "Into the Woods",
"Crush", "I Was Made to Love You", "Forever",
"Intervention"...all those episodes went into creating
the guy who tells Buffy that she makes him feel like a man, and
also turning Buffy into the person who could do that. Nothing
on this show is cheaply earned.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Just because you're in someone's POV doesn't
make them sympathetic -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:40:17 05/29/03
Thu
I recently watched the movie "Schindler's List" with
a group of people, and there's a scene I think is pertinent to
this discussion.
In the movie, Amon Goeth is the head of the Nazi concentration
camp at Krakow. He is a brutal, savage man. Whenever he's a little
frustrated or bored, he shoots one of the prisoners. But, perhaps
the most reviling aspect of his character is his attraction to
Helen, the Jewish woman serving as his maid. In a particular scene,
Goeth finds Helen down in the cellar and concludes she's trying
to hide from him. This leads to Goeth pacing around, contemplating
why he's attracted to her, and why it would be wrong to act on
it, and why it might be right. Helen doesn't speak in the entire
scene, she just stands there, looking frightened. We seem to be
pretty clearly in Goeth's POV. But, despite that, when Goeth almost
kisses Helen and says "You almost talked me into it, bitch",
followed by a severe beating, everyone I saw the movie with agreed
that Goeth was absolutely vile in that scene.
In watching "Schindler's List", we were in a position
similar in several ways to the one in "Crush". We have
a man who has a woman (whom he's deeply attracted to) at his mercy.
We are in the man's POV, with the woman saying little to nothing.
The man expresses his desire for the woman, and seems almost close
to actualising it, but being shot down (for Spike it was Buffy's
rejection, for Goeth it was the realization of the consequences
for kissing a Jewish woman). And, in both scenes, the man blames
the woman for causing his attraction and calling her a bitch for
doing so. Yet, in "Crush", the man comes of as sympathetic,
while, in "Schindler's List", the man comes off as a
horrendous monster. And I think Malandanza hit on why: acting.
In "Crush", Buffy was acting cocky and disgusted, while
Spike was acting like he was about to come apart at the seams.
In "Schindler's List", Helen acts scared and terribly
afraid of Goeth, while Goeth acts alternately "gee wiz, ain't
this an awkward situation" and "lousy bitch! you'll
pay for that!". If Goeth had said his dialouge and done his
actions with the same sort of emotion that Spike had in "Crush",
I do think he wouldn't have come across as hideously as he did.
Likewise, if Spike had had Goeth's demeanor in "Crush",
he'd be very blatantly vile. Plus, it doesn't hurt that Helen
was acting scared while Buffy seemed over-confident given the
situation, though it would have been out of character for her
to be so.
Now, I think it was either shadowkat or Sophist who mentioned
that the writers are in the editing room and get to pick which
scenes are used and which aren't. While this may very well be
true, there are two things to consider: first, I doubt all the
writers are in the editing room for every episode, so we can't
be sure who is being represented in the editing process; second,
in the editing stage, you can only work with the material that's
filmed; if all of the shots of that scene contained Spike acting
the same way as he did in the version we saw, then the editing
process couldn't make too much of a difference; the only thing
that could make a difference in that situation would be to reshoot,
which, as others have pointed out, isn't always feasible with
television time constraints.
Now, did ME set out to make Spike sympathetic, whether before
or after seeing JM play it that way? There is no one answer to
that question. It seems pretty certain that Rebecca Rand Krischner
was very much an enthusiast for sympathetic Spike; it is also
very obvious that David Fury had the exact opposite opinion. With
some writers it seems conflicting (I've gotten varying reads off
of Jane Espenson and Marti Noxon regarding this issue). And Joss
Whedon himself, whose opinion matters most, has pretty much kept
mum on the subject. So, I think it's fair to say that parts of
ME tried to make Spike sympathetic, and others worked in opposition
to them. ME, while we might like to think of it as a cohesive
hole, does consist of people who do disagree on aspects of the
show, and that disagreement does show up in their writing.
P.S. As for Spike's POV being both a sympathetic and humorous
one, I think this is really more because, for at least the beginning
of Season 5, they were adapting Spike after turning him into Season
4's comic relief. For the first half of Season 5, they were still
trying to find something to do with Spike's character besides
the guy who makes snarky remarks about the other characters. As
such, you can still see plenty of his comic relief role during
that episodes. And the comic relief's natural bent is to be sympathetic,
since none of their bad actions are taken too seriously, and people
have a tendency to sympathise with people who constantly fail
and are embarrassed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Not always... -- Valheru, 17:21:02
05/29/03 Thu
...but there must be some sympathy, or else you're telling
the story of complete psychopath. When you get into someone's
head, they perceive everything they do as reasonable. If they
don't, then you've failed the character.
Goeth is sympathetic in the beginning. We can understand
the attraction and the forbidden aspect, even if we don't agree
with it. Spielberg wants to draw us in, to make us want what Goeth
wants. Then Goeth flips out...and suddenly, we're not in his POV
anymore. Spielberg pulls the POV out into third-person, to show
us the raw brutality. It's a scene designed to make us feel guilty
for any sympathy we might have for Goeth, to reveal that beneath
the man is a monster.
"Crush" is different in that we stay in Spike's POV
through pretty much the whole Spike/Buffy/Dru/Harmony confrontation.
The scene is set-up to Spike: who does he choose, Buffy or Dru?
Fury's mistake is to try to change the POV in the middle: does
Buffy choose to lead Spike on to save her life, or stand by her
ground? It's a nested POV, where we are seeing Spike through Buffy
through Spike. But Spike's POV is still dominant, so that the
POV reverts back to him when Buffy denies him. The scene, as written,
shows us that Spike has a man beneath the monster. Whether Fury
intended that or not is his own fault, not the actors (and notice
that Sarah, James, and Juliet are all playing it the same way,
so it wouldn't just be James's fault anyway).
The other difference is tone. Goeth's scene with Helen is completely
serious. The scene in "Crush" isn't. Fury makes it funny
that Spike is doing all this. From Drusilla's scared chatter to
Harmony's humourous rejection, it's all for laughs. The only person
who isn't being funny is Buffy, so she comes across as a sour
puss. Had Buffy been written lighter, it might have given Spike's
insane rantings more weight, but since she's so intense, it makes
it seem like Spike isn't serious at all. Again, that's Fury's
mistake if he didn't intend that.
The story of "Crush" isn't about Buffy being the victim
of Spike's obsession, it's about Spike being a victim of everyone
else. If that's not the message Fury wanted, then he shouldn't
have written it like that. If he wants us to feel more sympathy
for Buffy than for Spike at the end, then we should have been
in Buffy's POV for most of the episode. Hell, had Fury left out
the scene at the Summers' house with Buffy, Dawn, Willow, and
Joyce, there would have been no written sympathy for her
at all. Of course, there's the inherent sympathy in Buffy's situation,
but that's sympathy generated solely by the audience, not
the script (in other words, we automatically sympathize with her).
In Schindler's List we automatically sympathize with the
Jews before the movie even starts because of what we know of their
situation in general, but it's the sympathy written in the script
that allows it to be great.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I saw "Crush" and didn't
see Spike as the victim -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:56:00 05/29/03
Thu
No, I didn't see Buffy as the victim, but didn't see Spike as
the victim, either (at least, not in the standard use of the word),
since everything bad that happened to him was a direct result
of his actions. Frankly? I didn't see Buffy as having much to
do with it at all. She was there largely as a motivating force
for Spike, but the main action of the story really didn't depend
on her much in any way. The only way her actions changed things
was rejecting Spike, and since that's a constant of her character
at the time I don't view it much as a contributing action. In
the last scene, for example, I didn't see that as Buffy rejecting
Spike/throwing out a stalker. I saw that as Spike going on and
on about how much Buffy yearned for him, then suddenly being cut
down and finding out she didn't. The fact that Buffy wasn't in
that shot clarifies that for me (compared to "Passion",
where Buffy deals a parting shot; here she doesn't seem to be
much a part of the rejection process). To me, "Crush"
was about showing how Spike's reasoning about love was so fundamentally
opposed to what is right/healthy/successful. By being in his POV,
we see how twisted his POV is. So, I didn't see Spike being the
victim of everyone else, as you put it, but the victim of his
own actions. After all, Drusilla came, offering to take him back,
and Spike tasered her. Harmony was very eager to be his girlfriend,
and he threw her out. The only woman he wanted was the one who
could never love him, and he finalized that predicament by chaining
her up and threatening to kill her. Yes, it was funny that Spike
was doing all that, but it was funny partly because he just kept
making things worse and worse for himself.
Also, Buffy wasn't devoid of humor. "Which question would
you like us to answer first?" or "The only chance you
had with me was while I was unconscious" are beautifully
funny lines. I'd hardly call her serious, just funny in a more
biting way.
As for "Schindler's List", it was the opinion of the
people I was with and myself that Goeth was a sicko since he first
appeared. After all, before that scene with Helen, we see him
order the deaths of several people (including the oddly likable
Jewish architect) and casually shoot people down from the balcony.
This made it impossible to sympathise with Goeth during the early
part of his scene with Helen, even though it was his POV, since
we knew it was the POV of a murderer who wanted to screw one of
his subordinates/slaves (not to mention that Goeth finding her
like that seemed very intrusive, and the Nazi uniform doesn't
help either).
P.S. Malandanza posted a piece of the "Crush" transcript,
where, after Buffy says when the only chance he had with her was,
it says that Spike's reaction to be "why didn't I think of
that?" That, at the very least, isn't something that came
through in the filmed episode, which does show some influence
on the actor's part, or possibly the director's.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Uhm regarding the writing
arguement -- s'kat, 18:55:21 05/29/03 Thu
Malandanza posted a piece of the "Crush" transcript,
where, after Buffy says when the only chance he had with her was,
it says that Spike's reaction to be "why didn't I think of
that?" That, at the very least, isn't something that came
through in the filmed episode, which does show some influence
on the actor's part, or possibly the director's.
That's nice but again bad proof - it's Fury's shooting script
and shooting scripts as writers state themselves, prove zip. The
director/creator/writer changes things on the set. And Whedon,
the creator was on the set during the shooting of this one.
How do I know this? I've seen pictures from the shooting of Crush
- where Joss Whedon is shown literally standing next to Buffy
and David Solomon is shown literally standing next to Spike, cameras
surrounding them in the Bronze scene while they are doing the
initial scene - clearly the photograph is a moment after one of
the takes, where Joss Whedon is advising the actors on how HE
wants them to act in this scene. (I found it either on www.bloodyawfulpoet.com
or morethanspike.com?)
Regarding Shooting Scripts - that is the writer who was commissioned
to write the script last take at the episode, Whedon will often
come in and change things.
Still not convinced?
Okay how about this bit from James MArsters interview in the Official
Buffy Magazine #8.
Regarding the basement scenes in Lessons and scenes in Beneath
You:
"I kept saying, 'No, he's really depressed.' I kept trying
to save my dignity, And Joss would say, 'No. He's bonkers, his
mind is absolutely shattered."
Regarding the scene at the end of Beneath You:
"In the first version, it was a lot more of Spike talking
about what his experience was, which works really well on the
stage. Both Doug and I come from the stage, and we were actually
excited it was becoming theaterical. This is all hindsight, but
I think [a solioquy] is dramatic onstage because it's amazing
for a person to stand in front of a group of people and be honest
and open. But there's an implied privacy about film, and someone
proclaiming themselves in a room with only two people in it is
just not that dramatic. And so Joss employed the real cinematic
device of potential danger in the shadows. Spike went away into
the shadows and Buffy didn't know where he was, and that tension
held the scene while Spike talked about himself. Also, having
me come in from the shadows allowed me to be more theatrical.
Because you couldn't see my face, I could put more in the voice.
Stage is hanging words in the air. Joss gave me a situation where
we could get away with doing that on film."
Now as a contrast - or ironically - a demonstration of how an
actor can effect a scene that might have been meant to be perceived
one way but comes out another - we can look at the AR scene in
the bathroom. Now before I discuss, two things to keep in mind
- one the scene given to the actors was slipped in at the last
moment, they weren't given time to prepare it really and did not
know about it ahead of time, it was a last minute decision both
according to the writers and actors, two - the director and writers
and creator could have chosen to re-film the scene as they chose
to re-film the scene in Beneath You.
Here's what the actor says about it:
(On a television series....actors are bound to perform the scripts
as they come in. James now feels that it might have helped to
discuss the scene further with Sarah prior to filming: )"I
think she probably tried [to talk about it]. It just terrified
me. There was actually much less physical contact between Sarah
and I than it looks like. We're playing with depth of field illusions,
where the two characters both move violently, and it looks like
they're touching, but they're not. That scene, more than any other
was very carefully choreographed."
(Unlike many screen sexual assaults the scene was played not as
though Spike's actions were premediated or deliberately hostile,
but rather ass though he was too lost in his emotions to fully
comprehend what he was doing until Buffy kicked him across the
room:) " It was written
very carefully. But I was more freaked out about the scene than
I should have been and I think that freaked Sarah out and then
I, as the character, reacted to her freaking out and that dynamic
kind of fed on itself. I think that it ended up being a much more
agressive and violent scene than we intended. I think there was
an attempt to keep it from being that painful, but it played that
way and so we have to deal with it. See, this is what happens
when you are brave artistically. You set fires. And some of the
fires burn hotter than you expected. Buffy is very brave about
the risks we take and that one burned us."
Now take what he says here and compare it to what he said above?
Whedon could have changed it at ANY time. He does change it in
Beneath You.
And in Crush? Whedon was on the frigging set the whole time, leaning
over the actors between takes. I've seen documentaries showing
what happens between takes - this is what occurs:
Actors do a scene - maybe a page, directors and writer
rushes in and tells them what they did wrong and how they should
re-do it. Take two. They do the scene again. This time it clicks.
NExt scene. It's not like the stage.
IF you don't believe me - see if you can get a chance to see a
documentary on the making of a tv show or watch the DVD commentaries.
Yes the actors have an effect, if JM was not a good actor and
did not have charisma - he would have been staked in S2.
Same with DB - if he hadn't had chemistry with SMG and wasn't
a decent actor - he'd have been gone after Angel 1.
He was never intended to be a regular. Heck he was a last minute
addition. Same with ASH - whose sexiness - caused them to write
The Dark Age and Passion. But they don't run the show. The writers
do.
Regarding Crush? I saw Spike as a twist on the Quasimodo character
in Hunchback of Notre Dame. Sort of Creepy but also oddly endearing
in the sense that he was doomed to want that which he couldn't
have - an echo of Buffy - who also wanted what was unattainable.
Here's Riley who wants Buffy, Xander who wanted Buffy, Spike who
wants Buffy - but Buffy has shut herself down b/c she wants Angel
who remains forever out of reach. Spike is Buffy's shadow. Dru
symbolizes Spike, Harmony - symbolizes Riley, and Buffy - symbolizes
Angel in Buffy's head. Or some version of that,
actually wondering if it might not be H=S, R=D...but whatever.
I liked Crush - because it was so ironic.
I expected Spike to kill Buffy or try to when she was in his crypt
was shocked when he did what he did. And loved every moment of
it. The reversals in that script were wonderful. And I didn't
see any of the characters as victims so much as lonely people
who wanted love but didn't know how to go about it. Also in places?
Very funny. But you have to get Fury's sadistic wit. But and I
will say this again - nothing we saw on screen wasn't approved
and orchestrated by Whedon - he was on the bloody set!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uhm regarding
the writing arguement -- Malandanza, 08:51:04 05/30/03
Fri
"That's nice but again bad proof - it's Fury's shooting
script and shooting scripts as writers state themselves, prove
zip. The director/creator/writer changes things on the set. And
Whedon, the creator was on the set during the shooting of this
one."
Seeing Whedon on the set isn't proof that he was there the entire
time, micromanaging every aspect of the shoot. It's only proof
that he was on the set at some point during the shooting. You
mentioned David Solomon -- someone I had never heard of, so I
googled him the context of BtVS. He's the guy who directed Crush
(along with many other episodes) yet you claim that JW was there
the entire time doing Solomon's job for him. Somehow, I doubt
that JW would hire a director only to second guess every decision
that director makes -- why not just direct the episode himself?
I don't believe that Joss had the time to be the dictatorial director
controlling every aspect of BtVS with all the conflicting demands
for his time he had.
And speaking of directors, the page that listed Solomon as director
also listed all the directors. I found something interesting out
-- the argument that the writers are often also the director?
A patently false argument in the context of this discussion. Only
JW both wrote and directed episodes in Season Four. In Season
Five Marti Noxon got the chance to direct two of her own episodes
(Into the Woods and Forever) -- no other writers
did. Given that Spike's transformation from Big Bad, to comic
relief, to victim took place late in Seasons Four and early in
Season Five, the argument that writers (other than Joss) share
the directorial responsibilities for Spike's transition just doesn't
work.
Additionally, there is one scene in that bothers
me -- the very last shot of Spike's face. Even if JW was on the
set making changes, none of your quotes suggest he personally
planned that last scene -- that he wanted the monster to look
like a man -- after an episode that showed deep down, Spike really
is a monster -- I mean, offer to sacrifice the woman who was the
object of your devotion for a century so the new girl will notice
you? And threaten to kill her if she doesn't like that plan? The
whole episode was creepy -- especially Buffy walking out of the
shrine to see Spike and Dru waiting for her.
As for some of the other arguments -- you say that the directors
have the freedom to reshoot any scene they wish, but also mention
budget and time restraints. It simply isn't practical to reshoot
every scene. I have no doubt (especially after watching commentaries
where the writers say what did and did not work) that the directors
allow some performances they consider slightly flawed to get past
them. We can all pick out inconsistencies in any given episode
-- things that didn't quite work or that we'd have like to have
seen acted slightly differently, but if we were directing, an
episode would never get finished on time and under budget (if
at all). In practice, directors simply don't have the freedom
to reshoot everything.
The argument that actors have no control at all over their characters
is directly at odds with your statement "Yes the actors
have an effect, if JM was not a good actor and did not have charisma
- he would have been staked in S2." The actors aren't
just pretty people blandly reading cue cards on a perfectly scripted
and choreographed set. They do have an effect on their characters.
Spike survived to Season Seven because of changes JM set into
motion -- modifications he made to Spike, permitted by the directors,
and, later, confirmed by the writers. Riley is gone because MB
failed to make Riley likable in spite of the assistance he received
from the writers. But the best evidence that actors influence
their characters is Spuffy -- JM and SMG pestered JW about a Buffy/Spike
story arc and JW said, in no uncertain terms, that there would
be no more vampires for Buffy. Yet we have Spuffy.
The omnipotence of the writers is also something you are inconsistent
about. One moment the actors must regard the script as sacred,
the next JW is hacking and slashing great chunks of it.
Characters are created through the combination of the actors,
directors and writer. Spike without the snarky wouldn't be as
interesting, but Spike without JM animating him (and the directors
allowing him to alter the character from the writer's intention)
would have been killed off long ago.
If a writer also directs his own episode, I believe he is responsible
for what we see. Not that we see the artist's vision exactly as
he wished -- being a good writer does not automatically confer
skill as a director upon a person -- just that there is no one
else to blame for the inconsistencies we see. In any event, the
director is ultimately responsible for what we see. That's his
job.
So I'm sticking with my original statement. The writers were not
the ones wholly responsible for turning the abuser into the victim.
JM began the process and the directors allowed him to, either
through neglect or intent. The writing generally portrays Spike
negatively, but JM can make Spike seem like the victim even while
spewing forth misogynistic attacks.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't anyone
going to blame the viewers? -- Arethusa, 09:19:38 05/30/03
Fri
I think we can agree that Spike is portrayed both positively and
negatively by the writers, directors and actor. But if the original
question is "why did some viewers see Spike as so sympathetic
that they forgot he's an evil killer and had to be reminded of
it", why not put the responsibility where it belongs? Everybody's
viewing Spike's actions through their own perspectives. Those
who want to identify with the scorned in love will do so no matter
what the writers and directors do. Heck, even after the AR many
argued Spike wasn't really attempting to rape Buffy at all, despite
the evidence before them. You can dissect the behind-the-scenes
activity 'till the cows come home, but the viewers' reactions
will depend on the viewers' perceptions. To me, Spike was always
evil first and charming second, and I never identified with him
enough to make me forget it. Being rejected at love is not enough
to make me forget a century of killing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> You're more right than
I am, Finn -- Valheru, 23:33:42 05/29/03 Thu
No, I didn't see Buffy as the victim, but didn't see Spike
as the victim, either (at least, not in the standard use of the
word), since everything bad that happened to him was a direct
result of his actions.
To me, "Crush" was about showing how Spike's reasoning
about love was so fundamentally opposed to what is right/healthy/successful.
By being in his POV, we see how twisted his POV is. So, I didn't
see Spike being the victim of everyone else, as you put it, but
the victim of his own actions.
I was trying to put it that way, but I got lost somewhere along
the line. You're right, of course, that there aren't any true
victims (or villains) in "Crush". I just used those
terms because I couldn't think of any better ones and they were
close enough.
And Spike is definitely his own worst enemy here. I will say that
he has been strongly influenced by Dru and Buffy, so in some sense,
his emotions are at their mercy, but I didn't mean that they were
responsible for that (okay, maybe Dru is). As you so perfectly
wrote, "by being in his POV, we see how twisted his POV is."
But I don't think the intent of that was to demonize Spike (as
they did with Angelus in S2), because the tone of the Spike/Dru/Buffy
scene was so light and joke-filled. Because we see so much in
Spike's POV and because it isn't treated very seriously,
I very much doubt that James Marsters is responsible for stealing
the character away from the writers (which was my original point,
another thing that got lost somewhere along the way :P
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Masq put
it best in her "Evil of . . ." section -- Finn Mac
Cool, 09:02:44 05/30/03 Fri
That Spike isn't evil quite in the same way as Angelus and most
other demons are. The Angelus type represent evil-for-evil's sake,
wanna destroy the world, destroy all humans evil. Spike, on the
other hand, is basically the sum of all human evils. Rage, selfishness,
lack of sympathy, seeing people as objects. I think "Crush"
was trying to demonize Spike, but demonize in a different way
then Angelus in "Passion". In "Passion", the
point was to show how apart from humanity and emotion Angelus
was and how it led to evil. In "Crush", the point was
to show Spike's extreme emotions and human weakness and how, without
the benefit of the nobler human virtues, they led to evil. "Crush"
was an attempt to demonize Spike, it's just that "demonize"
has many forms and definitions.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> The writers aren't just in editing
room, they're on the set during shooting -- s'kat, 19:10:17
05/29/03 Thu
"Now, I think it was either shadowkat or Sophist who mentioned
that the writers are in the editing room and get to pick which
scenes are used and which aren't. While this may very well be
true, there are two things to consider: first, I doubt all the
writers are in the editing room for every episode, so we can't
be sure who is being represented in the editing process; second,
in the editing stage, you can only work with the material that's
filmed; if all of the shots of that scene contained Spike acting
the same way as he did in the version we saw, then the editing
process couldn't make too much of a difference; the only thing
that could make a difference in that situation would be to reshoot,
which, as others have pointed out, isn't always feasible with
television time constraints."
They are also on the set, Finn. Joss Whedon was on the set during
Crush. David Fury directed LMPTM. Douglas Petrie was on the set
during Beneath You. They aren't just in the editing room. I've
seen pictures of Whedon on the set while the scene is being shot.
They refer to being on the set occassionally during the DVD commentary.
If it isn't them - it's a rep. And Whedon looks at the dalies.
Believe me, they have a lot more influence than you and Malandaza
can possibly imagine. Yes, you'd have a point if they were JUST
in the editing room. But some of them are ON the set during the
ACTUAL filming of the episode. Some of them actually direct the
episode!
Marti Noxon DIRECTED Into The Woods. Joss Whedon DIRECTED
Beneath You. Joss Whedon was on the set with David Solomon during
CRUSH.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Crush and the arc -- lunasea, 06:40:16
05/30/03 Fri
As usual, the show was about Buffy. Even when an episode is in
someone else's POV or talking mainly about them, the show is still
advancing BUFFY's story. Even something like "The Wish"
where Buffy is barely in it at all really advances what they want
to tell with her. "The Wish" leads into "Amends"
and it is very important to know just how important Angel and
the Scoobies are to what Buffy has become and how much being with
Buffy had affected Angel.
For me, "Crush" has two purposes. The first is to show
Buffy's state of mind. This will lead into her mother's death
and Buffy doubting whether she can even love. She has been on
a slow spiral towards this all season. Everyone keeps telling
her she is closed off and she really believes it. That is what
makes the Cookie Dough speech this season so wonderful. She finally
sees that it isn't her fault. People were asking for stuff she
just wasn't ready to give yet and she doesn't have to be ready.
Is the Buffy from "Crush," the compassionate creature
we see in "Angel"? She didn't know about Angel's soul
and she thought he had bitten her mother. She still gave him a
chance to explain himself. Does creepy stalker Spike deserve Buffy's
compassion? It isn't a question about deserve. What makes Buffy
so wonderful is that she rises above normal human judgment and
cares about things so deeply. Buffy is played so harshly because
she is harsh at this point in the arc. We have seen her get progressively
harsher towards Spike as the season wears on.
But that isn't my favorite part of the episode. I like how Dru
tried to redeem him back to evil and how he is so infatuated with
Buffy that this is impossible. This has to be set up to explain
what will follow with Spike's character. It really is a point
of no return for Spike. Even though Buffy is going to try to shut
him out after this, he has to do what he does.
Spike's crush has to advance Buffy's story. How does it do this?
Keep that in mind and I don't see how creepy stalker guy can generate
enough sympathy to turn Buffy into a villain, especially off of
a Fury script.
I felt sorry for Spike in IOHEFY when Angelus basically stole
Dru away. I did not feel sorry for him when Buffy treated him
like a soulless vampire. The difference is that Angelus was his
family and Buffy was A VAMPIRE SLAYER. Spike let Angelus come
into his home. Spike stalked Buffy and wouldn't take no for an
answer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Crush and the arc -- lunasea, 06:42:43
05/30/03 Fri
As usual, the show was about Buffy. Even when an episode is in
someone else's POV or talking mainly about them, the show is still
advancing BUFFY's story. Even something like "The Wish"
where Buffy is barely in it at all really advances what they want
to tell with her. "The Wish" leads into "Amends"
and it is very important to know just how important Angel and
the Scoobies are to what Buffy has become and how much being with
Buffy had affected Angel.
For me, "Crush" has two purposes. The first is to show
Buffy's state of mind. This will lead into her mother's death
and Buffy doubting whether she can even love. She has been on
a slow spiral towards this all season. Everyone keeps telling
her she is closed off and she really believes it. That is what
makes the Cookie Dough speech this season so wonderful. She finally
sees that it isn't her fault. People were asking for stuff she
just wasn't ready to give yet and she doesn't have to be ready.
Is the Buffy from "Crush," the compassionate creature
we see in "Angel"? She didn't know about Angel's soul
and she thought he had bitten her mother. She still gave him a
chance to explain himself. Does creepy stalker Spike deserve Buffy's
compassion? It isn't a question about deserve. What makes Buffy
so wonderful is that she rises above normal human judgment and
cares about things so deeply. Buffy is played so harshly because
she is harsh at this point in the arc. We have seen her get progressively
harsher towards Spike as the season wears on.
But that isn't my favorite part of the episode. I like how Dru
tried to redeem him back to evil and how he is so infatuated with
Buffy that this is impossible. This has to be set up to explain
what will follow with Spike's character. It really is a point
of no return for Spike. Even though Buffy is going to try to shut
him out after this, he has to do what he does.
Spike's crush has to advance Buffy's story. How does it do this?
Keep that in mind and I don't see how creepy stalker guy can generate
enough sympathy to turn Buffy into a villain, especially off of
a Fury script.
I felt sorry for Spike in IOHEFY when Angelus basically stole
Dru away. I did not feel sorry for him when Buffy treated him
like a soulless vampire. The difference is that Angelus was his
family and Buffy was A VAMPIRE SLAYER. Spike let Angelus come
into his home. Spike stalked Buffy and wouldn't take no for an
answer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Another great post, Val! -- ponygirl,
07:07:24 05/30/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Speculation or fact? -- Sophist, 07:56:45
05/30/03 Fri
I see 2 basic problems with the claim made by Mal and Finn.
First, neither has provided any factual support; the assertion
is logically possible, but there is no direct evidence
that it's true.
Differences between the shooting script and the actual scene don't
satisfy any evidentiary standard. The reason is that there are
many reasons why changes get made. It could have been because
the actor "stole" the scene, but it could have been
for other reasons as well. Again, the burden is on the proponents
to identify a scene (actually, many scenes) where the writers
or directors or actors admitted that a scene was "stolen"
in the manner suggested.
Second, I see severe plausibility problems with the argument if
it is intended to apply to the long term. The logic would have
to work like this:
1. The actor "steals" the scene.
2. Joss either (a) didn't notice or (b) did notice but was unable
to correct it in this one case. [S'k's post demonstrates that
Joss did catch it in at least one case.]
3. Joss either (a) never realized the "theft"
or (b) did realize it and took no steps to correct it in the future,
so that the "theft" became a regular feature of his
own show without his knowledge or consent.
As I said before, I don't doubt that an actor might get away with
stealing a scene in one case. Whether that did actually happen
is a factual question that could be resolved with direct evidence.
No such evidence has yet been produced.
The plausibility problems of claiming long-term subversion of
intent strike me as insurmountable.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Exactly -- s'kat, 08:25:19 05/30/03
Fri
I have found more information that negates Mal's and Finn's claims
- both from Marsters interviews, the writers, actual photographs
taken on the soundstages, and DVD commentary.
Marsters says he did try to play the character with more soul,
yes but and a huge BUT here: Joss Whedon deliberately went with
it.
Want more proof?
Whedon re-wrote the scene in Hell's Bells between Spike and Buffy,
it was originally far snarkier. He deliberately softened it.
Whedon added the line in Fool For Love: "I may be a bad writer
but I'm a good man."
Whedon was on the set and co-directed Crush.
In Smashed - Whedon came up with the idea on the demolished building
and also was surpervising segments according to MArti's interviews.
He also forced the actors to re-film the beating up sequence in
Dead Things - four times - because it was too bloody, which caused
JM to get injured.
And oh - Marsters and Juliet Landau improvised that whole beginning
scene in School Hard in their audition for the roles - Whedon
stole it from their audition and had them re-do it in the episode.
Everything I've read and seen supports the idea that Whedon and
his writers controlled their story. I have YET to see or read
anything that supports the actors stole scenes. The proof provided
seems to be either from shooting scripts or from the individual
fans own interpretation of a performance which could very well
have been coaxed out by the writers and director. In DVD commentary
for Restless - Whedon mentions coaxing SMG to giggle by making
silly faces.
They do numerous takes and pick the one they like.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Speculation or fact? -- Sophist, 08:00:15
05/30/03 Fri
I see 2 basic problems with the claim made by Mal and Finn.
First, neither has provided any factual support; the assertion
is logically possible, but there is no direct evidence
that it's true.
Differences between the shooting script and the actual scene don't
satisfy any evidentiary standard. The reason is that there are
many reasons why changes get made. It could have been because
the actor "stole" the scene, but it could have been
for other reasons as well. Again, the burden is on the proponents
to identify a scene (actually, many scenes) where the writers
or directors or actors admitted that a scene was "stolen"
in the manner suggested.
Second, I see severe plausibility problems with the argument if
it is intended to apply to the long term. The logic would have
to work like this:
1. The actor "steals" the scene.
2. Joss either (a) didn't notice or (b) did notice but was unable
to correct it in this one case. [S'k's post demonstrates that
Joss did catch it in at least one case.]
3. Joss either (a) never realized the "theft"
or (b) did realize it and took no steps to correct it in the future,
so that the "theft" became a regular feature of his
own show without his knowledge or consent.
As I said before, I don't doubt that an actor might get away with
stealing a scene in one case. Whether that did actually happen
is a factual question that could be resolved with direct evidence.
No such evidence has yet been produced.
The plausibility problems of claiming long-term subversion of
intent strike me as insurmountable.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not the writers...
-- sdev, 00:53:43 05/28/03 Wed
Let me understand this. You are saying that for 2.5 Seasons(1/2
of 5,6,7) the writers tried to portray Spike as unlikeable, disgusting
and unequivocally evil but JM subverted this message? That is
not believable.
Also I felt his behavior, as written, was extraordinarily tender
to Dru and at times to Buffy. I think the Judge faulted him for
that as well. Oh, but maybe the Judge was misled by JM as well.
You fault late season comers for revisionism of the text but I
think yours is the gloss.
[> [> [> [> [>
I'll go with you on that one! -- HonorH, 23:15:19 05/25/03
Sun
Yep. Shirtless Spike/Angel oil wrestling. Hey, Buffy's financial
troubles are over! She just needs to get them oiled up and into
a room together, then sell tickets. She'd make a mint!
Guess I might be going more on what I believe about Spike and
Angel than anything, but I just can't see Spike beating him in
a fair fight. Maybe we'll see.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> The Ring Part II -- lunasea, 08:43:36 05/26/03
Mon
You believe it because they have built Angel up into the Uber-Champion
that beats unbelievable creatures of all sorts, both with and
without vamping out. What is the hardest thing that Spike has
faced? He's killed 2 Slayers, but as he says in FFL, the first
dropped her weapon and the second wanted to die.
Angel's style is a bit more than Spike's street brawling. If Spike
does stay a vamp and still fights, I hope they don't change his
fighting style to try and bring him up to Angel.
Angel is older, has fought stronger demons and has a more effective
technique. He is also motivated by something other than the fight.
I would be willing to put money on Angel.
[> [> [> [> I don't
think you can tell too much from one fight -- Finn Mac Cool,
21:36:31 05/25/03 Sun
Take these cases for example:
"Halloween" and "Harsh Light of Day", where
Buffy beats Spike, and he narrowly avoids death.
"School Hard" and "Out of My Mind", where
Spike beats Buffy, and only outside intervention saves her life.
Suppose that we were posting immediatly after seeing "School
Hard". From what we saw there, the natural conclusion would
be that Spike was the better fighter than Buffy, since he would
have killed her in one on one combat if Joyce hadn't come into
the fray. However, upon seeing further battles, the issue becomes
murkier. As such, one battle does not necessarily determine who's
the better fighter. Personally, I tend to think of it as Buffy,
Angel, Spike, and Faith all being close enough in strength and
fighting ability that it's impossible to determine who would do
better against who in a fight (which is part of what makes it
so cool when two of them fight each other; that, and the charisma
of the actors/characters, of course).
[> [> [> [> [>
Very well said. Completely agree. -- s'kat, 21:41:10
05/25/03 Sun
Personally, I tend to think of it as Buffy, Angel, Spike, and
Faith all being close enough in strength and fighting ability
that it's impossible to determine who would do better against
who in a fight (which is part of what makes it so cool when two
of them fight each other; that, and the charisma of the actors/characters,
of course).
Completely agree. Now if only they would have given us a street
fight with all four of them...they could have too - all four were
on the same show in Chosen. But do they give us this?? Nooo. Oh
well. Can't have everything.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> That would be an awesome fight to watch, though.
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:48:32 05/25/03 Sun
If we're lucky, maybe they had a little extra budget in "Chosen",
so they filmed that fight scene and it will appear as an extra
on the Season 7 DVD. Hey, a fella can dream, right?
[> [> [> [> [>
Fights are much more than just fights -- lunasea, 09:15:02
05/26/03 Mon
They also go to a character's state of mind, especially Buffy
fights.
Buffy almost lost in "School Hard," because she wasn't
the Slayer she is today. She was still trying to work living with
"oil, water and a third unmeshable thing." Spike being
able to get her was a statement of how she felt about these things
and what it would take to get them to mesh. Until Graduation Day,
demons and school really don't mix and Buffy doesn't fair well
in any battle on school ground.
The Witch: Buffy is incapacitated by Amy's mom and it is Giles
that has to save her.
The Puppet Show: Sid is the one that kills the demon and Buffy
has to perform in the Talent Show.
Prophecy Girl: Buffy finds out about the prophecy at school. Has
to be revived before she can defeat the Master
When She Was Bad: Not there to prevent her friends from being
taken, to be echoed in Becoming
Some Assembly Required: Burns down a building
Bad Eggs: Saves the day, but still gets grounded
Innocence: Finds out about Angelus on school grounds and can't
bring herself to kill him.
IOHEFY: ghost possession and heartbreak
Beauty and the Beasts: It is Angel that kills Pete
Homecoming: It is Cordy that tricks Lyle into leaving
The Zeppo: I believe it is Giles that saves the day, even if we
don't see it
Choices: The Mayor gets aways
That is just off the top of my head. Buffy never does well when
it comes to school. When the title is "School Hard,"
she isn't going to win.
OOMM is a few episodes before FFL, when Buffy's death wish kicks
in. Buffy being pinned by Spike is a neat plot device to show
that his chip was still working, but they could have done that
with Riley too. (though I'm sure some people wanted Riley to get
bitten) I think Spike had the upper hand because Buffy's death
wish was kicking in and it was foreshadowing what would happen
at the beginning of FFL.
Whenever Buffy is about to lose, it is her state of mind that
defeats her, all the way from battling Luke in "Welcome to
the Hellmouth" to Caleb this season.
As for Angel/Spike, Angel is fighting for something. Spike is
a much better fighter when he has something besides just the fight
to fight for. Same thing with Faith. Love of the fight isn't enough
to make you into an uber anything.
[> [> [> [> What
about "What's my Line"? -- Doug, 14:53:08 05/26/03
Mon
In "What's my line, part 1" Kendra beat the crap out
of Angel easily, but in "What's my line, part 2" Spike
had Kendra on the ropes in the final fight.
[> [> [> [> [>
That would be the difference between -- HonorH, 17:04:54
05/26/03 Mon
Angel fighting a human and Spike fighting a human. First, Kendra
caught Angel off-guard. Second, she was human, and therefore not
someone Angel automatically wanted to hurt. Spike had no such
compunctions.
Besides, everyone knows that each character's fighting abilities
vary according to the needs of the script.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Sorry, didn't see it like that. -- Doug, 18:38:12
05/27/03 Tue
Angel looked like he was fighting as hard as he could, and he
still got his ass handed to him; he wasn't holding back while
fighting Kendra.
But your second point is correct, it is the script that controls
these things. Angel was written as a much stronger combatat after
he got his ow show, and Spike was written as a much weaker one
after he stopped being an enemy. Trying to make logical sense
of this is kinda pointless, as I once pointed out to a member
of my old RPG group who was also a fan of the show (on this very
issue in fact)
[> Would agree with this.
Interesting spec. -- s'kat, 17:12:06 05/25/03 Sun
What is interesting to me is how they will use Spike appearance
on Angel to both further Angel's story and to give him one of
his own.
I would like to add to that - how they will further the other
characters stories as well. I'm also interested in seeing how
this could advance Wes, Lorne, Fred, and Gunn's arcs. What I've
always enjoyed most about Angel is the interaction between the
core characters and the fact that unlike Btvs - Angel the Series
isn't solipistic television, ie, it's not really all about just
one character - the other characters actually have storylines
that appear to be separate from Angel's. I've seen more than one
episode of Ats, where Angel actually was in the background. Also
even when he is front and center - I don't feel that the other
characters are as much a symbolic part of him as they are for
Buffy. And according to the rumors - ME is going to make the show
even more of an ensemble effort next year.
What they did with both of them on "Chosen" was perfect,
but to keep resorting to this will reduce Spike to just comic
relief. He is great at that, but I don't think they will invalidate
his noble sacrifice this way. They both have to go forward and
find a way to relate to each other that has nothing to do with
Buffy.
Wholeheartedly agree. Part of the reason I liked Angel jumping
to his own series - is we were finally able to see who he was
outside of the romance with Buffy. I'm looking forward to seeing
who Spike is as well. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing
that gap in Angel's past that ME has avoided telling because they
couldn't use Spike.
Angelus' greatest crime was the creation of Drusilla which lead
to the creation of Spike. Two people who were relative innocents
(based on the limited info we have on them) prior to their vamping.
So this is something that would be interesting to explore. We've
explored Darla, but we've never quite explored what happened with
Drusilla...
Also in some ways Angel's relationship with Connor reminded me
of Angelus and Spike.
We also saw how Spike pushed Angelus' buttons in season 2 and
in FFL and how Angelus reacted to this. Spike thinks of Angelus
as his sire, his father, but I don't think that Angelus ever approved
of him as such.
Not completely sure about this. The episodes in S2 are murky.
We see Angelus actually approving of Spike in Becoming prior to
Spike's betrayal. Also Angel does make a point of stopping Buffy
from staking him in Lover's Walk - which of course could be interpreted
as merely out of necessity - to keep Willow/Xander alive, then
again - Buffy was right they were at the factory? I don't know.
My take on Angelus is he didn't approve of any of his protegees
- because he was basically reliving his own relationship with
his father - who didn't approve of him. Hmmm what happens I wonder
if we bring the man who never had a father and was devoted/sole
support of sick mom - to the man who never had a mother and was
always trying to gain his father's approval? Two only sons, who
lived for their single parents
and killed their single parents for different reasons?
The parallels between these two vamps are fascinating to contemplate.
Actually the parallels between all the characters on Ats are fascinating,
which is a lengthy post in of itself.
I don't want to see them as enemies. Been there done that.
I don't want to see them as buddies or brothers. That is what
Angel and Wesley are. I have faith that ME will use Spike to explore
something we haven't gotten to yet that won't invalidate the sacrifices
and growth that either character has made.
Strongly agree here. I want to see something more complex explored.
We already have the buddy/brother relationship with Wes/Angel
and Lorne/Angel, we have the employer/employee/truce relationship
with Angel/Gunn. And we have Father/son with Angel/Connor. I have
faith they'll be able to do something a little different or perhaps
a combo or twist of the above. Whedon seems to be against redundancies.
I honestly am hoping for a complex relationship akin to the complexity
of the Faith/Buffy relationship - which is one of the best same
sex relationships I've seen ME write. Minear and Fury tell us
Spike will be a "foil" - defined as a character that
acts as a contrast - example Faith to Buffy in Btvs. Wes was never
a true foil for Angel, since he and Angel did not have enough
in common, any more than Willow or Cordelia could be a true foil
for Buffy. Of course Minear and Fury are gone now...so who knows?
There's loads of character potential here. I'm curious to see
what they do with it.
[> [> One tiny correction
-- lunasea, 18:28:47 05/25/03 Sun
Angel did have a mom. He killed her and his sister in "The
Prodigal." She is also in the scene where Liam leaves the
house. Without a mother to balance his father, I'm not sure we
would have seen him be tender with his sister. He had to learn
that somewhere.
I get the impression from the cast that they aren't symbolic representations
of Angel, so much as put everyone together and you have the totality
of Man. With Buffy, she was the totality and the cast was parts
of this whole. With Angel, the others aren't Angel so much as
not-Angel. We couldn't have Angel as the totality or he wouldn't
have fit on Buffy. When they took him to his own show, they had
to use the cast to fill in the gaps left by Angel.
Buffy's story was about realizing and strengthening all those
parts that the other cast members represented. I see Angel as
trying to drop the parts of him so he is totally not anything.
Buffy is the divine and Angel's goal is to be human. To do this
he can't find himself, but has to lose himself. He lost his past
and Connor got to go with it. I look forward to see what they
do with the Champion image.
I'm not sure how much they want to revisit Drusilla. They already
explained why he did it. Angel pretty much has come to terms with
his past. I'm not sure they want to go back there. It isn't about
who Angel was, but who he is (or rather who he isn't).
I worry for poor Spike if he becomes a foil, because like someone
said, Angel is pretty much superior in every respect. To set him
up as a foil would, IMO, take away from the sacrifice that Spike
made this season. Faith was Buffy without love. It showed what
made Buffy into the hero that she is. Should Spike be reduced
to a similar role, it would show what makes Angel into the champion
that he is, but Spike's character would suffer for it.
It would be fairly easy to write. Angel operates off of his conscience
and love of Man. That would mean that Spike couldn't operate off
of this. He already had an alterno-conscience in the form of Buffy.
He might develop a new one. Not sure I want Spike to stay in this
role.
It would be interesting when they start dealing with the corruption
of all the characters, but I still hope they go somewhere else
with Spike. Faith couldn't be redeemed on Buffy. That had to take
place on Angel. Not sure how much Spike will get to grow if he
exists as a foil.
[> [> [> Except that
Angel has a new position -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:26:58 05/25/03
Sun
He's in charge of the law firm from hell, and you know that can't
turn out well. That means that Spike can be a foil, but they don't
have to denegrate him to do it if the point is to show Angel being
corrupted by W&H.
[> [> [> Hmmm I think
we may have to agree to disagree -- s'kat, 21:30:08 05/25/03
Sun
I guess I disagree about Angel - I see him as an anti-hero and
see the Champion usage as ironic, particularly this year in the
episodes Inside-Out through Home and again in Chosen. I don't
see him as superior so much as he believes he is superior and
that in of itself is his fatal flaw. I do not see him in any way
shape or form as complete or redemed or even close to it. He is
a split man - who can not come to terms with the curse that splits
him. Until he realizes that Angelus/Liam/Angel are all one in
the same, he won't ever become the MAn he aspires to become. Spike
on the other hand - was completely integrated by Chosen and had
his own conscience, his own soul, his own choices - which were
a metaphorical representation of Buffy's ability to finally intergrate
and accept her shadow/animus. Once she could accept that part
of herself - Spike became whole, intergrated and came into the
light.
Quick question:
Where was Mom in the Prodigal? I've watched the tape and looked
at the shooting script - I don't see her in it. I might have missed
something...but honestly I didn't see her.
Which scene? Can you reproduce from the shooting script? (not
being snarky here...I just don't remember it.)
Seriously - it struck me that in every scene, Angel's mother wasn't
present only the father was. When he killed Dad - it was just
him and Angel's sister. I remember it - because I kept looking
for Mom, just as I kept looking for Dad in the flashbacks with
William. But I NEVER saw Mom in Angel's flashbacks, just Dad.
So if you could produce the scene?? I'll go back and look at my
Prodigal tape in the meantime, slow-mo etc...and see if she's
anywhere in it.
I also disagree on Spike - I got the feeling that his response
to Buffy in Chosen and in earlier episodes proved that once he
got the soul - she wasn't his conscience any longer. In fact,
in many ways Spike felt like a dual protagonist with Buffy this
season, I'm not alone in sensing this. But hey, more than one
interpretation is possible.
Nor did I feel Faith was Buffy without love, never got that, so
much as Buffy's shadow or alter-ego. The alter-ego is something
else entirely. I think Faith did have love - as was shown in her
relationship with the Mayor and to some extent with Wood later.
Not to mention the love that she got from Riley in Who Are You
- love Faith oddly enough felt and reacted to, but Buffy never
seemed to - hence Riley's leaving of Buffy in Into The Woods.
Also Faith's redemption came partly in Btvs, it didn't just come
on Ats -she had to complete it on Btvs. So...I think our definitions
of foils may be slightly different here. The American Heritage
Dictionary 3rd Edition definition is the one I'm using: One that
by contrast enhances the distinctive characteristics of another.
(In some ways Wes acted as Angel's foil this year. As did Faith
with Buffy.
Faith demonstrated Buffy's flaws as well as her strengths just
as Buffy demonstrated Faith's. Important thing about foils - is
they must be able to be flipped. It's a confusing term - I had
to look it up to ensure I was using it correctly - many people
think foil is basically the abosolute opposite of the character.
But that's not true, what it represents is merely another character
that contrasts with that character. I tend to think of them as
alter-egos. (The great thing about Ats and Btvs is the characters
never just served one function - they were developed enough that
they could exist outside the story and away from the central character
on their own. Now that's good writing.)
Spike for example was Buffy's foil in many ways in Seasons 5-6,
but I wouldn't say he was without love or completely the opposite,
any more than I think you could ever call Buffy divine or a saint,
I think the wonderful thing about the character was she was human
with foibles and the rest of the cast in some ways represented
aspects of her psychological make-up. (Now this is just my opinion
and how I view the show, it's not to say that a contrasting view
is wrong so much as just different than mine. Both opinions I
think can co-exist.)
Angel on the other hand, I believe - really is a different type
of show, it's less about Angel's psychology and more about the
moral ambiguity and issues that he must deal with outside himself.
Often he is shown how to deal with these issues through other
characters, and most of the time, Angel's decision is not the
best one, even if on the surface it appears to Angel and the audience
to be the best one. The consequences can be brutal. This is hard
to explain - I think, the best way to explain it is that Angel
feels very noirish genre wise, more so than Buffy and as a result
is very dark. The hero often screws up and is anything but heroic,
redemption while a goal seldom happens and is certainly not guaranteed
and you can't trust anyone. All classic hallmarks of noir. (But
I'm sure from what I read above, you strongly disagree with that
view and that's certainly your perogative. As I said, we all see
the shows in different ways and enjoy them for different reasons.)
I do however think, we can all agree that Angel in some ways is
an external show while Buffy is an internal one. Hence the reason
some viewers preferred Angel this year - it was far more externally
focused.
So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these
points, certainly won't be the first time. ;-) I think it is to
the writers credit that these shows can be viewed in more than
one way, this not only expands the audience/fanbase, but also
provides academics/intellectuals with tons of stuff to analyze.
That said I will agree with you on one thing - I too hope that
they don't regress Spike or change the character in some detrimental
way just to re-inforce another character's journey. I want to
learn more about the character - who he is and what he's all about.
(I keep hoping they can do that without giving him his own show.)
I do not want to see him ret-conned just to fit into the show
or serve as some
comic relief or contrast to another character. I'd hate for his
sacrifice to lose it's integrity in any way. I'm hoping they can
explore him in the same way they are exploring Gunn, Wes, and
Fred -- and not in the way they explored Cordy and Connor - whose
stories seemed at least in my humble opinion to serve Angel's
more than their own. Ie. I don't want Spike to re-place Cordelia
or Connor's functions in this show or just become some sort of
contrast to Angel. If they do that? I may stop watching and would
have preferred they kept poor Spike off the series. I have faith
that they won't go that route. (But I'm also spoiling myself,
so maybe not that much faith ;-) )
Hope that made a lick of sense...I feel as if every word I write
this weekend comes out a garbled rambling mess.
sk
[> [> [> [> Re:
Hmmm I think we may have to agree to disagree -- Rufus, 00:41:51
05/26/03 Mon
From Psyche's Transcripts.....The Prodigal
Cut to Angel of the past stumbling up to his mother and little
sister in his home.
His father from behind him: ìLiam! Youíll do as
I say.î
Angel to his little sister: ìSweet Kathy. No tears.
Weíll meet again.î
Dad: ìDefy me now, you wonít. - Not as long as I
live.î
Angel: ìYouíll want to move away from the door now,
father.î
Dad: ìGo through it, but donít ever expect to come
back.î
Angel: ìAs you wish, father. Always, *just* as you wish.î
Dad: ìItís a son I wished for ñ a man ñ
instead God gave me you! A terrible disappointment.î
Angel: ìDisappointment? A more dutiful son you couldnít
have asked for. My whole life youíve told me in word, in
glance, what it is you required of me, and Iíve lived down
to your every expectations, now havenít I?î
Dad: ìThatís madness!î
Angel: ìNo. The madness is that I couldnít fail
enough for you. But weíll fix that now, wonít we?î
Dad: ìI fear for you, lad.î
Angel: ìAnd is that the only thing you can find in your
heart for me now, father?î
Dad: ìWhoíll take you in, huh? No one!î
Angel: ìIíll not lack for a place to sleep, I can
tell you that. Out of my way.î
Dad: ìI was never in your way, boy.î
Angel opens the door and storms out.
Dad: ìIf youíll go courting trouble, youíre
sure to find it!î
Slams the door.
Cut to the barmaid at the tavern smiling as Angel picks her up.
Cut to Darla scratching her chest to make it bleed. Cut to the
barmaid. Cut to Darla in the alley. Cut to the Barmaid feeding
Angel some grapes.
Darla voice over: ìYou know what to do. Darling boy.î
Cut to Angel following Darla into the alley.
Darla voice over: ìI could show you ñ things youíve
never seen.î
Darla bites him and his eyes pop open. Heís knees give
out and Darla pushes his mouth on top of the bloody scratch on
her chest.
Liam's primary conflict is with the father...his mother and sister
seen but not heard. This carries on to when he comes back and
murders the family. For those who think that Liam isn't Angelus
isn't Angel better consider the fact that Angelus came back to
settle a score with his FATHER, not just come for a midnight snack.
This is what makes both Buffy and Angel as shows so powerful,
what you once we informs all that you become.
Cut to Angelís funeral in 1753. Angelís mom
and sister are crying while his dad stands looking straight
ahead.
Priest: ìTaken too soon from the bosom of his family, a
man of just 20 years and 6, Liam was well-loved by everyone he
met. (?) Receive this your humble servant. We pray that you may
take his eternal soul into your care, Father.î
Cut to the grave being filled in. The only mourner still standing
beside the grave is his father, still staring straight ahead.
Cut to the grave stone. 1727 ñ 1753 Beloved Son.
Cut to Darla walking up to Angelís fresh grave that night.
A hand breaks through the earth, Angel slowly claws his way out
as Darla waits with a smile. (Really nice background music)
Darla helps Angel to his feet: ìWelcome to my world. It
hurts, I know, but not for long. Birth is always painful.î
Angel breathing hard: ìI could feel them ñ above
me ñ as I slept in the earth. - Their heartbeats ñ
their blood - coursing - through their veins.î
Darla smiles: ìYes.î
Angel: ìWas it a dream?î
Darla: ìA dream for you. Soon ñ their nightmare.î
Groundskeeper comes up holding a lantern.
Groundskeeper: ìYou there! (Sees the disturbed grave) What
have you done? - Grave robbers!î
Angel slowly walks towards him, looks back at Darla who nods at
him.
Darla: ìYou know what to do.î
Angel turns back and morphs into vamp face.
Groundskeeper: ìOur Father, who art in heaven hallowed
be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, give us this
day our daily...î
Screams as Angel bites him. After a moment Angel breaks off to
look at Darla again, then finishes draining the guy and drops
him. He takes a couple deep breaths then turns back to Darla in
human face.
Darla: ìIt all makes sense now, doesnít it?î
Angel: ìPerfect sense.î
Darla: ìYou can do anything, have anyone in the village.
Who will it be?î
Angel: ìAny one? (Darla nods) I thought Iíd take
the village.î
Angelus is reborn into the world of the demonic. All that past
insecurities are now seen from a different perspective. The young
man who hid in the pub and drank away his disappointments is now
infused with power, more power than he could have dreamed of as
a mortal....and where do you think he ends up?
Cut to Angelís father nailing up his window from the
inside.
Angel: ìYouíre no different from the rest of them,
- are you, father? (His father spins around and stares at him)
Cowering in their houses ñ boarding up the windows ñ
smearing that foul herb in the doorways. Youíd think something
evil ñ and vile ñ and monstrous - had taken to terrorizing
this village ñand everyone in it.î
Dad: ìBe gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home
where itís not welcome. He must be invited!î
Angel: ìThatís true. - But I was invited.î
Angel looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little Kathy
slumped against the wall.
Dad: ìOch!î
Angel: ìShe thought I returned to her ñ an angel.î
Dad spins around and charges Angel with the hammer in his hand.
Dad: ìMurderer!î
Angel easily pushes the attack aside, making his dad fall to the
ground.
Angel: ìStrange. - Somehow you seemed taller when I
was alive.î
Dad flattens himself up against the wall: ìLord, bind this
demon now.î
Angel: ìTo think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing
make me feel the way you did.î
Dad crosses himself: ìI pray ye, give me your protection,
Father.î
Angel: ìYou told me I wasnít a man. (Slowly
stalks closer to his dad) You told me I was nothing. ñ
and I believed you. You said Iíd never amount to anything.
(His dad stares at him with wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong.
(Angel morphs into vamp face) You see, father? - I have made
something out of myself after all.î
Angel puts a hand over his fatherís face and bites him.
They slowly slide down the wall and out of the picture.
Look at how Angelus tells his father that he has made something
of himself....I carry that onto the present day where Angel is
in the constant process of making himself into something.
Angelus/Liam/Angel killed his father to win a contest to decide
who would dominate who...problem is that once you've killed your
opponent they can't witness their defeat or your victory. And
if you look at Angel's relationship with Connor at the end I have
to wonder just how different he was from his father after all....didn't
they both want the best for their sons?
[> [> [> [> [>
More on the Prodigal -- s'kat, 10:50:53 05/26/03 Mon
Liam's primary conflict is with the father...his mother and
sister seen but not heard. This carries on to when he comes back
and murders the family. For those who think that Liam isn't Angelus
isn't Angel better consider the fact that Angelus came back to
settle a score with his FATHER, not just come for a midnight snack.
This is what makes both Buffy and Angel as shows so powerful,
what you once we informs all that you become.
I think this may explain what I saw when I was re-watching these
scenes in Prodigal this morning. In fact from the scenes, I couldn't
tell if the elderly woman was his mother or his aunt or another
relative. She has no lines, she is never referred to. She basically
is seen twice, once when he leaves his house - (note he leaves,
his father doesn't really kick him out) - there's an elderly woman
standing behind his little sister Kathy, with her hands on the
girl's shoulders. Then later, at the grave, we see the elderly
woman in black crying.
Now I think two things might be going on here:
1. The episode was about the relationship of children with fathers.
Minear, the writer, was clearly paralleling Kate and her relationship
with her father - who'd become a crooked cop with Angel/Liam and
his father. In Kate's situation - her father was doomed, she couldn't
save him, and he'd gone the dark path. In Angel's - Liam was doomed
and his father couldn't save him. The episode begins with Liam's
grave stone - "Beloved Son" and ends with Kate's father's
grave stone "Beloved Father". Which is a theme that
Minear and ME echo throughout the series - with the Holtz/Angel
relationship, the Fred/Seidel relationship,
the Wes/Dad relationship - referred to here and there, the Connor/Holtz
relationship and finally the Connor/Angel relationship. The irony
of Connor/Angel - is that Angel relives his own past, but from
his father's end of things and is caught in the same position
his father was in - with the task of killing the son. The mother
and sister are almost irrelevant to the story - since for Angel
- it's always been all about Dad.
2. Now, I think the other thing going on may be a writers commentary
on the historical role of women. The writers may view women as
not having much role in 18th century (1700s)
and that they were either merely daughters, prostitutes, or someone
to be saved and protected. This would explain Angel's odd attitude
towards women...in some of the episodes. An attitude that changes
somewhat after he meets Buffy, KAte, Cordelia, and Gwen. Not sure.
Could be very wrong on that one.
Look at how Angelus tells his father that he has made something
of himself....I carry that onto the present day where Angel is
in the constant process of making himself into something.
Angelus/Liam/Angel killed his father to win a contest to decide
who would dominate who...problem is that once you've killed your
opponent they can't witness their defeat or your victory. And
if you look at Angel's relationship with Connor at the end I have
to wonder just how different he was from his father after all....didn't
they both want the best for their sons?
Very much agree. I felt the same sense of irony. Both men loved
their sons, the tragedy was their sons never sensed it. I'm wondering
if the key to Angel's integration might be the realization that
his father loved and cared for him.
That getting his father's approval wasn't really that important?
In a way it's a bit like Spike's final realization that his mother
loved him. Not sure. It is an interesting contrast though.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for posting that -- lunasea, 11:06:26 05/26/03
Mon
This is what makes both Buffy and Angel as shows so powerful,
what you once we informs all that you become.
But one of the main themes of both shows is that it doesn't have
to. Xander doesn't have to turn out like his dad. Willow doesn't
have to be her mom. Buffy can get beyond her abandonment issues.
Giles doesn't have to be his past. He can turn Ripper on only
when he needs him. Tara didn't have to be her family. Spike can
be more than what he was.
Why should Angel be any different? Because Darla said so? Because
she tried to make him into the Uber-vamp that even surpassed her
in "Dear Boy"?
Yes, Angelus came back to settle the score with Dad and in his
fury even killed his mother and sister. Yes, Angelus kept re-inacting
this for over a century.
That doesn't mean he has to be this way. Angel realizes this in
Pylea. He realizes the demon doesn't have to have control and
that he is strong enough to beat it. Why should Angel see himself
as Angelus? He isn't that person any more.
Do you think that Angel went to kill Cordelia to be the Champion
or because it was what had to be done? I think a lot of essays
about Angel now are about Angel then. He is trying to find his
place in the world. When people keep calling him a champion, he
latches onto it. I don't think he does anything to be a champion
though. He doesn't think "What would a champion do now?"
Instead he does what he has to. He didn't do what he did to Connor
because that was his image of what a loving father should do.
He did it because he IS a loving father.
It might be a fine line to discuss, but I think "Release"
and "Orpheus" really showed us how far Angel has come.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Interesting but Agree with Rufus on this one -- s'kat,
12:41:07 05/26/03 Mon
Why should Angel be any different? Because Darla said so? Because
she tried to make him into the Uber-vamp that even surpassed her
in "Dear Boy"?
Actually Darla didn't try that. Angelus decided to kill his village,
not Darla. Angelus decided to sire Drusilla because always go
for the pain. In Dear Boy - Darla states why sire her, just kill
her. And Angelus says because siring someone crazy would make
the pain last forever. "Am I learning?" And Darla tells
him later - "Your surpassed me in your vicisousness",
something that echoes the Master in Angel S1 Btvs. The important
thing to remember about Angel the Series - is "free will".
It's the point that Jasmine makes to him - no absolutes, just
choices. And Angelus made them.
So why shouldn't Angel be any different? Well is he? No, he's
trying to rise above these issues. But Angel has a problem none
of these other characters have and that's a pesky gypsey curse.
Angelus never chose to be Angel. Angel never chose to be what
he is. Now everyone else does have a choice in it. But not Angel
- he's cursed. His choices as a result are somewhat limited by
that curse. He is trying to overcome the curse...but his issues
keep him back. In some ways I see Spike's trigger as a parallel
to Angel's curse, the reason Spike overcame it - was because it
served Buffy's journey, the reason Angel had the curse was similarily
to serve Buffy's psychological journey. When Angel got his own
show, the curse began to symbolize something else, (it sort of
had too, be silly to symbolize Buffy when she's not there,;-))
- possibly his own inability to come to terms with who he is -
all the facets.
Because obviously the writers couldn't just suddenly ditch the
curse. And in many ways the curse symbolizes to me - Angel's unresolved
issues, he resolves those issues? The curse ceases to be important.
Yes, Angelus came back to settle the score with Dad and in
his fury even killed his mother and sister. Yes, Angelus kept
re-inacting this for over a century.
That doesn't mean he has to be this way. Angel realizes this in
Pylea. He realizes the demon doesn't have to have control and
that he is strong enough to beat it. Why should Angel see himself
as Angelus? He isn't that person any more.
Actually he is. In Pylea, he is able to briefly rise above the
demon, but he's not able to do it his own universe as we see in
the Angelus arc this year. Maybe the reason he could in Pylea
is the soul resided in both the Pylean beast and in the human.
Angelus never surfaced, because the beast in Pylea was not Angelus
- a vampire informed by the personality of the human, but just
the primal/bestial version of Angel. Very different concept. Other
episodes before and after Pylea demonstrate that Angelus will
always live inside Angel - that's what we see in Orpheus. Notice
that Angelus doesn't dissolve or disappear - he merely goes once
again back into Angel. For all those years - Angelus lived inside
Angel, always present. A silent alter-ego who occassionally came
out. Faith sees it and in a way it is an echo of her own guilt
her own demons that continue to live inside her.
If Angel was no longer Angelus, if Angelus was no longer in him
- Angelus would have dissolved into nothing. That's not what I
saw on the screen. Actually one of my major complaints about the
whole Angelus arc this season - was nothing was really resolved.
Angel still needs to be cursed.
Angelus still is fighting Angel. They are still Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde.
Do you think that Angel went to kill Cordelia to be the Champion
or because it was what had to be done? I think a lot of essays
about Angel now are about Angel then. He is trying to find his
place in the world. When people keep calling him a champion, he
latches onto it. I don't think he does anything to be a champion
though. He doesn't think "What would a champion do now?"
Instead he does what he has to. He didn't do what he did to Connor
because that was his image of what a loving father should do.
He did it because he IS a loving father.
Again this doesn't prove that Angelus and Liam aren't inside him.
And ironically he does to Connor the same thing his father did
to him. Whether it was the right or wrong thing to do? Is a whole
other issue. And certainaly up for debate. I think Angel did both
the selfless and selfish thing in this instance - selfless in
the sense that he gave up all chance of winning his son and selfish
in that once again he made the choice for others. His own pride,
ego made him believe that he should be the one making the choices
for people. The irony, as Minear states in the Succubus Interviews,
is that Angel does to Connor the exact same thing Jasmine was
doing to people, removing free will.
Controlling them. He destroys Jasmine to preserve choice as a
right, yet takes that right from his son and removes the memories
of his friends as well. Something Angelus would have done - remember
Angelus makes it clear he doesn't work for anyone and he makes
the choices.
Actually, I was far more impressed by his actions in Chosen, where
he doesn't force Buffy to choose him as her champion nor insist
he has to be the one wearing the amulet. Something he would have
done in previous seasons. Instead he respects her choice, hands
her the amulet knowing full well what she plans on doing with
it, and leaves. That in my humble opinion was the most selfless
and adult thing he's done in quite a while. It showed a great
deal of growth on his part.
It might be a fine line to discuss, but I think "Release"
and "Orpheus" really showed us how far Angel has come.
Did it? In some ways...all it showed was that Angel is still fighting
the same battle. Yes, he may have come a long ways in acknowledging
that battle. Yet at the same time? I'm not so sure. He states
after Orpheus in Inside Out that he knows Angelus wasn't him,
so he wasn't responsible for anything Angelus did. Hmmm. Also
in Orpheus, we see him fighting Angelus, yet not acknowledging
that Angelus is a part of him, not separate. I think he has come
a ways...yes, but he still seems to be a split personality with
unresolved father issues. Perhaps taking over W&H, dealing
with Spike, and reprecussions of what happened with Connor and
Cordelia...will help him to resolve those issues?
Part of the reason he hasn't resolved them yet, and the other
characters you've mentioned appear to, may be that Angel's show
is partly about him resolving those issues?
Of course many people on this board have argued that the other
characters : Spike, Giles, Willow, Xander etc haven't really resolved
their issues either. So perhaps it depends on the viewers point
of view?
Just my opinion of course. Take it or leave it. ;-)
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Interesting but Agree with Rufus on this one
-- lunasea, 14:26:20 05/26/03 Mon
Actually Darla didn't try that.
Was refering to "The Prodigal" which is where everyone
gets the line about what informs the vampire. Joss recently has
said that the soul allows for a more mature morality. Without
a soul, we are what informs us. With it, we can grow beyond that.
Angelus is the rebellious teen. Angel has to find a way to grow
up. Angel is the oldest 20-something on TV.
Angelus never chose to be Angel. Angel never chose to be what
he is. Now everyone else does have a choice in it. But not Angel
- he's cursed.
I think you are missing the metaphor then. As Angel says in "Spin
the Bottle" "I didn't ask for this. I didn't ask to
be attacked. I didn't ask to be a freak. Hell, I didn't even ask
to be born."
We don't have a choice. We are all cursed, by being born. The
curse is tied to happiness and fulfillment of desires. It shows
what brings about Angel's downfall, as I have already written
about. Angel is trying to come to terms with the same thing we
all are desire. Want-take-have all starts with want.
We see the show from vastly different perspectives.
The way I see Spike's trigger is it mirrors what keeps Buffy in
check. Buffy's prime directive is "We don't hurt humans."
That is what is used to keep Spike in check, much as it does Buffy.
It is what brings Buffy back from being a Bad Girl the prior season.
S5 Buffy doubts her humanity and Spike almost gets the chip out.
He doesn't and Buffy learns that she can love. S6 the chip doesn't
work on Buffy and Buffy spends the season violating her mandate
by hurting herself. This season, Spike has the chip removed and
Buffy no longer needs any mandates. She willingly kills a human,
something she couldn't earlier seasons. Buffy doesn't need her
mandate to keep her from becoming Faith any more. She develops
a more mature conscience.
He is trying to overcome the curse...but his issues keep him
back.
He CAN'T overcome the curse. If anything, his issues keep him
from losing his soul. As Giles said "the last time you became
complacent about your existence turned out rather badly."
Desire has been an important part of the show, even tying to the
prophecy of Aberjian.
Actually he is. In Pylea, he is able to briefly rise above
the demon, but he's not able to do it his own universe as we see
in the Angelus arc this year.
Which was a different Angelus than we saw in BtVS S2. It really
depends on how you define Angelus. You are seeing him as a fixed
entity that Angel needs to accept is him. I am saying both are
a changing aggregate that really doesn't exist. Angel has discarded
Angelus. Now he has to drop the Champion.
Other episodes before and after Pylea demonstrate that Angelus
will always live inside Angel - that's what we see in Orpheus.
Angelus isn't part of Angel's psyche. He is his past. Angel constantly
has to fight this. It constantly comes to bite him on the ass.
It did it with Penn, Darla, Holtz, WKCS and others. That past
will always be with Angel. He will never be able to escape it.
People will always be asses and treat him according to that past.
Doesn't mean that Angel has to view himself that way.
If Angel was no longer Angelus, if Angelus was no longer in
him - Angelus would have dissolved into nothing.
But what were the words that Angel spoke to Faith as he was "fighting"
his alter-ego? The flow was so amazing that I actually sat down
and transcribed it. The important part is that we never pay our
dues. "Our time is never up, Faith. We pay for everything."
Angelus is representative of why Angel has to keep paying. He
can never escape that, so when Angel is resouled, that just folds
back into him.
Actually one of my major complaints about the whole Angelus
arc this season - was nothing was really resolved. Angel still
needs to be cursed.
That's what I thought, until I realized what metaphors I was looking
at. See Angel and Angelus as the alter-egos they rammed down our
throats and the metaphor is missed. It is about our past. What
sets it up is Cordy not being able to forgive Angel for his past.
Angel's last word is about his past. When we first see Angelus
unstrapped, after singing on of my kids' favorite CHILDREN'S books,
he starts to talk about his past. The whole season is about dealing
with our pasts. We even get an amazing episode that takes us back
to all their pasts. There is another interesting episode about
what happens when we don't have a future.
Angelus still is fighting Angel.
Angelus is trying to fight Angel, but Angel pretty much ignores
him. Angel has moved beyond and the Angelus arc really did advance
him as a character. Since we went right into the Jasmine conclusion,
we haven't gotten to see how much of a change that has brought
about EXCEPT for his exchange with Buffy in Chosen.
I really don't think the writers just gave us the Angelus arc
for a nice distraction. There had to be something out of it that
advanced Angel. Angel being able to really move beyond his past
is that something.
Again this doesn't prove that Angelus and Liam aren't inside
him.
The issues of Angelus and Liam are about trying to prove yourself.
It is easy to say when Angel goes around saying Champion every
other word that he is still trying to prove himself. I don't get
that impression. He is just trying to do what is right. That is
a big difference between party-boy Liam and I-am-the-most-evil-thing-that-ever-walked
Angelus.
And ironically he does to Connor the same thing his father
did to him.
I don't think he did. Even under Jasmine's spell he tried to talk
to him and validate him.
Whether it was the right or wrong thing to do? Is a whole other
issue. And certainaly up for debate.
One I have tried to stay out of. Angel had Connor committed. Connor
was a lost cause and it took a lot for Angel to do that. As one
who has had to make the decision to have someone committed, I
am not going to say anything negative about it. As a parent, I
make all sorts of decisions for my children. Such is the nature
of the beast. I had to make decisions for my mother (she is the
one we had committed). When someone is incapable of making their
own decisions, someone does have to step in. As Angel told Connor
"She gets to live until we discover why she rejected Jasmine's
love." Once Angel discovered what was going on with Connor,
he had to do what he did.
Actually, I was far more impressed by his actions in Chosen,
where he doesn't force Buffy
Buffy rational state is a bit different than Connor's. Should
Buffy have gone postal and decided to wire all the Potentials
with explosives, I think Angel would have done differently. It
is easy to get on the free will bandwagon, but it is another to
be able to say even it isn't an absolute.
Did it? In some ways...all it showed was that Angel is still
fighting the same battle. Yes, he may have come a long ways in
acknowledging that battle. Yet at the same time? I'm not so sure.
He states after Orpheus in Inside Out that he knows Angelus wasn't
him, so he wasn't responsible for anything Angelus did.
THAT is the growth. Spike's attitude of "I did it, but so"
is one attitude to take. I don't see why Angel's is any less valid.
Do you hold yourself accountable for mistakes you made as a child?
We grow, we change, we learn and we shouldn't feel bad for things
we did when we were different.
I think he has come a ways...yes, but he still seems to be
a split personality with unresolved father issues. Perhaps taking
over W&H, dealing with Spike, and reprecussions of what happened
with Connor and Cordelia...will help him to resolve those issues?
But that manifests itself as Angel. Why does he have to go through
Angelus, who deals with these things by lashing out (per Release)?
Liam deals with them by sleeping around and being a terrible disappointment.
Angel/us/Liam are more than the issue. Each one has a different
coping mechanism. Why should Angel acknowledge those other coping
mechanisms as him?
Our memories and our feelings are what makes us who we are. That
is what Darla said. The memories are consistant from Angel/us/Liam,
BUT the feelings aren't. As long as they aren't, they are the
same creature.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Thanks for posting that -- Rufus, 20:43:25
05/26/03 Mon
But one of the main themes of both shows is that it doesn't
have to.
I think you missed my point....what you once were will inform
ALL that you become.....meaning that your existance informs/influences
what you become, how you react and the actions you take based
upon all of it is what will make the difference. Angel is trying
to be human by working on how he reacts to any given situation
thrown his way..the soul for Angel is what makes the difference
between the monsterous and the humane.
In Inside Out Darla says to Connor.....
DARLA
You have a choice, Connor. That is something more precious
than you'll ever know.
What influences choice more than who you have been....
DARLA
(softly) I have her memories, her feelings. Isn't that what
makes a person who they are?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Free Will -- lunasea, 09:45:03 05/27/03
Tue
What influences choice more than who you have been....
That takes away free will, which is something the show really
pushed this season. I would like to thank you for bringing this
up, because last night I was trying to figure out how Jasmine
fit with the theme of this season, a season that really was about
the way the past informs us. Angel defeating Jasmine, and thus
restoring free will, shows us how to get around our pasts. That
was the irony of what happened to Connor. He couldn't get around
this and so Angel had to take his away.
But Angel isn't Connor. Angel basically cut himself off from Connor,
who has been symbolizing his past. It was a controversial move,
but a very important one. Angel, by facing Angelus, finally did
kill his past. I know there are many here that love Connor and
want to see him redeemed and we are all upset when our favorite
character is reduced to symbolizing Angel or Buffy, but the writers
had to take Connor to the irredeemable state because that is what
Angel's past is. If Connor can be redeemed, that means that Angel
can make up for his past.
Angel's past is no longer going to inform who he is. That this
is how he operates can be said to have happened because of that
past is accurate. The analogy I like to use is if you are eating
cookies and you drop a few crumbs, chances are you will just leave
them alone. If you drop a whole cookie and it makes a mess, you
will get out the dust pan and tidy up. Angel has more than a few
crumbs because of his past. He has tidied up because he had to.
But he did tidy up. I have her memories, her feelings. Isn't
that what makes a person who they are? Feelings. That is what
is important. Angel's epiphanies don't come from his memories.
They come from his feelings. Angel is learning how to rise above
his memories by using his feelings.
Angel's curse is based on happiness and his major epiphany came
from dispair. Feelings are the difference between Angelus and
Angel. Both are in pain, but for Angelus, lashing out Releases
the pain, for Angel is it reaching out. Lashing out just causes
Angel more pain. The feelings Buffy generated caused Angelus pain.
That has nothing to do with his past.
We could debate where those feelings come from. The soul seems
to be very important to them, so I would say it is something intrinsic
to people. In Buddhism it would be or Buddha nature. In the Catechism
it would be the virtues. It is this that truly informs us. The
rest is icing that can be stripped away. The cake is what nourishes
us.
There are some feelings that are generated by memories, especially
sense memory. Our experiences color how we feel about the show.
It isn't those feelings that I am talking about. It is more why
does Angel's dispair lead to his epiphany. Why does Buffy feel
so horrible after she sticks a knife in Faith's gut. Why was Xander
able to reach Willow.
THAT is ultimately what we are. What you have been can never touch
this, unless you choose to let it.
Again, thanks for that. It helps put the season in better perspective.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Really agree (Spoilers for Chosen) -- sdev, 00:44:38 05/26/03
Mon
Especially about Faith representing flaws, not just strengths,
in Buffy's character. I always felt that Faith's turn to evil
in Season 3 was in part a result of the lack of inclusiveness
and cold-shoulder Buffy and the Scoobies showed Faith. Willow
hated Faith. Joyce had to beg Buffy to invite Faith to Christmas
dinner. They were cliquish(that word does not look right no matter
what letters I add). They had no compassion for this young woman,
girl, Buffy's age who was all alone living in this dumpy motel.
It was a repeat of Buffy's snooty attitude to Kendra. Buffy had
a love/hate thing going with the "one girl in all the world..."
thing.
Contrast that to Chosen and episodes prior when Buffy is excluded
from the leadership. Now she knows what Faith felt like. She comes
back to reconcile with Faith who also has an epiphany of the loneliness
Buffy felt at the top. Now they both share the same vision. Neither
has to be envious of the others' role. In fact the message of
Chosen is inclusiveness and sharing of power. And they won.
[> [> [> [> Maybe
we can actually pull this off (spoilers Home) -- lunasea,
10:50:38 05/26/03 Mon
Rufus posted the shooting script, so I'll let the words speak
for themselves about Liam's Mom.
We come at Angel from completely different perspectives. I am
sure that my experience with Buddhism colors what I see, not only
with Angel, but with pretty much everything. His character, even
on Buffy, had more of an Eastern flair to him. Angel is the existentialist
hero, but he also fits the Bodhisattva path very well, as I have
written about in the past. Buddhist and existentialist tend to
get along pretty well.
Angel can be viewed from the traditional tragic model with the
traditional flaw of Hubris. That seems to be the way that you
see the show (correct me if I am wrong). I see him more from the
Buddhist perspective where the cause of suffering (duhkha) is
the chain of interdependant co-arising. This goes beyond just
Hubris causing the hero's (or anti-hero's) downfall. It is anything
beyond cookie dough causing problems.
There is much said about how Angel/us/Liam are really one and
the same. In Buddhism, we have three marks of existence: Anitya,
Duhkha and Anatman. Anitya means impermanence. It means that everything
changes. Seems really simple, and in truth it is, but we sure
act like things don't change. Angel is no longer either Liam or
Angelus. He isn't even Angel from S1 Buffy or S2 Angel. He is
a completely new creature who gives birth to himself every single
moment.
This leads to the teachings about Anatman, which means nonself
or nonessentiality. There is no self that exists. There really
isn't any Angel either. Just a bunch of what we call skandas,
or aggregates that are always changing. We are just a heap of
cookie dough, and not even that really.
Angel is working on these things. He has been exchanging one ego
for another for 7 seasons. That is what causes his problems.
Once she could accept that part of herself - Spike became whole,
intergrated and came into the light.
A whole character is going to be really boring. Once Buffy became
whole, Spike became redundant (which is why I never thought they
belonged together). They could have dusted him, which they did,
or they can try to take him in another direction, which they will
do. Seems they want to have their Spike and eat him too :-)
Nor did I feel Faith was Buffy without love, never got that,
so much as Buffy's shadow or alter-ego. The alter-ego is something
else entirely. I think Faith did have love - as was shown in her
relationship with the Mayor and to some extent with Wood later.
It isn't who loves Faith, but who Faith loves. Faith has her love
in a metal box with lots of chains around it. She won't let herself
care. To love is to will the good of another. Faith doesn't care
about the other. She won't let herself. Wood manages to reach
her, but by then she isn't Buffy's foil any more.
What keeps Buffy from "want, take, have"? That is what
I got out of S3. Buffy tries not to let herself love. She tries
to put her love in that metal box, but it is too great and it
escapes. She tries not to love Angel, but she can't stop it. Riley
is a separate post I am working on. I think we see Buffy vastly
different. I see her as trying to close herself off, but never
able to completely. What separates her and Faith is that Faith
could do this. If Buffy was Faith, she would have let Angel burn
in "Amends." To me that is what makes Buffy the hero,
that her love is too great to shove into that metal box.
Spike for example was Buffy's foil in many ways in Seasons
5-6, but I wouldn't say he was without love or completely the
opposite, any more than I think you could ever call Buffy divine
or a saint,
The foil existed in what kind of love Spike had, which many of
us won't call love. Buffy is the divine (as we all are), she just
doesn't realize it. On BtVS the divine isn't quite as present
as it is on AtS because Buffy is the divine. In my post on faith
I addressed this (I think, not sure I ever posted that one). Buffy
explores both faith in yourself and faith in general. I would
think with BtVS gone, ME will use Spike to continue to explore
this. Spike on AtS may very well end up in the same position Buffy
was S1. That is where I would put him.
Angel on the other hand, I believe - really is a different
type of show, it's less about Angel's psychology and more about
the moral ambiguity and issues that he must deal with outside
himself.
That is the position you take. I see it as completely about Angel's
psychology, but trying to get beyond all of this. There are no
issues outside of us. They are all just projections of our internal
struggles. If it was just moral ambiguity, Angel wouldn't have
grown so much. We wouldn't get various epiphanies.
The show still take the formula from Buffy. Take an emotion or
issue and explore it from the perspectives of the various characters.
On Buffy, each character was a part of the whole that is Buffy.
On Angel, even character, including Angel, is a part of the whole
that is humanity. Buffy was trying to maximize each part and Angel
is trying to lose them.
Often he is shown how to deal with these issues through other
characters, and most of the time, Angel's decision is not the
best one, even if on the surface it appears to Angel and the audience
to be the best one. The consequences can be brutal.
Actually not that hard to explain. It is called Duhkah or suffering.
ALL craving leads to suffering, even supposedly good ones. It
isn't pride that causes Angel's downfall, but desire (evidenced
by how the curse works). The seasons are beautifully written so
that Angel has a craving, it causes lots of suffering, he gets
beyond that craving and then he gets his need met in some expected
way.
Take this season. What does he want? Cordy. He gets beyond that
and goes back to thinking of her as his dearest friend. He crosses
over and doesn't get Buffy, but he does get "Sometimes."
(that is worthy of its own post) Another craving was Connor. This
season showed him what a lost cause Connor was. Angel is finally
able to prove his love for Connor and gives Connor what Connor
wants most. Connor is part of the pattern. Connor wants love and
a family. He gets beyond that in "Peace Out," but is
given in in "Home." We can do the same for each character.
It is a pattern that is based on desire. That is my perspective
on this show.
I do however think, we can all agree that Angel in some ways
is an external show while Buffy is an internal one. Hence the
reason some viewers preferred Angel this year - it was far more
externally focused.
The fulfillment of desire is shown externally, but the show tends
to show where that desire comes from, which is internal. Buffy
tends to use a lot more metaphors than Angel does. It constantly
projects the internal. On Angel, things are a bit more straightforward.
I agree that it is amazing that a show can be written on so many
levels that we can see such different things and be able to back
up our positions.
[> [> [> [> [>
I guess it just comes down to our own point of view (spoilers
Home) -- s'kat, 11:35:05 05/26/03 Mon
Angel can be viewed from the traditional tragic model with
the traditional flaw of Hubris. That seems to be the way that
you see the show (correct me if I am wrong).
Nope. I see him as the anti-hero, not a tragic hero. I don't think
of Angel as heroic in the classic or traditional sense, I see
his journey as an ironic one and the concept to be more existentialist
than anything else.
Buffy I see as the tragic hero, also Spike is a tragic hero. Buffy
tends to be more the classic heros journey - although I see her
journey more in Jungian and Fruedian terms...than Campbellian
(not overly fond of Campbell - I'm afraid, he too gets a little
religious and overly metaphysical for my taste.)
I basically see him as the Batman figure or dark vigalante and
possibly existentialist view. The lone gunfighter, if you will.
The main difference I think in our perspectives - is I tend to
look at and analyze the show through literary and film analysis
as opposed to metaphysics. Was an English major, minor in religious
studies (hence my difficulty with all religions) and have a background
in logical reasoning and law. Also have studied film extensively.
While I am a philosopher - I find most philosophies limiting and
tend to pick up bits and pieces I like from each. I'll let you
know when and if I find a religion or philosophy that works for
me. Hasn't happened yet.
I tend to see both shows as more of a psychological journey as
opposed to a metaphysical one. Since Eastern Philosophy is not
the lense through which I view things...it's not my cup of tea,
I have yet to find a philosophy that is, Western isn't my cup
of tea either - I have major problems with both philosophies.
And yes, I've studied all of them and explored them in some form
or other, they just don't work for me. While I can appreciate
posts on how Btvs and Ats reflect Buddhist or Eastern views -
I simply don't see it in the shows. So no I don't really view
the story through the metaphysical lense that much. I'm not comfortable
with it. Much prefer the psychological one. We look at the world
through the lense we are most comfortable with, I think. I do
try to peer through other lenses, hence my appreciation for Manwitch
and Age's posts, as well as Solitude1059, Rahael, and KdS...even
if I don't always agree with them.
So I guess we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree
on how we view these characters. The fact that the writers have
the written the story in such a way that our contrasting views
can permit us both to continue to enjoy and post on these shows
- is however something to applaud.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Or maybe realizing there is no POV :-) -- lunasea,
12:27:10 05/26/03 Mon
Nope. I see him as the anti-hero, not a tragic hero.
But even as an anti-hero you are using the tragic model. It has
to be anti-something. Doesn't the definition of the anti-hero
exist in relation to the tragic hero? You have repeatedly said
that you see Angel as the anti-hero. I was just saying what framework
you were looking at the show from, more of a literary, tragic
model. Spike fits well with what Arthur Miller wrote in "Tragedy
and the Common Man," and I think you would agree with me
on that.
I see his journey as an ironic one and the concept to be more
existentialist than anything else.
I basically see him as the Batman figure or dark vigalante and
possibly existentialist view. The lone gunfighter, if you will.
I'm starting to wonder if you see Angel as having a journey at
all or is he just spinning his wheels. This lone gunfighter is
working towards something. The writers are taking him somewhere.
Eventually, he will get his reward and walk off into the sunlight
with Buffy. Batman never really grew. The lone gunfighter is typically
the rebel with or without a cause. There is a lot more arc to
Angel than this.
although I see her journey more in Jungian and Fruedian terms...than
Campbellian (not overly fond of Campbell - I'm afraid, he too
gets a little religious and overly metaphysical for my taste.)
Not too familiar with Jung if you think that Campbell is the one
that is a little religious. There is a reason that one of the
Gnostic Codices is named after Jung. Jung and Freud's big spilt
was over the importance of spirituality and religion (that and
Freud's obsession with human sexuality).
I tend to see both shows as more of a psychological journey
as opposed to a metaphysical one
Whereas I don't see them as different. My original net name was
Carla_Sophia. Carla was for Carl Jung, which I am sure people
can tell I have studied and Sophia was for the internal wisdom
that we all possess which gets projected outward as the divine.
It was to remind me that everything did boil down to psychology
and this divine wisdom.
Now the name I choose is two very powerful archetypes that could
mean any number of things (as well as a nice play on words). Everything
boils down to everything else. It is like the chain of interdependant
co-arising, if you really understand any one part, you understand
everything. Meditating on something as simple as breathing can
lead to enlightenment.
As a former Jungian (I agree with Dr. Jung, "Thank God, I'm
not a Jungian"), I do still believe his model is one of the
best descriptions of the human psyche, with the Transcendant Function
compensating for imbalances caused by the four psychological functions
and two orientations. I can take any religion back to psychology,
but by doing so, it often looses something, because no model is
complete. I can do the same thing with the Catechism, which I
have recently written fairly extensively on.
I do find your analysis incredibly interesting. I tend to have
nothing to really add to them. In many ways, they are Rosetta
Stones, saying that this word in that language (the show) means
the same as this word in another language (a book or movie). This
is really neat. Many others do this from other perspectives.
At their core all these things really are the same. They are just
various perspectives on what I have called THE story. I can take
Eastern thought, Western thought, various religions, philosophies,
etc and get through to that story. THAT is what interests me.
Doesn't really matter what perspective you go through, it just
matters that you keep digging. Eventually you'll hit gold and
see where the gold is in everything.
I think that is why the shows have such depth.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Or maybe realizing there is no POV :-)
-- s'kat, 13:08:06 05/26/03 Mon
I'm starting to wonder if you see Angel as having a journey
at all or is he just spinning his wheels. This lone gunfighter
is working towards something. The writers are taking him somewhere.
Eventually, he will get his reward and walk off into the sunlight
with Buffy. Batman never really grew. The lone gunfighter is typically
the rebel with or without a cause. There is a lot more arc to
Angel than this.
Nope misunderstanding me again. Oh well.
Actually Batman did grow. He moves past his vigilante ways and
deals with his parents death, retiring for a while from the scene.
Comes back years later to deal with the mess the world has become.
See Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns.
There are some very interesting Batman comics that show Batman
dealing with his issues - one is the Killing Joke, another is
Batman Year One. Also the Death of Robin focuses on this. He is
by no means a stagnic hero.
And the lone gunfighter grows as well. In the Gregory Peck Western
The Gunfighter - we see him deal with who he is and the moral
ambiguity of his dilemma. But I'd say the films the Shootist,
by Ron Howard, shows this journey much better.
Also the whole Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leone series - where Eastwood's
character evolves and becomes more and more grey.
A really good examination of gunmen and issues is Once Upon A
Time in The West.
I think what I mean by anti-hero as opposed to tragic hero, is
I don't see Angel ending with his death. Buffy wasn't a complete
tragic hero - her final journey did not end with her death. The
anti-hero model I'm thinking of is the one that he isn't really
redeemed or necessarily heroic, but he survives, his heroism is
just making it out alive so to speak. Now whether this is a traditional
literary tragic hero model or something else? Don't know, possibly.
Been a while since I studied it.
As for Jung and Freud - I don't buy everything they say either,
take bits and pieces. Jung's religious stuff bugs me as much as
Freud's obsession with sexuality. I actually prefer some of the
psychologists who've interpreted their work far better. I'm not
a Jungian nor a Freudian, nor have any interest in becoming one
and I find both to be a bit dense. I like aspects of them. The
shadow for instance - that fascinates me. So you see, I take bits
and pieces of things. A pure dilettant not an expert.
I enjoy examining the show more through literary, comic book and
film motifs - partly because the writers reference them a great
deal, but mostly because that's just where my interest lies.
I do find your analysis incredibly interesting. I tend to have
nothing to really add to them. In many ways, they are Rosetta
Stones, saying that this word in that language (the show) means
the same as this word in another language (a book or movie). This
is really neat. Many others do this from other perspectives.
Thanks. Feel somewhat the same way towards your analysis.
At their core all these things really are the same. They are
just various perspectives on what I have called THE story. I can
take Eastern thought, Western thought, various religions, philosophies,
etc and get through to that story. THAT is what interests me.
Doesn't really matter what perspective you go through, it just
matters that you keep digging. Eventually you'll hit gold and
see where the gold is in everything.
On that I think we agree. The trick is, I believe, not to overwhelm
others with our version or perspective. Since every post hits
gold in its own way. While some may be more interested in how
the story relates to Catechism (I wasn't but hey that's because
I had more than my share of Catechism - raised Catholic), and
others in how it compares to comic book and film motifs. All that
matters, to me at any rate, is we continue to have fun with it
and not take ourselves or the show itself too seriously. Hey,
that's my motto in life - lighten up. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Or maybe realizing there is no POV :-)
-- lunasea, 14:54:28 05/26/03 Mon
I think what I mean by anti-hero as opposed to tragic hero,
is I don't see Angel ending with his death.
But it will. Shanshu was set up back in Season 1. It is hard to
evaluate something when we don't have the complete work.
That isn't what I was taught is the antihero. William Rose BenÈt
as defines it as ìa protagonist who lacks traditional heroic
virtues and noble qualities and is sometimes inept, cowardly,
stupid, or dishonest, yet sensitiveî (BenÈt's Reader's
Encyclopedia: Fourth Edition [New York: Harper Collins Publishers,
Inc., 1996], 40)
This fits Spike and there are many essays about Spike as the antihero.
I don't think it fits Angel, though it is debatable. He isn't
perfect, but a tragic hero doesn't have to be. Makes for a really
boring story. For Angel and Spike to be foils, Spike the antihero
will contrast with Angel the hero. (It is also why Buffy will
end up with Angel ultimately and not Spike :-D )
Hey, that's my motto in life - lighten up. ;-)
I'll share mine. Be one with the duck and let things roll off
your back. My mantra is QUAAAAAAACK :-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Or maybe realizing there is no
POV :-) -- s'kat, 16:43:30 05/26/03 Mon
I'll share mine. Be one with the duck and let things roll off
your back. My mantra is QUAAAAAAACK :-)
Ah you're one of the ducks, that explains a lot.
Okay, can't restrain myself any longer - am going to reprint some
of Joss Whedon's duck jokes. He puts them in most of his episodes.
;-)I never understood them until I went on line.
"Buffy, duck.."
"What? There's a duck?" - Lessons.
"You know that story about a duck telling a joke with a man
attached to his ass.." - Restless
Hmmm.. the definition I have is from Sharon Y Cobb's essay on
Writing the New Noir Film - where the anti-hero is a desperate
character with little hope of positive change in their lives and
lives on the outskirts of normalcy, surviving as best they can
in a chaotic world both inner and outer. Their behavior is not
courageous and is usually obsessive.
This definition could fit both Spike and Angel. Certainly fits
Angel in his series, and the writers in interviews have stated
as much. Except Spike in Season 6-7 did have hope for positive
change and took pro-active steps towards it: he sought a soul,
and he sacrificed himself for the world - without much hope of
getting the heroine. That's a tragic hero and he probably was
the one who shanshued. Whedon himself called Spike a tragic hero.
Until the writers prove otherwise, I'm beginning to believe Angel
may never shanshue and while he may get Buffy in the end, by the
time it happens? It will be anti-climatic, since SMG is not joining
Ats as a regular, is not slatted for a huge guest-starring arc
and Ats may not make it past five seasons...so unless they can
show these two coming together? It sounds like a dream that lives
in B/A shippers hearts. Remember in Shanshu in LA - Darla was
the one brought back human, who died to live, had the kid and
was redeemed - going to heaven or wherever, not Angel. The show
is very ironic. I'm not saying they won't end the way you wish
- who knows? But there's no guarantees, since ME enjoys subverting
the form.
Do not misunderstand this to mean I want Buffy with Spike.
I don't. I honestly don't care who Buffy ends up with. Or who
Angel ends up with. I like her alright, I just don't care which
guy she marries or ends up with. I'm not watching the show to
see Angel and Buffy ride off in the sunset. Never did. Good thing
too since, if I were I'd have stopped watching ages ago, limbo
relationships annoy me...because the writers obviously contrive
the story to keep the characters apart as long as possible b/c
putting them together is boring to the writers - see Joss Whedon's
Sam and Diane speech for an example. Buffy's journey appears to
be over for now and I really like the fact it ended with her happy
and independent and not attached. But again I'm not a shipper
in the same way you are. I simply don't care.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Angel: Mirror of the Bat -- Valheru,
23:22:18 05/26/03 Mon
I never really thought about the Angel/Batman connection beyond
the "dark vigilante" angle, but I think there might
be something deeper there. In many ways, Angel is taking a journey
almost identical to the one Bruce Wayne has taken for the last
15-20 years.
Bruce's driving force is his parents' death. He spent years looking
for the killer (my Batman knowledge isn't what it used to be--did
he ever find the killer in regular continuity?). Somewhere along
the line, though, the simple desire for revenge became the nobler
desire for humanity's justice, and thus Batman is born.
Angel follows this, but there's a neat little twist in the forms
of Liam and Angelus. This might get a little confusing, but bear
with me...
In the beginning, we have Liam. But Liam doesn't start paralleling
Bruce Wayne when Darla vamps him; the vamping isn't his "I
must have my revenge!" moment. The parallel actually begins
where it did for Bruce: the murder of his parents. Before, as
a newly-risen vampire, he is still very much Liam, just a twisted
version of himself. But when he murders his parents, he becomes
Angelus. Why? Because now Liam will never get beyond his father
issues and he is enraged at the person who robbed him of that
opportunity: himself. In other words, Liam vowed revenge upon
himself, a perpetual loop of self-hatred that created Angelus
out of desperation. He was, at once, both Bruce Wayne and the
murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents.
Liam, however, is unable to extract the revenge against himself.
So Angelus decides to punish the world. Bruce Wayne, similarly,
couldn't extract his revenge against his parents' killer, so he
decided to punish the world of criminals.
But Angelus/Batman isn't the parallel, is it? Actually, at this
particular point, Bruce isn't Batman yet. Bruce's first night
of crime fighting was a disaster. It isn't until a bat crashes
through his window that he comes to the epiphany that "criminals
are a cowardly and suspicious lot," leading to his creation
of Batman. Angelus has the reverse: a dove (if you will, a metaphor
for Liam's soul) crashes through his window and he comes to the
epiphany that he is cowardly and suspicous, leading to
the creation of Angel. To sum up:
Liam = pre-murders Bruce Wayne (the boy who likes Zorro!)
Angelus = post-murders Bruce Wayne/ the murderer
Angel = Batman
We can also take a close look at the psychological similarities.
Bruce Wayne, for all intents and purposes, is just another mask
for Batman to wear; in his head, he isn't Bruce anymore. He is
continually pulling himself deeper into the Batman, rejecting
Bruce--in effect, rejecting himself. It is seldom that his original,
childhood personality ever presents itself; the only people who
really bring that out in him are Alfred, Comissioner Gordon, and
his sometimes-lover Talia. The jaded-by-life personality of the
adult Bruce Wayne is a little more accessible, usually reached
by the Robins or Superman. Everyone else gets the Bat.
Angel's twist, of course, is that while the Batman is usually
a scarier personality than billionaire Bruce Wayne, Angel isn't
even close to the menace of Angelus. But Angel has surface parallels
with Bruce's disassociative personalities (beyond the surface,
though, Angel makes Bruce seem like an easy case). Most people
only get the Angel facade. A select few (Spike, Dru, and Darla)
can reach through to Angelus. But only Buffy ever gets anywhere
near Liam.
Looking at their adventure histories, we can see some similarities
there too. The first one that sprang to my mind was Batman's loss
of Jason Todd, the second Robin. After Jason died, Bruce delved
deeper into the Batman persona than he ever had before. Dick Grayson,
the original Robin, eventually convinced him that a Robin was
necessary to keep the Batman from going too dark, so Bats accepted
Tim Drake as the current Robin. Angel has something like that
in S2, realizing that the Fang Gang was necessary to keep him
from losing himself.
Angel's problems with Connor are a twisted version of Bruce's
problems with Dick Grayson and later Jason Todd. The Angel/Cordy/Gwen
triangle looks a lot like the Batman/Talia/Catwoman triangle--especially
when you consider the Talia/Cordy connection: Talia and Bruce
have a kind of are-we-or-aren't-we romance; Talia is often used
as a pawn by her evil father, Ra's al Ghul (The Demon's Head);
and Ra's, like Jasmine, thinks to save the world from itself by
extreme measures.
Other it's-like-an-alternate-universe characters: Lorne/Alfred,
Kate/Jim Gordon, Wes/Dick Grayson, and Connor/Azrael. Plus, Angelus
seems to fit in with Batman's two greatest nemeses, the Joker
and Two-Face. Just imagine for a moment what it would do to Batman
if he realized that his two most dangerous enemies were just splits
of his own personality. It's really a wonder that Angel is alive,
the psychological head-trips he's been on...
And if anyone is brave enough to tackle the homosexual aspect
of the Batman/Robin relationship, you'll probably find some intriguing
ideas for the weirdest Angel/Spike slash-fics on the planet.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Fantastic post. Thanks for this!!
-- shadowkat, 15:39:21 05/27/03 Tue
This has got to be the best Batman analysis I've seen in a long
time. And I love the parallels drawn to Angel.
Thank you. You reminded me of why I love the character of Angel
as much as I do, was losing focus there for a while.
Bruce's driving force is his parents' death. He spent years
looking for the killer (my Batman knowledge isn't what it used
to be--did he ever find the killer in regular continuity?).
Not that I know of. The movies insist the Joker was the killer.
But the comics make it clear in Batman Year One, The Killing Joke
and Dark Knight Returns that it wasn't the Joker. Actually I think
the murderer may be in a way Batman's own psychological shadow
- ie his Angelus. I've seen people theorize this, although it
remains unclear in the comics.
I love comparing the shows to films and comics - because I believe
from the interviews I've read these are closest to the writers'
source material and truly imbue what they create.
Again thanks.
Hopefully this will post. Voy has eaten every single thing I've
tried to post within the last few hours.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Angel, Batman, and the Osiris Complex
-- Rufus, 19:54:00 05/27/03 Tue
Remember a while ago I found a bit about the Osiris complex that
backs up your comparison between Angel and Batman...
Liam = pre-murders Bruce Wayne (the boy who likes Zorro!)
Angelus = post-murders Bruce Wayne/ the murderer
Angel = Batman
http://www.rossinst.com/osiris.htm
Although MPD patients are, by definition, diagnosed as having
more than one personality, they in fact don't. The different
'personalities' are fragmented components of a single personality
that are abnormally personified, dissociated from each other,
and amnesic for each other. We call these fragmented components
'personalities' by historical convention: much of the scepticism
about MPD is based on the erroneous assumption that such patients
have more than one personality, which is, in fact, impossible.
Colin A. Ross, M.D,
Angelus's murder of his father is the point where the real
monster is created for some of the reason's you've mentioned.
For there to be a sufficient enough of dramatic tension the idea
that the vampire was a totally seperate entity from the human
or the soulled vampire simply made no sense as Angel seems to
have one foe that he always battles the most and it's himself.
You can't have Angelus without Liam....and without Liam or Angelus,
Angel has no conflict with what he has been. The Batman reference
is a good way to explain it.
[> [> Re: Spike thinks
of Angelus as his father. No not really -- sdev, 00:03:45
05/26/03 Mon
The Connor thing was Oedipal enough. That was done already. Angel
is Spike's rival; his equal. Not a father figure. The Dru and
now Buffy rivalry is between two different style men. That difference
in style was made evident in FFL. I suspect that it will be the
monster who was a man (Angel) or the man who was a monster (Spike).
The one thing I can see like Connor here is- whoever one wants
the other will want too. Didn't Connor complain of that. Clearly
they have the same taste in women.
[> As long as he doesn't
cut off Wes, I'm game for anything... -- Jay, 19:30:46
05/25/03 Sun
[> spike vamped w/ soul
-- seven, 22:00:04 05/25/03 Sun
I really think Spike should still be what he was.
Another vamp with a soul.
First off, we haven't seen nearly enough of souled spike to get
the idea across. There are many options to explore. So many posters
have talked about how the jeolosy from angel will come from Spike
having Shanshued, but the jeolousy can easily come (as seen is
chosen) from spike simply being another vamp with a soul. Not
only that, spike found his soul on his own, something angel can
never say he did.
Second, him having a soul as a vamp will be a great way to parallel
to angel. What has Angel done with his soul that is different
from Spike? Angel now has to consider if Spike WILL BE the one
to Shanshu.
All in all, i think spike should be a vamp. He's gotta be in the
fight, gotta be able to do some dirty work or he just won't be
spike. And don't even think about calling him William next season
Joss. Without his vampness, spike is just a wimpy wuss with nothing
to back up his bravado.
I say keep him a vamp.
ps -- i didn't even get into the possibility of exploring spike's
demon. His "Angelus"
jmho
[> [> the whole shanshu
thing -- s'kat, 22:11:01 05/25/03 Sun
Well I sort of agree with what Aresthusa said below somewhere
- how do we know that Shanshu means "human" per se?
Because Wes said so? How good have Wes' translations really been?
Not so good. He got the whole father will kill the son thing off,
after all. Also ME loves to do ironic twists on prophecies - so
I caution viewers who are counting on the whole shanshue thing.
It probably won't be what we think.
Personally, I like the suggestion someone made sometime back that
if we do get two vamps with souls vying for shanshue, it would
be hilarous if Harmony is the one who gets it. In fact having
Harmony do a journey to redeem herself to get the love of say
Spike or someone, would be a hilarous parody of the B/A and B/S
relationships. There's a rumor Harmony is coming back by the way...so
it's a possibility. Although I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy this,
Harmony grates on my nerves...but hey...you never know.
At any rate? I have 0 clue how they'll bring back Spike.
I'm pretty sure he shanshued from all the hints in Chosen, but
that doesn't mean he's human. But then again, I wouldn't put it
past ME to come up with some bizarre twist or alternative that
I've never thought of.
[> [> [> agree, but
-- seven, 22:32:23 05/25/03 Sun
i never really thought of shanshu not meaning human. that's a
great point. It could just mean that he gets SOME kind of re-birth.
A Shanshued person could have powers not of human nature but still
age or die like a human. i disagree with what ya said about Wes.
i think, for the most part, he was good at translations. the whole
"father will kill the son" thing was revealed as a set
up. they were feeding Angel conner's blood an using spells to
change the prophecies.
But i love the idea of Shanshu not meaning human
7
[> [> [> [> Re:
agree, but -- s'kat, 23:05:51 05/25/03 Sun
i disagree with what ya said about Wes. i think, for the most
part, he was good at translations. the whole "father will
kill the son" thing was revealed as a set up. they were feeding
Angel conner's blood an using spells to change the prophecies.
Uhm nope. Did you see HOME, ats S4 Finale? If you did you know
the twist. If not, I won't spoil you.
Wes...doesn't always understand the meaning of the translation
- he takes it literally, when it could be metaphorical. ME loves
to twist prophecies. Examples:
Prophecy Girl, the whole key deal in The Gift, the bit about Jasmine...
in fact to Shanshu in La was when Darla
came back human.
So he may translate it right - but his understanding of it, like
Giles and the rest of the Watchers is always just ever so slightly
off. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
The Fatter Wall Fill The Sun? (AtS S4 and S5 spoilers)
-- Valheru, 01:41:09 05/26/03 Mon
Wes...doesn't always understand the meaning of the translation
- he takes it literally, when it could be metaphorical.
With "The Father Will Kill The Son" prophecy, Wes did
understand it correctly at first. In fact, a case could be made
that he was the only one to get it right.
Initially, he takes it literally, thinking that Angel will kill
Connor. Then, he goes to the Burger Loa, who tells him that the
Father will devour the Son. Wes thinks, "So Angel
will vamp out and eat Connor's neck." Angel, meanwhile, has
been doing just that (in a semi-metaphorical sense) by drinking
Connor-spiked pig's blood. Since Wes doesn't seem to fear Connor's
safety later in S3 and in S4, we can assume that Lilah told him
what W&H had done. So apparently, Wes assumes that the prophecy
came true.
Except...was the Loa speaking of the same prophecy as the Nyazian
prophecy? Or were there two different propechies--Father
Will Kill and Father Will Devour? From the events of "Home",
that just might have been the case.
Then we have Sahjhan, who apparently set up the Nyazian prophecy.
But does that really make the prophecy false? I mean, it wasn't
really "prophetic" in the sense that he foresaw it in
a vision, but it came true anyway, mainly because of his time-manipulations.
Prophecies (in the truest sense) come to fruition because events
are manipulated by inevitability. Perhaps Sahjhan manipulated
things better than he thought, forcing events to happen that,
while not directly planned, inevitably led to the fulfillment?
I have another theory on this, too, which I'll get to at the end.
The interesting thing about all this is how Wesley turns out to
be the focal point for the Nyazian prophecy. If he doesn't kidnap
Connor, in all likelihood the end of "Sleep Tight" never
comes to pass. And it was the exact events of "Sleep
Tight" (Connor going with Holtz to Quor'toth, Angel thinking
he's lost his son forever to a madman) that lead to Connor's emotional
problems in S4 and Angel's desperate need to be Connor's parent.
Without "Sleep Tight", it would have taken some very
convoluted (even more than what we got) occurrences to bring things
to where they were even at the start of S4. Wesley's estrangement
after "Sleep Tight" directly results in the Angelus
plan, which helped screw Connor up even more, and his association
with Lilah, which set up "Home" in the first place.
Wesley thought he was acting outside of the parameters of the
prophecy. He thought that if he could come between the Father
and the Son, he could avert the prophecy. Instead, it appears
as though the main player was neither the Father or the Son--it
was the Translator. It's like Wesley is a sort of Buffyverse version
of The Neverending Story's Bastion. Except, because he
thinks the Loa was speaking of the Nyazian prophecy, Wesley stops
being an active player. Just as he had the power to set the wheels
in motion, he probably had the power to stop them. As Bastion,
all Wesley does is read the book...he never realizes that he
gets to name the Child-like Empress.
Okay, now back to Sahjhan for a sec, which also kinda ties back
into Spike. Sahjhan's prophecy (the "real" one) says,
"The one sired by the vampire with a soul shall grow to manhood
and kill Sahjhan." "The one sired."
Drusilla. And Spike (sort of). Or hey, maybe it's someone Spike
sired. Holden Webster? Maybe "Knox" is just a cover.
Or not. (Yes, I know it would be silly if time-tripping Sahjhan
got his own killer wrong, but still) It might be interesting to
put Spike into the mix of all this, especially considering how
much that particular prophecy destroyed Wesley. Plus, it would
allow Connor's arc more breathing room if Mr. Dawn didn't have
a date with Sahjhan sometime down the road.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> great post -- Rahael, 06:08:41 05/26/03 Mon
I had never properly considered Wes' role in that way.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Whoa. Great post. (AtS S4 and S5 spoilers) -- s'kat,
11:49:37 05/26/03 Mon
Wow. I concede, that was brilliant.
Okay, now back to Sahjhan for a sec, which also kinda ties
back into Spike. Sahjhan's prophecy (the "real" one)
says, "The one sired by the vampire with a soul shall grow
to manhood and kill Sahjhan." "The one sired."
Drusilla. And Spike (sort of). Or hey, maybe it's someone Spike
sired. Holden Webster? Maybe "Knox" is just a cover.
Or not. (Yes, I know it would be silly if time-tripping Sahjhan
got his own killer wrong, but still) It might be interesting to
put Spike into the mix of all this, especially considering how
much that particular prophecy destroyed Wesley. Plus, it would
allow Connor's arc more breathing room if Mr. Dawn didn't have
a date with Sahjhan sometime down the road.
Hmmm, now that never occurred to me. I'd forgotten what Sahjhan
knew, that it was the son Angel had sired. And according to Whedon,
it doesn't matter if Dru sired Spike, the fact Angel sired Dru
- makes him Spike's sire as well.
It's same blood line. Spike in effect is Angel and Dru's child,
just as Connor was Darla and Angel's child. Just one's a vampire
and one's a human. Wonder if the writer's will go with that??
Interesting twist and spec.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Please, Make it stop! -- pilgrim, 15:03:47 05/26/03
Mon
I'm sure all of this is bloody brilliant, but as a novice Angel-watcher,
I've got to say . . . Please, please don't wrap Spike up in all
this prophecy stuff. I'll never, never get it all straight. :0)
Btw, kudos to all of the fantastic posts during the last few weeks.
It's taken me several days to read through them all (I was sans-computer
for a awhile), but the slog has been worthwhile.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: agree, but -- shadowkat -- seven, 04:45:29 05/26/03
Mon
i'm writing back late so i apologize
i saw HOME but i don't remember the twist with Wes
could you refresh me?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: agree, but -- shadowkat (Spoilers Home) -- s'kat,
11:54:58 05/26/03 Mon
Oh read, Valheru's post above - much better than mine.
The twist was that Angel does kill Connor in Home, but he does
so by erasing his memories and planting new ones - Connor ends
up living with a new family and has a completely different life.
Angel symbolically devors Conner's memories and kills the son
he had - so that son could have a better life. In doing so, he
makes a deal with W&H and erases everyone else's memories of Connor.
IT's the big twist in Home that upset lots of people.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: agree, but -- shadowkat (Spoilers Home)
-- Dochawk, 15:12:35 05/27/03 Tue
Doesn't he actually physically kill Connor by slicing his neck?
As well as devouring all memory of his former life for everyone
but him?
[> [> [> Wesley and
his translations -- Dochawk, 14:24:13 05/27/03 Tue
As it turns out, Wesley was correct in the prophecy. Angel did
kill his son (Minnear talked about it gleefully in the Succubus
interview). Just not when Wesley thought he would.
My question is, since Connor has been killed and resurrected as
a normal kid, what did Sahjan fear? Is this another loose thread
that we have yet to see? Connor was supposed to destroy Sahjan?
Am I forgetting something?
[> [> [> [> I've
got to read entire threads first, though my question remains,
has Sahjhan been resolved yet? -- Dochawk, 14:31:42 05/27/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> Sahjhan
-- Valheru, 15:04:38 05/27/03 Tue
I don't think we've had any resolution to Sahjhan. The obvious
answer is that ME didn't plan on resolving Sahjhan; once his duplicity
with the Nyazian prophecies is revealed, he ceases being important.
He was a plot device to tie the S3 arcs of Wesley, Lilah, Connor,
and Holtz together.
But I think it would be interesting to keep Sahjhan's story open
for later. For instance, how does he fit in with Jasmine and Skip?
Did they do to Sahjhan what Sahjhan did to Wesley, inventing a
false prophecy so he would get involved? Or was Sahjhan in cahoots
with them all along? Did he force the events of Connor's birth,
as well? Did he have any part to play in Darla's resurrection?
Time travelers/manipulators are tricky characters. Once they are
introduced, it puts the whole past into question. For all we know,
Sahjhan has had a hand in things from the very beginning, from
the Master to Darla to Angelus to the present. He could have written
the Acathla prophecy that Whistler got wrong. Anything is possible
when there's a surfer of the timestream in the mix.
Even Sahjhan's current "genie" status isn't concrete.
Because he is able to travel time, in his past he could appear
sometime in the Buffyverse future. Or his future self (somehow
released from the bottle) could travel back into his past, the
Buffyverse present. He's the Buffyverse version of DC's Waverider,
capable of appearing at any time as any incarnation. Like I said,
it's tricky and confusing. But it could be done.
[> [> Re: spike vamped
w/ soul -- pilgrim, 15:37:51 05/26/03 Mon
That's my vote, too. Return Spike as a vamp-with-soul. Here's
my reasons:
1. Vampire Spike is just so much fun to watch. With no demon-edge,
William may not be nearly as much fun. I'd love to see Spike return
in all his glory--no angst, all outrageous all the time, snarky,
strong, and confident. He's proved to himself that he has a soul,
he knows how strong he can be, he knows what good he's capable
of, just as he knows what viciousness he is capable of. He's got
Buffy's love and belief in him, his mother's love too. He's ready
to go out there and kick some butt.
2. Vampire Spike-with-a-soul could really be his own man. If he
comes back as a human, I just don't see how they will persuasively
separate him and Buffy. IMO, Spike still loves Buffy and always
will; if Spike is human, wouldn't Buffy at least give the two
of them a chance as a romantic couple? However, if Spike is still
a vampire, I can see the problem taken care of easily--we learn
in passing that Buffy told Spike she needs a break from the vampire
thing while she begins a new life, and Spike says okay, I'll catch
you later. No muss, no fuss.
3. I don't see that souled Spike would have to occupy the same
space in the car as Angel. Spike already functions as a comment
on Angel--he does everything Angel does, only with a twist. As
long as we don't see so much of Spike that he takes over Angel's
story, I don't see the problem. It might be fun if Spike were
to set up his own "agency," only Spike's would be different
of course. Angel is so intent on becoming human and joining human
society, why not let Spike revel in his vampire-ness. Let his
organization, his crew, be made up of vamps he is teaching to
fight for good. No really. There's got to be tons of newly made
vamps in LA (after two weeks or so of vamp feeding frenzy) who
would respond to a strong leader. One who would give them a nice
place to live, wide-screen TV, all the pizza, beer, and pig's
blood they want, in return for helping restore order and fight
off the baddies in some section of LA.
Spike's sacrifice wouldn't be wasted because he would be passing
along what he gained from his association with Buffy. He'd be
teaching vamps they have choices. Of course, reforming vamps might
not be so easy, and so the drama (or the humor, whatever). But
with Spike leading his own organization, his story line could
comment on Angel's leadership of W&H. Plus, he wouldn't get
in the way of Angel's story, and the writers could use him however
much or little they wanted to.
Spoiled
speculation on ATS s5, casting spoilers, spoilery interviews
-- abt, 13:10:47 05/25/03 Sun
Spoilers for everything aired on BTVS and ATS. Casting spoilers.
Spoilery info in interviews about likely direction.
In short, if you don't want to be spoiled at all, don't read.
This consists of a mixture of spoiled spec of what I think will
likely happen, what could possibly but probably won't happen,
and what I would/wouldn't like to happen.
I am working on the casting info that says Cordy out, Connor out,
Spike in.
I have read that it will be like a different show next year, lighter,
with more stand alone episodes. This does not worry me too much.
I think it may feel different at first, but after a while the
true flavour will seep through.
Angel. It's as if Angel has gone from being a campaigner/activist
free to focus on a single issue, to being a politician who has
to consider many other factors. He and the single-issue campaigner
can be in great conflict yet both on the side of good. This interests
me.
Angel is the boss. Is he a good boss to work for? Is he an equal
opportunities employer? Does he know the name of the doorman?
(It's Clem, BTW.) I have one slight worry here, I'm just a little
concerned that I might not be able to connect that deeply if it
is largely about evil American lawyers and showbizzy L.A, all
insular and exclusive.
Cordy - The casting info says she's gone. I'm sorry to say this,
but if she doesn't return I don't think I'll miss her. I feel
like we lost her somewhere along the way, and I'm not even sure
where. It also depends on what she remembers when (if) she wakes
up. How would you feel that none of your best friends noticed
that you'd been replaced by an evil thing? Perhaps she'll be a
guest star in one episode and then leave.
Gunn - I'm finding it difficult to speculate about Gunn because
of the spooky panther. I've got no idea what that's about. Previously
I've felt like I've known where I am with Gunn, but that's all
been removed, he's under a cloud of suspicion now.
Fred - Fred in the lab. What if she invents stuff which could
be used in an evil way? Is science truly neutral? Does the scientist
bear any responsibility for the way in which their discoveries
are used?
The 'shipping forecast:-
I remember when Wesley was anti Fred/Gunn, he made some comment
about relationships in the workplace being a bad idea, inappropriate.
Well now Team Angel are all in senior positions. What if one of
them fancies a subordinate employee?
Angel - in Chosen it seemed like he said he'd be there
whenever Buffy was ready. Therefore I do not want to see him using
someone other girl in the meantime. As for Cordy, I think that
is finished, considering that he didn't even notice that wasn't
really her.
Fred - I don't want her with Wesley. He didn't respect or accept
her relationship with Gunn. I can see her single, or single and
dating.
Wesley - What if Wesley tries to date again, but his dead ex Lilah
is hanging around? That could be very awkward.
Lorne - we've never yet seen Lorne in love, have we? Mostly he
comments on the feelings of others, rather than exhibiting a deeply
held emotion himself.
Gunn - I did like him with Gwen. I can see him with Gwen, or single,
or single and dating.
BTVS character guest appearances:-
There's no reason I can think of for Andrew to show up, but I'm
sure it would amuse me greatly.
I think Willow could work very well indeed as an occasional guest.
She can't stick around too long, otherwise you get the problem
there was on BTVS, which is, why doesn't Willow fix it, if she's
so powerful? If you have her there all the time, that's a problem,
but not if you just bring her in every now and then.
Now I get to the Spike part of my speculation. I have to do this
bit separately because the possibilities are so vast.
My worries. I was very very upset that Spike died. But now I'm
worried about him returning, in case they just hurt him some more.
I don't want him to just suffer more. He deserves better. He deserves
to be more than always second choice. I don't want his journey,
his achievements, to be belittled or negated.
On BTVS Spike was all about Buffy. When Angel was in the last
two episodes of BTVS, he gets knocked out so Buffy can be the
one to defeat Caleb. Fortunately for Angel, he has his own show.
Spike doesn't. I don't want the writers to make Spike be wrong
to make Angel look good. (I don't want either character to prosper
at the expense of the other, but this is Angel's show, so I'm
not worried about him.)
In my speculation, Spike is human. The amulet purified away the
demon in him, that's gone. I do not know if this is the Shanshu
of prophecy or not. It might be interesting to see Angel's reaction
to the possibility that it is the Shanshu. How desperate would
he be to find out? It would show us how important or not the goal
of Shanshu is/was to Angel as a motivation/future hope. (Although
if it is the Shanshu, that doesn't mean Angel can't still turn
human later.) If it is the Shanshu, I'd like to see what Angel
has to say to Wesley, and what Wesley thinks of himself, for screwing
up another prophecy. What would Buffy feel about it all? Many
many possibilities here.
Also, I'd hope that Wesley shows a little more interest than Giles
ever did. You'd think a watcher would be all over something like
a vampire getting a soul. Dereliction of intellectual duty.
How did Angel feel when he heard Spike was dead?
I think Spike will be human, and Spike will be good. Post s6,
I speculated that Spike with a soul might be a case of "The
greater the sinner, the greater the saint", (e.g. taking
the Magic Box takings and giving it to the poor, because they
needed it more, thus greatly annoying Anya.) It didn't happen
then, but I think it could happen now. In the finales we have
Spike reaching a point of moral clarity and purity, while Angel
is getting into morally murky waters. This is where I think we
go back to the theme of campaigner versus politician. Both wanting
to do what's right, but in conflict. I'm not so interested in
Angel versus 100% evil W&H. I find him more satisfying when
in conflict with someone who isn't 100% evil, who believes they
are doing the right thing (and under some interpretations may
even be right), e.g. Holtz, Connor. This is the kind of scenario
I can envisage with Spike.
Which is better, to remain morally pure with limited effectiveness,
or to compromise one's moral purity to gain access to great resources
to enable you to take more action? Both have merits and weaknesses.
Spike as a human. I wouldn't be too concerned about the loss of
vampire powers. It gives Spike a reason to be jealous of Angel,
and Spike's humanity would give Angel a reason to be jealous of
Spike. As for the physical strength issue, it means they can't
just beat each other up, oil or no oil, they'll have to find another
way to engage with each other. I tend to agree with Drusilla's
assessment of William. "Your wealth lies here. In the
spirit and imagination". Looking at William I think it's
a fair bet that most of the aggression and violence in Spike has
been provided by the demon. Well, the demon is gone, purified
away. What the human does have is passion, determination, strong
beliefs, goal oriented, and drive.
We saw how it was when Buffy came back from the dead. Misery.
Despair. It may not happen quite the same way for Spike. Firstly,
he may not have gone via heaven. Just straight from vampire to
human. Secondly, he may find a sense of purpose quickly.
I think Spike has to be a free agent, no strings attached to his
humanity due to the amulet or W&H. W&H don't know everything.
He has to be a free agent for his actions to have meaning. If
Buffy really had 'come back wrong' it would have been a cop out.
It's time to see what he can do on his own.
How does he get to L.A.? Not the most important thing, but here's
a spec. Spike is human. Spike is homeless. Who runs a homeless
shelter in L.A.? Anne. (Lily/Chanterelle. Spike was going to eat
her in Lie to Me. Buffy saved her and donated her middle
name in Anne. She had dealings with Angel and W&H in Blood
Money).
Given their past dealings with human Darla, how will Team Angel
react to human Spike?
Team Angel look at Spike. Spike looks back at Team Angel.
Angel: "Spike..."
Wesley: "Spike? William the Bloody? But this man is human"
Gunn: "Are you saying this is another one of your vamp family
turned human?"
Fred: (steps forward to Spike): "You didn't happen to have
syphilis when you died, didja?"
Angel: (snorts with laughter) "Not in a dream!"
Actually, tuberculosis is a bit of worry, isn't it?
Spike and Angel are an interesting pair. They both fully understand
the others physical/spiritual condition, i.e. what it's like to
be a human, a vampire, a vampire-with-a-soul, they've both been
there. They know so much about each other. But they just don't
get each other as individual people. Even without all the Buffy/Drusilla
issues, in none of their various incarnations would they get along.
As for Spike 'shipping. Spike in any 'ship or no 'ship, it's all
significant, it's such a large part of him. He loves Buffy so
much. He has only had sex while soulless. He's never been anyone's
first choice. These are all factors.
I think the bleached hair really ought to go, but I think it will
probably stay.
[> I think he'll do a Lilah
-- Finn Mac Cool, 16:35:09 05/25/03 Sun
Be brought back from the afterlife as a messenger (though who
he'd be a messenger for, the PTB or the Senior Partners, is murky
(I'm betting the PTB, you can't just forget that they exist, after
all)).
[> [> I hope....
-- LeeAnn, 04:42:59 05/26/03 Mon
A nice, casual, sex-for-sex sakes thing.
[> [> everytime I scan
down the threads I misread Finns subj line. -- WickedBuffy
(...and don't see the 'a'), 13:50:21 05/26/03 Mon
[> He came back WRONG!
-- Dandy, 07:47:44 05/26/03 Mon
My idea is for Spike to come back physically deformed. Quasimodo,
antlers, whatever. It is not permanent but it is a way to get
the audience's mind off Buffy and Sunnydale. It is a way to make
coming back from the dead have it's price and it is something
different. There has been way too much depression and boring looniness
in basements. JM is a much better active, i. e. character actor
than passive, i. e. lead actor. If you want interesting acting
from him you have got to give him an interesting problem to wrestle
with. And that is what we want. Really old, maybe. In his 90's-gradually
he gets younger. I just think they need to do a 180 from this
redemption story line in some way. It will get too goody goody
and bland. It's nice for the character to have this redemption
he works for and deserves but the irony will be that it will kill
the character we love. He'll be dull. Do us a favor, ME. Give
Spike a great big new struggle.
Current board
| More May 2003