May 2004

May 2004 posts

April 2004
More May 2004

Wolf, Ram, Hart - Pure Speculation (very minor Timebomb spoilers) -- Darby, 05:42:51 05/01/04 Sat

So once again we are faced with Wolfram & Hart being three entities, beast spirits perhaps. Are we supposed to be doing something with this imagery?

Does W&H derive power from controlling human avatars for these animals? There do seem to have been many troikas involved in the past with Angel - Lindsay, Holland, Lilah was the first - and has our AI group stepped into the slot? Is this part of the ongoing apocalypse, the one that Angel plays a critical role in - but no one knows which side it will favor?

If so, who is who? And do they continue to play the parts, or do folks swap in and out? Is this as simple as our guys refusing to play their roles?

Replies:

[> Re: Wolf, Ram, Hart - Pure Speculation (very minor Timebomb spoilers) -- s'kat, 22:16:22 05/01/04 Sat

I was discussing this with someone in another forum and they reminded me that in Pylea, to return, Wesely had to line up the Wolf, the Ram, and the Hart in each of the text to open the porthole. Together the three did. So are they less powerful alone?

They remind me a little of the fates, personally. Except instead of a maiden, mother and crone - we have the wolf, the ram, and the hart. (I'm not sure about this but is hart - another word for stag?)

[> [> Hart (no spoilers) -- Pip, 01:34:43 05/02/04 Sun

I'm not sure about this but is hart - another word for stag?

Yes. A 'hart', technically, is a male deer over five years old, a 'stag' is a fully mature male deer (male deers are usually mature at 2 years old). So a 'stag' can be younger than the 'hart'; a hart is a male deer in full power and maturity.

[> [> The Wolf, Ram and Hart in Pylea... -- Masq, 10:19:54 05/02/04 Sun

were pictures on the three holy books of the Coventant of Trombli (the Pylean priests). Wesley was reading these books in hopes of finding another portal out of Pylea to get them all back. In the books, he reads prophecies about the Cursed One (Cordelia) and the Groosalug (Groo) Com-shuking to pass the Visions to Groo (there's a case where prophecy didn't go as predicted).

The significance to the pictures of the three animals on the holy books is it indicated that the Coventant of Trombli were the Pylean equivalent of the Wolfram and Hart law firm on Earth, they were the organization through which the Senior Partners corrupted and controlled Pylea.

What I don't think has been ever followed up on is that Wesley took the three holy books of the Covenant back to Earth with them when they left. Technically, Wesley should still be in posession of them.

Now, this might have been my imagination, but there is a scene in a season 3 episode--it might have been "Couplet" where Angel and Wesley are in a magic bookshop looking for a text Wesley needs on the Nyazian Prophecies, and on the shelves behind them I could have SWORN I saw one of the three holy books. I don't know if this was a prop mistake on the part of the crew of AtS--they just needed ancient-looking tomes to fill the room and grabbed those, or whether we were supposed to conclude Wesley sold those important books after he returned from Pylea.

At any rate, with the library available to him in the W&H law offices, he should be able to get books from just about any dimension.

[> [> Hey s'kat! Long time no see! -- Chani, 09:12:49 05/05/04 Wed

I think totems more than troika actually...And we also have the BEAR for both Angel (Soul Purpose)and Spike!

Which villains could be the avatars of the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart? We need fangs and horns...

[> [> [> Yep, long time - oh shout out to Pip on Bear totems -- s'kat, 14:43:56 05/05/04 Wed

Pip has written extensively on the Bear totems in another forum, stating the "Bear" is an totem that means the passage of the soul from life to death. Maybe she can provide more info? My understanding is that the Bear symbolizes Artremis or a nymph who posed as Artremis to sleep with Zeus and was turned into the Bear by HEra who was upset with her. She now acts as a guide from death to life. Pip probably discusses it in more length in the post
above about SoulPurpose.

Bear - for Spike in Pangs, and he's already done it in BTVS.
Bear for both Fred and possibly Angel in SoulPurpose.

Wolf - youth/hunger (Wolves are hunters)
The Ram - maturity/father (Rams tend to rule over sheep and push through barriers)
The Hart - aged stag/ grace/sage (Deer?)

[> [> [> I hear you, s'kat! Bear necessities. (Spoilers for BtVS and AtS, up to AtS Soul Purpose) -- Pip, 15:56:46 05/05/04 Wed

Sorry, couldn't resist. {g}

Yes, bears appear to Spike, Buffy, Angel and Fred. Spike and Buffy's bear appears when Hus changes into a bear in Pangs. Angel and Fred's appear in Angel's dream in Soul Purpose above, which I've discussed above. At length. At lots of length. But I was pretty brief on Artemis{g}.

Spike is scared of the bear; why a vampire's got bear-phobia isn't really explained in Pangs. But bears in Europe and parts of Asia are symbolic of the passage between worlds; from life to death, and from death to life. Death and birth. [This is not the same as North American bear totems, where I think bears are a symbol of just, reflective leadership].

Given that William seemed to be a fairly well off young gentleman, he probably had the standard English Gentleman's education of the day; that included a lot of Classical Greek and Latin. (He can definitely translate Latin at sight, he did that in Empty Places). So he would know that the The Great Bear is an aspect of Artemis Callisto, and that the constellation of Ursa Major (The Plough, The Big Dipper, Arthur's Wain) is ruled by her. Artemis is best known as the Moon goddess and virgin huntress, but in her scarier aspects she is the destroyer, death bringer, and also guides spirits between worlds.

In later myths Artemis Callisto got separated into two - the goddess Artemis, and one of her maidens, the nymph Callisto. The later myths have The Great Bear being Callisto. It's Callisto who has the affair with Zeus, for which she gets turned into a bear. And then her son by Zeus kills her, not realising this bear is his mum, and they get placed in the sky as the Great and Little Bear. But the language clues give away the fact that this is a later myth: arctos is the Latin for 'bear', from Artemis.

Spike's panic might also have been Dru's fault {g}. After over a century of having Dru wailing every time she sees another portent, he's probably acquired an encyclopaedic knowledge of death portents, and the vampiric equivalent of a nervous twitch whenever one appears.

But the bear could have been a portent for both Spike and Buffy; both of them died - Buffy in BtVS S5, and Spike in BtVS S7. Or it could have been specifically for Spike; Pangs is when he is taken into Buffy's circle. It's appropriate that a bear should appear on the night that he's just started the spiral path that will lead to his death.

Similarly, a bear appears in Angel's dream, and Fred dies. But it's Angel's goldfish bowl of a soul that's handed to the bear, so it could well mean that Angel is the one who ought to have died, not Fred - Fred died because Angel brought her to Wolfram and Hart.

But the goddess whose symbol is the bear is the guide of the double path, from life to death, and from death to life. Death and birth. Spike died (eventually) after the bear appeared - but then he returned to life. So did Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Thanks and Spike is the Blondie Bear! -- Chani, 10:22:06 05/06/04 Thu

The bear is also known for the ability to sleep through winter and Spike was a "Sleeper" in season 7!
In "Pangs" Spike might have been afraid of his William-self not lost but still hibernating inside, and when Spike left the african cave William soul awakened!

[> [> [> [> [> And there's Snow White and Rose Red -- Arethusa, 06:10:10 05/07/04 Fri

Two sisters befriend a bear who turns out to be a wealthy prince inside, which makes me think of Angelus inside Angel.

[> I've been wondering about this for a while.(very minor Timebomb spoilers) -- Arethusa, 11:12:02 05/02/04 Sun

I read recently Campbell's descriptions of mystery cults, in which people performed rituals to connect their physical life to a spiritual life, the realization of "how our whole life is supported by the giving and yielding of some transcendent power."*

Campbell describes animals that represent the aspects of humans that prevent them from achieving closeness to this transcendent power. "One is the lion, which represents pride, hanging on to ego, hanging on to yourself. The second is a leopard, representing lust-here it's a dog's face, desire. The third animal is a wolf, which represents fear, the past, which tears away what you've got. And so these three, they go together. This is the temptation of the Buddha. If he had hung on to his ego, lust and fear would have moved him. They didn't. Yet they're moving us, and so we're stuck."

Illyria said the wolf, ram and hart were once much weaker, little more than vampires. Where did their power come from? We know that W&H derived a tremendous amount of power from the Ra-Tet before it was destroyed, but there must be another source since they are still powerful. Perhaps the avatars of wolf (fear), ram (lust, as a goat is symbol of lustfullness), and hart (or heart, where the ego lies?) enable them to tap power from people, instead of the sun.

ILLYRIA
In my time, nightmares walked among us, walked and danced, skewering victims in plain sight, laying their fears and worst desires out for everyone to see. This...to make us laugh. ...And now nightmares are trapped inside the heads of humans... pitiful echoes of themselves. I wonder whom they angered so to merit such a fate.**

W&H feeds off of human weakness, especially pride, lust and fear, the things that allow us to hide from ourselves, decieve ourselves that we are doing the right thing. We commit evil acts because we can disguise them as something else to ourselves, to the point that we are not even able to see what we do. To destroy W&H one must destroy the pride that prevents us from letting go of our past, the lust for things that leads us to commit selfish and hurtful acts, and the fears that prevent us from making free choices. The apocalypse never begins and never ends, since every day it is fought in the human heart.

*Transformations of Myth Through Time
**buffyworld.com

[> [> And now that I've thought about this a bit more...(AtS spoilers to date and UNspoiled speculation) -- Arethusa, 13:27:01 05/02/04 Sun

it fits in with some other theories of mine, especially the comparison I made between the fail-safe and the Krell's thought machine in Forbidden Planet. Like the Krell machine that amplified and materialized human thoughts and fears into physical threats, W&H could be feeding off of its employees, leaving shells, zombies, as we saw in Habeas Corpses. It is a mirror image of the Nest Egg we saw in Smile Time, which fed off of the innocence of children, storing it to power the demon puppets. Maybe the fail-safe feeds off of evil, using the emotions that inspire it to power its own demons. Just as our fears feed our "demons."

[> [> Have there ever been any deer on the show? -- DorianQ, 17:00:22 05/02/04 Sun

Rememeber thinking about this on vacation once but I had forgotten about it; what if the wolf, ram, and hart have already been personified? We have seen a couple examples of (were)wolves (with Nina, the sometimes love interest being most prominent on this show). Are there any examples of ram demons or deer demons on. Off the top of my head I can only remember examples from Buffy; the fawn Willow slaughtered to get the wine of the mother in Bargaining, the goat on the Seal of Danzathar, the slimy antlered chaos demon that Drusilla left Spike for, the horned Beast working for Jasmineand of course, OZ. I have a feeling that that may be important for defeating the Senior partners for some reason. Am I forgetting anything?

[> Re: Wolf, Ram, Hart - Pure Speculation (very minor Timebomb spoilers) -- anonnymous, 19:12:41 05/04/04 Tue

I always got the impression that "The Wolf, Ram, and Hart" was just used because it sounded tribal or heraldic, and could easily be altered to "Wolfram & Hart" which sounds like a modern day lawfirm. When Illyria speaks of them I assumed that in her day they were just a group of demons with very limited power, though still enough to merit Illyria's notice, and they built themselves up into an incredibly powerful orginization over many millenia.

random observation (ie more continuity bitching) -- Nino, 22:00:30 05/01/04 Sat

I just watched "The Trial" and at the end of it when there is no hope left for Darla, Angel considers vamping her, saying that since he has a soul it might work differently, "we don't know" he insists.

Obviously not in line with Angel's submarine vampage in "Why We Fight."

Also, Darla talks about jasmine flowers in the garden in this ep...the same jasmine that, well, Jasmine would smell and would end up becoming her namesake. In "The Trial" Angel earns a new life, but it cannot be given to Darla, instead the 2 of them conceive Connor. It's interesting that the jasmine reference would be in this episode, when the trial that led to Connor's life happens, since Jasmine made references to capitalizing on the miracle child to bring about her own birth.

i'm sure its all been mentioned before...but i'm bored, so i went for it anyway. :)

Replies:

[> Re: random observation (ie more continuity bitching) -- Rob, 22:10:44 05/01/04 Sat

I just watched "The Trial" and at the end of it when there is no hope left for Darla, Angel considers vamping her, saying that since he has a soul it might work differently, "we don't know" he insists.

Obviously not in line with Angel's submarine vampage in "Why We Fight."

Nothing wrong with the continuity there. Angel didn't have the chance (or desire) to spend time with Lawson. He really doesn't know how his having a soul affected Lawson at this point in the story, and as he later discovers, it actually seems to have a great deal.

Rob

[> [> Re: random observation (ie more continuity bitching) -- Gyrus, 14:20:53 05/04/04 Tue

Angel didn't have the chance (or desire) to spend time with Lawson. He really doesn't know how his having a soul affected Lawson at this point in the story, and as he later discovers, it actually seems to have a great deal.

IIRC, Angel did have a chance to see that Lawson's personality became decidedly vampiric after Lawson was turned. That is, there were no obvious signs that Lawson had a soul or was otherwise different from other vampires. Given that, it seems unreasonable for Angel to think that Darla would retain her soul if he turned her.

Of course, Angel was so desperate to save Darla that his idea to turn her may have been based more on wishful thinking than on any reasonable expectation that it would work out.

[> [> [> Re: random observation (ie more continuity bitching) -- Rob, 07:03:28 05/05/04 Wed

IIRC, Angel did have a chance to see that Lawson's personality became decidedly vampiric after Lawson was turned.

Everything was happening so fast down there, and had to, that what I'm saying is he didn't really have time to observe him. Obviously, siring him made him become vampiric. That was never in question. But he did not have the time in that episode to see how being sired by a vampire with a soul truly affected Lawson psychologically. He only saw the surface.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: random observation (ie more continuity bitching) -- Gyrus, 07:51:55 05/05/04 Wed

Everything was happening so fast down there, and had to, that what I'm saying is he didn't really have time to observe him. Obviously, siring him made him become vampiric. That was never in question. But he did not have the time in that episode to see how being sired by a vampire with a soul truly affected Lawson psychologically. He only saw the surface.

Which is my point. Because Lawson displayed the bloodthirsty behavior that all vampires do, Angel had no reason to believe that Lawson was anything other than a typical vampire. Here's a section from a transcript of "Why We Fight":

ANGEL
We're out of air. Crew's not gonna make it if we don't vent.

LAWSON
They swore to give their lives for their country... just like me. Besides, I'm hungry.

---

To all appearances, Lawson was acting like a typical vampire -- ready to eat the men who were his friends when he was human. Therefore, back in S2, Angel would have had no reason to believe that Darla wouldn't turn out the same way if he vamped her.

[> [> [> [> [> But if we remember how a recently souled Angel acted -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:26:59 05/05/04 Wed

We must consider the fact that Angel knows even a souled vampire can be tempted into feeding off of people, so Lawson's remark really isn't definitive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Good point. -- Gyrus, 13:44:39 05/05/04 Wed

We must consider the fact that Angel knows even a souled vampire can be tempted into feeding off of people, so Lawson's remark really isn't definitive.

True. And the temptation might be particularly strong in a newly-made vamp who has never before experienced the thirst for blood--a possibility that Angel probably considered when looking back on the incident.

The Definition of Metanarration... -- Seven, 19:51:08 05/02/04 Sun

Sorry if you expected an insightful, drawn out essay, but I'm writing a paper for school (due tomorrow of course) and I am having trouble defining the term "metanarration." I have used a literary terms and theories dictionary and also the internet. I can hardly find a reference to it at all really. (Actually, when I Yahooed the word, I mostly got Exsitential Scoobies) So this letter is to ask the board for help in defining this ambiguous term.

My idea of it is that the narrator of a tale, or the story itself, comments on the story. That is, somehow, through the course of reading (or viewing) a story, the writer or creator has made a commentary on his or her own work. Essentially, the writer is either questioning what he or she is saying or at least remarking on it, calling attention to it in some interior monolouge-like way.

As you can see, my definition is lacking. I can't seem to find a reliable definition or anyone on the Net trying to explain it. So could anyone help me out? I feel sort of crazy because I mentioned the word to some friends of mine today and they had no idea what I was talking about, as if I made the word up. I have heard it used before numerous times in school and one the board, so I am hoping someone can point me in the right direction or supply an adequate definition.

Thanks..

7

Replies:

[> Re: The Definition of Metanarration... -- Old One, 20:48:39 05/02/04 Sun

I'd say your second paragraph is a pretty darn good definition of metanarration.

We've mostly discussed it by example in the past, although there have been times when the whole concept got a little fuzzy. In Buffy, it was always one of those moments that suspended the suspension of disbelief...the whole idea that you let yourself go while you're watching and become immersed in the narrative as if it is reality, and suddenly something is said or done within the narrative itself that reminds you that what you're watching is a story, a fiction, and that the people are actors who have real lives that impact on what they're doing, as well as the writers, etc.

One of the most common examples is Buffy saying, "Dawn's in trouble. It must be Tuesday," during a period on the series when Dawn was frequently in trouble and, of course, the show was slotted on Tuesday night. There's nothing within the narrative itself that requires it be Tuesday; Buffy was commenting on the situation outside the narrative, in the world of televison scheduling, but within the metanarrative.

Well, that probably didn't help at all, but I think you've got it anyway.

;o)

[> [> And of course... -- Rob, 21:48:37 05/02/04 Sun

....the classic moment from Bargaining where Tara makes the "Grr, Aargh!" noise with the tiny toy monster.

Rob

[> [> [> Adaptation and Breakfast of Champions (the book) are good examples. -- Evan., 22:10:17 05/02/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> 7 Thanks You!!! -- Seven, 04:29:07 05/03/04 Mon

Thank you Old One, Rob and Evan. I was just having trouble articulating the concept and I was so astounded that I couldn't find a definition anywhere. But again, the board comes through. Just so you know, I'm commenting on metanarration in Grace Paley's "A Conversation with My Father." I think I've found a good quote now that will explain how the story uses metanarration.

Thanks again everyone!

7

[> [> [> [> And the ultimate example that everyone knows... -- Darby, 10:54:16 05/04/04 Tue

The Daffy Duck cartoon where he is constantly talking to the cartoonist (who turns out to be Bugs Bunny at the end).

Who wants to start the All Things Philosophical in the Warner Brothers Cartoon Universe website?

[> [> [> [> [> I do! I do! ("Duck Amuck" is my all-time favorite Daffy cartoon) -- cjl, 11:45:21 05/04/04 Tue

Ah, Darbs. Had no idea you were a vintage Looney Tunes addict. We have SO much to talk about in Chicago...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Mine, too! -- Rob, 13:28:43 05/04/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> mine's "duck dodgers," but... -- anom, 14:42:46 05/04/04 Tue

....there are other examples of self-referential &/or metanarrative cartoons. Anyone remember when Heckle & Jeckle realized they were cartoons & could do anything they wanted? Or the time nobody could find Mighty Mouse during a crisis & it turned out he hadn't been drawn yet for the day? Or something like that--my memory's a little hazy on the situation, but I remember he turned his head halfway through being drawn & sang to the cartoonist, "Hurry up--I have a job toooooo doooo!"

Don't have that talk without me!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: mine's "duck dodgers," but... -- LittleBit, 15:47:53 05/04/04 Tue

Don't forget all the times Bugs turned to the audience and said "Of course, this means war," or "Ain't I a stinker?"

Another cartoon series that routinely had metanarration was "Rocky and Bullwinkle". My personal favorite being (from memory so likely not exact)...

Rocky: That voice...where have I heard that voice?
Bullwinkle: In 163 other episodes but I don't know who it is either.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some other examples -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:31:07 05/04/04 Tue

"Garfield" comes to mind, both the comic strip and cartoon show, which many times had Garfield addressing the audience. There was also a cartoon episode where Garfielf and Odie accidentally wander into the wrong cartoon where superheroes instead of talking animals are prevelant.

There was also an episode of "Lois and Clark" where Perry White and Jimmy are talking about Clark and Lois, and Perry says, "It's like our lives are a TV show where those two are the stars and we're just around for comic relief."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That settles it--I'm bringing my 4-DVD WB Classic 'Toon Collection to Chicago. -- cjl, 20:09:15 05/04/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> woohooo! wheeee! hahoooo! whoooo! -- anom, caroming off the walls & ceiling! @>), 22:21:01 05/04/04 Tue

[> [> [> that whole scene was discussed here... -- anom, 14:49:42 05/04/04 Tue

....in terms of the sendoff for Giles' being a metanarrative version of Anthony Stewart Head's actual return to England & departure as a regular cast member.

But my favorite metanarrative moment of the whole show is in OMWF, during "Life's a Show," when Buffy looks directly at the camera & tells us, "And you can sing a-a-long!" Needless to say, I already was!

[> Re: The Definition of Metanarration... -- Tyreseus, 13:55:48 05/03/04 Mon

META-: A prefix meaning "above," "after," "beyond," or "superior" when used in critical discourse.

NARRATE: (1) To tell (a story, for example) in speech or writing or by means of images. (2) To give an account of (events, for example).

I was as surprised as you to find the internet lacking a good, solid definition of metanarration. Maybe a few more thoughts...

Caution - don't confuse metanaration with metanarrative, the latter is used in definion of post-modernism and isn't quite how we (ATPOers) commonly define metanarration.

I'd say your definition is pretty good. A similar concept (that you will find in dictionaries of literary terms) is "authorial aside," but again, don't get this confused with metanarration. An authorial aside is where the writer actually addresses the audience directly to comment on the tale.

Metanarration has more to do with the author causing the characters/story to comment on the devices used to tell the story. The characters/story remain unaware that they are a fictional construct and that their comments reflect a device used in the narration of the story, but the audience/reader is able to appreciate a deeper meaning to the dialogue.

I think it's also important to incorporate Old One's comments about suspension of disbelief into the definition, but I'm not entirely sure how.

There are a couple good examples of metanarration in Shakespeare. Take Hamlet's comments about writing his play and his instruction to the actors, for example. Or almost all of "The Tempest" has been dissected as a metanarration on Shakespeare's writing career.

[> Re: The Definition of Metanarration... -- ScottS, 16:11:55 05/03/04 Mon

One further point that has not been addressed.

Metanarration at its best is used to create a dynamic tension between what the viewer is expecting to see/understand and what the writer/director is willing to show. Done well, it tends to disorient the viewer and make one question one's own basic assumptions and/or prejudices with respect to the medium.

[> [> Has anyone read Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World? -- AngelVSAngelus, 20:09:39 05/03/04 Mon

It is my third Haruki Murakami book, and I'm really considering just for my own personal articulation of a maelstrom of thought that it provoked writing an essay about how it's an example of metanarration.

[> "Normal Again" is practically an entire Buffy episode's worth of metanarration.... -- cjl, 11:50:11 05/04/04 Tue

The scene where Michael Warren's anonymous psychiatrist tries to snap Buffy out of her "delusion" by explaining the absurdity of BtVS' premise defines the term "metanarration" all by itself.

[> [> Does "Awakening" qualify as well? -- Sofdog, 09:39:14 05/05/04 Wed

Or is that more correctly Angel's own fantasy?

[> [> [> Not really. -- Rob, 11:18:30 05/05/04 Wed

"Normal Again" works because it explicitly deconstructs the structure of the later seasons of Buffy, referring to such things as Dawn being inserted into the story as causing inconsistencies, and the reasons the Geek Troika were unintimidating compared to the show's past Big Bads. "Awakening" certainly is a shout-out to the fans in many ways, but it's more a deconstruction of the "it's a dream" soap opera plot in general and a form of wish fulfillment than a metanarration on the Buffy- or Angelverse in particular. Still a brilliant episode, though.

Rob

How come Glory didn't explode like Illyria did? -- slayer, 09:18:40 05/04/04 Tue

A old one like Illyria had the power of a god but couldn't contain her power in a human body. Glory was a actual hellgod and was probably had more power, so why didn't she explode because she also was limited to a human body.

Replies:

[> Re: How come Glory didn't explode like Illyria did? -- LittleBit, 09:34:16 05/04/04 Tue

Glory was "...trapped within the body of a mortal ... a newborn male, created as her prison." My sense of that statement is that whatever precautions necessary to keep the mortal body intact were taken when Glory was trapped in the first place (by two other hell gods who should have the needed power). It wasn't the body that proved inadequate to the task, but the mind.

In Illyria's case, however, she was brougth back into the first available body, which happened to be Fred. Unfortunately the human form in and of itself was not adequate as a container for the Old One.

[> [> A tangent and maybe an answer -- Lunasea, 17:56:57 05/04/04 Tue

With all the drama of season 5, I never noticed the parallel between Dawn and Ben before. Duh. Both were specifically created to house something. That thing made their very existence threatening and the way to deal with that threat was to terminate them. Once made, they are innocents who have a life outside of the purpose they were created for.

It is Dawn's status as innocent that causes Buffy to protect her. It is similar to how Buffy fell in love with Angel and THEN found out he was a vampire. Dawn's innocence is really played up season 5, with her even inviting Harmony into the house. Buffy in her catatonia remembers Dawn coming home, an innocent newborn.

I'm wondering if Ben's status as innocent is what allowed him to house Glory. As he aged and did things, that broke down the barrier between them. When he turns Dawn over to Glory, the barrier is gone. He is no longer innocent. It is actually Ben growing up that causes Glory to emerge. The Hell gods wouldn't have thought about this.

Looking at what Giles did with Ben makes a great contrast for what Buffy does for Dawn. It is easy to dismiss this because we know that Ben turned Dawn over to Glory. I don't think Giles would know this. I don't think he knew the barrier between them had broken down. Instead, he has to kill the vessel that houses Glory. This vessel has a life outside of being a vessel.

GRRRR. I wish they had left the scene about this in in LMPTM.

[> Quite Simply -- Majin Gojira, 10:42:26 05/04/04 Tue

Glory isn't as powerful as Illyria. Glory could not Selectivly alter the flow of time nor open portals at will as Illyria was able to.

Also, one should note, that Glory was not up to full power when she appeared--she was limited in the Earthly realm. Illyria did not have that restriction, hence the whole "Exploding with power" thing.

besides, The Old Ones are God-like beings in their own right.

[> Thank you for ruining the last few episodes of Angel -- O'Cailleagh, 21:26:21 05/04/04 Tue

Please note the spoiler policy link thing at the top of the board.

[> [> Re: Thank you for ruining the last few episodes of Angel -- tam, 22:19:34 05/04/04 Tue

Maybe I am thick. but -- how did this thread spoil the last remaining episodes of Angel?

[> [> [> Think s/he meant the last few episodes to have aired -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:40:15 05/04/04 Tue

Not everyone sees the episodes at the same time, so it's best to mark if there are spoilers for recently aired episodes.

[> [> [> I think the thread subject line is a bit too spoilery for "Time Bomb" -- KdS, 02:10:57 05/05/04 Wed

[> Also ... (Spoilers for "A Hole in the World," "Shells," & "Time Bomb") -- Mighty Mouse, 16:24:13 05/05/04 Wed

Keep in mind that Fred was essentially a normal human, born and raised as such. Ben was "created" (no one ever said he was born) to house Glory. Like LittleBit said, chances are there were more safeguards in place to hold back her power. Even until the end, Glory wasn't able to "escape" the prison that was Ben. Her entire human appearance was just a "bit" of her power escaping the prison. Most of the safeguards were still in place ... otherwise we'd probably have been looking at a full on Glorificus.

Illyria merely adapted Fred's body to act as a shell so her essence on this plane couldn't dissipate all over the place. There were no mystical safeguards put into place to hold back her powers. Her original form was destroyed, and all that was left was the "dust" that infected Fred. Somewhat different than the whole Glory / Ben situation.

perpetual Wednesday -- skeeve, 11:37:57 05/04/04 Tue

Leaving out the long skinny calendars,
how would the world of perpetual Wednesday
be different from our own?

Replies:

[> Re: perpetual Wednesday -- Jean, 13:45:25 05/04/04 Tue

If you are a church goer then you have to go to church every night. Unless you are jewish or jehova witness or some other minor religon

[> [> "Minor?" -- mrsubjunctive, 07:22:43 05/05/04 Wed

Jewish? Gimme a break.

Also, it's not like one ever has to go to church. In theory, at least, you go 'cause you want to.

Don't want to start a flame war, but it's first thing in the morning for me here, and I'm a lot more rileable before I'm fully caffeinated.

[> "angel" would be on every night... -- anom, 14:18:55 05/04/04 Tue

....till it got cancelled (preferably after several more seasons). So the show's fans would have no social life (OK, for some of us this wouldn't be any different), or would build up massive backlogs of Angel tapes.

[> and with the woeful children... -- cougar, 22:40:42 05/04/04 Tue

[> Re: perpetual Wednesday -- Mighty Mouse, 16:10:11 05/05/04 Wed

Just thought about this. Is this merely a "heh heh nudge nudge" to the possibility that most episodes of Angel, in the actual episode continuity, take place on a Wednesday? Similar to that Buffy comment from Season Six - "Dawn's in trouble? Hmph, must be a Tuesday" referring to the fact Buffy was always on Tuesdays.

OT: Ghost of the Robot -- Abby, 06:13:59 05/05/04 Wed

Are any other UK ATPO-ers coming to the Ghost of the Robot gig tonight? It's James Marsters' side-project, so I shall see the shaven head in person :)

Replies:

[> Re: OT: Ghost of the Robot -- Brian, 17:46:42 05/05/04 Wed

Please let us know how the event went. Thanks.

[> [> Re: OT: Ghost of the Robot -- Abby, 02:41:20 05/06/04 Thu

To be honest, it was a disappointment. The support band were a sub-Oasis britpop type act, with very cliched and random lyrics and not much originality. GOTR themselves took a *long* time getting out there: doors were at 7pm, support came on at 8.30, main act weren't out until well past 9 (and even then barely played an hour).

The music? I've enjoyed the CD 'Mad Brilliant', but somehow it didn't translate into a good set. They put in a lot of new material, which I found a bit juvenile, and didn't structure the set well: too many same-sounding tracks played together and no coherent mood created. I know I sound very critical, but as music editor of our university paper I review a lot of gigs. In fact, the night before I judged a Battle of the Bands contest, and one of the student acts could have given these guys pointers on sounding tight and professional.

James of course exuded charisma, a very confident performer who interacted well with the (devoted) audience. He has a good voice if he tries, but a lot of the time sounded quite generic, like a lot of emo singers out there. What was strange was that it looked like a college band, who just happened to be fronted by one of their fathers. And since the lyrics were very young too, it was a little disconcerting: I didn't feel the sense of unity that a lot of other bands have. James fronting any other band with any other songs would have been just as entertaining.

But, the really entertaining thing was the audience: far too many men with platinum dyed hair and floor length leather coats! There was even one with the burgundy shirt on underneath, nail varnish, ring, the lot. It took fandom to extremes!

Semi-OT Meta-Buffyverse Movie-Related Passing-the-Time Something-or-Other -- OnM, 08:57:44 05/05/04 Wed

I was checking out Roger Ebert's 'Movie Answer Man' column this AM, and thought that these two questions
and their respective answers might be fuel for some Buffyverse related (meta- ?) discussion and pass some time
creatively until tonight. The link for the current column is at:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert02.html

***

The first question was:

Q. I just watched "The Graduate" for a film class and read your article claiming that Mrs. Robinson
is the only strong character in the movie and that Benjamin is simply a lost youth. As a 20-year-old, I could relate
greatly to this movie, to the feeling of being lost in a sea of expectation and confusion. I was curious why you felt
the way that you did about the film. Will I look back in 20 years and view the movie in the same light? I was
raised with this film (my name is actually taken from the movie, as is my nickname, Benjy) and always saw the
movie as a film of rebellion and of changing times, but upon reading your article started to question my way of
viewing it.

... Benjamin Greenberg, Eugene, Ore.

A. In my 1997 re-review of the film, I wrote: "The only character in the movie who is alive -- who can
see through situations, understand motives and dare to seek her own happiness -- is Mrs. Robinson (Anne
Bancroft). Seen today, 'The Graduate' is a movie about a young man of limited interest, who gets a chance to
sleep with the ranking babe in his neighborhood, and throws it away in order to marry her dorky daughter."

Yes, that's how I see it now. When I saw it in 1967, I identified with Benjamin. In 20 years you may agree with
me, unless, of course, you go into plastics. I ran into Anne Bancroft not long after writing that review, and told her
Mrs. Robinson was the only character in the movie I thought I could have an intelligent conversation with. "Of
course," she said. "That's why I took the role."

***

Wow. Now I grant you that I haven't watched The Graduate for at least about 4 or 5 years now, but I do
clearly recall that when I did, I still identified with Benjamin, and thought that Mrs. Robinson, babe or no, was still
borderline wacko. I do agree that she would have been the one that would have likely had the ability to have "an
intelligent conversation", as Ebert comments, but-- intelligence isn't everything. Also, I never saw Elaine as
'dorky'. Now I feel the need to watch this film again, and see if I feel anyhting different after considering this
perspective.

And this question is reminescent of an ongoing series of discussions we've had here over Joss 'math-suckage'
(emotion and 'heart' valued over 'plot details'etc):

***

Q. You stated in your Great Movies review of "Sunrise" that as silent films reached their pinnacle,
they strove not to "tell a story, but to give an experience." This is what I live by as a filmmaker myself. Yet this
approach confuses filmgoers. Some are able to be open to it, and some reject it outright (particularly those
concerned or involved with the "industry"). If cinema is to provide us with new images, mythologies and icons,
why must it be so rigidly embedded in the formula of strict narrative? The few glimpses of "pure" cinema since the
silents have been stunning ("2001: A Space Odyssey" or "The Thin Red Line," for example), yet this form is often
characterized as "indulgent" or "pretentious." I believe this form has yet to reach its potential, but generally
filmmakers and audiences are uninterested in it. Why is that? In the days before sound, wasn't the cinema still a
thoroughly satisfying, moving and magical experience for an audience?

... Andrew McGowan, Los Angeles

A. I was thinking the same thing while watching a beautifully restored 70mm print of "Lawrence of
Arabia" at my recent Overlooked Film Festival. The first hour of the film consists essentially of conversations and
long journeys through the desert. When the village is finally attacked, it's in long shot. The movie is mesmerizing.

Perhaps the giant image helps; seen on video, the movie loses much of its magic. And as multiplexes and their
screens shrink, movies come more and more to resemble television talk and action, but little vision.

***

Any thoughts, anyone re: either of these observations? (Esp. the viewer-age-related issues re: Mrs. R.)

Replies:

[> Re: Semi-OT Meta-Buffyverse Movie-Related Passing-the-Time Something-or-Other -- Rob, 10:37:04 05/05/04 Wed

Wow. Now I grant you that I haven't watched The Graduate for at least about 4 or 5 years now, but I do
clearly recall that when I did, I still identified with Benjamin, and thought that Mrs. Robinson, babe or no, was still
borderline wacko. I do agree that she would have been the one that would have likely had the ability to have "an
intelligent conversation", as Ebert comments, but-- intelligence isn't everything. Also, I never saw Elaine as
'dorky'. Now I feel the need to watch this film again, and see if I feel anyhting different after considering this
perspective.

Obviously, I am in the demographic that Ebert says would identify with Benjamin anyway, but I recently saw the film in my film class, which is nearly half filled with people who are in the Mrs. Robinson-age-demographic, and the general consensus was still that she was out of her mind--manipulative at best and borderline evil at worst. Don't quite see how Elaine is "dorky" either.

Rob

The old king dreaming, the young prince doing: Soul Purpose reseen (spoilers for AtS S5 thru 5.19) -- Pip, 10:20:11 05/05/04 Wed

This was sparked by a post by macha, at Tea at the Ford the post is here which mentioned how the young king burns. It was carrying on a conversation about sacrifice by several Ford members, including Alcibiades (who also posts here).

Since there seems to be some precedent for posting stuff that has been discussed elsewhere, I thought I'd repost on ATPo so people here can discuss it (if they want to {g}). A slightly different version was posted at Tea at the Ford with macha, on Monday 3rd May 2004. original post here.

Soul Purpose is now becoming clearer as a series of Prophetic dreams, with prophecies about various major events.

It starts with a dream about a switch in a sacrifice. Spike takes the cup of Perpetual Torment, but Angel burns up. Here it's a nightmare; Angel sees Spike as stealing his destiny. He doesn't want to surrender it.

To avoid being sacrificed, the King would choose a substitute. The substitute would take his place as king, rule for a short time, then be sacrificed as king. Angel substituted Spike. Angel had the bauble when he went to Sunnydale; Spike burnt in his place. But the willing sacrifice is dancing the double spiral; from life to death, now from death to life. And Angel dreams nightmares of irrelevance.

Angel: The future can change here. You can choose a different path.

Illyria: And be nothing.

Angel: And be what you are. Fighting to hold on to what you were - it's destroying you.

In Soul Purpose, incidentally, the scene starts with Angel pulling the stake out of himself. It's not precisely the same as the switch in sacrifice in Time Bomb, where Angel really does change places with Spike. Angel is on the floor, and his words to Spike aren't precisely repeated in his Time Bomb words to Illyria. ('Spike, wait', is replaced by 'Wait, Illyria, wait!'). Things are changing, subtly.

There's an old king/young prince echo in the scene structure, as well. I think the 'real life' scenes with Spike in Soul Purpose are very loosely based on Henry IV part one. The start of Soul Purpose is the same structure as that play. First scene is the King, Henry IV in his palace (Angel in his CEO's office). Second scene is Prince Hal in a low dive (Spike at the strip bar). Prince Hal becomes Henry V, a warrior King greater than his father. Spike might become - what?

There are also themes of sacrifice again. In Soul Purpose, it's the Lucien Drake cult.

Gunn: We're pretty sure they sold most of their children down the Hades river for some serious demonic mojo.

But that time Gunn is working out the cost-effective solution. He cares about the profits. Another theme; morality versus profits. Sacrifice: but this time good is sacrificed on the altar of money. For this sacrifice, Wes is suggesting the death ray. Angel is the one who loses his temper and starts asking why they don't just destroy everything; evil warlocks, minions, the lot. Gunn is the one advising the politic approach. Fred is asking 'do we do that sort of thing?' Spike doesn't know how he's involved ('what's Angel got to do with this?'); is off out in an alley, rescuing the girl, dusting the vampire.

Time Bomb, Fred-in-Illyria has completely destroyed the LA branch's profit margin by rescuing Gunn (rude words to 'cost-effectiveness'), Gunn is the one losing his temper, and Angel takes the politic approach. Illyria-with-Fred is beyond asking whether 'we do that sort of thing'; she destroys everything. Wes's death ray turns out to be a life ray. Spike is within the team, but we (and Angel) don't know how he's involved, possibly trying to save the girl, certainly getting dusted himself.

The second dream is of Wesley as Betrayer. Angel is irrelevant. Spike is here to take his place.

Dream Wesley: Spike's arrival is actually quite fortuitous.

And Angel gets staked by Wesley.

Again, there's a reflection in Time Bomb (possibly also in Origin, where Wesley starts the path of Betrayer). Wesley listens to Angel's command and ignores it. Spike takes Angel's place. The scene with Wes and Spike walking down the corridor is set up with Wes and Spike as the team, Angel irrelevant, trailing behind making useless comments. In both Time Bomb endings, Angel gets staked.

Fortuitous. It was fortuitous that Illyria mentioned Spike; that gave Angel the clue needed to alter the loop. But Spike's arrival has been fortuitous most of the year. He's the 'white haired one', the lucky one.

In the real world, Spike is fighting more vampires. It's an echo of Angel, in series one AtS, down to the hidden wrist stakes. The Young King.

Wesley, also in real life, is handling matters himself. He listens to Harmony repeating Angel's commands. Then he ignores them. They're pointless, even stupid. Eve arrives wanting Angel; but it's Wesley's area of knowledge she needs. The King can't read (not unless it's in English); depend on prophecies and you depend on the translator. And even a king needs to know when to delegate to trusted advisors. Angel is acting like a paranoid King even here; everything has to go through him. Except it doesn't ('CEO. In the dark.')

There follows a dream about Fred. Fred hollows Angel out in the same way she'll be hollowed out in A Hole in the World. She pulls his heart out (as Lindsay and Gunn have their hearts pulled out). And she pulls out a string of pearls, and loops it around her neck. Is she the pearl inside Illyria? She eats the raisins, as Persephone ate the Pomegranate seeds. Six months as Kore, Fred, and six months as Persephone. You ate the food of the dead. (I have no idea what the licence plate stands for, but we might not have reached that yet. Or it may be Fred's licence plate in Home. Or a reference to Illyria coming up the Gulf Stream. Or it may be a 'cheese guy').

macha's got the bear; it's the 'sacred bear of Artemis Callisto'. The Great Bear is one aspect of Artemis, goddess of the hunt, the moon, and death. In her scarier aspects she is the destroyer, death bringer, and also guides spirits between worlds. So she'd be a very appropriate visitor to both Fred and Angel. Angel's soul needs to be 'flushed out'. It should have gone to the bear (or will go), but it must go.

Fred: There's nothing left. Just a Shell. I think I can hear the ocean in there.

Angel's hollowed out in the dream. In the world, Fred becomes the Shell. Another substitution; Angel is the hollow man, but Fred becomes the Shell. It echoes another Greek myth: Alcestis has taken the place of Admetus in the land of death.

The next short dream is about being replaced in Buffy's affections. By Spike. Angel isn't taking Buffy to the Prom no more. She can't look after him, she kills her goldfish.

Buffy can't save his soul for him (she has problems enough with her own soul-struggles). And in Damage we find out that Angel ain't taking Buffy to the Prom; Andrew tells him so. Buffy doesn't trust him any more. Season 7 of BtVS, we saw that one person she trusted above all was Spike. Angel's dream is true; he's lost Buffy. To Spike. Whether or not Spike is ever really in Buffy's bed again, it's now Spike she shares trust with.

The next is the dream of the apocalypse. This is another Spike-substitution dream. I think this one might be about events in the last three eps, but what I notice is that a) Angel is sans shoes (shanshu) and b) Spike's the one with the destiny.

It's also a stereotyped 'apocalypse as the big end-of-season finale'. There's a concession stand, and viewers, and special effects. The entire city is burning. People are watching as if it's on the TV [grin]. The world afterwards is a beautiful disneyesque place, where everyone's dreams come true [hopefully nice dreams only, not the nightmares]. I note, with the discussion (on Tea at the Ford) on whether Wesley and Spike are now allies, that in the second part of the apocalypse dream, it's Wesley who blows the party screamer for Spike, and starts the calls for a speech. Angel isn't even with the rest of the team.

And so Spike gets his reward:

Spike: But I didn't do this for a reward.

Gunn: Well, that's why you're getting one.

Angel wanders off, the forgotten hero. The mail guy. Or Henry IV to Henry V? Which is Angel's destiny? To be the hero? Or to be Henry IV?

Henry IV: God knows, my son
By what by-paths and indirect crook'd ways
I met this crown; and I myself know well
How troublesome it sat upon my head:
To thee it shall descend with better quiet,
Better opinion, better confirmation;
For all the soil of the achievement goes
With me into the earth.

More scenes with Prince Hal. Despite the low dives he frequents, and the dubious company he keeps, he's loyal to his King. Unlike Gunn and Wesley, who have come to Spike without Angel's knowledge.

Next dream. Lorne is playing (Oh my darling Clementine, originally about a 'noble' father who loses his daughter because he can't swim). But Angel can't be helped by him. He can't sing. He can't help Lorne, either.

Angel: I think I'm lost.

Lorne: Order a drink.

Angel: Everything hurts.

Lorne: Now you're gettin' it. Everything hurts and then we die. Or in your case, everything hurts and then you go on, and on, and on and on

Sitting watching are Fred, Wes and Gunn. It's Fred's death, this time from the viewpoint of its impact on everyone else. Fred sees Angel as empty, not her. Wes has paid blood. Gunn is the conduit (or the conduit is Gunn), losing his compass in W&H. And Lorne orders a drink.

Final dream. Angel in sunlight; real sunlight, not filtered through glass. It's Fred he sees first in this heaven like world; she tells him it's really nice here and sits down on the arm of his chair, beside him. His friends tell him to stay as long as he wants; they'll be fine if he only stops caring.

In the real world, Prince Will, oops, sorry, I mean Spike {g} swoops in like Prince Hal at the end of Henry IV (part one), destroying the King's immediate enemy.

The dreams are of dispossession, which Angel fears. Substitution runs through. Spike has stolen Angel's destiny. Except he hasn't; it's Angel who made Spike his substitute (though admittedly he did it indirectly). It's Angel who's made Buffy not trust him. They're also of death. Angel is burnt up in place of Spike. Angel is staked by Wesley. Fred hollows him out. He's in a heaven like place.

What are the dreams trying to tell him? Are they another attempt by Whoever the Powers Be to reach him? Are they a message that say, as Alcibiades says:

.... the sacrifice he makes isn't his life, but his fate, the thing he wants so much, the human reward. In which case, it would signal that he's overcome acting with the hope of a reward always before his eyes, the thing that has motivated him for so long. The world will still be safe, however, since another souled vampire exists .... Ironically, if Angel succeeds, that could be the very thing that earns him the right to the shanshu ...

alcibiades (Sat 2004.05.01 at 03:40 pm EST)

Give up your reward? That could certainly be one message. Spike saves the world at the apocalypse, but Angel has no shoes on. Spike becomes a real boy - but Angel is also sans shoe.

You're supposed to be the dead one? Also possible. Angel dream-dies in a direct reversal of Spike's real death, he's dream-hollowed-out in a direct reversal of Fred's soon-to-be death. Lorne tells him: 'Everything hurts and then we die. Or in your case, everything hurts and then you go on ...' Everything hurts. Your friends die. But you go on. Substitution. They die instead of you. Still a vampire; killing to live. The blood might not be drunk anymore, but they're dead. Spike died because Angel wouldn't wear the bauble, Fred died because Angel wouldn't say why he came to Wolfram & Hart. Connor would have died because Angel couldn't bear (couldn't dare?) to give him his memories back.

Fighting to hold on to what you were - it's destroying you.

I've been trying to remember why I didn't remember The Trial, when I was thinking of self-sacrificing Angel. What was my mind thinking of as different when, as Albiciades points out, Angel acted in a genuinely selfless way?:

.... where he offered his life to save Darla and would have paid the price, too.

- alcibiades (Sat 2004.05.01 at 12:57 pm EST)

In The Trial Angel is still fighting to hold on to his past. He wants to make his past right. Saving Darla, giving her a second chance, is a child sacrificing itself for its parent. It's also the killer trying to bring the killed back to life - Darla was resurrected because Angel killed her. It's about his past. So the sacrifice is rejected ('someone wasn't worthy!'). Instead, the mystic life gained is granted in the form of a future for both vampires. Connor.

But he sacrifices that future, again and again. Connor has his throat cut, Spike is burnt up. Fred dies when she and Wes are starting a relationship. Would Fred and Wes have had children? Fred dies as if she's in labour. The future is being sacrificed. In more ways than one; Spike cannot be a king until Angel stops being one. The women left in his kingdom are now barren. A mother will sell her child to save her marriage. It's all around. The apocalypse is here, and we didn't even notice.

And the dreams say: you are no longer king. He gave up the king's sacrifice. Buffy went down to her death, in fulfillment of prophecy; Angel handed it over to Spike. Spike accepted the substitution, and gets steadily more human, more good, moving back towards life in a shanshu that's more emotional than literal. You need to give the kingship up. These things are important; Buffy accepted that she must die and went beyond it, as did Spike. The role of Champion/True King/True Queen includes the acceptance of dying to save your people.

Angel seems to have taken Illyria's words to heart without ever hearing them:

To never die, and to conquer all. That is winning.

Replies:

[> Fascinating stuff, Pip..(some spoilers BtVS7 & Soul Purpose) -- Jane, 17:50:26 05/05/04 Wed

I read the posts on Tea at the Ford (a site I recommend highly). It's really interesting to look at Soul Purpose in this way. I do have one question about Angel sacrificing Spike in his place - are you saying that Angel should have worn the amulet in Chosen,in spite of Buffy's refusal to accept his offer? He did intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with her, as I recall.

[> [> Yes, I think he should (spoilers for BtVS 7.22 Chosen and AtS 4.22 Home) -- Pip, 16:17:05 05/06/04 Thu

When Angel's first handed the bauble in Home his reaction is to toss it aside and say 'Buffy can handle herself.' Not much shoulder to shoulder there [grin]. He only takes the bauble and its file as part of the package deal to save Connor.

His deep lack of enthusiasm continues in Chosen. The amulet is to be worn by one ensouled but stronger than human. As long as the choice is between him and Buffy, he's willing to wear the bauble. And to give him credit, he continues to argue the point - until he finds out that Spike also has a soul. Up to then it's 'why do you want me to go?' From the 'Spike has a soul' point, his lines have a flavour of 'bye, I'll get started on the second front'. So while he's willing to die in Buffy's place, he certainly doesn't seem willing to die in anyone else's. Especially not in place of Spike [grin].

However in Home he was told the bauble was 'crucial'. In Chosen he says it needs to be worn by a 'champion'. So, yes, I think he should have insisted on wearing the thing. Or rather, I think he would have insisted on wearing the bauble if he'd really been a champion at that point. But in the test he accepts the deal with Wolfram and Hart, not for the sake of something he's been told is crucial in the Sunnydale battle, but for the sake of his own family. Then he hands the bauble over on Buffy's say-so that there's someone else to take it; and doesn't say one word to the candidate.

It isn't the behaviour of a 'true king'/'champion'. It's a final battle, it's crucial - and Angel hands it over to someone else. Further, we're being told that this is a selfish decision by the way the offer was juxtaposed in Home. First we have the W & H offer to save Sunnydale/the world - no deal. The offer to save his family is the one that's accepted. In Sunnydale that's reversed. First Angel is willing to save his girlfriend (again, he's acting for personal/family motives). Then when he finds that's not needed (and that she's now his ex-girlfriend), he's willing to accept the role of Home Front general.

He's not acting like a champion at all. He knows that, too. It doesn't bring out the champion in me. Not the point. Champions don't put their families ahead of the world. Nor does a champion send the newly made knight (for all Angel knew, Spike had got his soul yesterday) out alone - to face a power that had already proved capable of defeating the experienced champion.

Magic vs Science...random musings on Illyria. Spoilers for both shows up to "Timebomb" -- BrianWilly, 16:01:27 05/05/04 Wed

A jumble of ideas are massing around in my tiny cranial system at the moment, and I'm not too sure how to explain them. I'm not even really sure I have a final point...as the title implies, this is all just musing for those who care to hear.

Is Illyria a mystical or scientific being? Is there a difference? What are the ultimate differences between magic and science in Buffy and Angel's world?

Willow and Anya have explained that magic works very much like physics: you can't have a reaction without a cause, you can't make something out of nothing. Magic is energy that can be channeled, either from yourself or from the earth or from esoteric sources...spirits, gods, and other more sinister beings. So far, it's all very logical and precise, akin to science...other than the gods and spirits part. Science works through natural laws, studies the natural processes of the world...but magic comes from the earth as well, from the most primal and natural energies.

So is magic just another type of science that hasn't been studied? Is science just refined, more logistical and physicalized magic? Willow herself seems to regard the two as being very different.

"It's not magic, it's chemistry. You can tell by how damn slow it is." -Willow, Doublemeat Palace

This seems to me to be a pretty weak argument, though. There is chemistry that works fast, and there are spells that work slowly.

Is the difference in their application? Certainly the actual proccesses are different -- more on this later -- but in the end, you get relatively similar results. Say that you want to attack a powerful demon. You can hurl fireballs with a spell, or you can also build bombs and dynamite through chemistry. The means differs, but the ends result is the same.

Is magic more powerful? With wackier, more extreme results? We've seen spells that turn people to rats and invoke apocalyptic power. But we've also seen on the show guns that turn people invisible, machines that can stop time, and even in the real world nuclear technology carries frighteningly world-ending possibilities. No, magic is not necessarily more powerful than science.

I think that the biggest valid distinction between the two comes not in the result of their application, but the means of their application. Observe the departments of magic and of science at Wolfram and Hart. Wesley, as head of one department, is always looking up obscure references in old tomes and ancient prophecies...he is in essence a historian, looking into the past for the answers. Fred, as head of the other, is always working to create newer, more innovative methods and findings...she is a in all ways a scientist, looking towards the future for the answers. They've always said that opposites attract...

More on this concept of old ways versus new ways was explored in S4 of Buffy, of which the primary theme of the season was "changes." Some changes are good, others are bad, and some can coexist with the past.

Now, the reason for all my wonderings and ramblings and the crux of this thread: Wesley was able to stop -- in essense destroy -- the majority of Illyria's immense godlike powers with a machine, a scientific device of nuts and bolts and bits and molecules that Drusilla's never seen. He humbled the God-King of the Primordium with manmade technology.

Illyria is a thing of an older world...she is pure mysticism and undefinable by sciences that we know****. Yet Wesley effectively castrated her(really an "it") with a tool of the future. Science, in this matter, crossed the boundaries that separated the two worlds and won through with flying colors. It's really a contrast to S4 of Buffy when she and the gang used the forces of magic to overcome Adam, a creature of science. Though I use terms like "won though" and "overcome" in both cases, and even though it was pretty implicit and stated implicitly that Buffy's victory over Adam was a triumph of pure old ways over new corrupt methodology, I don't really believe that these were instances when one ideal was better than the other...more that one particular application of the ideal was more sound.

Which gets me thinking...would it have been possible in the past for the Scoobs and and AI to have implemented scientific solutions to some of their mystical problems in the past? What about something like Glory? Like Illyria, Glory possessed godhood thanks to her mystical origins. Could not a machine have been built to strip her of that? And the lethal dimensional portal that she tried to open...we were told that only the Key can open it and only the key can stop it, but those were mystical ground rules. In Timebomb, we saw Wesley break the mystical ground rules. Just as in "Surprise," when Buffy took out the Judge in one of the best rocket-launchy sequences ever and a triumph of new methods over the old, or in "Graduation Day" where a similar triumph was achieved, this time replacing natural volcanics with manmade explosives.

****On the other hand, there are one very important element to Illyria which, to me, grounds her in the realms of science as opposed to magic: her control over time and space. Bolts of lightning, balls of fire, those are powers and domains usually associated with fantasy and magic. But the minute we bring up time-control, time-travel, dimensional portals, and temporal paradox, we've fully entered the realms of science and science fiction. Spacial and temporal theories were not part of the old world magicks, and wasn't even really a science either until post-Einstein.

The entire Lovecraftian basis of Illyria and the Old Ones allows for a certain liberty in the magic versus science argument. One of the things that Lovecraft did very well in his creations was to merge the worlds of parascience and mystical occult. If magic and science really do work on the same principles, it's possible that they were originally one and the same and that during the time of Illyria, the abstract differences between the two were not yet established, leading to a creature made from the purest essences of both worlds.

Replies:

[> Re: Magic vs Science...random musings on Illyria. Spoilers for both shows up to "Timebomb" -- Vapthorne, 03:46:47 05/06/04 Thu

First, good essay... well thought out.

Second, Without seeing much Angel, I can't comment on Illryia. However, to sum up my view on magic/science is simply that I don't see them as two different worlds. In a sense they are, but this what I refer more commonly as magic versus technology.

Rather, if magic must work on a set of guidelines or obeys certain unobserved rules of physics then we should be able to apply the scientific method everytime (keep in mind, everything we know about the laws of physics is based on the collection of all of our documented observations). Otherwise, magic would have no limits.

There are times that magic can win technology, and vice versa. People tend to assume that magic always superior because we, as writers or thinkers, can always invent the limits of magic and the supernatural. Modern technology's limits, on the other hand, can be stretched so far. To me, it more depends on how one is use against the other.

Another random note on magic vs. technology. Adam (the S4 poster child to demonic technology) been defeated through the scoobies' magic. This is a sign on how pitifulHowever, in 'Superstar' he was the only person who easily saw through Jonathan's ruse when the magically strong Scoobies been duped. Food for thought, nothing more.

[> This sounds like Newton. -- BMF, 07:03:47 05/06/04 Thu

Here's one way of looking at this question. I've been reading a lot about Stuart England for one of my classes this past semester, and a lot of what you ask about comparing science and magic was thoroughly hashed over during that era.
Strange as it may seem, these questions of magic versus science fascinated and perplexed the founders of the scientific method. Newton himself wrote twice as much on alchemy, mysticism and magic as he did on physics. Many seventeenth century scientists, including Bacon, Boyle and Harvey joined him in such speculation. They were thoroughly convinced that if the normal, phenomenal world was governed by regular laws then the metaphysical, mystical world must have similar laws. Rather than casting about for spells or a Philosopher's Stone, they attempted to describe in a "scientific" manner the structures of the mystical world in order to harness and utilize it the same way they did the physical world. Indeed, even the Puritan government of Oliver Cromwell supported such research as it tried to create a science of prophecy based upon and allowing greater insight into the Bible.
I'm not saying here that these early scientists were doing anything right or wrong in attempting to codify and scientifically analyze magic. What I am saying is that in the pre-modern world, there was no little or no difference between science and magic. While most people understand that much, the degree to which it was taken during what we know as the Scientific Revolution shows the real lack of difference as felt at the time. If physics could explain this world, then metaphysics should equally describe other worlds. They were but flip sides of the same and presumably continuous coin.
Hopefully this helps a bit.
BMF

Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- Ames, 20:09:15 05/05/04 Wed

I was a little disappointed with it for the 3rd-to-last episode. There's not a whole lot of time left on the clock guys, and a whole lot of issues left to deal with! Do we need to introduce a character like The Immortal at this late date? Does anyone need fake-Buffy-from-a-distance? Uugh! I felt it almost descended into self-parody at times.

The purposes here could all have been accomplished much more quickly and neatly. Get in the point about people changing and moving on, ok. Use Andrew if you must. Cameos from Darla and Drusilla, fine. Throw in W&H Roma, ok. But that was a little too much Angel/Spike/Buffy angst for me, at least with no payoff to show for it.

Illyria imitating Fred for her parents and the effect on Wes was much more interesting. I wonder which parts were written by Drew and which by Steven?

Replies:

[> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- Rob, 20:13:39 05/05/04 Wed

I absolutely loved tonight's episode of Angel, which put me in the strange position of feeling slightly disappointed by the episode not being like I thought it would, and yet at the same time being immensely entertained nonetheless. And The Girl in Question was not just the sum of its laughs. There was quite a bit more going under the surface.

Note how Spike defines his leather duster as being a major part of himself. Not any leather duster, but his leather duster. When it is destroyed, however, he finds that a replacement can be just as suitable. Meanwhile, Illyria sees Fred as a shell, a jacket. If, similar to Spike's duster, she can look identical to the original and even more than that, sound like the original to the point that she is a perfect replica, she cannot understand why Wesley would reject her attempt to become Fred. She cannot distinguish the difference between being in love with the person and being in love with the person's exterior and affectations. But a person is not a jacket or possession. Buffy is not a possession, and the fact that Buffy has fallen in love with someone new does not mean, as Spike and Angel instantly assume, that she is possessed by the Immortal (in the literal or metaphorical sense) or under a spell. Is it really all that uncharacteristic of Buffy to fall in love with a morally ambiguous figure? And remember, we never actually see The Immortal, and more importantly never see him behave evilly. The only thing we know he has done is one-up Angel and Spike, first with Darla and Dru, and now with Buffy and the head. When Angel and Spike were first confronted by him, they themselves were evil, after all. There were questions of whether people change...Andrew certainly seems to have, although again at the start, on the surface, he hadn't seemed to. Another example of something looking similar on the surface...The Italian W&H offices. I think there's probably a lot more to delve into here, but I'll need to see a couple of more times first.

Just for a gut reaction, though...

--Yeah, it was kind of disappointing to only have Darla and Dru for such a short time, but in their few short moments on screen, they were absolutely fantastic. Julie Benz once again showed off why she is the best actress on either series. Ingenious comic timing in this scene. Also, it makes sense that having discovered about the cancellation so late in the season, that the writers would not have time to craft a full episode devoted to the Fanged Four.

--Amy Acker's performance was also brilliant. And how disconcerting was it to hear Illyria's voice come out of Fred? This is one extremely talented woman.

--The head of the Italian branch of W&H was a scream! The Gypsy gag had me ROFLMAO!

--Loved the split second black and white flashback to Spike and Dru in Italy in the 50s.

--Did anyone else think for a second that Andrew would turn out to be the Immortal and that Buffy would be at the door when he opened it? Cause, whether that would make sense or not, I sorta did.

--Just a reminder to everyone: The last seemingly light comedic episode, Smile Time immediately preceded two of the series' most devastating, A Hole in the World and Shells. To put it as gently as possibly, I greatly fear for the happiness of each and every character as we approach the final two hours of the best show on television.

Rob

[> [> I agree muchly with you, Rob -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:50:23 05/05/04 Wed

The possessive way Angel and Spike kept referring to the women in their lives also jumped out at me, and I feel it was probably necessary that they get all this competing over the girl thing out of their system.

I personally think some people were disapointed because the series is ending in two weeks and this episode wasn't a major character ep or a highly arcy one. In fact, it's very much a fun-filled standalone episode. I don't actually have a problem with this. We all know the final two eps are gonna bring lots of big events and be the last we'll see of these characters for a while, so it was nice to just see Angel and Spike on a comic adventure while arguing with each other non-stop. It's like when a friend moves to a new city, and you know you'll hardly ever see them again. You know the bon voyage party and the tearful goodbyes are coming, and you wouldn't miss them for the world. But, before getting swept up in all that, you want one last chance to hang out with your friend like you have a hundred times before, nothing big and emotional, just two friends pal-ing around for the last time. That's what "The Girl In Question" reminded me of, the last time you hang out with that friend before they leave. We'll get our big goodbye to "Angel" in the last two eps; this was just our chance to enjoy it one last time before we say goodbye.

[> [> [> Agree with you too! -- Rob, 22:25:56 05/05/04 Wed

That's what "The Girl In Question" reminded me of, the last time you hang out with that friend before they leave. We'll get our big goodbye to "Angel" in the last two eps; this was just our chance to enjoy it one last time before we say goodbye.

Exactly...And considering how dark and angsty Angel can get...and I'm sure it will get in its last two episodes...it was a relief to have one last light episode before going into, let's face it, what might be the two most traumatizing hours of television we'll ever face!

Rob

[> [> [> Yeah, except... (preview for next week impression) -- Masq, 23:21:24 05/05/04 Wed

Didn't the preview for the last two eps make anyone really nervous? I don't want Angel going out--on what might be its last appearance ever--on an anti-heroic note.

[> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, except... (preview for next week impression) -- Jane, 23:40:46 05/05/04 Wed

We don't get the previews here, but I have faith in Joss. I am sure he won't let us down. Two to go, sigh.

[> [> With you Rob! The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- Ann, 21:01:25 05/05/04 Wed

My son saw the first couple of minutes of Angel tonight and noted that Spike was playing "a kids game". I thought that was apropos about this chase through Italy with Angel.

Spike was on the left hand of Angel through out the episode.

The theme of this episode was jealousy. Everyone gets to be. The girls, the boys.

Rome, the city of contrasts. As a lover of that aspect of the show, the revealing by way of contrast. I loved how Angel and Spike had to go the seat of the empire, Buffy's that is, to try and find her and she had found benevolence and immortality. Hee.

I also enjoyed the "cookie" references, from W&H's cookie cutter Roman architecture to Benevolence eating cookie dough and while there they lose their "head". Talk about knocking us over the head.

The shout out to past movie stars was fun also. Dean Martin sang, Sophia Loren (the Italian woman at W&H who was channeling Cordy by way of dress) doing a great Betty Davis impression with her cigarette holder. I am wondering if Spike and Angel are Martin and Lewis, or as Bit said, Crosby and Hope. I think this may be a clue to give us hope.

The fight montage with Dean Martin singing "Why should our love have to part?" was hysterical.

The slashy Dru/Immortal/Darla love triangle was fun too. Poor Spike and Angel. They never got their "cookies" back then either. Dru says he "smells like sunshine". Now isn't that a lovely turn on for a vampire. She really is twisted lol.

I am fascinated that Illyria chose to be Fred for a day. Thought of the old TV show, another homage, called Queen for a Day. She is thinking of others even though she calls it "modulation of form". She gets to try out Fred, which torments Wes. And I must say he is doing quite a job with handling this angst. His grief. To have it tossed in his face every day. Wow. He is becoming more isolated with this while Illyria is trying out new stuff. More contrast.

They acknowledged our Kabooms on the board. No otter blood though.

[> [> Agreeing with Rob [Spoilers] -- Cheryl, 21:43:19 05/05/04 Wed

And The Girl in Question was not just the sum of its laughs. There was quite a bit more going under the surface.

I literally laughed out loud during this episode. I thought it had a little bit of everything - comedy, angst, character growth, and continuity. At the beginning of the episode I was a little disappointed, expecting something more "deep" with only a couple more episodes to go. But by the time we got to Spike's leather jacket, cookie dough, and Andrew changing and moving on, I realized this episode was packed with good stuff.

And how great to see Fred's parents - I was really hoping they'd show up again, although I wasn't expecting "Fred's" reappearance at all. At first I thought Illyria was doing it to spare Fred's parents feelings, but then realized it was really just a game/test for her.

Interesting that Spike kept saying he didn't have a chance with Buffy, and how nice that Andrew told them she loved them both. One nitpick - why wasn't Dawn mentioned at all? Isn't she supposed to be going to school in Rome?

Poor, poor Wes. Is it even possible for him to be happy anymore? He's one of my favorite characters and Alexis is so wonderful - I hate to see him so miserable with no end in sight. He's beginning to remind me of Connor of last year. What hope is there for him anymore?

I need to rewatch the beginning since I got a couple of phone calls (you'd think my family would know better by now). But it seemed like Gunn and Angel were butting heads about how to do business. A continuation from last week.

I would have loved to have seen more Darla and Dru - especially Dru since her being there hardly seemed worth the effort. But Darla was wonderful. And Angelus and William were a hoot - evil beings that they were. ;-)

[> [> [> She was mentioned once -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:57:18 05/05/04 Wed

Andrew said Dawn and Buffy were letting him stay there, but, after that, nothing. Kinda wished they hadn't mentioned Dawn, though, cause I wasn't yet thinking of the Immortal when Andrew mentioned snuggling, and so pseudo-incestual images were created.

[> [> [> Re: Agreeing with Rob [Spoilers] -- Rob, 22:21:03 05/05/04 Wed

And how great to see Fred's parents - I was really hoping they'd show up again, although I wasn't expecting "Fred's" reappearance at all. At first I thought Illyria was doing it to spare Fred's parents feelings, but then realized it was really just a game/test for her.

It's more than that though. This episode is filled with characters trying to get a grasp of an elusive girl who slips through their fingertips. For Spike and Angel, that girl is Buffy. For Wes, that girl is Fred. And for Illyria, as well, that girl is Fred. She shares her body and her memories, but (despite her protestations) wants to understand this "shell" and what it is about this girl that Wesley loved so much and what makes her who she is. Is it her Texan accent? Her brown hair? Her shy demeanor? Or is it something deeper?

Rob

[> [> [> [> And even further... (Time Bomb, GiQ spoilers) -- Rob, 22:37:07 05/05/04 Wed

She shares her body and her memories, but (despite her protestations) wants to understand this "shell" and what it is about this girl that Wesley loved so much and what makes her who she is. Is it her Texan accent? Her brown hair? Her shy demeanor? Or is it something deeper?

And continuing...She is probably wondering whether she herself could become Fred permanently. Last week, she said that her powers were her, and to lose them would mean to lose herself. Now that they are gone, she is facing a major crisis of identity. That by which she had always defined herself is gone. Now she needs to find a new identity. Could the former identity of this "shell" whose memory she shares be who she is now? That is what she is doing here, I think. I also think that despite what she says, her memories and newly neutered body might be having a combined effect of making her more human and sympathetic. Whether she admits it or not, what she did by turning herself into Fred was perform an act of kindness for the Burkles. It would be interesting to see how this will affect her in the long-term. I hope we get at least a glimpse of it in the next 2 episodes.

Rob

[> [> Count me in as a fan of this ep(spoilers) -- BrianWilly, 00:19:43 05/06/04 Thu

I kinda figured out early on that this was going to be one of those lighthearted, stand alone eps. I came in expecting that, and in turn saw one of the most hilarious and rewarding eps of all seasons of both shows. You just know that these lines were written with the fans in mind, the fans who were there from the beginning.

Angel: "I stopped Acathla. That counts as saving the world."
Spike: "Buffy ran you through with a sword!"
Angel: "Yeah, but I made her do it...signaled her with my eyes."
Spike: "She! Killed you! I'm the one who helped her, that one counts as mine!"

Angel: "But she's not finished baking yet! I gotta wait until she's finished baking, y'know, until she finds herself because that's that drill, fine, I'm waiting patiently and meanwhile the Immortal's eating COOKIE DOUGH!!"

Do I really need to say anything more?

Oh, and I really liked that bit with Illyrifred. She's ironically and disturbingly become one of my favorite characters...totally unpredictable and interesting. Poor broody Wes, though. I really don't see how any of this is gonna end up well for him.

[> [> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- CW, 06:43:48 05/06/04 Thu

The first thing I thought when the episode was over was, "Well, a lot of people are really going to be unhappy with that one."

I wasn't unhappy. I'm not going to argue with the folks who were unhappy. It's pretty clear why they might be. But, I understand ME's position on this one. Sometimes you just have to let off steam. There has always been a element of comedy in the Buffyverse, so it's not all that 'out of character.'

My favorite part was the bit with Spike's jacket. Apparently the genuine prop article reeks from years of hot lights and sweat plus all the stuff that's been smeared and dumped on it in the course of shooting dozens of scenes. It needed a little ventilation!

My least favorite part was Wes' show-long pout over Illyria choosing to play Fred for her parents. We don't know her motives, but on the other hand it seemed like a nice thing to do. Wes is fixated on Illyria and has been since she arrived. His attitude makes far more sense on paper than it did on the screen, so I have to be tolerant of it. One of the best lines of the show was Illyria's "As you wish," when she changes back to her usual form. It implies Illyria senses a deeper bond between her and Wes that has nothing to do with Fred, isn't entirely antagonistic, and one that she is beginning to welcome. It's a stark contrast with Wes and Lilah, when he wanted his partner to dress and act like Fred. The big question is why with W & H's resources no one tracked down Fred's parents to tell them she'd passed away.

[> [> [> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- Arethusa, 10:17:56 05/06/04 Thu

I was expecting a big tragic episode that put Angle in his place after Timebomb, and instead we get a farce that put Angel in his place. The episode was a suprise but not a disappointment, because we can see Angel begin to realize that he'sbeen going in circles and needs to move on.

I like the irony of how Wes used to be unable to see past the surface of Fred to an extent and now is unable to even at the surface. Maybe Wes is the mirror that Illyria is trying to see her reflection in, that is, she's trying to figure out who she is through her interactions with Wes. He loved the surface of her but now rejects it because that wasn't who Fred really was, but when she acts like Fred Wes doens't want that either. So what is it that Wes wanted? It isn't the mannerisms or the curly hair and Texas accent, so it must be something else she hasn't identified yet.

[> [> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- T Dowd, 07:10:31 05/06/04 Thu

Are we the only ones who think of the old highlander character is the Immortal? 400 years old (check) very good with women (check) many pointed remarks about losing your head (check) doesn't use magic (check) minions/bouncers have Scot's burr (check)

The only way it could have been more obvious was if Joe Dawson, the watcher showed up...

(I'm sure copyright and permissions would make explicit statements impossible... But we're convinced. And a highlander style immortal would be a very good choice for Buffy...)

[> [> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- Ames, 07:53:46 05/06/04 Thu

In retrospect it was a funny episode, and I'm sure I'll appreciate it more and more on replay.

I guess it was 3 things that bothered a bit about this ep:

1. I thought it was a cheap and disappointing way to try to address the Buffy issue. Since there wasn't time to arrange a real guest spot with SMG, they should have left her out of it entirely. Save it for a future movie. It would have been a better episode for it. (or, how about they just happen to run into Andrew, mention The Immortal, and Andrew says casually "oh yeah, the guy that Buffy's bonking" - leave it hanging)

2. While it's traditional to have a standalone comedy ep near the end of the season as a lead-in the final dramatic conclusion, it seems like a waste of what little time we have left in the current context of the end of Angel. (ok, in fairness the ep was probably already mapped out when the cancellation was announced)

3. They were trying just TOOOO hard to work in all the references to past events. It's normally a surprise and delight to recognize a past reference which comes up naturally in the course of events, but here it feels forced.

[> Wow. What a lackluster episode. (Spoilers for 5.blah - The blah in blah) -- Jay, 20:22:20 05/05/04 Wed

I busted my ass to get home in time and this is what I get. Okay, I was amused by the flashback scenes with the fanged four and initially intrigued by Illyria posing as Fred, but the bulk of this episode had me yawning. The fact that Andrew was in it didn't help any. Why, oh why, can't Andrew go the way of Tucker? Why must they force this immensely boring character down our throats?

I would have been much happier if they totally ignored the whole "Buffy question" and had a good episode instead. Really, an episode revolving around Buffy, and no Buffy? Ughh. Angel and Spike talking to each other is just soooo boring. At least the episode is over and we can move onto the final two episodes, which can't possibly be this bad.

One plus, Enterprise was kick-ass tonite.

[> [> is that why no one's chatting about it? c'mon, somebody show up! (sorry i missed you, darius) -- anom, 20:54:10 05/05/04 Wed

[> Well. That sucked. -- Old One, 20:51:43 05/05/04 Wed

Aside from Illyria/Fred that was a total waste of one of our last three hours.

:o(

[> [> "Blue eyes?" -- Pony, 21:17:01 05/05/04 Wed

They name-drop a dozen past episodes and they get Buffy's eye colour wrong... oookay thanks for coming out guys.

In my world we're going 5.19 to 5.21 with nothin' in between.

[> [> [> Yeah...it was a good ep....but not for 5.20. -- Nino, 23:21:48 05/05/04 Wed

It reminded me of "Harm's Way" when we had just got back from a huge break with no new eps, and were left on the Lindsey cliffhanger....it was a good ep, but horribly misplaced.

[> I had a good laugh from this ep -- Bluestem, 21:26:56 05/05/04 Wed

This episode reminded me of the humor inherent in this series--a humor that was sorely missed after the last few episodes. But yeah, it was somewhat inappropriate to put this type of episode NOW, given that we're ending. I would've preferred this type of ep earlier in the season.

Illyria imitating was indeed interesting. Personally, I wanted to see Wes succumbing to Illyria's advances as Fred. It'd be the ultimate shameful sex! (heh heh heh) I'm surprised that Wes is still entrenched enough in reality to reject.

[> The Girl in Question (spoilers) -- mrsubjunctive, 21:35:10 05/05/04 Wed

Uch. Awful. We will speak of it no more. [spits]

No. Well. Not that bad. I adored the head of W&H Rome. And, unlike some people, I'm always happy to see Andrew, though he let me down a bit this time. Since when is Andrew wise? Or fluent in Italian, for that matter?

Which, yes yes, point taken, people grow, people change. But they don't generally change from gay sci-fi nerds who are, oh yeah, evil, into wise and good polyglot James Bonds. Or at least I personally am still waiting.

I feel mildly gypped (awful people. We shall speak of them no more. [spits]) that for all the talk of the Immortal, we never got to actually see him. It makes sense, given that they seemed to want to build him up to be this supersexy wonderful guy, they wouldn't be able to find an actor everyone would take for a supersexy wonderful guy. But it was still irritating. Not seeing Buffy herself was less problematic, but I didn't understand why we were worried about her in the first place. Things could have ended with the Scoobies declining to help Angel because he's working for W&H, for my money. Angel and Spike had better things to be worrying about in this episode.

Fredlyria I have mixed feelings about. Mainly I have a problem with it because she's never changed appearance before, and I'm not sure the surprise of seeing her do it is worth the continuity gap. She wouldn't have had to be Fred previously, just change into something. I don't count when she got the Xena outfit, since that looked to me more like something the box was doing in conjunction with her.

So but yeah. It was funny, in spots. I missed the first scene because my VCR was being problematic, so I didn't see how they resolved the business from last week. Which I'd really wanted to. But it was still funny. I just question whether seeing Angel and Spike, neither of whom are my favorite characters, alone or in combination, gypsying around (Shall speak of them no more! [spits]) Italy to satisfy some jealous "Buffy"-related thing that they haven't been worrying about all season long. Especially not when there's so little time left in the series, and we haven't even gotten around to establishing what the big apocalypse that everybody's been worrying about actually is, or how it's to be fought. This season, though it's better, reminds me somewhat of "Buffy" seven: every time you turn around, it's ooooh, from beneath you it devours, or ooooh, we're running an evil law firm but isn't that just what they want us to be doing, and there's virtually no progress on either plot all season, until finally at the end somebody says what's going on and it's not as big or bad or troublesome as everybody's been saying, and we're supposed to be all moved 'cause the series is over but all I'm going to be able to think is, that was the big worry?

Or at least this is kind of what I'm expecting. I suppose we'll see.

[> [> Re: The Girl in Question (spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:46:15 05/05/04 Wed

I think they never showed the Immortal because otherwise there would be factions raging over whether Buffy would go for a guy like that. Since we know so little about him, no one can actually claim it's out of character on her part, even the most diehard of shippers.

[> [> Re: The Girl in Question (spoilers) -- Rob, 22:30:30 05/05/04 Wed

Mainly I have a problem with it because she's never changed appearance before, and I'm not sure the surprise of seeing her do it is worth the continuity gap. She wouldn't have had to be Fred previously, just change into something. I don't count when she got the Xena outfit, since that looked to me more like something the box was doing in conjunction with her.

But you should count her change into that outfit, because that's exactly the same thing happening here. She can't change into something that doesn't look like Fred, meaning she can't turn herself into something else. But she can modify the body she has. In this case, it meant changing an outfit, the color of the hair, and skin tone. Since she had in the past wanted to most closely embody what she looked like in her former body, with that outfit, the blue hair, etc., she had no reason to change beforehand. But now that her powers have been diminished and she's facing an existential crisis and questioning who she is, and her place in the world, she is more willing to try on a new "outfit".

Rob

[> [> one way to look at it (spoilers)... -- anom, 23:07:29 05/05/04 Wed

....is that the Spike/Angel scenes are a cartoon. The biggest clue is after the bomb blows up--we come back from the commercial break to see 2 charred Wile E. Coyote-lookin' vamps. And that seems to be about the level of their scenes--from the petty jealousy to the Italian stereotypes to the chasing a head around. I dunno, it was fun for a while, till they kept grinding it in over & over. OK, we get it. I said, we get it!

I was disappointed that we never saw The Immortal. I was hoping we'd get a look at him at the end & he'd turn out to be...Christopher George.

I didn't like the attitudes toward women, like how The Immortal was apparently irresistible to them, & Andrew's going out w/2 at once. Maybe it was meant to point up Angel & Spike's petty, immature attitudes.

I did like the Wes/Illyria plotline. Poor Wes--they just keep givin' that knife another twist, don't they? (But before that, did anyone else think "So there!" after Illyria said "I go because it suits me"? Yeah? Anyone else say it out loud?) And I liked "Wolfram e Hart" in Rome, although...like I said, Italian stereotypes.

But they overdid so many things, incl. the bringing up stuff from past eps of both shows--which I usually like! I just hope they got all this stuff out of their system & now we can get on w/the deep & serious--w/a little humor, though--business of winding up the show. Or at least the season. Still hoping we can save the show itself (where'd I put those postcards?).

[> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- neaux, 04:51:31 05/06/04 Thu

I found this episode to be as off-putting as "Him" was on BTVS season 7. Its supposed to be funny but unless you are expecting it to be funny.. its really not funny.

This will be an episode that will need to be watched SEVERAL SEVERAL times in order for it to shine. I think since everyone knows the series is ending, the desire for plot advancement seriously hampers this episode. At least that's my reasoning for me not really laughing last night.

[> [> Re: I really loved it! Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- A Slayer's Soul, 06:51:02 05/06/04 Thu

I disagree, I thought the episode was wonderful. Very much poking fun at itself and the entire Buffy/Angel/Spike triangle that has the shipper fandom in an uproar! I loved the way they handled this episode without SMG as Buffy, and I thought I would have absolutely hated it. In fact, I think all the characters were represented in a positive light. And I was very happy to see Buffy go out on a high note. After all, Spike wanted Buffy to have a life. And now she has one. With thanks to both of her exes! The writers left the ending highly ambagious - if we ever get a movie, there is still hope we will see Spike Angel and Buffy together again, as a team, not as rivals.

What is a "Mary-Sue"?

[> [> [> Was this intended as a reply to me? -- Doug, 07:48:03 05/06/04 Thu

The "Mary Sue" was in my post, so I'm going to assume it was.

I've been told that the Mary Sues are called that because the first one was named "Ensign Mary Sue" and she was from Star Trek fandom. Essentially the character was perfect; beautiful, intelligent, could solve any problem and always had the right answer. The character was loved by all the charcters that the writer loved and the one that the writer lusted after fell in love with the Sue.

In short, an incredibly dull character. But that's the essence of the 'Sue'. Male or Female, this character either has no faults or has faults that are really virtues disguised (sort of like people who put "Workaholic" as their worst flaw at work). Some characters will not like this character but they will always be characters that the writer dislikes, and will be reduced to carcatures who are obviously wrong. The Sue will always be sexier, stronger, and smarter than anyone else in the setting is allowed to be.

For examples outside of fanfic look at Johnathan in the Season 4 Buffy episode "Superstar" as well as the Season 6 episode "As You Were" with it's portrayal of the Finns.

So let us look at this Immortal fellow. Everyone talks endlessly about how sexy he is, he effortlessly proves himself more cunning and smarter and more powerful then Angel and Spike, both Angel and Spike act extremely out of character to make this guy look good by appearing pathetic themselves. Need I go on?

Your welcome to your opinion, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can find a way to rationalize this episode as anything but rank character assasination. I also resent the implication that the only people who have a problem with this are shippers, because I'm not! But just because I'm not particualrly interested in who gets claim to Buffy's erogenous [sp?] zones doesn't mean that I enjoy watching the rest of the characters getting pissed on for kicks.

And you want to know what the worst part was; since the Wes/Burkles/Illfred stuff was well written, I know that it wasn't simple writer fatigue that resulted in this. It was voluntary, it was deliberate, and that is what makes it unforgivable.

[> [> [> [> Re: Was this intended as a reply to me? -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:54:36 05/06/04 Thu

I didn't see Angel/us and Spike acting anymore pathetic than usual. Spike has had plenty of pathetic moments ever since "Lovers' Walk", Angelus got show full of arrows and passed out in "Heartthrob", and previous episodes have poked fun at Angel plenty of times (although, admitedly, usually not for the whole episode). I don't see why this ep should draw particular ire.

[> [> [> [> [> I think that maybe it's a matter of volume -- Doug, 09:45:57 05/06/04 Thu

I like flawed characters, and I most certainly don't mind seeing a character at a low point. But this was just montonous, and not particularly funny to boot. How many "funny" episodes has ME done this season? Making the characters into the two stooges for a cheap laugh has gotten old; and what's more I can't say that the payoff was worth it. What did we learn in this episode that we didn't know at the end of Chosen, or Destiny? What new revelation about Spike and Angel's characters did this episode reveal? Please, if you can come up with anything, I'm dying to hear because I've been searching my skull since last night and I've got zilch.

Humour is often based in incongruity, like the burger Loa. In Season 3 Wesley is in the territory of legends when he seeks to know the truth of the prophecy, and travels to an Oracle to seek that truth. What is the oracle? A giant hamburger. Everyone I know in RL who watches the show cracked up, and they still crack up whenever they see it because a great and powerful prophetic hamburger is an ingongruity, a mixture of the sacred and legendary with one of the most banal objects. That's funny.

Joss is a master of this kind of humor; ironic segues, little comments after grandiose speeches, and mundane solutions to problems mystical and mythical. The problem is that there is no incongruity here; it's one "gee, aren't these guys dumb, weak, and delusional?" after another. And with no sense of anything to balance that against, to mix with it, and to create an incongruity. If they had gone through that entirer episode hunting the immortal, and being stymied by him, only to find out that he was some twisted little thing with realy big glamour and charm spells, that would at least have made for some payoff.

The plot was dull, the stereotypes annoying, the in-jokes excessive, and this routine has gotten old, the dead horse has been beaten quite enough. You are free to your own opinion, and if you like I'll shut up like a good Douggie and just stop talking about this episode unless someone is replying to a post of mine, provided no one tries to make the claim that only shippers wouldn't like this episode are shippers, because I'm already pissed off enough to explode over those comments.

And I'm still writing Slaughterfic.

[> [> [> [> [> I think that maybe it's a matter of volume -- Doug, 09:55:25 05/06/04 Thu

I like flawed characters, and I most certainly don't mind seeing a character at a low point. But this was just montonous, and not particularly funny to boot. How many "funny" episodes has ME done this season? Making the characters into the two stooges for a cheap laugh has gotten old; and what's more I can't say that the payoff was worth it. What did we learn in this episode that we didn't know at the end of Chosen, or Destiny? What new revelation about Spike and Angel's characters did this episode reveal? Please, if you can come up with anything, I'm dying to hear because I've been searching my skull since last night and I've got zilch.

Humour is often based in incongruity, like the burger Loa. In Season 3 Wesley is in the territory of legends when he seeks to know the truth of the prophecy, and travels to an Oracle to seek that truth. What is the oracle? A giant hamburger. Everyone I know in RL who watches the show cracked up, and they still crack up whenever they see it because a great and powerful prophetic hamburger is an ingongruity, a mixture of the sacred and legendary with one of the most banal objects. That's funny.

Joss is a master of this kind of humor; ironic segues, little comments after grandiose speeches, and mundane solutions to problems mystical and mythical. The problem is that there is no incongruity here; it's one "gee, aren't these guys dumb, weak, and delusional?" after another. And with no sense of anything to balance that against, to mix with it, and to create an incongruity. If they had gone through that entirer episode hunting the immortal, and being stymied by him, only to find out that he was some twisted little thing with realy big glamour and charm spells, that would at least have made for some payoff.

The plot was dull, the stereotypes annoying, the in-jokes excessive, and this routine has gotten old, the dead horse has been beaten quite enough. You are free to your own opinion, and if you like I'll shut up like a good Douggie and just stop talking about this episode unless someone is replying to a post of mine, provided no one tries to make the claim that only shippers wouldn't like this episode are shippers, because I'm already pissed off enough to explode over those comments.

And I'm still writing Slaughterfic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> This episode changed how Spike and Angel relate to each other -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:54:52 05/06/04 Thu

It wasn't revealing new stuff to us, but it did change the dynamic between Angel and Spike, I felt. "Destiny" served to highlight their bitter rivalry, but didn't resolve it. While "Damage" did get them talking a bit more civilly, it didn't help a great deal as they still fought plenty in "You're Welcome", "Smile Time", and "A Hole in the World", as well as Angel automatically thinking of Spike when it came to getting Illyria an observer/punching bag. Spike and Angel have been competing with each other for over a century, always trying to outdo each other, and "The Girl In Question" is where they begin to realize that their constant fighting is pretty pointless and only makes their lives harder.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Except that their actions changed a long time ago... -- Doug, 08:37:15 05/07/04 Fri

....and actions speak louder than words

Angel and Spike hadn't fought physically since Spike became corporeal and they worked through their issues over a cup of Mountain Dew in "Destiny". In most of the episodes after "Damage" they were able to piss each other off without compromising their goals. The plot development you described might have fit after "Destiny" but before "Damage", in place of "Harm's Way". It wouldn't have worked after that because in "Soul Purpose" Spike does save Angel and after "Damage" their entire behavioural pattern starts to change. Look at Spike and Angel's moves in battle in "A Hole in the World"; despite the fact that they still get on each other's nerves they easily coordinate their tactics, included the clotheline maneuver. And who else has the requisite physical durability to "test" Illyria, besides Spike and Angel and maybe Harmony (who would be unlikely to do it)? The conversation between Wesley and Angel makes for a great laugh, but who else are they going to stick in a room with her, besides the vamp who's proven never learned the word 'quit'? And, despite annoying Angel Spike has knuckled down and assumed loyal soldier status for several episodes now. And Angel got himself staked in Spike's defense just last episode; so apparently he doesn't view Spike as disposable, whatever he said to Wes.

So for this episode they pretend that half the season hadn't happened to go over character development that had already taken place. And I still don't know why it was necessary for Beavis and Butthead to make an appearance in place of Spike and Angel. Something along then lines of this episodes plot would have fit in well right after "Destiny"; instead of lame excuses as to why Spike hasn't gone to see Buffy they could just have this episode, the ingighting and bickering would have made at least some sense, and the Spike and Angel's relationship shift that you describe would actually have been valid, But the truth is that Angel and Spike have changed their dynamic, not through epiphanies with swelling music or through grand speeches, but through watching each other's backs. And now it's expected to be believed that they just start hitting each other when they're fighting back-to-back because...the music was confusing? After I saw that decapitation move in "A Hole in the World"? Sorry, but I don't see it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thing about "Hole in the World" was . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:01:53 05/07/04 Fri

Fred was dying, and so everyone had a very different perspective. Joss himself said he chose Fred because she was the one person every member of the Fang Gang liked and would sacrafice a whole-hell-of-a-lot for. It's like Angel and Xander fighting together against vampires in "Prophecy Girl", or when Xander helped Spike light his cigarette in "Spiral". It didn't mean they liked each other, and tension between them would become explosive later on, but extreme circumstances brought out their better sides. Once things calmed down, they went back to their old routine. Same with Spike and Angel. For Fred's sake, they put aside their differences for a little while. And they did fight physically after "Destiny": remember puppet Angel fighting Spike in "Smile Time"? Also, usually they have enough self-restraint not to start a brawl without any provocation. As for testing Illyria, Spike and Angel could have taken turns, they could have brought in Xander-style body armour, or get one of the demons in their employ to do it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Doug, you are right that there seems to be a pattern... -- Briar Rose, 16:12:15 05/07/04 Fri

What I believe you are saying is the same thing I noticed (and commented on loudly) in season 7 of Buffy, and around the same timing in the lead up to the final....

Character assassination. Pure and Simple.

I didn't have quite as much a problem with this one as I saw more humor in it than what they did to Buffy's character in the last four eps of BtVS. Other than Story Teller, they didn't have any humour about Buffy's turn into a Patton type ego-maniac and, indeed, had her SITs mutiny and throw her out of her own house, forcing her to kick an old man out of his.

I still have a niggling that the writers were making Buffy a mean and bossy person with the intent of changing the viewers reaction and connection to her as a hero, because they weren't happy that SMG wasn't re-upping so the series was ending.

But I also see that they have chosen to bash both Buffy's character (again, even if indirectly) and also to turn Angel and Spike into characatures of themselves at their worst and I have to wonder if it isn't a plot device that the writers feel works, even if the fans don't.

I have theorized that the aim is to make the viewers dislike the characters (or at least see them as less sympathetic/heroic) and to detach before the final episode. In this way, the writers have the all powerful ability to turn our connections back on to them for the final ep.

I doubt I'm stating this well, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

I am spoiled all the way. And it's really another mind game, IMO. As they did with Buffy, s they will do with Angel. Oh - he'll go out a hero, I imagine. But in the mean time, I think we're supposed to start to wish he'd die.

Maybe ME's writers are the ultimate Sadists... They know that the best way to torture us masochists is to take the pleasure of our pain. Just as we freaking HOPE the awful being that our favorite character is turning into will just go away - they make us LIKE them again and then the series ending is that much more painful.*LOL

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know that personally, for me... -- Rob, 14:59:11 05/08/04 Sat

....the trick works. The relief of seeing Buffy start to reconnect to the world immediately after getting the Scythe in End of Days, and start to make up with her friends and reforge connections with everybody, including Faith, made the preceding ostracization worth it, IMO. But that's just me.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I had the same reaction.:) -- Briar Rose, 16:54:25 05/10/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well then I'm happy for you -- Doug, 07:22:44 05/12/04 Wed

Personally, I can't stand the last few episodes of BtVS and have never been able to rewatch them. I think my attitude towards this episode is similar. Nevertheless, I suppose it's good that at least some people do get some enjoyment out of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We may have to agree to disagree on this -- Doug, 07:30:50 05/12/04 Wed

I look at those episodes and I see a general pattern of Agel and Spike acting in a more...functional manner towards each other. Yes, the quest to save Fred was a major part but they maintained the increased cooperation after the quest was over. They didn't go back to their previous state after they failed to save Fred.

The puffy armor Xander wore was not particularly effective against Buffy's blows, and it rendered him unable to move. Not exactly useful for anything at all.

I see a change across the later half of the season; you apparently don't think it was there. Maybe we should discuss this again after the finale?

[> [> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- Rob, 07:22:41 05/06/04 Thu

Its supposed to be funny but unless you are expecting it to be funny.. its really not funny.

Disagree there. I went in not expecting it to be funny, and had to reevaluate my expectations for what the episode would be like very quickly. But I was so entertained by the humor of the episode that it was no problem for me to switch from "serious ep" mode to "humor ep" mode. I had a complete blast. Frankly, I thought the ep was a comedic masterpiece.

Rob

[> [> [> Re: Reaction to 5-20 The Girl in Question [Spoilers] -- neaux, 07:54:43 05/06/04 Thu

well that's another problem I had with the episode. The way it was portrayed the whole episode should have been one BIG joke. But it wasnt, there was some serious stuff involving Wesley and Illyria/Fred. That was too jarring for me to go from slapstick to the darker mood.

For instance.. Angel and Spike on a moped. Funny, right? Well the "crash" on the moped into the car was just plain ridiculous...

and it wasnt until that point that I realized the whole episode was supposed to be just that, ridiculous.

again.. I just wasnt getting it last night. I need to watch it again, in a better mood.

[> Oh the Horror!! -- Doug, 06:22:49 05/06/04 Thu

I would like to formally nominate this episode as Worst Episdoe of Angel Ever.

The characterization of Angel, Spike, Angelus, and Williamthe Bloody was absolutely awful. Am I supposed to honestly believe that those to would have bothered with the guest list instead of charging through, killing every guard and innocent bystander who got in their way, and twisting this Immortal's head of his neck (if it was Spike) or torturing him to death (Angelus). The treatment of the modern characters was equally abominable.

The Italian accents stank to high heaven, and the rest of the stereotypes were worse.

The Immortal has manged to become a Mary Sue without ever appearing onscreen; amazing. A Slaughterfic is definitely in order.

[> [> Re: Oh the Horror!! -- Metron, 08:29:01 05/06/04 Thu

I guess you didn't notice, when they *tried* to barge their way through they were repulsed by some sort of invisible barrier (very similiar if not precisely what keeps them out of homes when they aren't invited in).

[> [> [> So then they grab the doorman... -- Doug, 08:33:38 05/06/04 Thu

....and torture him until he either dies screaming after days of agony or finds a way to let them in. Might not have worked, but would either Spike or Angelus have given up that easily, or allowed people on the street to shove them without killing them on the spot?

[> [> [> [> They might have reason to keep a low profile -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:42:34 05/06/04 Thu

Angelus, at least, has lamented the way Spike keeps drawing attention to them and drawing angry mobs, something he probably learned to avoid after being chased by Holtz across Europe. Considering they were in the city which houses the Vatican, ie the world's most abundant source of crosses, holy water, and people who sincerely believe in vampires/demon, causing too much havoc probably would have been a bad idea.

[> [> [> [> Re: So then they grab the doorman... -- LittleBit, 08:43:16 05/06/04 Thu

...would either Spike or Angelus have given up that easily, or allowed people on the street to shove them without killing them on the spot?

Well...at this point in their development I'm rather hoping that our two souled vampires would, yeah, let themselves be shoved by people without killing them for the sheer hubris of having gotten in the way.

[> [> [> [> [> I was referring to the 1894 scenes -- Doug, 08:49:55 05/06/04 Thu

Hence my use of the name "Angelus"

[> [> I've studied Italian; I thought the accents were pretty good. *shrug* -- BrianWilly, 08:51:07 05/06/04 Thu

[> [> [> I admit my memories of the time that I lived in Rome are rather sketchy -- Doug, 09:04:31 05/06/04 Thu

It was a long time ago. I had less of a problem with the parts that were actually in Italian than I did with the accents on the English dialogue; which were so different from the accents that my parents friends from Rome. My comment on the accent was referring to the accent that the demons and others had that would probably have sent my dad's friend Sergio into a killing rage (he was Italian, from Rome, and didn't sound anything like that).

[> [> [> [> Was it too exaggerated then? -- BrianWilly, 14:56:03 05/06/04 Thu

For example, I agree that NO sane Italian in the world sounds like that WeH CEO. That was dressed up like nobody's business, purely for comedic effect. The lady at the club Buffy went to probably had the most "realistic," naturalized accent.

[> [> [> [> [> Well, yes it was too exaggerated -- Doug, 16:36:25 05/06/04 Thu

Now to be fair the accent on Italian spoken in Rome tends to exaggerate quite a bit; the thing is that it exaggerates the vowel sounds, or the sounds in the middle of the word, and it sounds...fuller is I think a good way of saying it; the accent on the show put the emphasis in the wrong place, the center of the word sounds more like a wheeze or a whine, with exagggeration on the end sounds. It amazing how much difference that change makes. What I think happened was that they were trying for the right accent but they put the emphasis in all the wrong places, and it sounded...weird.

[> [> [> And I had a problem with that... -- Ames, 10:12:30 05/06/04 Thu

How does Andrew, the guy who couldn't learn "Mexicoan", become fluent in Italian so quickly?

It takes at least 3 months of immersion to become even moderately fluent, and I suspect it would take Andrew even longer, especially if he's hanging out with an English-speaking group. So we're to believe that Andrew dropped his role in the USA immediately after Damage, made a beeline for Rome, and has been crashing on Buffy's couch ever since? Why? What purpose is he serving there? Buffy and Dawn have no problem with Andrew living on the couch in their apartment for several months?

Can you say "awkward stand-in for missing characters"?

[> [> [> [> Remember what Jonathan said in "Conversations with Dead People": -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:06:23 05/06/04 Thu

"You could have learned it. You memorized the entire Klingon dictionary in two and a half weeks."

Andrew isn't dumb, in fact it's possible that he's actually very smart; it's just that, for a long while, he spent most of his life living inside his own head. He didn't learn "Mexicoan" because what people were doing around him didn't seem of interest, but he was interested in "Star Trek", and so was able to learn Klingon at record speed. The current Andrew seems to be exposing himself to the outside world some more, and so was able to learn Italian very quickly. All he has to do is put the same anal retentive concentration into it that he used to put into movies, TV, and comic books.

As far as Andrew staying with Buffy and Dawn goes, he mentions something about a big cultural mishap and (I think) his old place being burned down. He obviously needs to stay somewhere, but probably wasn't at that point deemed quite ready to reenter society outside of the Scoobies' influence. Staying with Buffy keeps him under their eye and means they don't have to put the cash into getting a new place for Andrew (wherever they got their funds from, they probably are stretched a little thin what with housing, training, and locating Slayers).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Remember what Jonathan said Spoiler TGIQ -- Ann, 14:54:16 05/06/04 Thu

I am not sure Buffy and Dawn are there often. The house was a pig sty. Buffy always kept a neat house with Dawn and even in S5,6,and 7 when she had other things on her mind. I think there is more story going on there that hopefully will be revealed. I wonder what old Andrew is really doing? It looks like a single guys apartment. Not like two adult women's apartment. Even if she was off with Immortal Man, she would keep a neat house. I doubt that she has dumped all of her good sense just for a "man". Just because her cookies are baking, doesn't mean the kitchen is a mess.

[> And the award for: Worst Wig goes to..... [Spoilers: The Girl in Question ] -- Briar Rose (I LIKED this ep, BTW), 14:59:37 05/06/04 Thu

Would it have been that hard to find a wig that actually looked one iota like SMG's actual hair??????

Even though they kept saying that was Buffy, I am not so sure that it really was Buffy they were looking at across the dance floor. Except they kept telling us it was, I know.

I loved this ep, even though I went into it not expecting much more than another "hanging on" to the whole Buffy pathos that irked me throughout the first four eps of this season. I already ranted about that so many times earlier this year, so I won't again.

In many ways, this episode was one of the most important of this final season, IMO. We fially saw Angel and Spke outside of the framework of the insular Los Angeles/California area. They were not the heads (capo! what a great running joke) and they were not the Kings of the City that they assume to be in their homebase.

Even the scenes in WR&H Rome were suited to show that they were part, yet NOT part of the whole sphere of power that WR&H exerts.

We also saw the final choice between Angel and Spike to put the past behind them (not just Buffy, or so I understood) and to look forward. Slowly, at least. As all of us tend to wish to hang on to the known, past hurts in favor of moving on to possibly gain new, unknown hurts. There was a deeper meaning in those barbs traded about their past and especially the mechanitions each had in some of the worst parts of the other's life. When Spike confesses 'I helped her kill you', that was a confession that hadn't been made before on screen, at least to my knowledge.

Everyone has covered the majority of the best parts of this ep for fans already..... But I had to mention these specific things I haven't seen mentioned before:

WR&H Rome had it's own Harmony! The woman with the long, blond hair, pink suit and orange blouse going up the stairs when Angel and Spike enter was PERFECT in setting up the aspect of both offices being the mirror mage of each ther, just with a different accent.

Trying to chase a sports car with a flipping VESPA! That was the ultimate in cliched action/buddy comedy moments for me. Especially since I can't look at a Vespa without thinking of a whole lot of Italian stereotypical, black bereted and Apache Dancer images clouding my mind.

The fact that Buffy had fallen for another man that sounded (as described) as the exact sort as Angel. That The Immortal didn't choose sides, he simply did the work to fit the side that would bring the most desired result. Now isn't that Angelto a T? Especially the Angel we've seen this season? And more, so - it's also the Buffy that we saw emerge during all the 7 seasons we grew to know her: Do what it takes. Not every demon is evil, not if they can help us.

Of course I loved the "cookie dough" and the whole back flashing and the entire parody of the Angel and Spike rivalry. But the little things do count, and the entire ep was filled with them. To the brim.

I'd have even been happy if this was the final ep of Angel. Since the up-coming spoilers are just too dark to think about......

[> [> Re: And the award for: Worst Wig goes to..... [Spoilers: The Girl in Question ] -- Ann, 15:10:52 05/06/04 Thu

And if I recall correctly, when Buffy danced, she did not swing her head around so. Buffy was an insular dancer, not moving around too much. That is what Faith was for. The wig made it even worse. I agree and I wondered if it was her. Now we have to ask, how much has Buffy changed?

[> [> [> Now that her workload has lightened, she can let her hair down more often. -- skeeve, 07:52:46 05/07/04 Fri

[> [> [> Well.... -- Briar Rose, 15:48:57 05/07/04 Fri

Her taste in men sure hasn't.*LOL

In all honesty, I really think they should have not had Andrew mention the name "The Immortal" at all and simply let Spike and Angel think that Buffy was keeping company with Mr. Immortal. It wouldn't be the first time either of themhad jumped to conclusions, nor that they had been wrong in those conclusions.

If Andrew had never mentioned who the guy was by name, it would have played better and we could have gotten by without that obviously stunt-body scene being so glaring.

I wouldn't even begin to try and match ME's writers, but a scene with something like:

Angel - "Where's Buffy, Andrew?"

Andrew - "Buffy's at the disco tonight with her paramour. Boy is that guy active for an old man.... You should see them rolling on the couch!"

Angel and Spike go to the disco after getting a call from Angel's spies that The Immortal is at the disco. They see blonde hair and they see The Immortal (we don't have to - their perspective only matters) and ASSUME that the blonde hair simply must be Buffy.

This would work prefectly with the flashback to Dru and Darla placed between them seeing the blonde hair and the spoken assumption that it was Buffy. Their own ego issues would work to play it so that they could convince themselves that they both had been slighted yet again by this Immortal and removed the onuce of Buffy's being so important to the fact that they need to move on. Especially if it ended with Andrew saying something like - "You thought Buffy was with The Immortal? Silly men. You have over estimated her relevance to your own issues. It's ime for you to move on."

Well, I have to assume that they didn't have time or money to change the script. But it sure would have been more interesting and less of a let down for me with some creative mind games that Spike and Angel played on themselves, and not having to have Buffy hurt either of them yet again. On purpose or not.....

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Undead (ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 22:41:40 05/05/04 Wed

I was slightly spoiled for this episode - to the extent that I knew the premise, I knew it was an audience tease episode, I knew that most of it was Angel and Spike wandering about Italy like fools with their heads (metaphorically) cut off. I also knew that half the audience would love it to pieces and half would despise it with fiery vengeance. (Sort of like Storyteller actually.)

Why? Ahh...because you are in the point of view of two very frustrated characters and you want closure. You want some nice ending wrapped in a bow. You crave it. You want bloody Buffy to appear and tell her two beaux who she chooses or doesn't choose. But truth is? In life that rarely happens. Usually when you hunt down an ex - you are chasing an illusion through blind alleys. What you are chasing is the memory, not the reality. An idea emphasized by Illyria who appears to pose as Fred - and Wes can't handle it. He wants the old Fred. The one he fell in love with. This new Illyria/Fred hybrid creature is false to his eyes, she's not true to the memory. She's worse, a mockery - like Lilah posing as Fred in one of their many sex-capades, a memory that was contained in the orlon window. Question is, was the memory ever real? Not sure. But I got the feeling that we had three men chasing dreams or girls they'd worshipped, but who in reality didn't exist. Another "play on perspective" game and yet another distraction from an important task at hand.

Tom Stoppard a while back wrote a comedic satire on Hamlet, called Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead. It's a nice little romp, or so I'm told - I've never actually been able to make it through the play or for that matter the movie Stoppard directed, have tried several times. In Hamlet - Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are minor players with maybe five lines who appear, inadvertently betray Hamlet and are killed by him. In Stoppard's play, R&G emerge from the shadows and take over, with Hamlet in the background. It's the flip - the former lead now is barely seen, completely backstage - and the supporting characters who had been in the shadows are *now* front and center. Wicked by Gregory MacGuire does the same thing - Dorothy, the Tinman, The Lion, the Scarecrow - become bit parts (not even seen I'm told in the musical version), while the two Witches become the leads.That's what happens in The Girl in Question - the bit players in BTVS, the male romantic/villian characters who served Buffy and lurked in the shadows, betrayed her, helped her, and were only really seen when they had something to do with her (on most occassions), are now front and center and it is Buffy lurking in the background, unseen. Actually Spike and Angel are in an odd way the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's of the Buffyverse. More fully fleshed out than Shakespear's version. They both betray Buffy at some point, are inadvertently killed by Buffy, and inadvertently come back to haunt her. And like in Stoppard's play, Buffy's the Hamlet figure doing her thing on the sidelines - the lead in the former, the reason in fact of the Stoppard spin-off, but now barely seen. She's not in the picture anymore, she's lurking at the edge of the frame - yet if you peer closely, she's gone an illusion. Reminds me a little of when Angel showed up in Pangs in S4 BTVS or in Forever S5 BTVs - brief but gone.

The Immortal is an interesting metaphor as well - he symbolizes what Spike and Angel represented to Buffy, that perfect mysterious man, older, ambiguous, who could sweep her off her feet but remained unchanging, inpermanent, and Buffy, as Andrew states, knows this. She is merely moving on. And she's doing it by finding someone who represents the best of both her two ex-lovers. Two vampires that she loved but could not be with. He also represents what Spike and Angel view themselves as - as vampires. The ideal of the Immortal super-hero. Another illusion. Note Andrew states that the Immortal isn't that great. And we see Andrew changing - he can be cool James Bond guy or nerdy Andrew, he is human, mortal, and changing - not locked in place doing the same thing over and over and over again like Spike, Angel and to a degree the Immortal and he notes that Buffy will move on from this dance too.

Then there is the metaphor of loops. Or circles. Angel and Spike are chasing their own tails in Italy. Going around and around and around again in smaller and smaller loops. Both physically and emotionally and verbally. Having the same conversation, the same arguement, and the same chase. We see the circle chase with the car around the piazza in Rome. The chase of Buffy to Disco to apt, back to disco back to apt again. Until finally, Andrew tells them, after their third arrival, that they are literally running in place. If they don't stop - neither of them will ever get Buffy, because she will be way ahead, having *moved on* and they will still be here, stuck in the loop. They get fed up, go home and find themselves back at the beginning, WR&H, again stuck, saying "we're moving on now".

We also have the bit about the head - losing the head, the exploding head - both metaphors for their own romantic illusions. They've lost their heads over Buffy, dropped everything to go chasing after her. When they finally re-focus on the head, their attention still half on Buffy, half on the past - the bag allegedly containing the head explodes in their face. I this this may be an analogy to obtaining Buffy or how they see her - the prize. That they want to control. But they can't. They get it? And poof! Goes the illusion. As Angel states, she'd break out of any box they attempted to trap her in, she's too smart for a spell - while tempting, it wouldn't work. To ever have the girl - they have to let her go, as she finally let them both go in Chosen. Buffy let Angel and Spike go in Chosen, and now in The Girl in Question - Angel and Spike must let go of Buffy and move on.

But that's hard to do particularly when the Girl in Question was partly responsible for who they became. "I turned out alright", Spike states - "Yeah, after she got done with you," retorts Angel. If it weren't for Buffy, neither of them would have attempted to save the world - she inspired them. As they in turn inspired and shaped her. The metaphor of the leather jacket partly speaks to this - both Spike and Angel lose their leather jackets in the explosion. Spike is devastated. "This was my second-skin," he states - "it's a part of me, it can't be replaced." Well, of course it can - it's just a jacket after all - has no more meaning that what we attribute to it.
Spike needs to move on. Stop holding on to the past. And in a way he compromises - he gets the same jacket, but newer, cleaner, and no longer associated with old crimes or accomplishments. Just as Spike keeps the name Spike, yet isn't still Spike - the jacket looks the same but isn't. Angel who appears to be more than happy to move on - isn't quite as comfortable in the latest style, he looks awkward, uncomfortable, embarrassed. The new skin doesn't quite fit. A metaphor perhaps for his inablity to find a compromise between the two sides of himself? To intergrate Angelus?

Final notes to this ramble:

The Angel/Spike bickering over who saved the world the most? ROFL!! Honestly, is it just me or do you think the writers have either been spending far too much time on fanboards or perhaps they are bickering over the same thing in their writing dens? I can imagine Fury and Deknight bickering over this as a sequel to the infamous caveman/astronaut debate and in a way the debate is the same - unimportant and unsolvable. Both have saved the world in their own way, both were inspired by the girl in question to do so and to change themselves for the better - what comes next? Is up to them. They can either continue running in circles or break outside the box like Buffy did in Chosen.

Oh regarding Fred/Illyria - ah, it really is Twelth Night, isn't it? We have twins of everyone now. Wes is the two men in the joke (the one in horrid pain chattering and the stoic one who is almost catanonic), Gunn is Gunn with the street smarts and moral views/ and Gunn with the demon legalese, Lorne is the kind man/ with the demon opportunistic shell, Angel/Angelus, Spike/William, and now Fred/Illyria. Question is who is the real one and who is the false. Or are they all both?

Replies:

[> Re: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Undead (ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- Jane, 23:33:42 05/05/04 Wed

This is great, S'kat. I watched the episode, enjoyed it a lot,laughed out loud. But I was a little baffled by it and have been trying to sort it out. I think Angel is finally, not a moment too soon, figuring out that the only way for him to survive is to move on, to break out of his pattern of repeating his mistakes. Also that he really cannot control what anyone else will do. I think there is a lot in this episode that is obscured by the comedic twist. Laughter covering pain.

[> Re: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Undead (ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- MaeveRigan, 05:36:36 05/06/04 Thu

Love this, Sk! Thanks so much for unpacking the ep. this way. I'm actually a big fan of R&G Are Dead--the play, not so much the movie, but won't go into that here. The parallel worked very well, I thought, on several levels--most of which you've pointed out better than I could have.

Speaking of twins, Andrew, too, is now both nerdy/geek Andrew who spends his afternoons with messy clothes and hair mooching off Buffy & Dawn (probably playing video games) and Watcher/Giles-y/double-O-Andrew who can psychoanalyze Spike & Angel, slick himself up in a tux, and attract two lovely women to take him out for the evening.

And my favorite part--Angel & Spike's meta-fictiony conversation about how they'd love to put Buffy in a box, but they can't... Some fans prefer AtS to BtVS...but BtVS just won't disappear!

[> Best. Subject line. Ever. (Review pending. Watch this space.) -- cjl, 07:46:22 05/06/04 Thu

[> Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- Arethusa, 09:03:49 05/06/04 Thu

One of the two-Angel?-even refers to them as teenagers. Vampires as adolescents, except they aren't growing up. I don't think Angel actually believed Buffy when she said she needed time to find out who she was; maybe he thought she'd always be waiting for him, instead of moving on. But she's seeing new people, trying out a different kind of life. Just as Andrew is trying out new roles, mini-Watcher, Italian sophisticate, the old nerd-they are all parts of him he is exploring to find out not only who he is, but also who he wants to be.

I think Illyria might be doing the same thing, trying out the role of Fred to experience what it is like to be her, as well as spare herself the grief of Fred's parents. Who is Illyria now? She has to find out, so she is testing the limits of her changed body as well as testing out new emotions and experiences. She's also testing Wes, and his reactions to her. What does he respond to? How do her actions make him feel?

Angel and Spike were shown to be even closer together in this episode, in the past and present. When they sat on Angel's desk it was a striking image of two men in black, dark head next to bright white, the negative image of each other as you noted before. For these last few episodes especially the theme has been of letting go, of past damage, past identity, past ideas. Everything we are is a combination of the past and the present, we are both. But we live in the present; the past informs us but it is not us. We have a choice, and can create the person we want to be.

[> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 21:29:50 05/06/04 Thu

Thanks.

For these last few episodes especially the theme has been of letting go, of past damage, past identity, past ideas. Everything we are is a combination of the past and the present, we are both. But we live in the present; the past informs us but it is not us. We have a choice, and can create the person we want to be.

Yes, I think that's the connecting theme between Wes/Illyria/Fred and her parents - and S/Angel/Andrew/Buffy.
The idea of change. Moving out of your comfort zone.
I meet someone who does employment relocation for a living - he basically consults companies on how to relocate their employees with minimal stress. It's stressful moving from a place you've known. Some people never really move. They live in one town, one house, one state their entire lives - others of us aren't so lucky we jump about - constantly getting the rug pulled out from under us. He said, what he tells people is you have to look at it as not losing your
comfort zone, so much as stepping outside of it and moving to another place which in time will be comfortable.

Step outside. Angel and Spike are being forced to step outside of their comfort zone. They don't have Buffy any more to fall back on. They don't have visions. They don't have the PTB. They are trying to rely on the SP but know they can't. And the Angel Team isn't exactly all there any more.

No one is comfortable. As Gunn relates - the world has pulled a poisdeon on his ass - (Posidion is a reference to a 1970s disaster movie where a cruise ship was turned completely upside down - a nice F/X was the upside down X-mas Tree.). We have Fred who has become Illyria who pretends to be or is becoming Fred due to the 2 sets of memories she now has, memories that may be confusing her and acting a bit like a virus. Illyria has also lost what defines her - what made her comfortable - her kingdom, her army, and now most of her powers - she can no longer speak
to plants or hear them. She is cut off from whom she is, in an unfamilar home with unfamilar memories and unfamilar feelings struggling for equilibrium. It has as cjl notes in his review above all the makings of a tragic love story.
She falls for her shell's former lover, yet will never have his love returned because he will never accept her.

The world is a topsy-turvy place most of the time. We are lucky when we find a comfortable routine, a place of safety and security. There are no guarantees. And if you stay there too long...you risk losing it - change as Illyria states is a constant. Whether it is good or bad, depends on your pov.

[> [> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers, and The PoseidonAdventure) -- Arethusa, 05:08:21 05/07/04 Fri

Do you think she's falling for Wes? What an amazing thing that would be.

Fred also left home for strange and scary new placess several times-LA, then Pylea, then the hotel, and W&H. So there might be feelings in Illyria's memories that she longs for, of safety and comfort and home when she's around the Burkles and maybe Wes too. And I also wonder if she will want to hold on to who she was, or if she will seek comfort in submerging herself into Fred's memories of love and family.

I was worried when Spike made that crack about The Poseiden Adventure. The minister sacrifices his life for the others at the end, angry with God (I think) at all the death. Please, ME, not another fatal sacrifice!

[> [> [> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers, and The PoseidonAdventure) -- Masq, 14:20:25 05/07/04 Fri

I was worried when Spike made that crack about The Poseiden Adventure. The minister sacrifices his life for the others at the end, angry with God (I think) at all the death. Please, ME, not another fatal sacrifice!

I think we're all on edge about the finale. I have seen and heard similar things in eps this season to make me worry about a character death in the last episode, just a different character.

And part of what makes me worry is the fact that ME has no qualms about killing off characters to suit the story.

But I think we're all weary of it.

[> [> [> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers, and The PoseidonAdventure) -- leslie, 15:26:39 05/07/04 Fri

"Do you think she's falling for Wes? What an amazing thing that would be."

Reading around on the board here, I seem to be the only one who found Illyria's last words sinister and disturbing: "As you wish"? You mean, since he won't have her as Fred, that really leaves her no choice but to be Illyria, doesn't it? And Illyria, not known for the charm, to put it mildly.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers, and The PoseidonAdventure) -- Arethusa, 15:57:49 05/07/04 Fri

My reaction was similar to yours-I wondered what she was planning, and it didn't even occur to me that she could be in love with him. To me the most interesting aspect of Illyria is the question of her identity and the effect of Fred's memories on Illyria's personality. Is ME building up to have Illyria choose between being human or supernatural, the same delimma that Angel is facing, in a way?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers, and The PoseidonAdventure) -- leslie, 18:16:55 05/07/04 Fri

Okay, now I feel better. How could we interpret "as you wish" dropping from ME pens as anything other than "careful what you wish for"?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent review.(ATS 5.20 spoilers, and The PoseidonAdventure) -- Arethusa, 18:45:43 05/07/04 Fri

I also wonder if Illyria's lonely, and if that's why she is exploring Wes's love for Fred, and maybe accessing memories of Fred's love for Wes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lonely seems a reasonable guess. . . . -- mrsubjunctive, 21:59:21 05/07/04 Fri

One of the lines that jumped out at me in the episode was "I can no longer hear the song of the green." Implication seemed to be that not only could she communicate with houseplants (which, hey, who can't?), but that they sang to her. Who wouldn't be lonely?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought that was the saddest line -- JM, 18:05:47 05/08/04 Sat

My first thought was no, don't take the plants from her. I'm not even sure what they did, but I was so hoping that the episode would be about her communing with plants. I'm easily distractable. But I think it was about how much she's lost. She's been there from the beginning. The Old Ones were ambivalent about the sparlking stinking ooze (I'm assuming here that the reference is to the mud flats that scientists think sparked the earliest protein combinations that were the precursers to life.) Illyria doesn't like the ants and the apes but she did value the green that came before them.

Now she's lost not only her kingdom and then her power, but now her ability to communicate. And in the darkest moment comes an accidental revelation that her Fredness holds power. Over the Burkles, over Wes. I think "As you wish" was partly the opposite of the beginning with her sulky return to the lab. She was pretending to go because she chose to, but really because she was trusting Wes's diplomatic advice. Now's she's pretending to comply with his non-diplomatic rejection (getting under that control, that skin), but really because it suits her.

I think she wants to know more about her effect and Fred's effect on him. And she wasn't lying, she wants to know more about his effect on her. She is drawn (I wouldn't say in love, she killed too quick last week) to him, for reasons beyond her ken. I think she wants to know how much is because of the Fred in her and how much because he served as her guide. And of course she must want to know if can help her conquer this being he won't worship her at all.

[> KABOOM! sk hits the mark. (ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- Briar Rose, 15:35:26 05/06/04 Thu

Precisely what I was thinking as I watched.

I am a huge Willie fan, and the following works of others are also big on my list. Rosenkrantz and Gildenstern are dead is one of the best I have seen....

But I believe that you are correct in the mirroring of perspective that the writers worked into this ep. This is set up with the unspoken reference to the little bottles of booze that Angel and Spike imbibe en-route to Rome. As we know from Spike's comment on those little bottles in "Hole", it's the perspective that is needed in looking at things in life.

The fact that Buffy is not seen, except in fleeting glimpses turns around "the Triangle" in such a way that the outcome has to do with the men that the girl has influenced, and has nothing to do with The Girl in Question, herself. Only in how each of the men mirror their experiences with her (and the other women in their lives, BTW...) and because of her to each other.

One comment that I left off my post below though.... Did it appear that Mrs. Burkle was pregnant, or was it just a poor choice of clothing that made her appear that way? I was truly expecting an annoncement to Fred that a change of life baby was coming to be a sibling for Fred. This would have brought the entire "baby and the bath water" circle to completeion for me. Especially as Illyria tried to "re-birth" Fred to save the feelings of the Burkles and also of Wesley. It would have been another layer of mirroring that I would have liked to have seen followed through.

[> [> Re: KABOOM! sk hits the mark. (ATS 5.20 spoilers) -- s'kat, 21:10:42 05/06/04 Thu

Didn't notice that bit about Mrs. Burkle. Actually was distracted because the actress seemed different to me from the one in Hole and Fredless. But since the father was played by the same actor, I decided I was imagining things.

The idea of her having a child or sibling for Fred would have been intriguing. What is interesting however is how many of the characters are only children. Joss is an only chile with a half-brother through his father, the half-brother also works in television apparently - which makes me wonder about the Spike/Angel relationship and how much of it may have sprung from that relationship? (Probably just a coincidence - there are other writers involved after all and this was written by Goddard/Deknight and directed by Greenwalt.)

Fred/Illyria intrigues me and it annoys me we won't get a sixth season because I think we need more time for her tale to play out. I can't help but wonder if part of the play on perspective has to do with her...do we see Fred as *gone* or merely *changed*, something new?

[> [> [> My vote would be number three..... -- Briar Rose, 15:26:49 05/07/04 Fri

As in a lot of Whedon-verse (regardless of who's actually writing it) duality is a constant theme. Another is growth.

I guess that's why I tuned into the possibility of her being pregnant. The subject of children has been used repeatedly in Angel as a way to allow a character to mature, as well as change. They started this with Billy and his family's change as he was changing and how the Fang Gng played a part, and moved it along more immediately with Conner and Jasmine.

Parenthood became Angel's and Darla's character evolution. Then Cordy's with Jasmine, and now Illyria is Fred and Wesley's evolution, even though it wasn't through a "pregnancy" as Darla's or Cordy's was.

Even though I didn't see the ep with the Nazi plot - I understand that Angel was shown as siring a vampire. Again we have the correlation of parenthood and children. Angel created his only "vampire child", Lawson. This leads Angel to change as he relates to what he's fathered and how it will affect "the child" and himself.

It wasn't quite the same on Buffy, however. Dawn is the most obvious carry-over of this on BtVS. I wonder if it's because of Greenwalt's collaboration?

I wasn't aware of JW's brother being in TV. You might have a good theory there!

I am also really upset that Illyria's story arc started just as the show was being considered for removal. I can't help but think that the budget went higher as the fx demands for Illyria progressed, and that might have had something to do with the cancellation, as it sure doesn't sound as if the ratings were involved in the decision.

I noticed the difference in Mrs. Burkle, and you weren't the only one to decide to ignore the distraction. Especially when I kept staring at her body and started missing AA's great acting.

[> [> [> [> Re: My vote would be number three..... -- s'kat, 21:58:24 05/07/04 Fri

I noticed the difference in Mrs. Burkle, and you weren't the only one to decide to ignore the distraction. Especially when I kept staring at her body and started missing AA's great acting.

Thank you. Thought it was just me. And she distracted me upon re-watching as well - the actress does look heavier and different somehow. It's distracted me more than once.

As in a lot of Whedon-verse (regardless of who's actually writing it) duality is a constant theme. Another is growth.

I agree - growth and duality. I think that's one of the reasons I enjoy these shows so much, the character never stay stagnant they grow - also the mirrors. Considered it tonight and realized all through the series we have mirror characters or photo-negatives - almost as if the writers decided to see how this character would act or what they would be if you did the opposite or twisted it slightly, and in a way each are soulmates:

Anya/Cordelia - both become part demon, both are sarcastic,
both fall for Xander, both die tragically (yet are incredibly different - like a photonegative of each other)

Willow/Fred - both get taken over by another power, both geeks, both insatiably curious - curious gets both in trouble

Giles/Wesely - both have dealt with the council, both struggle with a dark side, both struggle with fathers who lead them to the council

Faith/Buffy

Spike/Angel

Xander/Gunn

Lorne/Clem

Dawn/Connor (although I also see Spike/Dawn comparisons this season as well as Spike/Connor ones with Angel which is just weird)

Tara/Jenny - doomed witches, both cause a loved one too lose it.

Riley/Groo - the boyfriend who doesn't quite fit in, nice stalwart, but goes back to his own mission in the end

And so on. It's odd how close some of them are. And each one also has a duality another side within themselves.

I can't help but think that the budget went higher as the fx demands for Illyria progressed, and that might have had something to do with the cancellation, as it sure doesn't sound as if the ratings were involved in the decision.

My guess is the same thing that happened at the end of BTVS S5 happened here - Fox wanted a higher license fee due to cast and writer salaries. Remember DB hadn't renegotiated his contract yet. Salaries take a huge chunk. So what we might have had was WB looking at the Fox license fee and balking - all the shows they renewed are co-produced by WB. I'm pretty sure Angel was the only show produced by an outside network. So it wasn't about special effects budget -so much as license fee and who produces what.

It's so annoying. There are all those shows on tv right now in their 7th or 8th season which should have ended a season ago at least, and seem to be drifting along, having lost their former sparkle - Charmed, Seventh Heaven, ER, Law & Order, Judging Amy, Everbody Love's Raymond to just name a few. And then there's Angel which has energy, is innovative, and has actually become something new - and guess what? The bean counters in their ultimate wisdom cancelled it. Even though fans formed a charity organization in it's name and donated over 20,000 to charity - demonstrating it has a firm fan base. Even though it garnered higher ratings than in previous seasons and other shows on the same network. Ugh. The pain. The fact it's being replaced by two shows that are remakes of campy 1970s shows that give the genre a bad name, just makes it worse. (Sorry for the rant. Just annoys me - that I don't get my Illyria/Wes/Spike story next year.)

[> [> [> [> [> I hear your rant! And may I add.... -- Briar Rose, 16:52:38 05/10/04 Mon

"Reality Series" - what a load of crap is being foisted off as creativity now! There is nothing real about any of them. And there is nothing creative about them either.

I truly think that we've lost the last intelligent show on TV when Angel ends.

I still watch ER, so far, and I think that it's finally lost all of its creative edge. It's much more soap opera than quality tv, and the subjects are becoming so overused.

Tru Calling might have hope, but it appears to get bogged down in morality plays with no drama. And Wonderfalls is history....

But as I posted OT above... I'm afraid that with the current climate in Congress and other political areanas, sci-fi and horror are going to have a long haul to get on the ai in future. And shows like BtVS and Angel might be passed over for fear of FCC fines and obscenity laws in the future if some parties get their way.

I am not hopeful for TV and other forms of entertainment for the next five years and after. And that makes me sad, mad and very un-hopeful.

[> Great stuff, as ever, s'kat! -- deeva, 15:57:51 05/06/04 Thu

[> I posted something similar at ASSB last night. -- morgain.... spoilers, 19:57:16 05/06/04 Thu

I will just add a few points.

1. One of the things Stoppard plays with is perspective: by pushing Rosencrantz & Guildenstern into the foreground and Hamlet into the background [much like Spike's speech in Shells about the Jack Daniels bottle] we view the same events from a different POV, like Kurosawa 's Rashomon.

Stoppard experiments with this Rashomon-like fiddling with perspective and thereby questions Hamlet's reliability as an observer of events. We see Hamlet told from the slightly befuddled points of view of poor, doomed Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two nobodies who are pawns in Claudius' and Hamlet's schemes to outfox one another. Usually Hamlet's point of view is taken as gospel, but in this play Hamlet's POV and opinion is no longer sacrosanct when it comes to judgments about his uncle Claudius, who, though clearly a murderer, may not be the drunkard, lecher, and "king of shreds and patches" which Hamlet would have us see.

Now tell me: Is the Immortal evil? He saves nuns... has a lot of people admiring him.... is not seen as a threat by Buffy or Andrew who still sees Angel as a danger... and returns the head in time for the ritual. Can we "trust" our boys perception about him and the telling of a "truthful" story from the past? A point of illustration: both Angelus and William are insisting that Darla and Dru have been violated (yeah, right... given their strength and ruthlessness) even the the two female vamps try to convince them it was consensual.

So, can we rely on the memories and opinions of Angelus and Spike considering who they were at the time they met him? What frame of reference they were using at the time?

We usually accept everything that our boys tell us; but here, we question whether their perspective is in fact accurate, and this perfectly sets up the final 2 episodes.
And can we trust the POV and opinions of the FG in the future 'sodes?

2. One of the recurring devices is the the comical interchangeability of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as when the pair first present themselves to Claudius and Gertrude in Hamlet, Act II, scene 2:.

Claudius has met the pair; he nonetheless gets them mixed up in Stoppard's version of the scene and Gertrude then has to correct him. Stoppard takes the joke even further by having the sweet but bumbling Rosencrantz refer to himself as "Guildenstern" from time to time, only to be corrected by Guildenstern. This is the parallel to the 2 vampires with souls both of whom try to add up points about who saved the world enough time (Well, I helped so the Acathla apocalyse is mine) and who have loved the same woman.... are travelling the same journey with regards to redemption.

3. This play also explores the theme of Fate vs. Free Will in a universe where the Playwright (Shakespeare...or is it Stoppard?) stands in for God.

Andrew's (and Buffy) moving on represents the free will dimension of Stoppard's play... they have chosen and changed. Spike, and especially Angel, seem to represent the fate aspect (soul mates).... (whomever orchestrated this entire romp.... Greenie, Ultimate!Drew and Little Stevie are the Writer Gods... a small wink to audience since Drew is often refered to as a god.)

We are left with the message that both Angel and Spike must choose to take their lives into their own hands... to no longer dance to the fiddle of the SPs.... and run around on fruitless errands that serve no point except to distract.

[> [> Thanks for posting this..(spoilers only for ATS 5.20, no future spoilers in above) -- s'kat, 21:03:44 05/06/04 Thu

[I'm completely and utterly unspoiled on the last two episodes - outside of who the writers/directors/and title is and the promo and staying that way - so I haven't been on ASSB since well before the 5.20 spoilers first broke - afraid of getting spoiled accidentally. So thank you for posting this over here.]

Thanks for the R&G insights - really don't remember much from it outside of the general plot.

Andrew's (and Buffy) moving on represents the free will dimension of Stoppard's play... they have chosen and changed. Spike, and especially Angel, seem to represent the fate aspect (soul mates)....

Angel and Spike have become soulmates haven't they? Almost interchangable in a way. Like R&G. Yet very different. Both dancing to the tune of Buffy, the SP, the PTB, or the Immortal. How do you stop that? How do you break out of that loop. My vague memory of R&G is that the characters keep looping back on themselves - not sure if that's true or not. I know it was here.

So, can we rely on the memories and opinions of Angelus and Spike considering who they were at the time they met him? What frame of reference they were using at the time?

We usually accept everything that our boys tell us; but here, we question whether their perspective is in fact accurate, and this perfectly sets up the final 2 episodes.
And can we trust the POV and opinions of the FG in the future 'sodes?

Exactly - perception I think is the key to this. This whole season in some ways has been about perception. How you see things, and how they may not necessarily be the way they appear. What is that quote on the side mirrors of a car: objects in the glass may be closer than they appear?

It's all about how you look at the glass. Is it half empty?
Half full? And how you see yourself. Lots of tiny alcohol bottles on a plane do zip for you - if you intend to get drunk, but if you just like a taste and enjoy the zip - they are wonderful. Or how Spike and Angel view one another - is it through the haze of jealousy? Or through the haze of brotherhood? They two are much closer to one another then they wish to admit, and Buffy the object that they are obsessing over or is distracting them is much further away from them. She's out of the picture now.

And the Immortal himself? What we get is impressions, but
not necessarily accurate one's - one's based on perception. The Immortal from a distance appears larger than life...he, from A&S' pov is taking buffy away, but in reality - they'd moved apart from each other long ago.

Hmmm...interesting. Be curious to see how things play out in the next two episodes. Still completely unspoiled on them.

[> *love* the subject line! -- anom, 23:11:51 05/11/04 Tue

I was hoping to have some time to put together the kind of response to this that it deserves, but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen. So I just want to say that's a great subject line & an interesting take on the episode. I'd started a few notes on how it is & isn't like the Stoppard play but won't have a chance to develop them before the next ep airs. I will say this much: it may not be Theater of the Absurd, but there was plenty of absurdity in it! Actually, come to think of it, capital-A Absurdity has a strong element of "life is meaningless, so don't bother trying to find any meaning"; The Girl in Question seems to focus more on (or at least to imply) Angel & Spike's need to find meaning in something other than Buffy.

Oh, 1 question: without his billowy coat, can Angel still be King of Pain? Or will he have to move on from that? (OK, he wasn't wearing the full-length billowy coat when he got blown up, but that latest-style jacket did not have the king-of-pain look.)

[> [> I dunno... -- angel's nibblet, 20:13:46 05/13/04 Thu

Oh, 1 question: without his billowy coat, can Angel still be King of Pain? Or will he have to move on from that? (OK, he wasn't wearing the full-length billowy coat when he got blown up, but that latest-style jacket did not have the king-of-pain look.)

Those colours were pretty painful to mine eyes ;-)

[> Andrew's importance and the importance of queer subtext -- Carole, 11:55:24 05/12/04 Wed

First a question about your Twelfth Night/twins idea. Who would be Wesley's twin? If no one, then why doesn't he have one? What does that say about his character development and relative importance to the show? What do the character changes he has experienced teach us?

Second, I love your analysis. I have actually made it all the way through the Stoppard film, and loved it immensely (and you make we want to re-watch it).

Your analysis is lovely, and I think it helps to mollify those people who hated the episode -- if they can step back and see what the episode was actually trying to accomplish, they wouldn't hate it as much.

I personally loved it just because Andrew was there, and just because Andrew's moving on, Andrew's changes, were such a good demonstration, metaphor, and reminder to Spike and Angel of what they themselves needed to do. The fact that this buffoon, this nerdy laughing stock, had achieved more moving on than they themselves really highlighted how much they were running in place.

Like them, Andrew is not Hamlet, he is yet another minor character brought to the fore to help teach us all some lessons.

One more thing of note. Andrew's obvious homosexuality seems to contradict his going out with the two girls. But if we think about his life and changes as a demonstration of Buffy's, then we can see that he is doing what she is, exploring his options, being Cookie Dough. Just as Buffy cannot be finished baking without going through the steps, so Andrew also has to experience a range of different life events in order to figure out who he is and become a fully finished cookie. He cannot know for sure what his sexuality is until he has explored various options.

Finally, going out with these girls without guilt, without thinking about Jonathan's dream twin girls, without dwelling endlessly on his murder, shows that Andrew is able to move on, be redeemed, and live in the present. Again this ought to help Spike and Angel to see what they must do to move on.

This is why I actually think that the continual queer subtext of a Spike/Angel relationship is no accident. The ongoing public statements about this very subtext (by Fury, DeKnight, and Greenberg) makes it clear that they know exactly what they are doing, that the subtext is not there by accident. I think the writers' purposeful handling of this subtext achieves their double aim, both of making gentle fun of gay subtext-obsessed fans, and also of shoving Spike and Angel to move on (whether through a relationship with one another or by getting new girlfriends, however fleeting, like Nina).

Your point about Spike's coat underscores this -- now that the coat's slayer associations are removed, Spike should finally be able to develop real attractions to women who aren't slayers (or vampires). His his vague attraction to Fred early in the season shows that this could be possible for him.

[> [> Thanks...regarding Wes and to an extent Andrew, also twins -- s'kat, 13:20:31 05/12/04 Wed

Thank you for your response.

First a question about your Twelfth Night/twins idea. Who would be Wesley's twin? If no one, then why doesn't he have one? What does that say about his character development and relative importance to the show? What do the character changes he has experienced teach us?

I think the twin in Wesely's case is himself. In Underneath, Wesely tells Fred a joke in his dream. The joke is about two men in a bar - one man is stoic, takes a drink, clearly together - the other is crumbling and curling in on himself, a wreck. When the one reaches for the other, he can't connect - because they aren't that close. Most fans interpreted this scene as Angel and Wes, and while it could be interpreted that way - hints in future episodes, specifically Origin, Timebomb and GiQ show us that the best interpretation is the two men are indeed Wesely. The man crumbling in on himself - a complete wreck, insane - is Wesely with the memories of the S1-4 via the orlon window, the Wes who knows he played a part in losing Fred or at least believes it. The man who is stoic and controlled and enduring is the Wes who ignores those memories and adheres to the new ones. After Origin - he becomes both men in his dream. How do we know this? Something Lorne states to Gunn in Timebomb - "don't go in there (meaning Wes' office), that's where he keeps his all out crazy - when he's outside the office he's shuffling, sane, not sure which is most disturbing." Wes is two people.

Wes is actually a lot like Andrew. In fact you could almost call the two characters twins. Both watchers in training. Both under Giles. The difference - Wes started out clean, nervous, prat-faller, somewhat effeminate in manner but never a killer - when he became darker and was ruthless and committed a betrayal - he lost that prat-fall aspect or comedic manner. Andrew meanwhile loses some of that prat-fall aspect after he stops being the betrayer. He had it when he was ruthless. Andrew and Wes, you could say are mirrors of each other.

In the episode it is Andrew who tells Spike and Angel to move on. Just as it is Wes who tells Illyria he can't go back, she's not Fred be anyone else. So Andrew is the photonegative of Wes. And like Wes, Andrew's twin is himself.

Concerning twin imagery:

We have two WR&H's almost exactly alike.
Illona at WR&H and the barkeep at the disco are very similar in look and demeanor and both act as sources of information for Spike/Angel.
Also the two girls - that come to the door to see Andrew
Dru and Darla
Andrew who appears to be Buffy's gatekeeper and the Italian demon guy who holds the head, keeping it from S/A.

Which emphasizes the Twelth Night aspects all the more. Twelth Night also had a somewhat farcial aspect to it - with a dark center - Malvolio the man-servant who is made out to be a fool and declares revenge.

Thanks again for your comments.
sk

[> [> [> Malvolio the fool -- Carole, 13:37:37 05/12/04 Wed

The Malvolio/fool character is key. Shakespeare fools tend to be the wisest characters of all, since only a fool (who is outside the cliques and mindsets of the 'normal' folks) can see the truth.

This applies to Andrew, of course, who has traditionally been a fool (although not a wise one until now).

[> 'kat, whedonesque.com just posted your review on their website! -- cjl, 14:20:28 05/12/04 Wed

Current board | More May 2004