May 2004 posts


Previous May 2004  

More May 2004


Few insights on Angel's actions in The Finale -- Mike, 16:16:50 05/25/04 Tue

There are certain things I'd like to point out about Angel's
questionable actions in The Finale, fighting off Wolfram & Hart. First off, he has begun to kill people for the greater good, like Lindsey (in a way) and Drogyn. Angel's realized that there are sacrifices to be made in order to fulfill a certain purpose. In this case, to get into The Circle of the Black Thorn and take out the existing members. I'm beginnijng to believe Angel had Lindsey killed because he reflected back on what Doyle said about saving lives, saving souls. Angel may have saved Lindsey's soul before he could fall into The Circle and have his soul destroyed through power and corruption.

Angel had signed away his presume place in the Shanshu prophecy because it was his ultimate self-sacrifice. The prophecy has brought Angel more anxiety and grief than hope and reward. Therefore, he had enough of that hope and may have lost the desire to become human again. Angel may have also decided that his fight must continue as a vampire with a soul for the rest of his unlife.

Angel may have included all his friends/allies into this kamikaze mission because they were on the verge of death.
Wesley was barely alive at that point, filled with grief and losing sanity. Gunn was filled with remorse and lost his place in the world. Lorne was also barely animate, lost hope and wanted out. Illyria, her case a bit different, willing simply b/c W&H were/are her enemies. Spike, after all, likes to duke it out in big fights and this one fulfilled his pride, ego, big-brass testes.

There's also Angel's vampiristic nature to consider, a part that'll always set his moral compass in different directions. It seems to be implied that Angel is on a constant battle with his vampiristic tendencies. Perhaps, Angelus really is always deep in Angel. As a result, his decisions, actions, will sometimes cost certain people their lives.

Angel played on his own terms, therefore, his actions would be different then previous actions in fighting evil. He used to rely so much on The Powers That Be, until Jasmine put a nail in the coffin with that. Taking over W&H didn't fair any better in fighting evil, him taking up Lilah's offer. Angel's frequent alertness of The Senior Partners once again clouded his judgment in fighting the real evil, W&H's apocalypse. It wasn't until Angel received Cordelia's
final vision that he started to devise a plan on his own. Angel's free will has finally come into place and from then on I believe he'll continue to fight in this demeanor. I truly believe Angel survived that ultimate ending, along with Spike and Illyria. Angel's actions will yield different responses and this is mine, I truly think against all moral ambiguities and odds that he's finally become the true Hero he was meant to be in the good fight.


Replies:

[> Re: Few insights on Angel's actions in The Finale -- Cheryl, 16:39:12 05/25/04 Tue

I'm beginnijng to believe Angel had Lindsey killed because he reflected back on what Doyle said about saving lives, saving souls. Angel may have saved Lindsey's soul before he could fall into The Circle and have his soul destroyed through power and corruption.

I like that thought. I'm still having trouble with Angel having Lindsey killed like that - so much so that I wrote my first fanfic in 5 years (and my first Whedonverse fanfic ever) because of it. I think it's a very plausible idea - more so than the idea that Angel took Lindsey out of the picture because he thought Lindsey would get in with the SP and start another Circle and Angel wouldn't be around to stop him. I don't see the SP ever trusting Lindsey again after everything he's done.

Thanks for the thought provoking post. I'm not sure I agree that Angel actually signed away his Shanshu chance - too many questions about that. Like his remark to Connor about having perfect penmanship and then later they make a point of showing the scrawl that was supposed to be *Angel* on the prophecy. I wonder if we'll ever find out if Angel shanshus or not.


[> Re: Few insights on Angel's actions in The Finale -- Corwin of Amber, 18:59:20 05/25/04 Tue

This is a tangent...but looking back on the last few episodes of Angel, so much is explained if you look at it as a near perfect blending of the personalities of Angel and Angelus. Angel never would killed Sebassis by poison or used a "flunkie" to kill Lindsey, or killed Drogyn to gain admission to the Circle. Angelus sure as heck would have. It's the ultimate insult to an old nemesis, having a minion kill them off, or in Sebassis case having killed them hours before by poisoning their food. Angel saves the big throwdown for Hamilton, and the forces of Hell afterwards. That's not to say that those sneaky elements weren't there in Angel....he just tried hard not to use them before now. It's even more interesting when you realize that the last time Angelus was around, he somehow managed not to kill any innocents. He killed Lilah and a few demons, and the Beast. Was Angel's personality bleeding into Angelus, like Angelus seems to have bled into Angel this season?


[> [> Re: Few insights on Angel's actions in The Finale -- Cheryl, 20:06:21 05/25/04 Tue

He killed Lilah and a few demons, and the Beast. Was Angel's personality bleeding into Angelus, like Angelus seems to have bled into Angel this season?

Actually, EvilCordelia/Jasmine killed Lilah. Angelus just came upon her after she was dead and that's what the FG saw.


[> [> Spoilers for Finale -- TexasGirl, 09:59:28 05/27/04 Thu

Angel killed 3 bad guys and 2 innocents in finale

Angel killed five people during the two-part finale: Drogyn, the servant boy, Sebassis, Hamilton, and Lindsey (with Lorne's help). Two innocent, two definitely evil, and one with a question mark. Not really a very good evil/good kill ratio.


[> [> [> I think your count's off -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:52:17 05/27/04 Thu

You count Lindsay as one of the people Angel killed, even though Lorne was the one pulling the trigger. For him to count in Angel's kill column, you also have to throw in the demons he sent other members of the team to kill (Vail, the Fell Brethren, Senator Bailey, and several other demons and vampires). Not debating the morality of the actions right here, just the counting method.

Ah, what the heck, here's one little piece of moral debate: we don't really know if Sebassis's drinking minion was innocent or not. He could have been, but he could also have been evil as well. Hell, from what we saw of it, we can't even be sure it was a sentient being at all.


[> [> [> [> The Servant Boy -- TexasGirl, 09:27:06 05/28/04 Fri

I would argue that if Angel didn't specifically know that the servant boy was evil, then it counts as the murder of an innocent. I couldn't tell if this was the same servant boy who ran away earlier in the season and was later found drinking toner fluid and hauled away in chains by Sebassis-could anybody tell?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Servant Boy, body counts, guilt, innocence, and realpoliltik vs. morality -- penitence, 11:38:11 05/28/04 Fri

Indeed, I think that was the same slave-boy/girl?, who clearly did not choose to serve Sebassis as a perpetual ready-meal. We have no idea whether or not he/she was innocent of evil, or what he/she might have chosen, given a choice. Angel took that choice away. Rather like he did with Lindsay. Regardless of the fact that Lorne fired the gun (that's another story -- Lorne finally lost his innocence, and his balance on the fence he's been precariously straddling) Angel most definitely did kill Lindsay, and what's more, he did it from a god-like distance. Seeing it brought to mind previous instances of similar killings, like Angel locking the doors to the wine-cellar and allowing Darla and Drusilla to slaughter everyone in the room, and Angel cooly setting fire (from a distance!) to Darla and Drusilla. One could argue that these actions were all justified in practical, realpolitikal terms, but I don't think that makes them any less morally repugnant.


[> [> [> [> [> WE may not know for sure, but ANGEL might -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:03:32 05/28/04 Fri

He had to chat with Sebassis a little bit after becoming a Black Thorn member, and probably found out some stuff about him from elsewhere (how else would he learn the "40,000" demons factoid?) As such, I think it's hardly inconceivable for Angel to know if the slave was sentient, and whether it was good or evil if it was.


[> [> [> [> [> [> He might, but who appointed him judge, jury, and executioner? -- penitence, 13:40:51 05/28/04 Fri

He might, although up, down, sideways, that looked like an innocent victim to me. So was Drogyn. Angel has, on rare occasions, merged with Angelus, especially when he decided on something he really wanted, or wanted to do. On those occasions he used people (or beings) as if they were chess pieces, or made decisions which negated their free will, or just dismissed them as if they were not worth a second glance. Power politics, in which moral questions are irrelevant or a distraction.



Unravelling the S6 DVDs -- Ames, 19:39:36 05/25/04 Tue

On Disc 2, we have the following:

There's a 1 min 48 sec video segment of an album signing session for OMWF with Joss, Amber, and Michelle which does not appear to be linked to any DVD menu. Has anyone found the link to it yet?

There are 4 menu segments which DVD Shrink's analysis shows as "Unreferenced Material". They appear to be just closing screens for the menus of the 4 episodes. What are they doing there? Just forgotten?


Replies:

[> Re: Unravelling the S6 DVDs -- Riz, 03:21:25 05/26/04 Wed

To get the album signing go to the OMWF menu > languages > above where it says 'episode main menu' should be another option, go directly above that > a 'B' should appear, click that.

Sorry for not being very clear, but it's not the easiest thing in the world to describe.


[> [> I believe that would make it the hidden easter egg... -- Majin Gojira, 05:15:40 05/26/04 Wed



[> [> Has anyone viewed the easter eggs on the R1 S6 DVD... -- Fenugreek, 12:06:45 05/28/04 Fri

....or am I such a tool that I still can't find them. I've seen lots of instructions for the R2 set but those don't seem to apply to the R1 set. Or at least they haven't for me, yet. I suppose that raises the question: Were the Easter eggs included on the R1 S6 DVD set? Thanks in advance for any help with this.


[> More on the S6 DVD set -- Ames, 07:49:53 05/26/04 Wed

I can confirm that there are no other Easter Eggs besides the short OMWF album signing session video on disc 2. The rumour that the missing "Previously on ..." montage from The Gift would be included as an Easter Egg is wrong.

This is the first Buffy season DVD set with no scripts, and the first with no photo gallery.

Besides the Easter Egg above, which is a first for Buffy DVD sets, the other new item is the set of Karaoke videos for 3 of the songs from OMWF.

This season had both the shortest episode, Two To Go at 40:58, and the longest, OMWF at 50:04.

However the trend toward shorter average episodes continued. I last reported that the average episode length had dropped from 44:43 in Season 1 to 43:23 by Season 5. In Season 6 it hit a new low of 42:39, or 42:20 if you use the shorter length of the truncated broadcast version of OMWF.

There's 7 commentaries, equalling Season 4. And there's a new high of just over 3 hours of video extras, thanks to a couple of TV specials on Buffy. Also there's an update of Willow's Demon Database (DVD-ROM) on disc 6, which appeared in an earlier version on the S5 DVD set, and a single jpeg image of the Call Sheet for Normal Again on disc 5.


[> [> Re: More on the S6 DVD set -- Rob, 08:13:40 05/26/04 Wed

However the trend toward shorter average episodes continued. I last reported that the average episode length had dropped from 44:43 in Season 1 to 43:23 by Season 5. In Season 6 it hit a new low of 42:39, or 42:20 if you use the shorter length of the truncated broadcast version of OMWF.

Well, obviously that's because we needed more commercials for America's Next Top Model! ;-)

Rob


[> [> [> No Anamorphic Widescreen!!! -- Dan, 11:03:51 05/26/04 Wed

I have one major gripe about the season six set. Once More With Feeling is on the set in widescreen as it should be, however; it is not anamorphic which results in a significantly lower quality image for the best episode on the set.

Dan


[> [> [> [> Wait for the Collector's Edition -- Ames, 12:54:23 05/26/04 Wed

One more thing for the future Deluxe Buffy Collector's Edition.

Let's see, so far we have:

1. Improved video quality by digital enhancement of the early 16mm seasons.

2. Add the missing "Previously on Buffy ..." segments

3. Both 4:3 and 16:9 versions of Seasons 4-7 included.

4. All shooting scripts in text form and as a picture substream.

5. Complete "Music of Buffy" guide, with all the music they can license in digital form.

6. Anamorphic version of OMWF.

7. Remove all commentary by directors (sorry, that's a personal one...)


[> [> [> [> A technical note - Anamorphic is not better *on a 4x3 format TV* -- OnM, 18:11:10 05/26/04 Wed

While you are correct in that coding the DVD for anamorphic video has the potential to improve widescreen image quality vs. the 'matted' or 'letterboxing' technique, this is only true if you own a 16x9 format television. Not only that, there is another little-known limitation: If you are using the usual analog video connection from the DVD player to the TV set, the very best performance will only be achieved on an analog, not a digital TV (such as LCD, DLP or plasma sets)! (The latter is true because a digital display must do an elaborate mathematical conversion between the incoming analog signal, and the digital one that ultimately drives the display device or panel. Doing so creates losses, no matter how well it is performed. The ideal signal transfer would be digital-to-digital, but that's only very recently become possible.)

But back on subject now. If you own a 4x3 set, letterboxing/matting for widescreen display is preferable. Anamorphically mastered DVD's must run the video signal through a circuit which essentially removes every third (horizonal) scan line from the image if the disc data must be displayed on a 4x3 screen. This offsets the 'squeeze' employed by the anamorphic coding, and displays a correctly proportioned picture, but you have 33% fewer lines making up that picture! Thus, lower total resolution.

Fortunately, on most 4x3 sets smaller than 36" diagonal, this loss usually isn't very noticable, since the DVD system has such high resolution to begin with.

Considering that the remaining 21 episodes are formatted (by Joss' choice) in 4x3 screen format, it would be ill advised to compromise their quality for the sake of only Once More with Feeling.

BTW, a final technical note: OMWF was shot on film in a classic cinematic 1.85:1 aspect ratio. If the image is correctly displayed on a 16x9 TV (1.78:1 ratio), there will be small letterboxing bars present at top and bottom. I haven't yet tried out the DVD on a widescreen set, but that is the way my original off-air broadcast tape plays back, and the DVD really should be the same.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: A technical note - Anamorphic is not better *on a 4x3 format TV* -- Dan, 11:14:30 05/27/04 Thu

OnM,

I am a big DVD fan. I am not just getting upset because the set lacked a buzzword on the box. I am truely disappointed in the quality level for this specific episode. I understand other quality issues in prior DVD sets. One example is that the video quality for Buffy: Season 1 and Buffy: Seson 2 are significantly lower than the other sets. I know this is because 16mm film was used instead of 35mm like the other seasons. However, the quality level of Once More With Feeling should simply be better than it is.

First of all, watch the dvd copy of OMWF and notice how much wasted black space is included on the *left and right* side of the image (I am not refering to the top and bottom black bars that allow you to see a proper widescreen image) in comparision with all the the other episodes on the discs which use entire width of your screen. This was dumbfounding to me not only did the producer of the dvd use a lower resolution non-anamorphic transfer but they didn't even take full advantage of the resolution available for a non-anamorphic transfer.

I'm aware of the specific limitations of Anamorphic transfers and how they work. I am also aware that Angel Season 2 and Season 3 were released entirely in Anamorphic Widescreen and look significantly better than Once More With Feeling.

Additionally, formatting Once More With Feeling in Anamorphic Widescreen would not compromise the quality of the other 21 episodes (which should be 4x3, I agree with Joss)

Also, while it is true that given that the exact same source materials, a non-anamorphic transfer *might* look slightly better than the anamophic transfer on a 4x3 set the difference is minimal, whereas the difference between the two on a 16x9 set or a computer monitor that can take advantage of the extra resolution is significant especially as the size of the screen increases. Most of the time anamorphic transfers are done using higher quality source materials and look better on both types of displays

Oh and finally the little detail about an extra analog to digital conversion reducing quality is true, however; it ignores the fact that many digital sets are higher quality than their analog equivalents even with this slight quality loss. For example to get an analog set that would equal the preformance of my current digital set I would have had to spend triple the money. It also ignores the fact that almost all current HDTV sets will upconvert the signal no matter how you send it to the set.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Also, I just stumbled across a couple of review sites that agree with me -- Dan, 11:34:17 05/27/04 Thu

Neither site can understand the subpar treatment of the OMWF.

http://www.dvdangle.com/reviews/review.php?Id=3563
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video_8/buffy_s6.html

Dan


[> [> [> [> [> [> I'll check into the reviews you mentioned. In the meantime... -- OnM, 16:01:22 05/27/04 Thu

.... all I can say is that later this week, I'll get time to check out the disc on several of our widescreen TV's at the store where I work (both analog and digital) and see if I can notice the problems you are discussing. On my set at home (a roughly 10 year old, analog 27" set, but an absolutely superb one-- so good, in fact, that at this point in time only the very best plasmas and high-end front projection system we have actually deliver a better picture with standard NTSC sources than it does-- and I'm not kidding-- OMWF and most of the rest of the eps look gorgeous, better overall than any of the previous disc sets.

I am at a complete loss as to why you would have black bands on the sides of the screen-- they aren't there on my disc, on my TV. The picture presented is a normal looking, 1.85:1 image, with only the normal top and bottom black horizontal bars.

So, be back this weekend after I get to do a little research. Just curious though-- for my own reference, what type of digital set do you have? By this, I mean, LCD, plasma, DLP etc. and how big a screen? Thanks!


[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, did a little experimentation this afternoon, with some curious (or maybe not so) results -- OnM, 19:15:37 05/29/04 Sat

The results were pretty much what I expected, with one exception, which happened to relate to the oddest artifact that you described-- the black areas on the sides of the screen, which of course should not be there at all.

As best as I can tell, this problem is an artifact of the DVD player and not the disc material itself, although in attempting to find an explanation that makes sense, the only thing that comes to mind is copy protection.

As I mentioned previously, this problem does not occur with my TV or player. I first thought that it might have something to do with use on a 16x9 TV, since mine is a 4x3 set (CRT, direct-view). I tried the disc on several systems at the store where I work, using an analog rear projection set, a high-end analog front projection system, a direct-view CRT set and finally two plasma sets. All displays in these tests were in 16x9 format.

The first set (CRT rear projection) did not show the black areas to the sides, but since many such sets have 5-10% overscan, it could have been present but not visible. The next system, a CRT front projection unit (which has no overscan at all), not only had the black areas you described, it had them in abundance. The left side of the image had a much larger area than the right side, which is really bizarre, but I was baffled at the basic issue. Why were they there at all?

Next I tried a direct-view CRT set, and saw the same artifacts but they were much smaller, with the right side appearing normal, and the left side only a small, almost invisible width. The overscan issue again?

The next test would address that issue, when I tried a plasma TV. The bands weren't there! Now why would analog sets create this artifact, and not the digital set? It's still the same source signal, right?

But as it turns out, it may be the same source signal, but the DVD players aren't processing it exactly the same way. I tried a second plasma set, and the bands reappeared, although they weren't quite as wide as on the analog sets.

The pattern was the same also, with the left band always wider than the right one. This second plasma set happens to have two different model DVD players hooked to different video inputs, so I popped the disc into the second DVD player and amazingly-- the bands were completely gone-- the picture was perfectly bracketed in the normal top and bottom letterbox bars, with equally spaced pillarboxes on the left and right. Zooming the picture centered the image correctly on the entire screen, with everything perfectly normal except for the inevitable resolution loss that comes with the zoom feature.

So, it's NOT the disc-- it's the DVD players, which made sense when I looked back over what I had just done. Different models reproduced the artifact to different degrees, from very poor performance to no errors at all.

Sadly, this does not surprise me. The truth is, based on my own observations, that DVD player quality has taken a dramatic nose-dive in the last two years. Yeah, they've gotten cheap, but the two best performing players in the above tests were two years old and three years old respectively. The ones that performed badly were current models. (My player at home is about 4 years old, and was considered a 'reference' unit in its day. I'm becoming increasingly glad that I own it, since build-quality-comparable models available now are insanely high-priced due to insanely low production volume).

It is still a regular occurrance for me professionally that customers complain of difficulty in that the players balk at playing discs seemingly at random. And, the laser pickups are failing at a much higher rate than they should be. Manufacturers blame the disc makers for producing poorly made or 'non-standard' discs, but, I'm not sure just how much blame should go to which party-- I tend to think they're both contributing.

Anyway, just thought you'd like to know.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> My Tests -- Dan, 00:12:03 05/30/04 Sun

OnM,

I tested this on several different setups.

One was a computer with a CRT monitor that very clearly illustrated the issue and since I ran it windowed, the effect had nothing to do with overscan or underscan. I used PowerDVD XP to play the disc.

I also tested the disc on 27" Direct View CRT TV with an older model Panasonic player. It also showed the problem, but with slightly less thick borders because of the overscan.

My final test was on a Front Projection DLP with a 100" screen and Sony DVD Player. This test illustrated the same problem as well.

I have checked the files on the disc using some computer compression software and believe the error to be in the mastering.

I have a fairly large DVD collection(close to 300 titles, over 400 total discs) and have never had issues of this type on any of my discs when used on any of three setups that I mentioned or any friends setups. (I have had issues, but those were contained to more common and logical errors like dirt on the disc or clearly defective DVD players (I had an experience with a player that would decide seemingly at random that a given disc was unplayable and then play it perfectly a day later))

Also, the reviewers in the links on my other post seemed just as bewildered as I am and since they review multiple titles on a weekly basis with the same equipment, I assume that they had never seen the effect before either.

My best guess as to why some of the DVD players performed better is that they actually will examine the content on a disc attempt to correct the mastering if it appears faulty. So, if you have a really good DVD player it is capable of correcting mastering errors which might make you think that the DVD was correctly made when in fact it is defective.

At least that's my theory, tell me what you think.

Dan


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's one weird bird, that's fer sure -- OnM, 09:12:20 05/30/04 Sun

*** I had an experience with a player that would decide seemingly at random that a given disc was unplayable and then play it perfectly a day later. ***

That's (unfortunately) a common problem, at least for many of my customers over the last several years. To date, my own personal player has never done this, although on 2 or 3 occasions, it would have trouble reading the main table of contents, acting as if it was stuck in an endless loop of some kind. It wouldn't stop, it'd just keep trying to load indefinitely. Blue Crush does this almost every time I ever load it. You have to hit Stop, then Play (the movie starts), then hit Menu and only them will it go to the disc menu! About one time out of 4, it will load normally. Two other discs in my collection do this also, although I forget their titles now.


*** My best guess as to why some of the DVD players performed better is that they actually will examine the content on a disc [and] attempt to correct the mastering if it appears faulty. So, if you have a really good DVD player it is capable of correcting mastering errors which might make you think that the DVD was correctly made when in fact it is defective. ***

This is quite possible-- one of the (hard-to-determine-beforehand) most valuable features of any CD or DVD player is how robust the error correction circuits are. The simple fact of the matter is, that nearly all discs are defective in some way, and error correction isn't a nicety, it's an essential part of the system. The data is simply too tiny, and too easy to become damaged in manufacture. The data mastering issues you bring up only add to the basic manufacturing difficulties.

Your conjecture is reasonable, and perhaps as more reviews start to appear (particularly in some of the HT mags, where they pay extra attention to this kind of stuff) we'll get some more definitive answers. For the moment, I'm still betting the artifact is copy-protection related. Many CP schemes work by surpressing/altering the video sync signals, counting on riding that fine line where the video display can correct the damage, but VCR's cannot. (traditional Macrovision systems work this way, for example). The fact that the left side bar is wider could be an indication of this, since in NTSC scan works left to right and top to bottom. This method also inevitably introduces minute timing errors as the system struggles to get a clear start/stop point from the altered sync, and displacement of scan lines will also subtly degrade the picture.

Ya know, one real nice thing about the old laserdisc system was that it never used copy protection! It was sold to such a niche market that apparently the studios weren't overly concerned about it.

But, different time then, also.

(Guess we oughta stop this now, before we bore everybody else to death with the semi-OT-ness of it all!)

;-)


[> [> [> [> [> BTW-- non-techie types who are going *HUH??!?* might want to check out this link... -- OnM, 16:22:31 05/27/04 Thu

.... for a very brief, pictorially oriented explanation of what Dan and I are talking about. If you then want some additional details, follow the links from this page back to the main discussion, which has beaucoup text with merciless details.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/anamorphic185demo.html


[> [> That should be 6 commentaries, not 7 - sorry -- Ames, 13:15:35 05/26/04 Wed

Misreading my table.


[> anyone have the link to that amazing list of DVD features someone posted? -- nino, 12:00:30 05/26/04 Wed



[> [> At http://tinyurl.com/3hy5b -- Ames, 12:46:29 05/26/04 Wed

http://tinyurl.com/3hy5b
I've added the new S6 material since yesterday, but I won't have time to add the images until tomorrow.


[> [> [> thanks so much! -- Nino, 13:45:25 05/26/04 Wed

I was wondering if you were planning to do a similar page for the "Angel" DVDs...not to suggest that what you've done so far isn't awesome enough, but if you were thinking about it, I would certainly enjoy it. :)


[> [> [> [> Angel DVDs -- Ames, 14:26:45 05/26/04 Wed

I could do Angel as well. I do have the S1-S3 AtS DVD sets. Just takes a little free time and someone to ask. :-)

Actually I didn't originally intend to buy all the AtS DVD sets, but I had this gift certificate, and I was so close to a complete Buffy/Angel set that I figured what the heck, no point in quitting now... and there's only 3 more sets to go at this point.

I wish someone would let me know what's different in the content of the Region 2 DVDs though.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: R2 DVDs -- Riz, 10:36:59 05/27/04 Thu

I'm almost certain that the content is the same for all regions. Here's a list of features on the R2 DVD for season 6:

Commentary For Bargaining By Marti Noxon And David Fury
Commentary For Once More With Feeling By Joss Whedon
3 Karaoke Singalongs
Behind The Scenes Featurette
Easter Egg
Commentary For Smashed By Drew Z Greenberg
Academy Of TV Arts And Sciences Panel Discussion
Trailers
Commentary For Hells Bells By David Solomon And Rebecca Rand Kirshner
Commentary For Normal Again By Rick Rosenthal And Diego Gutierrez
Commentary For Grave By James Contner And David Fury
Outtakes Reel

Aspect Ratio: 1.78 Wide Screen, 16:9 Anamorphic Wide Screen
Available Audio Tracks: Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround


[> [> [> [> [> [> Source? -- Ames, 11:41:17 05/27/04 Thu



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Source? -- Riz, 15:06:16 05/27/04 Thu

Well I copy and pasted that from amazon.co.uk but I'm English and own the R2 copy and can confirm that is what is on it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Source? -- Ames, 17:23:13 05/27/04 Thu

Do you own any other earlier season R2 DVD sets, Riz? If so, do you know what the region content differences are on those sets?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: R2 DVD info -- Riz, 04:42:14 05/28/04 Fri

Yeah, I've got season's 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Plus my friend has got season 4 which I have borrowed from him so I know what the content is. I'll copy and paste again but it is what's on the r2 DVD's. I think the only difference between the different regions is packaging and when they are released...

SEASON 1

Commentaries By Joss Whedon
Music Video: 'I Quit'
Cast Biographies (Approx 50 Pages)
Photo Galleries
Trailers
Interviews with Joss Whedon and David Boreanaz
Pilot Script

SEASON 2

Three Featurettes
TV Spots and Trailers
Four Audio Commentaries (REPTILE BOY, WHAT'S MY LINE 1 & 2, INNOCENCE)
Set Designs
Character Profiles
Stills Gallery
Monster Sketches
Biographies Of The Cast and Crew
Slip Sheet With Book Imagery

SEASON 3

Disc One:
Script for episode 'Faith, Hope and Trick'
Disc Two:
Script for episode 'Band Candy'
Script for episode 'Lover's Walk'
Disc Three:
Script for episode 'The Wish'
'Season 3 Overview' featurette
'Buffy Speak' featurette
Stills gallery
Cast biographies
Disc Four:
Audio commentary for episode 'Helpless'
Audio commentary for 'Bad Girls' episode
Audio commentary for 'Consequences' episode
Disc Five:
Audio commentary for 'Earshot' episode
Disc Six:
'Special Effects' featurette
'Weapons' featurette
'Wardrobe' featurette

SEASON 4

Disc One:
Script for 'Fear Itself'
Disc Two:
Audio commentary for episode 'The Initiative' by Doug Petrie
Disc Three:
Audio Commentary for episode 'Hush' by Joss Whedon
'Hush' episode featurette
'The Sets of Sunnydale' featurette
'Buffy: Inside The Music' featurette
'Introducing Spike' featurette
Buffy trailers
Cast biographies
Disc Four:
Audio commentary for episode 'This Year's Girl' by Doug Petrie
Disc Five:
Audio commentary for episode 'Superstar' by Jane Espenson
Script for episode 'Who Are You'
Disc Six:
Audio commentary for episode 'Primeval' by David Fury and David J. Contner
Audio commentary for episode 'Restless' by Joss Whedon
Script for 'Restless' episode
'Season Overview'

SEASON 5

Disc One:
Script for episode 'The Replacement'
Audio commentary for episode 'The Real Me' by writer David Fury and director David Grossman
Disc Two:
Script and audio commentary for episode 'Fool For Love' from Doug Petrie
Disc Three:
Script for episode 'Into The Woods'
'Buffy Abroad' featurette
'Demonology - A Slayer's Guide' featurette
'Casting Buffy' featurette
'Action Heroes - The Stunts Of Buffy' featurette
Trailers
Disc Four:
Script for episode 'Checkpoint'
Audio commentary for episode 'I Was Made To Love You' from writer Jane Espenson
Disc Five:
Audio commentary for epsiode 'The Body' from creator Joss Whedon
Disc Six:
'The Story Of Season 5' featurette
'Natural Causes' featurette
'Spotlight On Dawn' featurette
Stills gallery

and if you need it for future reference, SEASON 7:

Commentary by Writer/Director Joss Whedon, writers David Fury, Jane Espenson, Drew Z. Greenberg, Drew Goddard, Director David Solomon and cast including Nicholas Brendon and james Marsters
Willow Demon Guide DVD-Rom
12 Trailers
5 Featurettes
Easter Egg
Outtakes


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> List of Region 1 / Region 2 differences S1-S6 -- Ames, 13:06:08 05/28/04 Fri

In addition to these general differences:
- NTSC vs. PAL
- aspect ratio from S4 on
- Previously on Buffy only in R2 from S3 on
- Package art
- the sound track and subtitle languages are different in R2, and apparently also different in different countries within R2 (what are they for the UK?)

There are these content differences:

Season 1:

- no music video "I Quit" in R1. What disc is it on in Region 2?

- R1 includes special interviews with Joss Whedon on "Welcome to the Hellmouth", "The Harvest", "Witch", "Never Kill a Boy on the First Date", "Angel" and "The Puppet Show"

- R1 set has DVD-ROM features: a screen saver and a DVD player app. These aren't mentioned in the R2 listings, so unknown if they are on R2 DVDs or not.

Season 2:

- R1 has interviews with Joss Whedon on "Surprise," "Innocence," " Passion," "I Only Have Eyes For You," "Becoming, Parts One & Two"

Season 3:

Discs 1-3:

- DVDCompare.net doesn't mention the scripts for "Faith, Hope And Trick", "Band Candy", "Lover's Walk" and "The Wish" on R2, but Riz says that they are there

Disc 1:

- Usenet posts say that the UK version only (not all R2 versions) has 2 small cuts to Dead Man's Party: the scene where Giles hotwires his car is cut short, and another brief scene where a guy at the party gets his neck snapped by a Zombie is cut.

Disc 3:

- R1 has no biographies in this season on disc 3 or elsewhere

Disc 4:

- R1 has interview with Joss Whedon and Doug Petrie on Bad Girls and Consequences

Disc 5:

- R1 has interview with Joss Whedon and Doug Petrie on Enemies and Jane Espenson on Earshot

Disc 6:

- R1 has an interview with JW on Graduation Day, and featurette "Making Monsters" with John Vulich

Season 4:

Disc 2:

- Commentary for Wild at Heart with Joss Whedon, Marti Noxon and Seth Green. This is new on the Region 1 release, and was not on the earlier R2 release according to various sources.

Disc 3:

- "A Full Moon" Featurette on Oz. This is new on the Region 1 release, not on the earlier R2 release according to various sources.

- Disc 3 has cast biographies and the script for Hush in R1, not mentioned by Riz, but DVDCompare says that they are there in R2

- No trailes on the R1 disc. DVDCompare notes the following trailers on the R2 release: Trailer for Buffy Season Two DVD, Trailer for Buffy Season Three DVD

Disc 6:

- photo gallery not mentioned by Riz, but DVDCompare says that it's there

Season 5:

Disc 3:

- Featurette "Outtakes" not mentioned by Riz, but DVDCompare says that it's there

- No trailers in R1 (although DVD Compare says that there are). DVD Compare says Trailers include: Buffy (seasons 2-4), Angel (seasons 1-2), and Buffy movie

Disc 6:

- Region 1 has Trailer for the game Chaos Bleeds

- Region 1 has DVD-ROM feature Willow's Demon Database (DVDCompare mistakenly calls it a "web site link"). Is it there in R2?

Season 6:

Disc 3:

- No trailers in R1. According to DVDCompare, R2 has Trailers for "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", "Buffy The Vampire Slayer: Seasons 2-5" and "Angel: Seasons 1-3"

Disc 4/5:

- In R1 the Call Sheet image for Normal Again can be displayed from the episode menu. DVDCompare says that it's an Easter Egg on disc 5 in R2.

Disc 6:

- Region 1 has DVD-ROM feature Willow's Demon Database, updated for S6. Is it there in R2? DVDCompare doesn't mention it.

Can't comment on S7 since it won't be out until October in R1.


[> Sale at Amazon UK -- Ames, 13:13:53 05/26/04 Wed

If anyone was really keen to get the Region 2 version of the DVDs with wide-screen format and "Previously on Buffy..." segments, Amazon UK is advertising "60% off". But don't get too excited - that just brings it down to about a 25% premium over Region 1.


[> [> R2 and such -- ghady, 12:57:36 05/28/04 Fri

Yea i happen to own BS6 and AS3 R2, as well as R1 BS1&5, and AS2. For some reason, R2 DVDs seem to include the "Previously on..." thingy.. Plus, the package they come in is MUCH MUCH MUCH (shall i go on?) MUCH more elegant than that of R1 DVDs.. Downside: they cost like 70 pounds.. and 1 pound is like 2 dollars (almost).. but still.. im planning on saving enough money to get BS2-4 R1 (eventually), cause that's what we have in Virgin Megastore over here.. And i wanna everntually order AS1 R1 (we don't seem to have that one here) and BS7 and AS4 R2 from Amazon (even though we DO have those here, they're a bit less expensive to order from amazon.. maybe on a bday or sthg).. (why don't i get those as R1? well bcs they're prettier as R2 plus they have the Prev. thing.. it's a bit quirky and insane of me, but still) oh well..



False clocks and vaulting ambition (Angel Odyssey 5.19) -- Tchaikovsky, 03:03:42 05/26/04 Wed

Oh a false clock tries to tick out my time
To disgrace, distract, and bother me.
And the dirt of gossip blows into my face,
And the dust of rumors covers me.
But if the arrow is straight
And the point is slick,
It can pierce through dust no matter how thick.
So I'll make my stand
And remain as I am
And bid farewell and not give a damn.


-Bob Dylan, 'Restless Farewell'.



Hello everyone.

Right, so this was what I wanted. Out and out genius from Ben Edlund. I have a weird relationship with the chap. I've loved absolutely everything of his except 'Life of the Party', which I still hate like a psychopathic rhinocerous. I rewatched 'Sacrifice' the other day: absolutely wonderful. 'Smile Time', it goes without saying, was highly innovative. And 'Jaynestown' was one of the three best episodes of 'Firefly' ('Lost in Space', 'Out of Gas'). And here, Edlund manages the near-impossible. He does an episode with a crazy timeframe, and yet he absolutely stuffs it full of intelligent philosophical and moral debate. So how does he do this?

5.19- 'Time Bomb'

He does it by not over-filling the somewhat complex inner curves with too much Murder Mystery plodding. In Star Trek's 'Cause and Effect', for example, we have a whole episode while we're working out the 'Groundhog Day' twist. As a result of this, as time-passing as the episode is, it never has time to actually bring thematic or moral depth to the question of time and how we use it. By contrast here, the Illyria time-waltz is restricted to one and a half short acts, and the chunky first two acts have as much interesting dialogue and characterisation as any episode this Season. As a result of this, when the episode goes 'Spotless Mind', it comments on ideas already set up, rather than being done for its own sake. And that's what makes this episode a success.

Themes and relevances

1. Time and Space

I'd even go so far as to say that Gillum and Edlund are softening viewers up for the twist during the first act. We see people all over the place adjusting to different time frames.

Gunn, whose pace of life has been slow utopia followed by pain and carnage, suddenly snaps back into our reality, saved by Illyria. In going back to work, conscience intact, he does something braver than staying in the basement ever was- he confronts his past and moves onwards. But as we see him readjusting, we watch him walk in on Wesley. And Wesley is quie unlike we've seen him recently- at times verging on comic hysteria luiek the chuckle after the line 'Her body's previous owner'. I started wondering what was going on, and if I'd missed something. But as it becomes clear later, Wesley is becoming schizophrenic. In his own office, he manically searches down all references to Illyria. Everywhere else, he barely bats an eyelid, comatose with residual pain. But Wesley's fast/slow frenzy and Gunn's adjusting back to working life are all subjective squiggles on measured and doled out time. A false clock, if you will.

-Also in the first scene, we get a slick little cut across, from Spike and Illyria continuing to fight, to Angel standing next to the wall. All is not quite what it seems. Hollow walls and bending space lead to a time distorted by the bizarre gravity of a God. It's rubber sheet geometry with heavenly bodies.

We are also prone to seeing Illyria moving about at a faster pace than the rest of humanity, but thinking over longer timescales. And so the quite obvious but nicely used parallel to mayflys, the animals, (even that sounds strange), who live for one day only, breeding and then dying. In Illyria's longer view of time, Wesley and Gunn's and even Angel and Spike's lives are but drops in the plankton filled ocean. They are meaningless, somehow. And so we eventually think of Angel as a parallel to Illyria. What means these lives- those of Wesley and Gunn and even Fred, to a vampire who is 250 years old, a year for each Buffyverse programme ever broadcast? Does he only see them as mayflys, born, living and dying in the time it takes for him to complete a good brood. I am reminded of the absolutely fantastic scene (but most things were in that Season), in 'Choices', where the Mayor relates the story of his wife to Angel- how she grew old and died while he remained young. And since the mayor was a human character after all, it really worked. Angel here is forced to look at the carnage of his entire team killed, and think- just what is it to be human, to live for 70 years, and then die. Are we just mayflys, irrelevant ephemera in earth's ageless revolution?

2. Team

Time- Team. All that consonance and the overlapping dipthongs. OK, I just wanted to get the word dipthong in, I admit it. In any case, there's a whole subtheme going on in this episode about how people fit into teams.



3 Betrayal

Wesley now knows that he has betrayed Angel in the past. But also, in breaking the window, he doubled his betrayal, directly disobeying Angel once again. In breaking the window, he also betrayed Illyria, who thinks of him as subject. 'You are my betrayer', she intones, before expanding, 'In my time betrayal was thought of as a neutral word, like 'water' or 'breeze'. There is a definite stigma attached to betrayal now- the betrayal of Judas, of Brutus, of Macbeth. Here Illyria uses it to mean something with a slightly different gradation of meaning. Since in her world, it was all self-serving nightmares, everyone looked to their own achievement. If in doing so, someone else was sleighted, that was a betrayal, neither morally good nor reprehensible. So here Illyria's message to Wesley is that if he does not treat Angel as his master, then betrayal as a negative becomes more of a moot point- and could be considered merely 'vaulting ambition' or Machiavellian power politics.

Meanwhile, Gunn is considering how he's betraying his own conscience, and the Fell Brethren are uncovered in their plan to betray the pregnant lady's son- there was to be a ritual sacrifice at age thirteen, just as he began to be his own person.

4. The cult of celebrity

This is elegantly done in what, notionally, is the A-plot of the episode. We see the lady, so delighted by the prospect of her son being famous, and achieving some kind of celebrated iconic status, merely by birth, that she concludes: 'They have a better life than I could ever give him.' Balderdash and chicanery, of course, for she overlooks the fact that the most important thing about being brought up is love and self-interest. In the obsessed, Reality TV age of the 21stcentury, a passing waft of fame, sweet exotic marijuana smoke from a different block, seems like the ultimate reward and is somehow the goal of every parent for their child. Eventually, as the Fell Brethren's metaphor has it in black and white, they will sacrifice you on an altar, using your eventual failure as inches in tittle-tattle press columns. This is something Angel needs to remember as well. He can prove himself to be a good man, even as a vampire. But his destiny is not written in the stars from Day One, and as long as he believes that Shanshu is his Destiny and his right, he is prone to being mown down by fate's bemused whims.

Just a few quite delicious lines here:

-I still like him better than Eve. A Lorne/writer-audience moment. Lorne is much better used in this episode, which really juggles the regular characters with excellent vim and vigour.

-'Curing cancer?' 'Probably wouldn't be cost-effective' 'Right. The patent-holder's a client'. Genius.

And the final lesson Angel learns, is to serve his own ambition. This is a more bitter epiphany than both, since its immediate consequence is to look as if he's going along with Hamilton over Gunn in the Conscience/Conquest dichotomy. Actually, it's somewhere a little more morally ambiguous than that. In signing the baby over, Angel is doing what serves his own path of least resistance to power, and his own belief in his own Destiny. Though this isn't healthy, it also isnt directly bowing to Hamilton's pressure. In a different situation, he'd bow to Gunn's conscience if it kept his own situation better for him.

Angel has decided that the best way to handle the world is the same way that Illyria attempts to handle it. By announcing himself King, and using other people (who are, after all, his employees), he turns Wolfram and Hart into an almost feudal state. And in doing so, he takes a tiny and dangerous step towards asking himself just exactly what he wants. For that reason, the grisly ending can be seen as a deadly dark grey cause for optimism coming towards the end of the Season.

Thanks for reading. Just three to go...


TCH



Replies:

[> Great review, TCH, as usual. Preserving! -- Rob, 07:26:59 05/28/04 Fri

I do just have to quickly add, though, that Time Bomb was, IMO, one of the most successfully done "time warp" television episodes I've seen, because unlike Star Trek, we could focus on the themes and the plotting more than on the pseudo-scientific explanation for how to fix it (that is not to say that Star Trek didn't have some great ones, but again, the sci-fi trumps the characters). Illyria herself pointed out the unusualness of Angel having been sent back with her, and so it further helps us suspend our disbelief, and we move on. The first act was also, as you mention, admirably subtle in its time manipulations while still setting up that something strange is happening.

Can't wait to hear what you have to say about the fan-polarizing The Girl in Question. Me, I thought it was probably Angel's best comedic episode, with a fascinating, dramatic B-plot. A lot of other people...uh, not so much.

Rob


[> [> Agree totally: -- Tchaikovsky, 08:44:32 05/28/04 Fri

The review's above, and whereas I found my 'Origin' analysis difficult to right, (partly through the fiddly wording to make understood my near-satisfaction), and 'Time Bomb' just fiddly, the words I wanted to say about 'The Girl in Question' rolled right off my fingers. That's the sign of a truyl great episode.

TCH



Prophecies in the Buffyverse -- ghady, 03:53:25 05/26/04 Wed

1) Before Buffy/Angel, I was always under the impression that prophecies are events that are DESTINED to take place, no matter what. There's no use in fighting them because they WILL be fulfilled. But then on Buffy, she and Giles TRY to avert the whole anointed one thingy (granted, the events DO unfold as the prophecy warns, but seeing as Giles is a very well-informed man, he should haven known better than to try to prevent the inevitable.) Also, Angel is DESTINED to be a key player in the apocalypse--then WHY does Wolfram and Hart TRY SO HARD to keep him alive? If prophecies are ALWAYS fulfilled, then they shouldn't have to worry about fulfilling them. Furthermore, why would Sahjan even ATTEMPT to slither his way out of his own demise? It is foretold that "the one sired by the vampire with a soul will grow to manhood and kill Sahjan." Foretold. As in prophesized. As in will happen no matter what. So doing his neat little time travel thing isn't gonna do him any good, now is it? The prophecy of "the father will kill the son" is FAKE and never happened. But the first one is real and is BOUND to happen, no matter what. But then what happens? Sahjan IS defeated (well, not technically killed), NOT by "the one sired by the vampire with a soul," but by Justine (who, being a human woman cannot grow into manhood and is NOT the offspring of a vampire with a soul). Now as far as I know, Connor never vanquishes him. So... Error in the prophecy perhaps?
So then what is the point of saying that "it SHALL come to pass," when a) it can be played around with and b) it does not ALWAYS come to pass. Back to "the father will kill the son." Shouldn't the big talking burger have KNOWN that that prophecy was a FAKE?? IF it is in contact with all things mystical, it should NOT have been deceived by false scriptures.

2) When did Sahjan rewind time and edit the prophecy? My theory is that it was during the unfolding of the events of S3, right after Holtz refused to kill Angel/Darla. He then thought "hmmm.. ok, ok, don't panic.. why don't we go fix this in our own devious little way." So, he did, knowing that that would lead to Wesley's betrayal and such.

3) Why did Sahjan call Angel his sworn enemy? I get that it could be because he's the father of the one that could bring his life to an end, but still. The wording is off.

Ok, gimme your ideas, and I hope I didn't bore you.
ghady


Replies:

[> These points are quite relevant to Season Five (but NO Season Five spoilers) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:50:42 05/26/04 Wed

1) I can't address some of your quibbles straight on, for reasons of spoilery-ness. But I think that the major point about people trying to avoid prophecies is that people tend not to believe that prophecies are likely to take place as prophecied. I mean, fair enough, Angel lives in a fictional, (or fictionalised) Universe, but the basic point is that it bears relevant analogous similarity to ours, (otherwise we couldn't relate to the characters). And in our world, there are many people who don't believe in prophecies. Many people consider Nostradamus fake, and all manner of prophecy to be carefully dressed ambiguity, which can be claimed to have passed regardless of what always happens. In this case, being cynical about prophecy is a perfectly valid option.

Indeed, I'd argue, (and have, in two posts currently on the baord, though spoiler-ish for Season Five), that throughout the series, it is the fact that Angel is so credulous of prophecies that lead to many of his worst moments.

2) Quite possible, though it may have been switched years before, for all we know. This is the kind of question that, if it has a canonical answer, I'm bound to have forgotten.

3) The Father, the potent one who brings the instrument of doom into the world. God versus the machine, Prophecy versus free will. Or something.

TCH


[> You're running a little behind -- Vegeta, 08:02:32 05/26/04 Wed

I don't want to give anything away, but the Sahjan hasn't been vanquished by Justine. Only captured.


[> [> Way behind, in fact -- Sofdog, 08:41:17 05/26/04 Wed

It's a natural impulse to try to thwart predestined events. And it always leads directly to fulfillment of the prophecy. Sahjahn worked very hard to try avert his demise and in so doing put himself and Connor in exactly the right positions to fulfill it. Had he not brought Holtz and the fake prophecy into the picture, and sent them to Quor'Toth, Connor would still be a small child growing up in LA. As for "the father will kill the son," on my television that did come true. Angel very definitely slit Connor's throat in "Home" at the end of Season 4. It seemed to be a blood ritual to trigger the onset of the new memories for everyone.

Buffy and Giles attempting to prevent the rise of the Annointed doesn't say much because they were simply too late. They had no hand in bringing it about. The attempts to thwart the Pergamum Codex likewise led directly to the fulfillment of the prophecy. The Master and the Slayer fought, she died and he rose. It goes back to what the Master himself says, "Prophecies are tricky things. They don't tell you everything." As he aptly points out Buffy came to try to stop him from rising, but it is her very presence that sets him free. If she hadn't come to his lair, she would not have died and he would not have been able to escape it.

The details are up to the players. I have no doubt that Angel will "shanshu." I'm sure that the last play with the prophecy will only facilitate its fruition.


[> [> [> Spoilers for late Season Four above!!! -- DorianQ, 11:43:42 05/27/04 Thu

Since this is ghady's thread and from his other messages, I don't think he's even up to Apocalypse Nowish so we should be careful of spoilers from after that.



When Willow absored those dark art books were their any benevolent ones that can be used? -- scythe, 09:57:05 05/26/04 Wed

Willow absorbed all the Dark Arts texts and became pretty powerful. Have there ever been pretty powerful benevolent texts used on buffy or Angel? How does one learn powerful good magicks like Tara or shamanesses?


Replies:

[> scythe, if you're interested in real world info I can point you to some websites and books. -- Briar Rose, 14:17:54 05/26/04 Wed

But I won't post them unless you are talking about magik/magick in the real world, as most of the stuff on BtVS and Angel is Hollywood magick and not particularly on target as to how magick works in the real world.


[> Re: When Willow absored those dark art books were their any benevolent ones that can be used? -- Wizard, 14:18:46 05/26/04 Wed

It's a pity, but we haven't seen too much of the good when it comes to magic, creating a false impression that evil magic is stronger.

As for the learning, I think it just takes time and hard work. Tara didn't become powerful overnight. Neither did Willow, but we are led to believe that Willow adavanced much more quickly than Tara, which leads me to believe that Willow is both a) a prodigy, and b) willing to delve into the unkown at Ludicrous Speed (tm). At first, it was only when Willow tried selfish things that everything went haywire- Something Blue, for example. Then, she became supremely overconfident, to the point of endangering others. I supported Willow in her magic use (overuse?) right until that moment when she wanted to momentarily zap everyone in the Bronze who was not a 16 year old girl into another dimension. I couldn't believe it!

Where was I? Right. Becoming powerful without losing it takes time, hard work, and a certain amount of caution. And to answer the first question, we haven't seen any benevolent texts, but we have seen good magic come from sharing power. So- evil = solitary and selfish, and good = connected with others and selfless. In magic, just as in life.



Eyes Wide Shut -- Unitas, 11:59:35 05/26/04 Wed

I don't know if this has been brought up yet (may have missed it) but in all the talk of the finale's allusions to cinema greats such as The Wild Bunch, The Godfather & Butch Cassidy I have yet to see anyone mention Eyes WIde Shut.

The Circle of The Black Thorn meeting in Power Play is a clear allusion to Kubrick's final film. Here, we have the elites of society meeting in secret wearing simple Halloween (or, more precessily, Venitian festival) masks. We don't have an orgy (thank you, Mr. Whedon) but the quote seems pretty clear. The most intersting thing about this is how in both Power Play & Eyes Wide Shut the powerful seem so banal. Despite all the demon make-up, the Circle is pretty much a bore, much like the Ken Lays (pick your own surrogate here) of our own moral universe.

A side not is Whedon's confessed admiration for Kubrick in his Restless commentary.


Replies:

[> Spoilers to Angel 5.22 above -- lurker, 12:53:55 05/26/04 Wed



[> [> Quite Correct. Very Sorry. -- Unitas, 13:19:10 05/26/04 Wed



[> Re: Eyes Wide Shut -- BTW, I meant a note not a not. Must be the coffee headache., 13:22:35 05/26/04 Wed



[> [> Re: Eyes Wide Shut -- Unitas, 13:33:03 05/26/04 Wed

That's my correction above. I should really not type while talking on the phone and nursing my coffee headache.


[> [> [> I don't know.... (spoilers AtS Finale) -- Briar Rose, 14:39:32 05/27/04 Thu

I would say that it more represented a Congressional Metting than anything in Eyes Wide Shut.

Eyes Wide Shut attempted (badly, I might add) to portray a secret society celebrating the Sacred Union of God and Goddess in a pagan rite of fertility and recreation.

The idea formed in Eyes Wide Shut was never to hold a summit or to work for political motives. The entire scene was about what in the real world would be One Priest male and One Priestess female enacting the sexual/spiritual Sacred Union of the Male and Female energies to start a cycle of magickal procreation in the Universe that would directly affect the Earth.

Most sects of Paganistic belief now do not even use people to perform the ceremony, they use the symbolic Sacred Union, consisting of the Athame being inserted into the Chalice.

Personally, I don't see any connection between the scene in Eyes Wide Shut and in Power Play, or in Fade Away, at all. I can see where the movie Patton might be used as a guideline. Also most episodes of The West Wing and many Tom Clancy films/books.... Most notably, The Hunt for Red October.

However, maybe you were thinking of the makeup as masks, where I was seeing it as the portrayal of characters "real" features.


[> [> [> [> Re: I don't know.... (spoilers AtS Finale) -- Unitas, 09:24:37 05/28/04 Fri

My point was mainly a refrence to the masks worn by the demons & humans at the meeting Power Play. Very simlar to the masks (Venetian festival masks I believe) worn during the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut, which was also was a cabal of the rich & powerful meeting in secret society.

Knowing of Whedon's love for Kubrick, the wife & I immeadiatly thought of Eyes.

I thought the most interesting aspect of this is the banality of it. The 'devil' in Ats is the best aspect of this. He may look like Satan but he enjoys a good game of racquetball and talks like a marketing executive. He reminds me a lot of Sydney Pollock's chareacter in Eyes. He may be the face behind this powerful, secret society but Pollock is such a glad hander that he doesn't project hardly any malevolance. It's one of the things this season of AtS is going for. The banality of power & evil. How you stare at them every day and make deals with them every day.



BtVS named cult fave -- purplegrrl, 14:06:27 05/26/04 Wed

Just got the new TV Guide (May 30-June 5, 2004 issue) yesterday, inwhich they list the 25 top cult TV shows.

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is named number 3!! (Beat out only by "The X-Files" and "Star Trek" -- the write-up for "Star Trek" is a hoot!)


Replies:

[> OT about Enterprise. It ended up being a good year for them. -- Jay, 19:46:51 05/26/04 Wed

I am so glad Enterprise has been renewed for another year. The last six episodes, especially E2 on, are as good as Trek has given over the years. While I would still prefer a Whedon produced show like another Buffyverse spinoff, or better yet, the Firefly series kept going, I consider a good Star Trek show the next best thing. And in the face of nothing but reality tv and Law and Order: ad nauseam, I'm damn happy about the few shows I enjoy seeing.

This is not to suggest the show is better than what we are used to. It's just better than most of the other crap on tv. I consider E2 the very best Enterprise has put forth to date and the subsequent episodes a notch below. The season finale has set itself up to be dependent on next year's success than most series would have tied themselves to, but I'm intrigued.

Things I predict will happen next season:
1) Hoshi has to deal with the guilt of decrypting the third launch code for the weapon. She was kidnaped, tortured, and drugged, but that just fuels a good breakdown.

2) Trip continues to be oblivious of T'Pol's recent subtle signs that she's ready for some interspecies wubby dubbies, until someone else has to spell it out for him.

3) Malcolm finally comes out of the closet.

4) Travis to have a storyline that I could give a crap about. They didn't even attempt to give him one this year, and I don't remember one that meant anything to me.

5) Way too damn much temporal cold war crap.

6) Archer has to make an ugly decision that the survival of earth depends on. (I know, a gimme.)

7) Phlox takes another wife and she starts popping out offspring.

8) Porthos plays a part in a "first contact" type situation involving mid 20th century Earth.

9) Besides the giant "what the fuck" time thing? I'm not sure. There's thousands of questions with very little hint in the finale to give much of a clue when this show is going. Other than WWII, of course.

10) Chef will get, yet another, shout out.



Slouching Towards.../Lessons -- ghady, 10:05:50 05/27/04 Thu

1) Do we ever find out who or what put that talisman in the bathroom in lessons? (yes/no.. no spoliers)
2) In Slouching... Wolfram and Hart remove Lorne's memory.. everyone in the Anegl team seems really worried abt that bcs they don't know anything anymore. but couldn't they just talk cordy into singing for Lorne again?? (try to be as spoiler-free as possible).
thx


Replies:

[> Cordy didn't exactly seem willing to trust them too much at the end of the ep -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:43:00 05/27/04 Thu

So she might not be too eager to sing. Also, I don't think it was so much that they didn't know anything (Lorne described it as jumbled images in his head) but the fact that Wolfram & Hart now has it and the luxury of interpreting what it means.


[> [> The problem isn't Cordy -- Lunasea, 18:24:33 05/27/04 Thu

It's Lorne. He's seen a glimpse of something he doesn't want to see and he's not going to read her again, even if they could get her to do it. Lorne isn't a fighter. He isn't a champion. He runs from battle, not to it.


[> [> [> also... -- Seven, 09:52:18 05/29/04 Sat

I don't want to spoil you, but there is another reason that it's probably a good thing that Cordy isn't read again. You'll find out in Apocolypse Nowish



Lorne's Aura Reading- Spoilers, Smile Time, A Hole in the World -- Wizard, 23:29:50 05/27/04 Thu

I was watching the Angel marathon that was on Space up here in Canada, and two of the episodes shown (the top ten that viewers voted on) were Smile Time, and A Hole in the World. Having missed Smile Time, I made a special point of catching it. The last time I saw television that was so simultaneously hilarous and scary was OMWF, waaaayyyy back. Heh. "Stupid! Plastic! Piece of crap!" "Stupid thread! Stupid string!" "Argh! No Nina! Bad Nina!" And of course, the best line: "You're a wee little puppet man!" (God, I wish that they put more Spike in that ep!)

Ahem. On to my point.

When the demon controlled Gregor, it sang to Lorne. Lorne didn't detect a thing. Not only that, but Lorne didn't make a mention of anything at all, and Gunn didn't ask.

Cut to AHITW, which was the very next episode. He knows something's wrong with Fred after she gets out a few bars of "You Are My Sunshine," and he was able to read Eve's future (fate?) when she sang her song, which IIRC was Lindsey's song in Dead End.

What's wrong here? Was Lorne's not reading the demon a mistake on the writer's part, or was it part of the cloaking spell? This being an ME show, if the cloaking spell got Lorne too and it was left for us to figure that out, it would be typical. But for no mention to be made of it at all, not even a "Well he seemed creepy but normal," or something like that? That is bizarre!


Replies:

[> Re: Lorne's Aura Reading- Spoilers, Smile Time, A Hole in the World -- CW, 03:55:11 05/28/04 Fri

Since the demon puppets always spoke to the children during the songs, it's safe to assume that the songs themselves are part of the cloaking spell. Remember the scientist who tried to betray Nina in her first episode was able to fool him with a drug, also at the end of season four Lorne failed to read Angelus thanks to a cloaking spell by Cordy. Lorne's ability may have not been used 100% consistantly on the show, however in the beginning it was presented such that demons came to him for help, rather than him using it to read minds against their will.



Life is Elsewhere: Greenwalt's Last Masterpiece (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- Tchaikovsky, 08:42:24 05/28/04 Fri

Remember the words of the poet:

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."

See you soon.


-Joss Whedon

You can dye your hair
But it's the one thing you can't change
Can't run away from yourself.


-Pulp; 'Help the Aged'




Yes, you read that right. A masterpiece. Pretty near perfection...

5.20- 'The Girl In Question'

Well, OK. I had so many thoughts during this episode that I haven't written half of them down, and so now I have to recreate them from a computer keyboard and a load of illegible words. In this episode, for me, lies the key to Greenwalt's writing and direction through the whole series, Joss Whedon's ultimate message, (or at least, antepenultimate), and pure unadulterated love for the experiences they've had from Steve DeKnight and Drew Goddard. Let's face it- the episode was pointless. I loved it.

Scour all my writings for Greenwalt, and, if you don't encounter the word Lorne in the sentence, you're most likely to see my favourite word to describe him: scattershot. His writing technique is to mix in a load of irrelevant, hilarious nonsense, stir it all together, give it a resolution and call it a show. Here DeKnight and Goddard do the tiny necessary of actually writing the script, and Greenwalt takes the show in his usual bizarre direction. And here we find out why.

For how much of life is happening exactly where we ain't? In Brueghel's Icarus for example- that feeling of not being quite where the major story is- the feeling, as Kundera put it, that life is elsewhere. For Angel and Spike in this episode, that's it, exactly. Nothing happens. It's an hour of our lives we'll never get back, but didn't we enjoy spending it. Greenwalt puts the final QED on his style. He writes like this because this is what life is like- irrelevant distractions threatening to capsize the simple moral of life you thought you were holding onto. The scattershot man comes through with his own anarchic philosophy. I'll miss you David- thanks not only for this but for 'To Shanshu', 'Judgement', 'Dear Boy', 'There's no place...', 'Heartthrob', 'Sleep Tight', and 'Tomorrow'. And yes, I forgive you for 'She'.

Meanwhile, Whedon's message is- we're gonna have to move on eventually. But note how it isn't: 'It's time to move on, we're happy to move on, and we really didn't want to stay where we were anyway.' The final scene ends in Angel's office, with Angel and Spike, (certainly deKnight and Goddard, at least nominally), claiming they're going to move on, but actually just having one final stab 'The end of it all'. The writers, the audience and everyone, would like to turn the 'We don't care' switch, but ultimately care too much about Buffy and our show. And in doing so, they get exploded by bombs along the way.

So how does all this speculation on metanarrative themes play into the episode itself? How did I come up with this rubbish? Thusly:

-Notice the absent leads in this episode. There are three of them. Angel and Spike are like Vladimir and Estragon doing 'The Italian Job', while waiting for Buffy. In the A-plot, meanwhile, they're tip-toeing carefully round the ambition of the Immortal, while never seeing him on the screen. And back in Los Angeles, in our C-plot, we have Wesley and the Burkles trying to work out how to live without Fred. The Burkles have to do so since they're parents. All those melancholy sighs as they admit she's grown up and they can only call in every so often. For Wesley, the problem is both larger, haunting and magnified by Illyria's presence as Fred. For a second, we wonder whether he's finally revealed as being insane. He's finally given in to the comforting visions and the infinite solace of memories, [be they false or true ;-)]. In reality, Fred's visage is really there as Illyria. But Fred isn't. And Wesley's eventual decision to tell Illyria that she can't pretend to be Fred, that he'd rather see her as anything else, parallels Angel and Spike's loss of Buffy. So Illyria dyes her hair blue, and stays within herself.

-Crash, bang, and we're right into the middle of a scene. Rather than a haunting prelude, as piece of irrelevance or stage-setting, like the teaser often is, (although admittedly more often in 'Friends' than the smarter 'Angel), the first moments of this episode are straight into Gunn's quirky exposition. I almost wondered whether aliera had cut off the beginning of the episode, we are so confronted. And Greenwalt's at the helm (I'd like to know if he did an uncredited re-write on it), so we're going to get a mislead. It all seems very business-like and straight ahead, until it suddenly turns out that neither Angel nor Spike are much interested in the mission, they're more interested in Buffy. And with perhaps slightly too manipulative grace, we end the teaser on the disturbed Angel saying 'It's Buffy', an ironic echo of Greenwalt's earlier line as Angel tells Willow [sic] that Buffy's dead.

-There's just a touch of conflict between Gunn and Angel at the start here, which sets up the mammoth snarkiness that's going on between Angel and Spike in the most important love arc of the Season.

-At one point, at the beginning, it appears Wesley is finally getting the hang of Illyria. He tells her that it is her choice whether he runs more tests on her. Illyria's existentialist dilemma is not that different from Adam's in Season Four. Stitched together from the corpses of beings which have lost life, she has a more primal interest than most in just why and how she exists. She's not so much for the symbiosis as Adam, but she is wicked strong.

-Where Angel Isn't: Number One. He's not in Angel where he keeps his spies. When on the jet, Spike half-ironically comments that he should have had more than one spy, he agrees deadpan. Angel is wondering if he shoudln't really have been in Rome all along- anywhere other than the Evil Law Firm that he's running away from. As we are to see later, Rome really doesn't look that different once you try to work there.

-Where Angel Isn't: Number Two. He isn't in Italy in the 1950's, where Spike is put in prison for tax evasion, (we assume). But those few stylised moments, (pure Greenwalt scattershot), are gold-dust. I think I may have remembered one facet of Buffy I'd half-forgotten in this episode. The times when the show is, as Joss Whedon puts in his 'Once More, With Feeling' commentary, sophomoric. Or sophomoronic, as it would be if I ruled the world. Wise yet foolish. More accurately, a wise foolishness. A ridicule all the stronger for its self-knowledge of its limited scope. Season Five may well turn out to be my favourite Season of Angel, but if there's one single element it's been lacking, it's been the crazy humour. And even in this criticism, Exhibit A for the defence is 'Smile Time'. It's been a brilliant Season. Greenwalt's style in shooting the 50's flashback, incidentally, has a hint of homage to Whedon's Spike scene in 'Restless', as well as of course referencing the film noir genre on which shadowkat and others have so often showed that it is based.

-Where Angel Isn't: Number Three. He's not where Andrew is. Andrew, the ultimate sophomore, has moved on from his former life. For example, we get the lovely moment : 'An intriguing question. [Embarassed pause]. No'. Andrew's learning to deal with actual reality. But he's also in the Xander role- and inheriting the jealousy that Xander always got from Angel. Almost casually crashing with Buffy and Dawn. Where Angel and Spike (and every viewer loyal even to 'Chosen') might ultimately like to be.

Where Angel Isn't: Number Four. He's not at home in 1894, as Darla and Drusilla are ravished (I think that's the word, although it has connotations of 'radish', which make it sound just a bit silly), by the Immortal. Once again, and how insistently has this game played throughout the series?, as soon as we have a reference to Angel's love for Buffy, we have the mirror image of his love for Darla. And as always, (see the idiot savant fake swaami in 'Guise will be Guise'), Darla was there first. Darla was stolen first. Along with Drusilla, who needs a bath to recover. Y'know there were a lot of things the audience intuitively want to see in this episode. A real Fred. Buffy, rather than just the saffron of espied hair. Dawn. The Immortal. Resolution. That bath... It's a masterful episode about missed opportunity, and how to forge strength from where you actually are.

-Where Angel Isn't: Number Five. Finally and crucially, Angel is not with Buffy. She's noved on. The Immortal is devouring Cookie Her. And it's not time to acknowledge what they mutually mean too each other here. This isn't the careless cop out of the first act of 'Chosen'. It's a Buffy who never comes to the door of her apartment. It's a Sarah Michelle Gellar, who, let's face it, has other things to do in life. And after finally and at length discussing the Elephant in Angel and Spike's shared dormitory, they can start to function as real brothers. Or not Really real, but you're kinda clever, you get it.

-So absent leads. Absent leads in our story, and absent Angel where Angel might be the lead in the mirror stories we don't see. For example, there's a good fanfic, (possibly even an intriguing flashback) to be written in a paralleling story with Buffy and Dawn in Rome, Buffy with the Immortal. Her reaction to Andrew's revelations. What she really thinks of the relationship. Here we get that whole story, the story some viewers might have considered it perverse not to address, as wonderfully observed negative space.

Other brushstrokes on the Dialectic-o-Gram:

-Nina mentioned. Probably a neat lead in to 'Power Play', otherwise why mention someone seemingly discarded. I suppose Nina is symbolic of Angel's future. She certainly was used that way in 'Unleashed'.

-It's lovely to see Spike back as the subjugate he was is 1894, telling Angelus how great he was and getting righteously outraged on Angel's behalf. How those dynamics are to change post Boxer Rebellion. Speaking of

-Spike finally discards the coat, if not the look. Well, it had been coming, after 'Damage', and while not totally annihilating some of ME's previous errors in their handling of the symbol, it is at least a good ending. In some ways, I suppose, a bit like 'Origin'.

-The head of the demon, still functioning, calls back Lorne, also in Greenwalt's last Season Two episode. Which is a relief, considering how little we see of him in this episode. A touch of a let down, but what can you do.

-Some really, really good work from Rob Kral this week. He's been magnificent this Season. Watch the morgue scene in 'Just Rewards', his Spanish stuff from 'Numero Cinco', and the raucous theme music from 'Smile Time'. Admire. He is starting to rival Chris Beck. And I don't say that lightly. Here, his styles of Italian music are many and brilliant. Bonus marks for Dean Martin over the 'really loud' disco music.

-Indeed, that almost 'Waiting in the Wings', balletic qualtiy of Angel and Spike's fight really amped up the emotion going on between them. A beautiful, hysterical moment.

-The Italian Harmony is priceless. Just a couple of stereotype Italian jokes, (the Italian Wes is taking a nap), but then the Europeans get the last laugh: 'Typical of Americans. Relying on violence to solve their problems.'

-At the end of the fourth act, Andrew gets the moral of the story. Where is he at the time? Off stage. What happens next time we see him? He is unconscionably spiffy, and about to be escorted off by two (not unBuffynDawnesque, [$1000 for the next time you see that word]) girls. To the man who'll move on, the spoils.

-Can Spike and Angel box time, and keep Buffy kept in eternal servitude to the past? No they can't. Unlike Willow, they realise she's pretty smart, and very strong. So it's up to them to complete their story.

As this is three before the end of the Season, and not arc-y, it's bound to have upset some people, (I'm off to the archives in a second to find out), but here's my message on the episode. It's OK not to like it, and to have your own opinion. But on this occasion you're wrong. For this, gentle viewers, is Greenwalt's Last Masterpiece.

TCH


Replies:

[> He liked it! Hey Mikey! -- Masq, 09:32:30 05/28/04 Fri

Now suddenly wondering if anyone outside the United States or under the age of 40 will get my joke.


[> [> *Raises eyebrow* That puts me a long way outside the Venn then... -- TCH, 10:16:24 05/28/04 Fri



[> [> I got it. :-) -- Rob, 11:04:35 05/28/04 Fri

They had Mikey Version 2.0 commercials in the mid-80s.

Rob


[> [> Me too. Heehee :) -- Jane, 18:31:49 05/30/04 Sun



[> [> Re: He liked it! Hey Mikey! -- matching mole, 14:28:01 06/02/04 Wed

I got it but I definitely meet both of your qualifications although all my experiences with Mikey and company occurred when I lived in Canada.


[> Re: Life is Elsewhere: Greenwalt's Last Masterpiece (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- Ames, 09:36:32 05/28/04 Fri

Ok, in retrospect it wasn't that bad. As a comical farce it fell a bit flat in the circumstances because
a) it was 2 episodes from the end of the series, and the characters doing self-parody and the whole "time to move on" theme came across as a bit of a kick in the teeth to loyal fans waiting for the big finish
b) SMG didn't appear even briefly to lend resonance to the Buffy-moving-on theme - instead we got a cheap Buffy-from-a-distance stand-in

I'm sure this episode will find its appropriate place in the overall context of Season 5 in the long run, now that it's all over.


[> [> Counterpoint: for me at least -- Tchaikovsky, 10:26:24 05/28/04 Fri

I didn't have problems with these, (though the usual rider persists: my interpretation is singular and meaningless)

a) But it's done so lovingly Our two vampires are desperately trying to move on, but even at the end of the hour, they're stuck repeating it as a mantra while not moving. It's a coy joke at both fans and writers at the very most.

b) The absence of Buffy is arguably the whole theme in the episode. It would have annoyed me no end if with that script she had turned up and had a brief, clarificatory chat at the end. Of course, if they had had Gellar, they probably would have done something entirely different.

TCH


[> [> [> Exactly! Thanks, TCH! -- MaeveRigan, 14:07:32 06/05/04 Sat



[> Re: Life is Elsewhere: Greenwalt's Last Masterpiece (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- Ann, 09:59:08 05/28/04 Fri

"Let's face it- the episode was pointless. I loved it."

I think that is exactly the point. The contrast between always having a point filled ME-universe (deep philsophical goodness) and not (but it really does) makes even a greater statement about each. Contrasts are something all of these writers do very well and I was happy to see such success in that regard in TGIQ. I think it also spoke to the frenzied internal emotion that both Angel and Spike have toward Buffy. The almost cartoonish nature of their race around the globe never quite catching what they want reveals that in both of them. Their cookies need a little more time in the oven too.

Yet another excellent review. Will miss them after your 5:22 review.


[> [> Nicely put -- Tchaikovsky, 10:18:28 05/28/04 Fri

Their cookies need a little more time in the oven too.

When it comes to cookies, you're definitely the expert!

TCH


[> [> [> cookie expert -- purplegrrl, 15:48:31 06/07/04 Mon

And I remember the "good ole days" when Rufus was the cookie (and chocolate and cat and Canadian) expert. She was always wanting to feed Riley cookies and milk for cleaning her house. [Sorry, you had to have been there. ;-)]


[> Re: Life is Elsewhere: Greenwalt's Last Masterpiece (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- LittleBit, 10:32:56 05/28/04 Fri

"Let's face it- the episode was pointless. I loved it."

Hee! I loved it too. I've always felt that the ability of Joss and company to work with what could be considered inappropriate humor was one of the strengths of both (well, all three) shows. And that when looked at again, the inappropriateness of the humor would end up being strangely apppropriate.

I do have to say though that I rather thought the pointlessness of the episode was the point. That as soon as 'Angel has left the building' happened both he and Spike learned a rather critical lesson. That all the things they'd been doing with the resources of W&H at their disposal were really, well, not that much. Pointless. That in the larger picture, W&H was still just as Evil as it had ever been. And that even within his own division, Angel was always forced to make compromises, and never really had full control. That to try to change an international, multidimensional corporation from inside was, well, pointless.

When I saw it the first time, I truly felt it set Angel up to ask the questions, "how do I make a difference in the world? What can I do with this opportunity to make it have a point?" And I hoped those were questions I'd get to see the answer to. I also think it gave Angel (and Spike) a wake-up call...not to be waiting around for Buffy to make her choice between them, because she wasn't anywhere close to doing that, if she ever would be. Waiting for Buffy? Pointless.

And the final shot?

Spike: Yeah. (sighs, sits on the edge of the desk by Angel) So, what? We just have to live with it? Get on with our lives?
Angel: 'Fraid so.
Spike (sighs) Fine. (sniffles) No problem. I was plannin' on doin' that anyway.
Angel: Yeah, me, too.
Spike: Actually, I'm doin' it right now. As we speak, I'm movin' on.

The camera pans out to a wider shot.

Angel: Movin' on.
Spike: Oh, yeah.

The camera pans out to an even wider shot of Angel and Spike sitting next to each other in the big, empty office.

Angel: Right now.
Spike: Movin'.

Fade to black.

They remain side by side, immobile, while we, the audience, move on.

Priceless.


[> [> Yes, a bit like 'Awakening' -- Tchaikovsky, 05:37:07 05/29/04 Sat

The writer/director are playing with the idea that if you associate with a character, then your life after the end of the episode is some kind of continuation of their life in the previous hour, in which you were so immersed. So here, as Angel and Spike's characters become static at the end of the series, so we carry on their attempt to be heroes.

TCH


[> Taking the mature approach (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- Pony, 10:43:05 05/28/04 Fri

Lalalala! This episode never happened! [covers ears]

I'm really glad you liked it TCH, and that you wrote such an excellent review, but for me the destruction of Spike's coat is the perfect symbol for this episode - in the end we really can't tell anything happened, but in the process all meaning and emotional resonance has been lost. Shrug. I'm going to grumpily rock on the porch and recall the days when blending in comedy was a ME trademark and not something that required loss of characterization.


[> Brilliant review of a brilliant ep. You make me feel much less ashamed of loving it so much now. :-) -- Rob, 11:08:54 05/28/04 Fri

The pointlessness being the point reminded me not only of absurdist comedies like Waiting for Godot, but also Mulholland Drive, which I recently saw and loved.

Rob


[> [> Ooh, Mulholland Dr. -- Tchaikovsky, 03:08:45 05/29/04 Sat

I can't say that's a thought I had while watching it, although there is that same anarchic illogic to it all. After reading that list of clues you put up, I'm quite tempted to buy the DVD of that film. It has to be one of the best of the last five years.

TCH


[> [> [> Re: Ooh, Mulholland Dr. -- Rob, 08:22:53 05/29/04 Sat

I tried putting the clues together myself, and personally I think that Lynch is just playing with our heads even further with that list. I don't think there's any way that this mystery can truly be unravelled. Looking for the clues, though, did help me notice that in the opening musical number, when there is a split second black-and-white negative of Betty/Diane overlaying the frame, the people on either side of her are the laughing senior citizens. Her parents maybe?

Rob


[> [> [> [> That;s definitely one theory -- Bjerkely, 11:31:46 05/29/04 Sat

The senior citizens are also the ones who we see Betty with at the airport right?

I've seen it said that they possibly represent her parents, or at least something from back home. They're there in the golden girl coming to Hollywood idealisation at the start, and they're also the ones mocking her at how far she has fallen at the end. So the comparison is really about her fall from grace, which ultimately is what kills her.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: That;s definitely one theory -- Rob, 16:11:10 05/29/04 Sat

The senior citizens are also the ones who we see Betty with at the airport right?

Yes, they're at the airport, and then later we see them inexplicably laughing their heads off in the backseat of a taxicab, and then of course during the disturbing final moments of the film.

Rob


[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, the pandora's box you've opened... -- AngelVSAngelus, 17:42:50 05/29/04 Sat

Mulholland Drive happens to be one of my top 5 films of all time, and Mr. Lynch among my favorite directors/writers. Despite his persistance that everything he does is totally intuitive and defies all logic, Mulholland Drive to me operates on a principal that, though non-linear, really isn't that illogical: the conflict between the ideal and the real. When I say the real, there's an implied cynicism, and I always read the first half of the film as Diane Selwin's idealized fantasy of how her life OUGHT to be, and the latter half the actuality of it. It always seemed to me to be a film about idealism and dreams, and how the world at large has a tendancy not just to not tolerate them, but to squash them entirely.
Think about it: following her victory at that Jitterbug contest (pictured at the start of the film), Diane's aunt dies, leaves her a meager sum of money, and she sets off for Los Angeles to pursue her Hollywood dreams of being an actress. Things don't actually work out for her, and she finds herself struggling, unable to get parts and quickly becoming disenchanted. Enter Camilla Rhodes, who gets her a small part in a bio-pic after stealing the title role from her grasp, and the two of them start what becomes for Diane a co-dependent relationship.
Then compare this to what you see earlier in the film: down on her luck uncertain Diane becomes perky and uber-talented Betty. Controlling and seductive Camilla becomes amnesiac Rita, in a madly contrived car accident that renders her conveniently DEPENDENT upon Betty for identity and everything else.
Throughout the two halves you have so many scenarios just running counterpoint that it makes sense there'd be a dream/reality dichotomy.
Someone let me know if I'm ceeeeeerazy.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nope, not ceeeeeeeerazy... -- Rob, 17:50:01 05/29/04 Sat

....That's pretty much exactly how I interpreted it. And I particularly loved how the first 75% of the film, which seemed to be linear (for the most part) was the dream and the last 25 minutes or so, which was done in a dream sequence style, with time jumps and strange images and themes swirling around, was the "reality".

Rob


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I Know! Lynch remains... -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:00:01 05/29/04 Sat

one of my fav creators, but as stated before, that 'don't try and interpret this, don't get cerebral, I'm captain intuitive' stuff usually agitates me when I see it in interviews that he's done, because it feels insulting to me as an audience member that gets quite a lot out of all of his creations.
I mean, Twin Peaks used dream-logic as its narrative form, but it still made logical sense to me that it was an analyzation of the underbelly of Americana. Laura Palmer was innocence lost, Laura Palmer was darkness disguised, and Twin Peaks was a warm apple pie with worms under that crust.
I'm glad Joss never says in interviews, 'there's nothing to this, so stop being so analytical'.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I Know! Lynch remains... -- Bjerkley, 07:57:54 05/30/04 Sun

I always got the impression that Lynch was more about 'I'm not going to explain this to you, so don't ask me', but at the same time not having a problem with trying to interprete any of his works. In fact, by refusing to say what, if anything, his work is about, he's actually encouraging people's own takes, speculation and so on. Perhaps a cunning move, since the work can live longer if people obsess over what it means, rather than unlocking the mystery and moving on. And it allows the film to become a visceral, as well as an intellectual experience.

This quote from him basically explains his thougt processes on the matter:

It's a dangerous thing to say what a picture is. If things get too specific, the dream stops. There are things that happen sometimes that open a door that lets you soar our and feel a bigger thing. Like when the mind gets involved in a mystery. It's a thrilling feeling. When you talk about things, unless you're a poet, a big thing becomes smaller.

To fall into a mystery and its danger... everything becomes so intense in those moments. When most mysteries are solved, I feel tremendously let down. So I want things to feel solved up to a point, but there's got to be a certain percentage left over to keep the thing going.

You understand it, but you don't understand it, and it keeps that mystery alive. That's the most beautiful thing


And that's also the reason why Mullholland Drive is my favourite film, and Restless my favourite episode of Buffy.

On a random aside, seeing as that Mullholland Drive was originally planned as a TV series, do you think it would have reached the heights the movie did, or would the impact be necessarily diluted by the long running TV format?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I Know! Lynch remains... -- Rob, 08:34:37 05/30/04 Sun

From what I heard, wasn't the film we saw supposed to be the pilot of the series, not a condensing of many episodes? I would have be interested to see where they would have gone from there, if it was only the pilot or first 2 episodes.

Rob


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I Know! Lynch remains... -- Bjerkley, 11:51:17 05/30/04 Sun

Yes, much of the film was originally the pilot episode for an ABC series. A few scenes are different, but the pilot episode would have ended just after Rita and Betty discover the dead body and Rita tries on the wig (there are a few closing scenes which weren't in the movie). Everything else after that was filmed at a later date when they had funding for a movie. And Lynch also reinstated a lot of scenes into the first half which the networks had forced him to take out (such as the man dying behind the diner).

What I meant though was whether anyone would prefer it the way it was, or have it as a full TV show. Of course, it's impossible to speculate on what a TV show would have been like (although presumably the more baffling subplots in the first two thirds would be explored further).

To me, the movie is such a great self contained work that I'm glad it stayed as it was, since I feel that it would have been taken in an entirely different direction (although how great a series finale would it be if it did end like that?). Then again, it's quite possible that like Twin Peaks before it, it would have fallen victim to network interference (and indeed, the whole shoot was characterised by the problems ABC had with it).

Interesting tidbit though, if it had been made into a tv series, we would have seen both Helen Mirren and Marilyn Manson in it at some point.

Yes I am Lynch obsessed....


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mulholland Drive tv show -- AngelVSAngelus, 15:44:12 05/30/04 Sun

I speculated after seeing the movie and learning more about its production history just what the tv show could have been like, if Lynch would have taken the story in the direction it ended in eventually, or one completely different.
I do very much enjoy it as a self contained work, but we'll never know just what the alternative would have been like. I thought maybe all the points in the film would have just been stretched into an arc culminating in a series/season finale in which Diane shoots herself, but who knows?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, probably should say vague "Mulholland Dr" spoilers in this subthread. -- Rob, 18:09:04 05/29/04 Sat



[> Another wonderful review. -- Arethusa, 11:56:31 05/28/04 Fri

I very much enjoyed this episode's change in perspective and what it said about Angel, as well as its skewering of him. I enjoyed the Italian-type music too, it reminded me, oddly enough, of the movies I saw as a kid in the late sixties.

The episode shows us that sometimes, life is what is going on while you're busy making plans.


[> The torturer's horse scratches its innocent behind on a tree -- penitence, 12:22:48 05/28/04 Fri

Ha! Loved the episode. Loved the review, and the great citations.


[> [> I guess the real crux is... -- Tchaikovsky, 03:07:08 05/29/04 Sat

But for him, it was not an important failure

For Buffy, Spike and Angel's escapades meant nothing at all. As it should be.

TCH


[> [> [> Re: I guess the real crux is... -- Jane, 18:35:07 05/30/04 Sun

I loved the episode, and your review. Silly, pointless on the surface; underneath the real message. Moving on, as we speak.


[> Thank you, Wondered what your take would be... (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- s'kat, 21:09:56 05/29/04 Sat

Welcome to the club of GiQ lovers!!! And Season 5 lovers!

Like you, I think S5 may be my favorite season of Angel.
It worked for me. And like you, I see Girl in Question as a comic masterpiece, precisely for some of the reasons you
pinpoint, in particular this one:

For how much of life is happening exactly where we ain't? In Brueghel's Icarus for example- that feeling of not being quite where the major story is- the feeling, as Kundera put it, that life is elsewhere.

Yes, that is it in a nutshell. A painful statement, addressed painfully in so many films, yet comically here.
The fear we aren't in the center of the action - we aren't the leads or heroes or protagonists, but supporting players on the side-lines. Truth is in the comedy of life, we are all supporting players in each other's lives, more often than not - not in the center of the action taking place, but watching far away, or listening to the story after the fact or chasing around on the sidelines doing our own thing. Whose to say which action is the important or central one? OR for that matter who is the lead protagonist? Or the hero? Even though we often like to think of ourselves as the lead or hero and wish our role models and heroes to be in the center spotlight - why else do so many people obsessively collect the adventures of Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman or adore Buffy? These heroes seem to be in the midst of it all.

What I adored about BTVS and ATS - was the sly wit, which at times made it clear that what we saw was smoke and mirrors. That the central character may not actually be
in the midst of the action like they think. They aren't necessarily the hero of the piece or the most powerful or the one who will save the world. Occassionally the shows would twist things around on us and thrust us in the pov of a supporting character and they'd often do it when we thought the show was "all about the lead". In some cases even, make the supporting characters the leads instead. This has happened in episodes such as Go Fish (where Xander actually became the lead), The Zeppo (again the joke who was in the center of the action - Buffy/friends or Xander/dead guys? Buffy and her friends believed they put Xander safely on the sidelines, when in truth he may have been the only one in danger of truly losing his life in the episode), Superstar (Jonathan), Storyteller (Andrew), Crush (Spike) Something Blue (Willow), The Dark Age (Giles)...Grave (where Willow attempts to destroy the world and Xander saves it, while Buffy is elsewhere) etc. ME unlike most TV shows with a lead character's name in the title, refused to play by the rule - "it's all about this character and everyone else is merely supporting, this character is always in the center of the action, always shown with the spotlight directly on him or her. We must focus our attention on him and use the other characters to describe him." And that's why it was so good. Because it was not all about the lead. It was about how the lead and the other characters interacted with one another.

The GiQ is yet another take on that dynamic, heroic/anti-heroic Angel comes across foolish and not so mighty or so central to the action, from another angle, we see he may not actually be important at all - it's risky move just as the others are - because it shows the lead not in the center of the action, not as the main player, he's comically wandering about Italy with his comrade in arms...Spike. Neither character upstaging the other. Looking equally foolish at times. The leads are unseen offscreen. Never to appear.

Brilliant episode in my opinion. Cheers me up every time I watch it. Glad to see you liked it as well. ;-)


[> [> Sitting on the Sidelines -- matching mole, 14:52:39 06/02/04 Wed

I generally like to think of myself as being unimportant and sitting on the sidelines. So it's not surprising that I liked the episode. In fact I think that one of the things that I tended not to like about BtVS S5-7 and AtS S4 (as well as the latter half of S3) is that this sort of delightful digression was far too infrequent. (Important note - I'm not condemning these seasons in their entirety out of hand or anything, with the exception of AtS S4 all of them had things I really liked as well). When the story arc becomes too overwhelmingly dominant then perspective and balance seem to be lost.

I loved season 5 (well most of it) and its return to the central question of Angel's epiphany in season 2 along with the general instability of that era with its sense that anything could happen in the next episode (as opposed to the 'turgid supernatural soap opera').


[> [> Re: Thank you, Wondered what your take would be... (Angel Odyssey 5.20) -- Rufus, 20:56:27 06/02/04 Wed

I can't get over just how many people thought that TQIQ was a lousy ep. For one I thought it was a leadin to the pain that followed that reminded us just how fallible both Angel and Spike are. This is done by putting them in a situation where they both feel inadequate. Both are characters that have been seen to be as perfect, but perfection isn't possible. When Ilona says how Spike leaves her breathless, she is overdoing the praise making it obvious that she would say that to just about anyone...except a Gypsy.


[> [> [> Sometimes... -- Tchaikovsky, 05:38:25 06/03/04 Thu

people like us have to come to terms with the fact that our critical faculties are just better than other people's. Y'know?

;-)

TCH- who seems to be writing entirely contentless ironic posts today, but never mind


[> [> this episode throws a different light on the finale (spoilers for which are contained within) -- anom, 21:15:06 06/02/04 Wed

"What I adored about BTVS and ATS - was the sly wit, which at times made it clear that what we saw was smoke and mirrors. That the central character may not actually be in the midst of the action like they think. They aren't necessarily the hero of the piece or the most powerful or the one who will save the world."

Smoke & mirrors, or in the world of TV/movies, special effects & lenses. Maybe one thing Angel & Spike learned from being kept out of the center in this ep was that they are, in the end, expendable. There are others to carry on "in the midst of the action" & be the ones who will save the world, whether as action heroes, like all those new Slayers (or anyway, the ones who choose to take on that role) or as ordinary people working to make the world a better place, like Anne & others like her all over the world. Anne didn't become a Slayer, but what she does may be no less important. If she had gotten the Slayer power, I wonder if she'd have, um, Chosen to fight like a Slayer or decided to continue doing the good work she's already involved in, but more able to take on the vamps that "never go away for good," & to help defend the kids who turn to her but not make that her main job?

Sorry, I digressed there, didn't I? What occurred to me reading Shadowkat's post is that Angel & Spike--can't speak for the others--may have realized after seeing how Buffy moved on, & knowing she's still slaying even if they/we don't see her doing it, that they can put their lives at such high risk & know that Slayers & Annes (or Anne'ts, hee) will still be there to fight evil. How many times have we heard on the show how important it is that Angel remain as the vampire w/a soul so he can go on saving lives--I Will Remember You, Salvage, etc.? Understanding that their status can instead be peripheral may have freed them to strike a hammerblow against evil at the probable cost of their lives. Others can pick up where they leave off.

"Yes, that is it in a nutshell.... The fear we aren't in the center of the action - we aren't the leads or heroes or protagonists, but supporting players on the side-lines."

I used to take aikido, a martial art that, at least in the system I learned, focuses heavily on the use of energy (ki, or chi). You learn to focus your energy at your center to use it more effectively for self-defense. One thing we were told to help us do this was "You are the center of the universe." This didn't mean the physical universe, but the "energy universe." We would each practice picturing our own energy expanding from our center in an imaginary sphere to encompass this universe & then concentrating back down to our center--the center of each student's personal energy universe. What I loved about this was that each of us could be equally important, yet peripheral to each others' worlds.

Over 10 years ago, I had a friend who became estranged from me while she was going through a crisis. She decided I hadn't been supportive enough (might've helped if she'd told me what was going on...). Several months later, I ran into her & we started talking. Near the end of our conversation, she said, "Thank you for waiting for me." I can't remember if I said so to her, but I remember thinking that I hadn't been waiting, just living my own life. She moved away soon after that & didn't stay in touch...guess I wasn't central to her life either.

To bring this full circle--a larger circle--all the characters in both series, for all their presence "in the midst of the action," are presented as outsiders, away from the center of the larger circle of society. But of course, we, seeing our heroes as being at the center, see that society as impinging on the smaller circle of their lives, whether as people to save or enemies to fight.

And of course the same is true on this board. Am I commenting around the edges of Shadowkat's post? Or is she on the periphery, supplying ideas that lead up to mine? Don't even need to say it, do I.



Death of BABYLON 5 Star -- Roy, 12:55:34 05/29/04 Sat

I just learned that Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Stephen Franklin on BABYLON 5, had just died of a stroke. He was 44 years old at the time.

I'm still in shock.




Current board | More May 2004