October 2002 posts


Previous October 2002  

More October 2002

Reflections on STSP (and, therefore, spoilers for eps through 7.3) -- Rattletrap, 11:11:29 10/13/02 Sun

Apologies for starting a new thread, but most of the ones discussing the most recent episode are working their way down the board and probably archives-bound very soon. I don't get "Buffy" 'til Saturday night, so I miss the most heated discussion, but I've still a few thoughts I want to get down.

Like vh and a handful of other posters, this episode neither knocked me off me feet nor thoroughly disgusted me. I think it was generally a good episode, but probably the weakest of this season so far. In my mind, that is a tribute to the overall quality of the season, not a knock on Jane Espenson or the episode. The fact that I watched this episode for the first time on the heels of an extremely exciting OU-Texas football game made the slow pacing a bit difficult, but I enjoyed it more on a second viewing. A few thoughts:

* Does anyone have thoughts or (non-spoilery) predicitons about Xander's comment about the basement walls shifting and blueprints being unreliable? That is, in my view, one of the most critical plot points of this episode, but it was thrown out casually during conversation with little or no follow up, and I've seen no discussion of that in my (admittedly limited) perusal of the archives here. That seems to confirm that something big is going on down there.

* Willow's accidental spell raises some interesting future possibilities. It seems to suggest that she is magical, rather that just someone who does magic--confirming Giles' statement that this has moved beyond addiction or hobby to something more fundamental. Also < warning, literary digression ahead > has anyone else on this board read Gaiman and Pratchett's Good Omens? Did Willow's accidental use of power remind anyone else of Adam?

* The Willow recovery storyline is not going in the direction I anticipated, but I'm not complaining. This is shaping up to be a beautiful story of grace, love, and forgiveness triumphing over anger, hatred, sadness, and hurt. After the darkness that dominated last season, I find that particularly reassuring. The ending scene of Buffy and Willow facing each other, holding hands, sitting on the bed was wonderful. SMG and AH have always, IMO, had great chemistry together, and it was great to see the return of the kind of friendship they had before. I don't think the reconciliation is complete, nor do I think Willow's hard days are done, but I like the direction it's moving. Particularly revealing is this week's monster--he kills in the same way Willow killed Warren, and the discovery of flayed bodies nicely shows some of the gang's underlying insecurities about Willow's return.

* Jane Espenson showed her usual deft touch with humor this week. The Willow-Anya scenes were great. I was also surprised to see MT display such prowess with both physical comedy and ventriloquism--who'd've thunk it. I'm loving the new Scary!Dawn of this season. I've made no secret of my love for the character in the past, but she's already gone above and beyond my expectations, especially in her ability to be eerily insightful and outspoken.

* Is anyone else getting annoyed with Crazy!Spike? I find his character development believable and Marsters' acting competent as ever, but everything he says is starting to sound like white noise. I find myself hoping this storyline moves a few big strides forward in the next few weeks--I think the potential is there, but I don't think I can stand an entire season of vaguely random babble.

Speaking of vaguely random babble, I think I've said all I need to about this episode. I look forward to any responses.

'trap
[> Good Omens and Willow (possible spoilers) -- Apophis, 11:33:55 10/13/02 Sun

Yes, I read Good Omens and, yes, Willow reminded me of Adam. There's a difference, though, in my opinion. Adam was both young and, to an extent, innocent. He just wanted his friends and himself to be happy. He even allowed for his parents to punish him when he did wrong, even though he could've stopped them subconciously. Willow, on the other hand, lives in a darker world. We've seen what her will can do in the past (Something Blue, Tabula Rasa, etc.). Her repressed rage and frustration has a tendency to bubble to the surface through her magic. While I was watching STSP, I thought to myself "This is what she can do without even trying. She's a very dangerous person." She bends reality with her thoughts, both intentionally and otherwise. She has a long way to go towards control. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable around her right now.
[> [> Re: Good Omens and Willow (possible spoilers) -- Rattletrap, 12:30:49 10/13/02 Sun

Interesting insights, Apophis. I hadn't read that much into it, I had just seen a casual similarity, but what you say is quite accurate I think. I'm sure we are due for at least one more big disaster this season from Willow subconsciously shaping reality, I wouldn't feel safe either.
[> Re: Reflections on STSP (and, therefore, spoilers for eps through 7.3) -- HonorH, 11:51:08 10/13/02 Sun

Does anyone have thoughts or (non-spoilery) predicitons about Xander's comment about the basement walls shifting and blueprints being unreliable?

Yes, I do think it's definitely a plot point. Like the matter of who placed the talisman in the first ep and the girls who keep getting killed, though, I think they're going to drag it out a while before we get any sort of follow-up. I wouldn't put it past that school to grow some sort of consciousness.

Willow's accidental spell raises some interesting future possibilities. It seems to suggest that she is magical, rather that just someone who does magic--confirming Giles' statement that this has moved beyond addiction or hobby to something more fundamental.

To quote Giles specifically, "It's not a hobby or an addiction--it's part of you now." In the past, it has been a hobby, then an addiction. Now Willow's connected with "a great power," and she's still learning how to control *herself*, not the magic. Willow's going to need her friends now more than ever to help her maintain the control she needs. Speaking of which:

The Willow recovery storyline is not going in the direction I anticipated, but I'm not complaining. This is shaping up to be a beautiful story of grace, love, and forgiveness triumphing over anger, hatred, sadness, and hurt. After the darkness that dominated last season, I find that particularly reassuring. The ending scene of Buffy and Willow facing each other, holding hands, sitting on the bed was wonderful.

Big "ditto" from me. They were honest with each other. Buffy was honest about her suspicions, and Willow was honest about being afraid of her lack of control. Friendship and love won out over all that, though--Willow needed strength to heal, Buffy offered her help, and Willow accepted. Just as Buffy will likely need to accept Willow's help sooner or later this season.

Jane Espenson showed her usual deft touch with humor this week. The Willow-Anya scenes were great. I was also surprised to see MT display such prowess with both physical comedy and ventriloquism--who'd've thunk it. I'm loving the new Scary!Dawn of this season. I've made no secret of my love for the character in the past, but she's already gone above and beyond my expectations, especially in her ability to be eerily insightful and outspoken.

Agree again on all counts. The Willow-Anya scene were a terrific surprise to me. Who'd have thought they'd be the first to connect, after all that's gone on? I'm hoping this bodes well for their relationship in the future. I'm also loving how Dawn's being written this season. It's a logical progression for her character, a mix of old, innocent Dawn and the more experienced Dawn who's moved out of the anger she exhibited last season.

I think the days of Crazy!Spike are nearing an end. I found his two-way conversation rather hilarious, actually--made him even less coherent than usual if you didn't know what was going on. I'm fairly certain he'll gather his marbles up sooner or later--and then spend some time trying to keep them all together. But yeah, it needs to happen soon. And get that boy in some leather!
[> [> Re: Reflections on STSP (and, therefore, spoilers for eps through 7.3) -- SKPE, 15:11:47 10/13/02 Sun

Good point's all. I also liked the way ME did the homecoming.
One thing that I am confused on is the the whole parade of big bad in S7.01. Are we to believe this was all in Spikes muddled head or were we given a preview of the Big Bad, (The first evil?)of this season?
One OT point. Does any one know if the exterior shots of
the new 'sunnydail high' are shot at the Belmont learning center? (For those of you not in the LA area the Belmont LS
Was to be a new mega high school and academic center. But after 10's of Millions spent it was discovered they had built it over an old oil field and there was no way to stop the seepage of methane gas. a real' Boca del inferno'. It now sits abandoned another monument to buricratic stupidity).It would be a nice irony to have it portray another high school "built it the wrong Place'
[> [> [> New Sunnydale High is at Cal State Northridge (I believe) -- Dochawk, 20:20:46 10/13/02 Sun

[> On the first two questions... -- OnM, 14:05:38 10/13/02 Sun

It's been my observation that the 'throwaway' lines in the Buffyverse are often the most revealing in retrospect, so it is very possible you are right. Recall that when Anya and Willow do the demon locator spell, there is a huge cluster of lights at the school, and that is also where the map catches on fire ('Boca del Infierno', si?) (sp?).

Movie tie-in-- in the original Ghostbusters, you may remember that Ackroyd's character discovers that the building that S. Weaver's character lives in seemed to have been built specifically for the purpose of attracting paranormal activity-- it had to do with the physical structure itself.

Perhaps Joss will 'borrow' this idea, and have Xander and his crews inadvertantly follow what is actually the work of a Wolfram & Hart version of an architectural firm. Thus, Xander has a major role in the reopening of the hellmouth.
The spell is 'cast', so to speak, when Principal Wood cuts the ribbon and officially opens the school to the public.

Willow senses the 'disturbance' in the Earth at or around this time, does she not?

As to Willow, yes, I think you have had a good insight. This didn't occur to me before, but it makes perfect sense. This also works to further repudiate the concept that magic=drugs, since after all, people don't go through a stage of using drugs, become addicted to drugs, then become the drugs, do they? Didn't think so!

Just finally posted my own weekly ramble on the current ep, so you'll find I agree with a lot of the other things you've said if you check it out.

Thanks for your thoughts!
She's Frequently Kind / And She's Suddenly Cruel - Thoughts on *Same Time, Same Place* -- OnM, 13:37:27 10/13/02 Sun

*******

It's a one time thing / It just happens / A lot
Walk with me / And we will see / What we have got
Ah...

............ Suzanne Vega

*******

Well we all have a face / That we hide away forever
And we take them out and show ourselves / When everyone has gone
Some are satin, some are steel / Some are silk and some are leather
They're the faces of the stranger / But we love to try them on

Well, we all fall in love / But we disregard the danger
Though we share so many secrets / There are some we never tell
Why were you so surprised / That you never saw the stranger
Did you ever let your lover see / The stranger in yourself?

Once I used to believe / I was such a great romancer
Then I came home to a woman / That I could not recognize
When I pressed her for a reason / She refused to even answer
It was then I felt the stranger / Kick me right between the eyes

You may never understand / How the stranger is inspired
But he isn't always evil / And he isn't always wrong
Though you drown in good intentions / You will never quench the fire
You'll give in to your desire / When the stranger comes along

............ Billy Joel

*******

I would shelter you
Keep you in light
But I can only teach you
Night vision

............ Suzanne Vega

*******

Last year at this time I was reviewing After Life, which coincidentally was also a Buffy episode
penned by Jane Espenson, and I became convinced that she was somehow channeling Jim Morrison. I
quoted lots of Doors' lyrics in support of my thesis, and indeed at times the resonances were pretty damn
spooky.

Now, I'm not about to suggest that this year she is channeling Suzanne Vega and Billy Joel, despite what
one might think after the opening verses at the top of the page. In fact, judging by the number of times we
see people coming up to, out of or through doorways in this ep, not to mention the series of paintings of
doors that line the staircase in the Summers' home, I'd say the Lizard King still has her by the viscera.

Be that as it may, this was not anywhere near as good an eppy as was After Life, but it wasn't bad,
either-- there were many things to enjoy, and I did find it a worthwhile 40+ minutes, despite the lingering
feeling that something, somewhere was just-- well, a little phasey about the finished product.

First, the complaints.

If I were a newbie viewer, say someone who has only surfed the obsession for maybe a year or three, I
would probably not have been disappointed at the use of the invisibility gimmick that to me is now, finally,
getting sorta tiresome. Let's see-- Willow is invisible to her friends. This means that she feels withdrawn
and alieniated, fears that no one cares about her anymore. Oh dear. Poor Willow. Bah humbug.

Now, I understand that Willow has good cause to fear this, but on the other hand, didn't she learn
anything at all from Evil/Dark/Willow? Like how to be just a little more assertive? Maybe not
'I'm gonna turn the world into a cinder!' kind of assertive, but at least perhaps 'Hi, I'm back, so do ya hate
me totally and completely, or can I be of some useful assistance or something?' Sorta like Spike, ya know?

OK, she probably wouldn't do that, but at least can we lose the sad little puppy dog eyes? With Giles, I can
buy that, at least for an ep or two, since Giles is probably the one person that she betrayed the most, and
who despite that fact came to her aid and has been trying to help her put her life back together. Giles, who
had the kindness to be cruel to her back last year around this time, and tell her in absolutely no uncertain
terms that she was dabbling with forces that she so needed to stay away from. Giles, whom she
knew had risen above a dark past of his own, and so unquestionably knew what he was talking about.
Giles, to whom her response at the time was 'you better not piss me off...

She already knows that Xander loves her-- he was able to reach her inner, honorable self when no one else
could. Buffy is her other closest friend, and Buffy always forgives her friends their trespasses. Buffy even
eventually forgave Willow for pulling her 'loved, completed', resting-in-peace soul out of heaven. (And
sure enough, there is the admittedly lovely, heartwarming scene at the very end of the show, with the
'glowing' bodhisattva Buffy showing her very best qualities yet one more time). Dawn? Dawn might have
a harder time of things, but Dawn is young-- so it's a toss-up.

So, she gets off the plane, and Buffy, Dawn and Xander are waiting there to greet her. Only they can't see
her, and she can't see them. By the end of the ep, we know that it's a spell, and Invisible Girl reappears this
time, no CIA in sight. It's kinda back-to-the-beginning, yeah, it's kinda something a little different,
yeah, but... gosh-darnit, I just wanted something a mite more clever, and I know from long experience that
Espenson can do it. On a 0-10 scale, this aspect gets a 4-- better luck next week.

Now, the not-a-complaint-but-just-sorta-puzzled department.

After watching the ep for the third time, I decided to scan over the board to see if anyone else was as
struck as I was by the oddness-- there is simply no other word I can use to describe it-- in this ep's
interactions between Buffy and Spike. Granted that this is probably fully premature, and all will be made
clear at some point in the future as to what actually transpired at the church after we saw Spike drape
himself upon the cross and start to 'burn'. What did Buffy do or say? Did she run over to him, pull him off,
hold him, try to comfort him in some way? (Not sexually, I mean). Was she just frozen, unsure what to do
or say? Did she leave without saying or doing anything? The brief encounter in the school basement might
seem to suggest the latter, but it really didn't give much of a clue, if you listen closely to what is said, and
don't attempt to put any particular spin on the words themselves.

What I am wondering is whether or not Buffy has told anyone else that Spike now has a soul, and if so,
who. My own guess is that she has not told anyone, but there could be some other permutations. In
decreasing order of likelihood, these would be:

Most likely-- Dawn knows, but no one else. This would explain why she seems suddenly more
willing to allow Spike to assist them when they go looking for Willow. Buffy hasn't told Xander.

Next-most-- No one knows (except obviously for Anya, who already knew after the encounter at
the Bronze. Buffy is withholding the information because she wants to, for reasons of her own, most likely
an intuiting of what she believes Spike would want.

Next-least-- Same as above, but because Spike specifically asked her not to tell anyone. He did
seem very upset at the ensoulment becoming generally known, considering how violent a reaction it
triggered that was then directed at Anya and Buffy.

Least likely-- Everyone knows, because Buffy informed them of it between the time of last week's
events and now.

If the last of these guesses is the case, then I am at a loss as to why the SG would be treating Spike with
the same semi-demeaning use-him-if-you've got-him methodology that they did previously. Buffy's
behavior I can understand to a certain extent, since she would logically be trying to maintain a certain
careful 'distance' until she can figure out just how to handle an obviously different entity than she was used
to dealing with previously-- none of the 'old rules' suddenly apply, since the un-person before her is not
like the ensouled Angel, and also no longer like the un-souled Spike that she known in the past. One should
additionally consider that in one of GoodSpike's lucid moments, he did tell her to 'use him' if she needed
to. If Xander knows, it doesn't appear to have changed his behavior in any way-- he still plainly dislikes
and distrusts Spike on his usual 'just because' basis. Dawn seems to be following Buffy's lead, whatever
that might be.

The board scan seemed to support these general ambiguities, with the most reasonable possible explanation
I could find being shadowkat's thoughts that the writer and director configured the ep into basically two
exclusive POV's, namely Willow's and Xander's. While I'm not sure about this myself-- I easily picked up
on the Willow POV, but I'm really unconvinced if the other 'one' is purely Xander's-- it is a very logical
concept, supported by the available data.

The only other idea I can offer is the one I suggested above that Spike specifically asked Buffy not
to reveal his soul-bearing status to anyone else. If this was the case, then even her seemingly 'cold'
behavior would be explainable, since she would be actively trying to deflect attention by pretending to
continue the 'status quo'. This could be an intriguing possibility, since Buffy was already given the evil eye
by Xander and Dawn last week for not revealing that Spike was back in town and hiding out in the high
school basement. If she delays telling them about the ensoulment, for whatever reason, will they start to
become concerned that she is becoming involved with Spike again, despite what happened in the spring?

I'm going to let this particular debate simmer for a while, and move on to the good stuff, of which there
was a goodly amount. First off, the trademark BtVS humor was back in force big time, at least if you
appreciate Espenson's wacky perversity. The highlight of this for me was unquestionably the 'posable
Dawn' sketch, which everyone involved-- and especially Michelle Tractenberg-- pulled off beautifully. The
Anya/Willow interactions were delightful also, as was the sheer joy Dawn seemed to be having describing
disgusting demon behavior in grotesque detail and eww-ing out poor Xander, all with a perfectly straight
face.

Buffy: She knows about viscera. (Nods in quiet admiration). Makes ya proud.

Last week I mentioned about an odd occurrence 'hidden' (?) in the closed captioning, and this week brings
another closed cap caper, although this time it wasn't really hidden. The occurrence happens when Buffy
and Xander bring the now-paralyzed Dawn back to the Summers' house, and she is lying on the couch
while Buffy is trying to find the antidote on the computer. Locating it, or rather the lack of it, Buffy looks
crestfallen. Cut to a head/upperbody shot of Dawn lying on the couch where she mumbles something short
and mostly sigh-like, but which the captions reveal to be the word 'shht'. These days I usually
watch eps the second time through with the caps turned on, to help catch the subtleties of dialog better,
and I simply cracked up at this. It so perfectly fit the expression on her face at that instant, and of course
had the secondary intent of slipping something naughty through the network S&P dept. without
'technically' doing so.

I noticed that a few posters have complained that Dawn was mistreated in this episode, and while I can see
the point intellectually, I really don't agree. In fact, I see Dawn's 'predicaments' and her reaction to them
as proof positive of just how emotionally sturdy she really can be, and that all she needed was to get her
big sister to understand this and stop overprotecting her. I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again,
Dawn is Faith, if Faith had been raised with people who genuinely cared about her. It's one of my
big hopes for the season that these two characters will meet up with one another eventually. We've never
had a single clue to date what Dawn thinks or knows about Faith, but there are so many aspects of
personality they seem to share that it just has to be a fascinating opportunity to have them on-screen
together.

(For the benefit of some newer readers who might be trying to follow my line here, it is a theory of mine
that when the monks created Dawn from the Key energy, they modeled her on The Slayer, who of
course was Buffy, but at this particular moment in Slayer history was also Faith. Therefore, Dawn
contains literal and/or metaphysical DNA of both Buffy and Faith within her. In addition to the intriguing
fact that this could have meant that Faith could also have closed the dimensional rift in The Gift, it
provides for all sorts of potential future BtVS story arcs when Buffy discovers this to be the case. Please
note that this is purely my crazy spec-- I am very much NOT spoiling in any way).

Returning from my Faithian digression, while Dawn probably wasn't too pleased about Anya turning her
into a living action figure (and then having her sister go along with it), on the other hand she must realize
the bent humor involved in it, and probably is more likely to 'get even' sometime in the future rather than
petulantly sulk over it. She also might have in mind that she was responsible for shoplifting from Anya and
Giles, and considering Anya's traditional rep as a vengeance demon, this was really getting off pretty
easily.

Dawn: (muttering, barely intelligible): Not going to vomit! Stop talking about vomit!!

Other really good stuff-- the nod to Lord of the Rings with some of the personality characteristics
of the demon Gnarl. The nod to Firefly with Dawn stating "It's not The Gnarl, just
'Gnarl'". ("It's not The Serendipity, just 'Serendipity'") The extremely funny demon
database/high heels/ 'that was so nearly empowered!' lines.

And still more-- Seeing Dawn take over so competently in Willow's previous geek detective job for the
SG, which has got to have some import for future scenes now that Willow is back, sort of. Is there going
to be a conflict here, or will Willow stand aside and allow Dawn to claim her previous position? Following
her sister's lead regarding Willow or not, Dawn still vividly remembers EvilWillow's nasty insults directed
at her, something Dawn is now clearly showing were largely unjustified.

I don't know if this is 'good' per se in terms of what the creative staff has in mind, but a short while back I
recall another poster or two mentioning that Dawn's hair seems to gradually be getting blonder. While I
agree that Michelle looks wonderful with darker hair, and would be perfectly happy if she stays that way, I
suspect that a certain framing to a camera shot from the airport scene intends us to see the hair color shift
as further evidence of possible Slayage duties for Dawn.

What I am referring to is the three-shot where we briefly see Buffy (on the left), Dawn (in the center) and
Xander (on the right), all carefully framed to suggest that 1) Dawn is now a more serious player than
Xander for the upcoming season or at least near-future events and 2) the physical resemblance between the
two sisters is more striking than one might have previously thought and 3) that physical resemblance
metaphorically speaks to metaphysical resemblance. It's a brief shot, so use the freeze-frame button if need
be, but I suspect you might feel the same after studying it. Another scene/shot supporting this is when the
SG is in Gnarl's cave for the first time, and for a few seconds Dawn lifts her sword, her body adopts a
certain pose, and her face morphs into the Summers' 'warrior stare' again. I suspect that ME keeps
repeating/reinforcing this shot/pose to either keep us assuming that Dawn will become a Slayer, or else to
play with our heads at season's end and not go that direction at all (classic ME early/late season red
herring).

I also loved the funny and offhand way Buffy compliments her sister on 'being right about the poison
fingernails' as they carry her back to the house after Gnarl's attack. Also, the increasing recognition that
Dawn is pretty smart in the "Watch her head!" riff as they carry her paralyzed body into the house (and of
course, take 'The Key' through yet another metaphorical/literal doorway or two).

In summary, this was a decent show (about a 6 or 6.5 overall rating, I'd say), though certainly not up to
the first two truly brilliant outings of the season. Things were just a mite too obvious with the
Willow/ invisibility arc. Xander really seems to be lacking whatever fire Anya put into his personality when
they were a couple and is slowly dissolving into background status again, which is kind of sad. Anya is
feeling increasingly dissatisfied with her vengeance career, and the best Willow moments in the show were
when she was newly identifying with Anya. The spell they cast together might be interpreted by some as
there being a possible future 'ship between the two, but I doubt it-- I think it more likely they will become
better friends, especially if Anya should choose to get out of the vengeance biz entirely in future (assuming
D'Hoffryn would let her-- a whole 'nother potentially dangerous issue, methinks).

I'm even wondering if Willow will become an active force in getting Xander and Anya back together again,
now that it's become pretty hard for her to fault Anya for taking the demonic turn 1100 years ago, when
she came so close to doing so herself last spring. It's not that she would now approve of Anya's
actions, but she understands on a personal level how it could come about, which she didn't before. This
idea also mirrors what I was talking about in my statement earlier that Dawn is Faith but with caring
parents. If someone genuinely caring had been there for Anya 1100 years ago when she was badly hurt and
decided to allow her emotions to subvert her soul to violence, would all of her future victims have been
spared their horrific fates? This surely fits perfectly with the traditional 'actions have consequences'
baseline viewpoint of the Jossverse.

That's all for now-- until next Tuesday, keep thinking of those doorways following the ascending
Summers' staircase-- IMO, it's got to be one of the more significant visual images presented this week.

Or... is it the descending Summers' staircase?

Uh-oh... better think happy thoughts!!


*******

But she can't be convicted / She's earned her degree
And the most she will do / Is throw shadows at you
But she's always a woman to me

............ Billy Joel

*******
[> ***Spoilers*** for Ep 7.3 and earlier in above + Speculation (not spoiler spec) -- OnM, 13:40:46 10/13/02 Sun

[> But... But I LIKE Willow's sad puppy dog eyes! -- ZachsMind, 14:00:20 10/13/02 Sun

I see where you're coming from, but Willow wouldn't be Willow if she didn't still have that uncertainty in her character. It might be getting tiresome, but that's who she is. She's a bit of an extremist. I was doing the "Annotated Buffy" thing awhile back for the episode "Nightmares" and there were times there when she was the voice of caution and also the voice of Worst Case Scenario. That's just who she is. Xander & Giles decide to split up and she's like, "uhoh this is bad." Y'know? That's where she comes from. She sees things as black & white. She's WRONG but that's who she is.

I can also see similarities between this episode and some of Billy Joel's works. The concept of masks is a common theme throughout Buffy, and it does appear at times in Joel's works. I think that's just cuz both Buffy and Joel hit on common themes that many people can empathize with.

But Buffy & Vega? That's a bit of a stretch. *smirk*
[> [> I agree...Manipulative or not, her puppy dog eyes get me every time. -- Rob, 16:21:57 10/13/02 Sun

[> [> S'OK... I like to stretch... helps my back! ;-) -- OnM, 19:56:18 10/13/02 Sun

Interesting-- I figured that people would see the Vega and approve, but also possibly feel that the Joel was too obvious. I take a chance, sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Goes to show...

;-)
[> [> [> Not the words. I mean the feeling... -- ZachsMind, 20:13:45 10/13/02 Sun

I'm a big Joel fan from way back, and the feeling of Joel's music ties in with Angel and Buffy in some ways to me. Moreso with Angel I think, but Joel's early stuff has this angst and frustration in it that ties in nicely. She's Got A Way has hints for many of the girls in the cast in differing ways. Everybody Loves You Now could be Cordy's anthem. Would be fun to see Billy Joel get a special cameo shot on Angel. Maybe as a friend of Lorne's. Won't ever happen but Joel's picture perfect for Angel, whereas he'd look out of place on Buffy.

Vega on the other hand, her words may apply occasionally but the feeling of her music doesn't. I guess that's why I don't sense it like you do. Maybe Vega's words with Michelle Shocked's energy. That'd probably work for me.
[> Re: She's Frequently Kind / And She's Suddenly Cruel - Thoughts on *Same Time, Same Place* -- Miss Edith, 14:42:14 10/13/02 Sun

I have no idea if the others were told about Spike's soul but I'm hoping they weren't. I would hate to be cheated out of their reactions.
And as for Buffy I think Doug Petrie posted in the Bronze that Buffy run off whilst Spike was on the cross. And I think she didn't see him again until she visited his crypt for help.
That's what is being said on the cross and stake board anyway because I remember a few people were saying that they would have prefered to think Buffy would have at least got Spike off the cross and they wished Doug Petrie hadn't told them her true reaction.
[> [> Another Cross and Stake False Rumor -- Alan Smithee, 15:10:47 10/13/02 Sun

Petrie hasn't posted at the bronze this week. In fact, Petrie rarely posts. Much of the stuff at the Cross and Stake are falsities posted to make Spike look better.
[> [> [> Re: Another Cross and Stake False Rumor -- shadowkat, 16:11:25 10/13/02 Sun

Another thing - even if he did post? Don't base analysis on writer's posts. Base it on what is in the episode. Unless
Whedon tells you directly in an interview. Whedon is the only one who has a clear idea about this.

As Whedon states: "Don't listen to my writers. Listen to my story. I pay my writers to lie."
[> [> [> [> Hey!....Can I get paid to lie?????? -- Rufus, 02:08:44 10/14/02 Mon

[> While you're on the music, rescued Billy Joel's "Ode to Buffy" -- Rochefort, 14:54:22 10/13/02 Sun

Billy's ode to Buffy (She's Always a Woman):

She can kill with her smile, she can wound with her eyes...
she can ruin poor Faith, drop her down from the skies...
she can kill with a crossbow, or wound with a stake...
She can blow up the mayor...when he's a big snake...
So that all that I fear ... is pre-empted t.v...
Blame it all on fall sports cause she's always a woman to meeee...

Ohhhh.... she can take what she wants....
but she's cooler than Faith....
and she's always real niiiiiiiiice.

Ohhhhhhh... but sometimes it gets touuugh...
sometimes she doesn't win....
she's all ready died twiiiiice.

She is freaquently kind...she is suddenly wise...
And what keeps her alive is her family ties...
And she'll come up on Vamps, when they're lustily eatin...
Put a stake in their heart, and leave em all bleadin...
And she never gets bored, even dated Riley...
Blame it on Marti Noxon, she's always a woman to meee.


(yeah yeah, I just dropped the last name to piss y'all off) --Billy Joel
[> [> LOL! OK, I liked that. But then I'm peculiar that way ... ;-) -- OnM, 19:37:13 10/13/02 Sun

Really minor nitpick-- maybe try 'don't or 'can't for 'doesn't' here:

Ohhhhhhh... but sometimes it gets touuugh...
sometimes she doesn't win....
she's all ready died twiiiiice.

If I recall the melody, it would fit just a bit better.

Pretty cool. Thanks for that!
[> Re: She's Frequently Kind / And She's Suddenly Cruel - Thoughts on *Same Time, Same Place* -- Rattletrap, 15:25:15 10/13/02 Sun

Interesting insights, as ever OnM. I had never noticed the doors along the staircase, I'll have to look for that on my next viewing. A couple of other thoughts in response:

On my first watching I was pretty convinced that Buffy had told Xander and Dawn about Spike's soul. That seems a pretty big plot point to happen offscreen which, combined with a second viewing, has led me to reject it. Xander's attitude toward Spike seems to have softened somewhat, but I'm willing to chalk that up to sympathy for Spike's madness more than sympathy for his soul. I've always thought that JM and NB have a kind of quirky but interesting chemistry as rivals, and I'm delighted to see that it continues through Spike's present travails. I loved his "I'm insane, what's his excuse?" line.

I like your use of the word "oddness" to describe the Buffy and Spike interaction. If we could bring the characters to life and ask them, I'm not even sure they would disagree. Buffy isn't sure what to make of Spike with a soul, particularly a newly acquired one. She seems to be trying to act as if everything is the same, but knowing that it isn't. The average is a confused muddle somewhere between the two -- "oddness" as you say. Buffy knew Angel with a soul and saw evidence, particularly in "Amends," of how much it tortured him. Based on what we've seen, it doesn't seem like Spike ever spent much time around the souled Angel and, therefore, never really understood his pain. The thought that Spike would willingly inflict this on himself, understandably, frightens Buffy, hence the "oddness."

I like your idea about Dawn as Faith with a better upbringing (Dawn = Faith + Love, ha!), and I'd love to see the story told, but my gut tells me ME won't go that direction. Oh well, I'm confident that whatever they have in store for us will be interesting.

Okay, there's my $.04 for this week,

'trap
[> Great review OM, agree mostly -- shadowkat, 16:07:56 10/13/02 Sun

Great review OM. Agree with most of your points. Still feel that the writer was channeling Xander though...because even rewatching the episode, Buffy just doesn't register much.
But that has already been debated to death - I do however
like your alternative point, which actually I don't believe is an alternative. I think it can be true regardless of pov.

"The only other idea I can offer is the one I suggested above that Spike specifically asked Buffy not
to reveal his soul-bearing status to anyone else. If this was the case, then even her seemingly 'cold'
behavior would be explainable, since she would be actively trying to deflect attention by pretending to
continue the 'status quo'. This could be an intriguing possibility, since Buffy was already given the evil eye
by Xander and Dawn last week for not revealing that Spike was back in town and hiding out in the high
school basement. If she delays telling them about the ensoulment, for whatever reason, will they start to
become concerned that she is becoming involved with Spike again, despite what happened in the spring?"

This fits with what Spike says after Buffy comes into the room:"Oh. Uh ...no, I, I should hide from you. Hide my face. You know what I did."

At first I thought this was in reference to the rape, now I'm pretty sure it's in reference to the soul and embracing the cross. But not completely sure. It does however make sense that Spike wouldn't want anyone to know. He hates himself right now and is very vulnerable. It's easier for him if Xander and Willow and the others continue to treat him like Spike. My hunch is he fears the pity. In a way, I think Buffy's seemingly callous behavior is easier for him to take than her pity would be at this point. And I think he appreciates her providing him with a chance to help.

I am wondering however if part of his insanity isn't due to the fact that he is in that basement and probably sees all the other inhabitants down there.

It is also in keeping with Buffy's character not to reveal Spike's secret. Just as she didn't reveal Angel's return to the gang. Or revealed that she was in Heaven. Or that Dracula bit her. Or that Riley was doing vamp trulls. Or that Dawn was the key. Buffy doesn't like to discuss things. And it makes sense - she had to keep the fact that she was the Slayer secret from her parents and friends for a year in LA and in high school. Buffy has been trained to only reveal what is necessary. After all how many people really know Dawn was/is the key?

Buffy's lines to Spike make more sense if you read them with the view that she is trying to keep Xander from finding out too much.

"Spike please." (When he starts babbling)
"We need to know who did this."
Her tone is somewhat gentle and desperate to keep him on track. And to Xander. "This isn't the time."
"the church...you scared me a little. I didn't know what to think." She says it quietly almost conspiratorarily as if she doesn't want Xander to overhear while trying to quiet Spike down at the same time. If he were lucid - he wouldn't have brought if up in front of Xander.

I got the feeling she was half afraid he'd confess about the soul again or embarrass them both in front of Xander.

We (not you specifically OM, since I think you do) but the rest of us need to give Buffy a break here - and it is hard to do in this episode, since we don't appear to be in Buffy's pov at the moment, so she's more inscrutable than ever.

When I attempt to jump into her moccassins, I realize wait! This girl has a major conflict of interest going on right now. She is the paranormal sheriff of Sunnydale, keeping the peace and now a counselor at the school - also keeping people safe. She has three supernaturally inclined, at times very helpless, close associates who have helped her save the world numerous times in the past - (Spike, Willow, Anya). Unfortunately due to a series of events, some within her control, some not, these three associates have become very dangerous and not incredibly reliable or trustworthy.

1. Vampire, not just any vampire, a 130 year old extreemly bright, capable vampire, who she has feelings for, went off the deep end and got a soul, which is now driving him insane. Yes he has a chip - but there's no guarantee in his insane state that a chip will stop him from accidentally or intentionally hurting someone. And oh wait, he's insane in the basement of the school which lies over the hellmouth.
What to do? Do you stake him? Do you try to help him? How do you help him? How dangerous is he? He's always been unpredictable - now he's just more so. And fighting wise, he is just about your equal, yeah you can probably take him, but there have been moments he got the upper hand.. But he's also useful and maybe letting him help will give him something to focus on and help with the justification for uh not staking him?

2. Ex-vengeance demon, former fiance of best friend, friend of yours, now vengeance demon again. Who seems to be turning people into monsters and doing other nasty things in the name of vengeance. Should you kill her? Smash her pendant? Ignore her? Try to get her to help you? Maybe if she helped that would justify the not killing?

3. Witch with incredible powers, which she doesn't apparently have much control over. Far more powerful than you or well most of the witches in the world. Almost destroyed said world. But hey she's also your best friend. Helped you save the world a few times. You wouldn't be alive if it weren't for her. (Which you may still have mixed feelings about.) What to do? Welcome her back with open arms? Kill her - assuming of course you could. Imprison her? Again assuming you could. Or try to forgive her and bring her back into the fold?

Buffy basically has same problem this year she had in Season 3 with Angel, Faith and OZ. Except I'd argue that Anya, Willow and Spike are a tad more unpredictable and dangerous than those guys were. Willow certainly can do more than A/F and Oz altogether. And at least Oz was only nuts once every 28 days. Angel? (shrug)

So let's just say the Buffster has her plate full. Slayer.
Counselor. Mother. Best friend. We can forgive a few cruel if untimely quips here and there. ;-)


"I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again,
Dawn is Faith, if Faith had been raised with people who genuinely cared about her."

Uhm on the fence about this one. But I think it could be possible and if so, very intriguing and ironic. Buffy forced to raise a girl that is partly Faith?? Nice twist that. Of course i believe Buffy and Faith are part and parcel of each other...so from that pov this does work.

Like you - I really want to see a Dawn/Faith interaction.
Possibly more than any other character interaction on the show.

Finally - after rewatching it? (Which I also did with close captioning - nifty device close captioning.) I have to admit my favorite part of the episode was Dawn's paralysis.
Yes, maybe I have a sick sense of humor (I did do these things to my little brother before he got big enough to whup my butt), but posable Dawn and Dawn's paralysis and Stop talking about vomit lines were a riot. I laughed throughout. I particularly loved MT's acting during this and her interaction with Xander. These are the best Dawn scenes since Season 5. I'm beginning to enjoy the character again.
Episode Titles -- meritaten, 16:33:17 10/13/02 Sun

Why aren't the episodes titles shown? Seems odd to me. I was just reviewing recent posts in the archives and saw that people were telling me places where I might be able to look up the titles. I appreciate the help, but am confused over why the writers don't just tell us the titles.

Also, one S1 episode seems to have two titles - Invisible Girl and Out of Mind, Out of Sight. How did this come about?
[> Re: Episode Titles -- d'Herblay, 16:58:09 10/13/02 Sun

All episodic television shows have titles for each individual episode; it's a way for the producers to keep track, and helps single out episodes for awards at Emmy time. However, the vast majority do not clue in the viewer as to the episode title. (It is more common for dramas to do so than comedies, but the only prominent drama that I can think of which does so now is ER. The only comedies that ever proclaim a title do so for ironic intent: Police Squad!, Sledge Hammer!, Son of the Beach.) I'm fine with this practice; I can't imagine that it would at all add to my enjoyment of Friends to know that the episode where Ross and Rachel took a break was entitled "The One Where Ross and Rachel Take a Break."

It is my understanding that "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" is the official title of the episode; "Invisible Girl" is a name on the analogy of "Prophecy Girl," "Reptile Boy," and "Inca Mummy Girl" given to the episode by the internet fan base, which found the original title a little complex and too easy to reverse the clauses of. While "Invisible Girl" was definitely predominant a few years ago, "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" seems to be resurgent (DVDs tend to be the absolute arbiter). It is not, however, the only episode for which multiple titles exist. There is still some confusion over whether the Season Three finales are called "Graduation, Parts One and Two" or "Graduation Day, Parts One and Two."
[> [> Re: Episode Titles -- meritaten, 17:34:54 10/13/02 Sun

Thanks for the explanation. However, I must say that Friends titles aren't a worthy comparison. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Friends, but the titles are pretty superficial. Buffy titles seem more pertinent.

I guess the real issue here is that I don't understand why they can't (or won't) just flash the title up on the screen with the names of the writers, etc. I've seen many other shows do that. This would detract nothing for the uninterested viewer, and it certainly couldn't cost very much, could it? IMO, it would be better for the Buffy viewer to have easy access to the title.
[> [> [> Re: Episode Titles -- Sophie, 18:50:36 10/13/02 Sun

Titles flashed on screen would be nice - Star Trek has always done this. But on the other hand, watching the ep and trying to remember the title, knowing that a character will say it sometime during the ep, is kind of a fun guessing game when your VCR tapes are all out of order and you are too lazy to look up what ep is where....

Sophie
[> [> [> [> Re: Episode Titles -- meritaten, 23:11:57 10/13/02 Sun

Part of my frustration IS that my tapes are all out of order!!! I'm not finding it fun at all.
[> [> [> Sometimes they do -- Vickie, 21:46:33 10/13/02 Sun

When a two-part episode is broadcast in tandem, they do provide a title and writer credit:

Bargaining, Part One, written by Marti Noxon
Bargaining, Part Two, written by David Fury

Ditto with the directors' credits. That's the only time I've seen this on BtVs. When the episodes are later broadcast as two separate shows, this doesn't appear.
[> [> [> [> "Two to Go" and "Grave" also -- d'Herblay, 22:13:56 10/13/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Two to Go" and "Grave" also -- meritaten, 23:14:54 10/13/02 Sun

I did notice the titles on these episodes and have driven myself mad trying to see the titles on others! :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> OMWF also displayed the title, of course...but that was a special case. -- Rob, 07:59:15 10/14/02 Mon

And this is a less greivous title mixup, but there's sometimes some confusion as to whether it's "Afterlife" or "After Life." It's a subtle difference, but I think that when it's split into two names, it's even more meaningful.

Rob
[> [> [> Re: Episode Titles -- Spoilers for Enterprise - (2 weeks ago) -- Arya_Stark, 22:55:29 10/13/02 Sun

Well, I was just starting to watch Enterprise a couple of weeks ago and something caused a big explosion on the ship. Oh no! Confusion! What caused that? What's happening?

Title of episode flashes on screen: "Minefield"

Oh... I guess that's what caused the explosion. The title told me before the crew figured it out. Kinda took a little out of the viewing experience.

Granted, it couldn't have been more than 30 seconds later that the crew figured it out, but still...
[> [> [> [> Re: Episode Titles -- Spoilers for Enterprise - (2 weeks ago) -- meritaten, 23:19:58 10/13/02 Sun

I have only saw the last part of that episode, but I thought that UPN had already given that away? Maybe I'm wrong, but I expected a minefield when I turned it on.

As for STSP, I would have prefered to learn that title at the beginning of the show rather than days later. Just my preference.
[> [> Re: Episode Titles -- OnM, 19:16:46 10/13/02 Sun

If I recall, another ep with two possible titles was Helpless, which was also known as Eighteen.

(This was the ep where Buffy was forced to undergo the Cruciamentum Test by the Watchers Council).

Somewhere I read that "Eighteen" was the title given in Europe, and in America it was "Helpless", but I kave no assurance on that as being a fact. Anyone know for sure?
[> [> [> The double title that wasn't -- d'Herblay, 22:11:46 10/13/02 Sun

According to Doug Petrie on the S4 DVD commentaries, "This Year's Girl" was almost titled "Rise and Shine." I like that one better.
[> [> [> [> And another... -- Tchaikovsky, 03:25:26 10/14/02 Mon

He also mentioned that he wanted to call the Faith/Buffy body switch episode 'Faith off' instead of its original title. Splendid
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And yet another... -- Freki, 11:23:57 10/14/02 Mon

Jane Espenson also mentioned in an interview that 'Intervention' was going to originally be titled 'Absolution', but they decided that would give too much away.
West Coasters-- Stay tuned for one of the very best Angel eps ever! (no spoilers) -- OnM, 19:25:26 10/13/02 Sun

Easily rates a 9.5 on the OnM meter!

Serious congrats to Mere Smith for a fabulous script, and likewise to the ep's director (missed the name and haven't replayed the tape yet). The cast was uniformly superb all around. Better than a keeper, it's a classic.

:-)
[> Agree, 110% -- Wisewoman ;o), 19:41:20 10/13/02 Sun

I couldn't believe how good that was, and I'm not having any luck figuring out why...I think I need to get some perspective on it and hear what people here have to say, but wow, GO ANGEL!!

;o)
[> Re: one of the very best Angel eps ever! (SPOILERY) -- SingedCat, 19:44:51 10/13/02 Sun

I liked the episode, it had tons of style,-- how slick was that woman! And Phred development to the max--Yeah, she's aaaall that and a bag o' chips. I can't throw my vote onto the classic scale, though I sure see why you'd love it, and here's my why.
I've seen time and again that one of the few ways to incapacitate a vampire was what? A powerful electric shock. How many times did it work for the Initiative? Oh, a whole underground installation full? This girl can manipulate electricity like nobody's business, certainly better than a taser, and nothing happens?

Rats, I say, with pouty lip. The writers used to know better.

That being said, Wooohoo! I'm digging Wesley! That story arc is *too* much fun. And who do you bet is headed his way? Oh, yeah. It'll happen.

And next week --- can I just say I predicted it last season? ROAD TRIP!

I LOVE THIS SHOW!
[> [> (more SPOILERY reaction) -- ZachsMind, 20:02:41 10/13/02 Sun

My take on the electricity thing, Angel's been through a lot of crap. Remember that in season four of Buffy, Riley & Angel went at it and Riley was tasing Angel something fierce. It slowed Angel down but didn't stop him completely. He's not your run of the mill vampy. Angel's been round the block a few times and this girl wasn't the first 'freak' with a taser that he's gone up against. After being thrown into a hell dimension for a hundred years by one's ex-girlfriend, or being left for undead in the bottom of the ocean for a summer by one's own son, a little lightning's not gonna do more than just piss you off. =)

Overall a great episode. Fred getting a spine but then wigging. That was fun. Would like to see the lightning 'freak' again. I think she's got some fine chemistry with David. Acting wise. I hope they bring Wes back into the fold soon cuz this whole deal where he's playing one side against the other's getting old. The show's more fun when it's a contained Angel Investigations team against the world, as opposed to having everybody stretched out all over the place. Wesley doing his own thing. Cordelia learning Why The Caged Bird Sings. Lorne playing a stage act thing. WTF??

Hopefully next week with them going to Vegas, they'll get Lorne back on a more permanent basis and leave that whole Vegas thing. The writers need to put the family back together.
[> [> [> Re: (more SPOILERY reaction) -- SingedCat, 20:13:01 10/13/02 Sun

Er. Not to be too persnickety, but Connor used a taser on Angel when thay were on the beach, which completely incapacitated him. This girl was obviously throwing eveything she had at him, and it didn't seem to do much more than itch. Now I'm very big on thinking of all developments as happening *in* the show, not always defaulting to "well, the writers wanted it that way." But this one point just doesn't fly for me, and looks like they basically dropped the plot-ball.

And again, I add, most of the episode was really great (see rave above).
[> [> [> [> Tomayto tomahto... -- ZachsMind, 20:18:13 10/13/02 Sun

Angel getting tazed by Connor was a little different to getting tazed by Riley or this cat burglar freak. Angel's got a bit of a vulnerability to his own flesh & blood. It wasn't just being zapped, it was the fact that Connor was zapping him. Angel's kinda like Superman in that respect. I mean, it's one thing for Superman to get attacked by Lex Luthor's goons. Superman would expect that. However, if Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen turned on him, Supes would probably have less reaction time and get knocked for a loop simply from the mental shock and anguish.

Angel's got an extra weakness when it comes to Connor, because Angel keeps hoping Connor will come to his senses.
[> [> [> [> [> *cough*bullshit*cough* -- sTalking Goat, 22:10:26 10/13/02 Sun

I'm sorry thats the lamest explanation I've heard in a while. Yes I'm sure the shock of being attacked by his own son rendered him unconscious.
This is obviously a continuity screw-up. Joss ,ust not have read this script too well. Guess he got discratched by That there Western-Space show...
[> [> [> [> Alternative theory and WHAT is Gunn hiding??? -- Mal, 23:12:32 10/13/02 Sun

No, see, Angel isn't a vampire anymore. He's the GRINCH. It could be, perhaps, that his shoes are too tight. It could be his head isn't screwed on just right. But I think the most likely reason of all is the fact that his heart is two sizes too small.

(I'm very pissed that the en-heart-ening "very special" effect ruined an otherwise stellar ep. Did they need Angel to release some sexual frustration or what? What was the point of the two of them kissing in the first place? Does a beating heart necessarily make ones hormones run wild? Did his heart shrink back down to normal size after he was, uh, done with the sexcapades? (Ahem.) ALSO! Did Gunn see Cordelia when he was dead or what? That boy is seriously hiding something...)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Alternative theory and WHAT is Gunn hiding??? -- Lilac, 06:25:00 10/14/02 Mon

Thank you for making the point about the kiss. My reaction was, what the heck is that? Where did it come from? Is this what happens when a vampire's heart beats, they kiss whoever is in arm's reach? I have only watched the ep once, so I am hoping that if I look at it again it will make more sense. Did his heart stop beating after the momentary shock or is Angel now a souled vampire with a beating heart?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Alternative theory and WHAT is Gunn hiding??? -- Cydney, 06:59:37 10/14/02 Mon

Yes, I want to know, too. Is Angel's heart still beating? Or was it a metaphor for his heart beating for Gwen? Will he go for Gwen since he thinks Cordy is out of the picture?

Why didn't they say anything about his heart still - or not still - beating at the end?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoiler Speculation -- Juliet, 11:59:52 10/14/02 Mon

I think the Gwen/Angel thing was maniupulated for these 3 reasons:

1) Skip said he was taking Cordy off to another dimension (presumably, but not definetly on orders from TPTB) to do good. And look at her higher being status...sitting around yelling at Angel. Woo-hoo. She's leading such a different life now.

2)Joss stated, or someone said Joss stated, that "the big bad is going to be TPTB". So if TPTB are hanging on to Cordy (keeping her away from Angel in that other dimension), then they want to get her away from Angel for some reason. And to seal the deal: Angel kissed another girl. Cordy saw. And Angel thinks Cordy is where she belongs.

3) Just a point to make: Angel just kissed Gwen. He didn't fall in love with her. The PTB can't control that. But they can plant the seed and let Angel's (and Gwen's) own mind cultivate it. Angel hasn't had that kind of contact since Darla (well, waiting in the wings could count, but not really) and hasn't had any actual loving romantic contact since Buffy. It doesn't seem like Gwen has either. Angel's probably the first person she's kissed like that who survived. Plus, Angel thinks Cordy's never coming back. So that's already there. The powers gave them a push for whatever reason.


-oh, and I'll add this line (from Fred, not exact): "When you leave, you expect to come home and have things how you left them." So maybe when Cordy comes home Angel won't be totally in love with her anymore? -

I do think it would be interesting to see how this all plays out, but they'll need more work on Gwen before I like her completely. She seems too perfect here...the body, the intelligence, the kiss.

It's my theory. It changed as I wrote it. So let me know...
[> [> [> [> Re: (more SPOILERY reaction) -- TeacherBoy, 00:42:23 10/14/02 Mon

Well, I hate it (OK, not hate it, just really object to)when people get too technical on a supernatural show but...

A taser works the way it does because of the way that voltage and wattage works on a person (or an unperson). Wattage people can take; voltage..not so much. Still confused? Put your lips to a regular AA or C D battery (which is just 1.5 volts) as compared to a 9 volt battery. Tingly, no? Now, what in the hell does this have to do with "Angel"?

A lot, actually. When I watch "Buffy" or "Angel", I watch for the story, not the technical details, even if I can pick at them. Having said that, however, if they get too crazy, they can throw me out of my precious suspension of disbelief. This little thing did not do that. Electricity is a funny thing - throw the supernatural in there, and I am willing to disbelieve quite a bit. Remember, this is a STORY, not a technical manual. Just enjoy the story you are being told (or don't).

TeacherBoy

ps - I can't believe I am writing this, but I really liked the scenes with Gunn and Fred. This just goes to show that I have a great deal of faith in ME...

pps - For a college experiment, I was tased (is that an actual verb, and if it is, did I spell it right?) It really, really sucked. I mean, beyond sucked. It's not like on the TV shows. It's way more painful. Just so you know.
[> [> [> [> [> A sexual charge (spoilers Angel 4.2) -- Cleanthes, 13:33:04 10/14/02 Mon

Usually, reading this board increases my enjoyment of an episode. Sometimes, tho, a bit of fusspottery here leaves me with a blah feeling.

The previews for this episode made a link, I thought, between Gwen's sexual "wow" factor and her electricity.

So, her electricity had a mystical component that tasers lack - and that's:

1) why it started Angel's heart, with a summum bonum kiss (and that's why it had to be a kiss, at least for us Browning lovers)

2) why it killed Gunn when she attacked him but

3) restarted his heart like it would restart a beloved '57 Chevy.
[> [> [> Re: (more SPOILERY reaction) -- Doriander, 20:46:31 10/13/02 Sun

Overall a great episode. Fred getting a spine but then wigging. That was fun. Would like to see the lightning 'freak' again. I think she's got some fine chemistry with David. Acting wise.

Mere Smith writes great one-off gifted "freaks", doesn't she? I hope we see more of her too. And Bethany.

I'm liking Fred too. Her apparent insecurity at being outdone by Angel during that presenation scene was funny, yet touching.

I was too engrossed to even notice the electricity thing. But now that you brought it up, yeah, that's a big gaping hole of inconsistency.

Electricity, "spark", is there a connection?

Also, last week, Escher, this week, Dali. Ponder, ponder.

So many things in this ep harken S6 BtVS; Angel's description, of where Cordy is is very similar to Buffy's description of heaven. Perhaps Angel's wrong reading of Cordy is colored by what he and Buffy discussed last time they met? Lilah's "make me" gave me a "Wrecked" flashback.

Yup, LOVING both shows this season.
[> [> [> [> Re: (TEENY SPOILERY reaction to artist names) -- pr10n, 21:26:17 10/13/02 Sun

[Heady flush of weekend-overwork pre-angel-tape DLS-activates-at-home-tomorrow JOY!]

> Also, last week, Escher, this week, Dali.

Considering the framing metaphor Angel uses, I expect Joseph Cornell shadowboxes next week.

Metanarration meets itself in the video store.
[> [> [> [> Who's Bethany? -- Vickie, 23:07:56 10/13/02 Sun

I thought Electro-Girl was Gwen?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Who's Bethany? -- Mal, 23:29:57 10/13/02 Sun

Bethany was the abused girl with telekinetic powers in season... 2? Someone help me on the name? Her scary incestuous dad called her "Rabbit." I loved that ep.
[> [> [> [> [> [> 2.4: "Untouched" -- d'Herblay, 23:35:53 10/13/02 Sun

[> [> Re: another thing (SPOILERY) -- Sang, 23:11:02 10/13/02 Sun

Bending light? Absolute nonsense, not even funny. Even worse, what's that embarassing lame pony explanation? Why did she explain it to Angel, anyway?.

Interesting ep.. but I hate those electicity superhuman cliches, (that they can manifulate anything with their electric power, btw, she has the exactly same power of that guy in Mutant X and many others from cartoons.) I couldn't enjoy it much.

Well, it is just me, a curse for a Physicist.
[> [> Re: woman (SPOILERY) -- meritaten, 23:20:59 10/13/02 Sun

I really likes the electric woman (didn't catch the name). I wasn't sure whether to feel sorry for her, punish her for her misdeeds, or what. Can't wait to rewatch the episode.

I hadn't been a big fan of the DarkWesley plot, but I really liked this episode. DArkWesley is looking better and better!

I can't say I thought it was one of the best episodes ever, but I definitely enjoyed it.
[> dammit, dammit, dammit. -- Solitude1056, 22:30:51 10/13/02 Sun

I'm still not used to this Sunday night thing - I completely spaced and went out to dinner instead.

Dammit!

Anyone in the DC area tape it?
[> [> Re: dammit, dammit, dammit. -- celticross, 23:01:17 10/13/02 Sun

Not I, Sol, cause I had the exact same space out. *shakes fist* Curse you, WB!!!
[> Damn! Just "Damn!" -- d'Herblay, 23:12:27 10/13/02 Sun

Damn! Maybe not the best Angel episode ever (I'd hold up "Rm w/ a vu," "Disharmony," "Heroes," "5 x 5" and "Sleep Tight," though comparing this to at least the first two would be like comparing apples with much funnier apples), but, in my opinion, the best episode of either series this season (I'll probably regret that statement in the morning). Something for everyone in that! For the comic fans, you've got the whole Rogue homage. For the mythologists, you get to explicate the Eleusian mysteries. Plus, tight, red leather.

I was intrigued from the start, though I have to say that when Professorette Xavier said, "Mr. and Mrs. Raiden," I heard "Rayne" and was hoping that these were distant cousins. And the hills of Wisconsin seem strangely dry . . .

Great chemistry between Lilah and Wesley. Wonderful (I have to say it) sparkage between Gwen and Angel (much better than there's been between him and Cordelia since "Some Assembly Required"). I hope to see more of her.

I have a half-assed theory (escaping the plot hole) that Gwen did not produce electricity so much as she drew electricity, amplified it, and then returned it to its source. Living creatures have a certain natural electrical charge; perhaps she shocked Gunn with his own natural energy. Angel would obviously have a lot less to draw on. But maybe just enough to get his heart started again. It's half-assed -- anyone out there who knows more about physiology or electrics want to tear me to shreds?

Great, great ep. By the way, Wes rocks!

When Angel said of Cordelia, "She's where she belongs," did anyone else ask, "She's at Barney's?"

(Ok, off to try to regain my normal coherency.)
[> [> Shocking the Heart (spoilers Angel 7.2/Buffy 6.22) -- Dochawk, 00:05:38 10/14/02 Mon

Hmmmm, well to restart a stopped heart you usually need alot of voltage (we use 300 joules when we shock people), but then maybe Angel has alot less impedance so his heart would need much less to start.

More importantly, to me at least. Did anyone else flash back to Lurky and Spike when Gwen shocked Angel? Looked like the same charge to me.

And D'H (why do I always think of vengeance demons when I type that), this episode is up there in the pantheon of Angels. I'd add Epiphany to your list though.
[> [> [> CSI homage? -- neaux, 08:10:56 10/14/02 Mon

Looks to me like ATS took a little cue from CSI with the whole heart charge scene they way it zoomed in the body and all. I thought it was waaaaaaay cool!
[> [> [> [> Definitely! -- dub ;o), 08:56:23 10/14/02 Mon

That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. Glad to see ME isn't above paying attention to other innovative offerings in the same medium.

;o)
[> [> Re: Damn! Just "Damn!" (Spoilers -- TRM, 17:38:34 10/14/02 Mon

Well, Raiden makes me think of Rayden of Mortal Kombat -- God of Thunder. But I did dig the whole Rogue thing as well. Professor Xavierette, as you called her, really scared me though. "Of course, you can't touch the other students." I can see her as being good or very very evil. Perhaps (as per a comment below) she works for Wolfram and Hart.

I say forget about the technical aspects of this episode...


... but if you want my thoughts, I would attribute it more as a plot flaw in Gwen's abilities rather than Angel's. Because, honestly, if she was putting out that much electricity, the dissipation of that energy is bound to, say, singe Angel's clothing -- maybe burn him like vampires can be.
[> [> Agreeing with D'H, OM, Wisewoman and SC. (spoilers ATs4.2) -- shadowkat, 07:34:11 10/15/02 Tue

Not sure which thread to post it. Agreed most with D'H so will put it here.

I loved this episode. I was expecting to hate it from the promos I saw and was blown away by how truly good it was. It is after maybe Sleep Tight, the only Angel episode I rewatched with close-captioning after I saw it the first time.

(Quick aside - Did anyone else catch some of the media references and one liners?
There's one that only appears in close-captioning that
is not the same line Lilah speaks that had me dying of laughter:

L to W: Angel kicked Connor out of the hotel
Close captioning: "Ward kicked the Beav out of the hotel."
LOL! (Whedon's father wrote LEave it To Beaver.))

Okay I thought Gwen was the most interesting new character they've introduced in a while. She's a good fighter - definitely gave Angel a run for his money (finally a woman who can fight on this show). She is all about conducting electricity. I'm no physicist or electrician, but from my limited reading of stuff on this - isn't there a big difference between a taser or weapon emitting an electrical charge and someone who acts as a live conductor of electricity? A live conductor as a friend told me last night would usually use the electricity it grabs from someone or something else and use it against them. Gunn's natural electricity (body electric) was what she used to stop his heart. Living things have a natural electrical charge. Angel is dead - no natural electrical charge. So when Gwen touches Angel - she can't grab anything - the electricity goes through him usually. When she restarts his heart - she's trying to grab that natural charge and counteract it - but instead all she does is create one, briefly in his body. When two people touch - you get electricity in some situations - often called static electricity. The creation of natural electricity heats his body and causes the electrical charge resulting in the kiss. Made perfect sense to me. (But then I'm not investing in A/C ship - so Gwen/Angel isn't threatening to me, have to say...life is far more pleasant when I don't invest in ships between fictional characters I have 0 control over in a horror show that likes to show the horrible aspects of relationships.)

Loving Cordy in heaven. I also thought of Buffy. Angel's description of Cordy or what he saw totally fits Buffy's description of heaven. All I could think of is Buffy wants to go back and Cordy wants to leave. LOL!! Beginning to like Cordy again. Great ending line: "What are you guys, deficient? Get me out of here!"

Loving DarkWes/Lilah. Lilah's wonderful line to Angel: "I'm still evil. I don't do errands. Unless they are evil errands." LOL! Reminded me of Season 4 Spike. Don't get me wrong - if W/L were real people in real life? I'd hate it.
But they are fictional characters and the story is so multilayered and morally ambiquious in places that it's fascinating to watch. In some ways I think it is bringing out a new side of Lilah I haven't seen before.

Fred/Gunn were actually incredibly interesting. And loving the new Fred. That story arc is also heating up. Feel a bit more character development going on.

The Divan was creepy and reminded me a little of the Gnarl but more interesting and far creepier. I also liked the myth reference. Anyone out there up on the Elysian mysteries and what the Divan stood for? I was thinking the
gateway to the watery grave? Or the sirens?

There was nothing in this episode that I didn't like and I can't say that about anything else I've seen this year.
Tending to agree...after two viewings? Grounded is the best
ME episode on all three series this year so far. It beats Beneath You for overall enjoyment IMHO. (And that's coming from someone who usually prefers Btvs over Ats...)This keeps up, i may end up becoming obsessed with ATs.

I'd give it a 10.
[> My take (Spoliers, natch) -- Earl Allison, 04:16:14 10/14/02 Mon

Overall, I enjoyed the episode, even if it really didn't seem to actually GO anywhere.

I wish they'd stop ending the episodes with Ascended Cordelia -- it was mildly amusing last week, this week, it was totally unnecessary (the whole episode was indirectly about her already) and took away from the plot.

Angel's heart. WHY exactly did a liberal application of electricity jolt it into activity? When Connor used his taser, it shocked Angel into unconsciousness -- ditto for (slightly OT) the Initiative blasters and tasers from S4 Buffy -- ALSO useful against vampires, not for setting their hearts all aflutter.

I'm guessing he kissed Gwen because she made his heart go pitty-pat -- the storybook definition of love. Grinch!View of his heart was nice -- although I also subscribe to the thought that his heart simply stopped after a few seconds.

Gwen. Interesting new take on Rogue of the X-Men, but the writers need to be careful. If there are more than a handful of powerful metahumans (Gwen Rayden/Raiden, Bethany Chalk so far) around, why aren't we hearing more about them? Why aren't more of them at Wolfram & Hart's beck and call? Bending light waves? Okay, did anyone consider just how potentially powerful that could make her? Probably not.

Fred's outburst. Maybe I'd have bought it if there were some indications coming -- but this was totally out of the blue. I can understand the feeling, just not from Fred (more from Wesley, or Giles, or almost any of the original Scoobies) -- someone who might have the "old warhorse" mentality. Imagine doing the "right thing" for so long that it becomes more than a job or calling, but something you feel so morally obligated to do that you begin to resent it, and resent others who DON'T treat it with the same reverance or obligation? You can't leave, you know what's out there in the dark, and you were raised to do better than turn your back on others when you KNOW you can do something. You feel trapped by the lifestyle, by the "good fight," but you have either too much guilt or too many feelings of obligation to turn away, even for a moment. So you begin to resent others who CAN turn away, or make light of things, because you simply cannot, and it eats away at you. I can't see Fred at that point, she hasn't nearly been involved enough yet.

Wesley's actions. He did give Angel a lot of information, and nasty or not, he was right. Angel only came to apologize because he wanted something as well. Good to see Wesley still hunting demons, although I do wonder who his support group is.

Angel loves Cordelia? Sorry, still not seeing it. It's like everyone is going overboard to say it or point to it, as if mentioning it over and over again will make me believe it. Ain't gonna happen :)

I do hope we'll see more of Gwen - given the introduction, I'm pretty sure we will
[> [> Disagree with you on points (SPOILERS for Ground State) -- Robert, 07:54:25 10/15/02 Tue

>>> "... it was totally unnecessary (the whole episode was indirectly about her already) and took away from the plot."

I disagree with your statement on both counts.

Cordelia asks "Are you guys deficient? Get me out of here!" We now know that Cordelia is aware of the gang's actions and discussions (maybe even thoughts). More over, we know that Cordelia's memory and personality are intact. Who else would ask a question like that? Therefore, the scene was NOT unnecessary (totally or otherwise).
Second, I disagree that it took away from the plot, because Cordelia's actions and fate are the plot. The stuff with Gwen was merely filler for the extended story arc.

>>> "I wish they'd stop ending the episodes with Ascended Cordelia ..."

On this I totally disagree. I am fascinated that Cordelia's fate. I want more details of her current existance. I have a hypothesis that Cordelia's hell is the same place as Buffy's heaven from the previous summer. I am very interested to know if I am correct. I hope we get many more scenes like these.
[> Not lovin' it so much (Spoilers for the ep) -- CW, 07:31:40 10/14/02 Mon

Half way through the episode I thought I'd be singing its praises, too. But, it lost me. How many fantastic female guest stars have we seen on Angel? A lot and all of them were fantastic despite the fact that everyone of them had serious weaknesses. Lilah is fantastic because she's just a woman. Everthing she does against Angel is a risk she takes with her own life. The new girl is just too much. Let's see she's literally a walking dynamo; she super strong so she can fight on equal terms with Angel; and to top it off she's a cat burglar. But, suddenly she gets caught in a stupid rrap designed solely so that only Angel can get her out? Why didn't they just shoot her when she walked in the door?
There is no subtlety in the character whatsoever. How can you not think cheap cartoon? They dress her in a screaming red top. Then in case you missed it (and by extension it's symbolism) they have her mention her nipples. I could go on, but a lot of it is just picky. Fanasty depends on suspension of disbelief, but this episode was asking too much.
[> [> Re: Not lovin' it so much (Spoilers for the ep) -- TRM, 17:48:29 10/14/02 Mon

I'm slightly confused with the whole red/symbolism/nipples thing and where this requires suspension of belief. The suspension of belief in my opinion was primarily the light bending and then Angel's differential reactions to electricity (on the other hand, sometimes I just try to look at technical continuity in an episodic basis, so I won't really comment).

Admittedly, she is an over-the-top character not in the fact that she lacks dimension but because of the way she behaves. Nonetheless, there certainly can be layers to her personality that are more subtle; beyond the whole flashback-save-Gunn scene (which was none too subtle), we still don't really know why she's so jaded with respect to relationships. "You really were going to use that to find her weren't you?" (paraphrased)

She is no more over-the-top than Cordelia was in the early years of Buffy. Gwen is perhaps the stereotypical "red dynamo" as Cordelia was Queen C. Yet one would argue that Cordelia's behavior in the first few years not only hid greater depth in her character but was intentionally hidden by Joss (i.e., Cordelia's joining the Scoobie Gang is one aspect of the show that Joss has definitively pre-planned). I would suspect Gwen's attitude to serve much the same function.
[> [> cartoon electro-babe -- lulabel, 17:49:16 10/14/02 Mon

I thought the episode as a whole was fantastic, but I gotta agree that Miss Electro Thrills was totally over the top - cartoon character indeed. What was the whole point of that charactater? She was very superficial and somewhat tawdry despite the child-hood flashback to give her some "depth". On a run-of-the-mill show, I would say that she was there for cheap thrills, but on this show I have to suspect that there is something deeper going on here. She reminded me in so many ways of Glory - very self-absorbed, superficially sexual, extremely powerful and all-around scary.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is no logic behind the starting heart leading to the passionate embrace. (Unless you think about all the blood which must be rushing around in his body, ha ha) So perhaps it's supposed to be a counterpoint to the other embraces that occur in the episode - Wesley/Lilah and Gunn/Fred. What that connection or comparison is, however, escapes me.
[> [> Red -- Rufus, 05:17:52 10/15/02 Tue

I kinda looked at Gwen a different way.....when we first see her she is encased in red...red overcoat with hood and thick gloves....she is like a red beacon that is totally seperate from life. When we fast forward to the present Gwen we see someone who appears confident, but still encased in red, right to red lipstick....she is no child but still a beacon of red, seperate from life.....she has no real connection to others as she is forced to be apart to keep everyone else safe...the sad moment is when she tried to hold the hand of her new teacher as a child....she is a freak, and time didn't change the fact. Her blatant sexuality, her bright clothing gave her the appearence on one type of person, one that is strong, together, yet when she is called a freak from her contract guy, she loses it. She is still the girl in the parka and gloves.
[> There are times I hate being Canadian... -- Scroll, 06:53:07 10/15/02 Tue

Waiting two whole days to see new "Angel" episodes definitely makes me want to move south! (Okay, not really, maybe just empty my savings account and get satellite TV.)

I will remain strong and avoid all spoilers. I will remain strong and avoid all spoilers. But God, 12 more freakin' hours!
[> I must be missing something (no spoilers) -- matching mole, 10:56:35 10/15/02 Tue

Don't get me wrong - I didn't hate it. In fact I would be inclined to regard it as a step forward from some of the problems I saw in the first episode. I thought it was quite enjoyable. Well done and entertaining despite the whole eyebrow-raising heart starting thing.

But I never in my wildest dreams imagined that so many people whose opinions I respect would rate it as one of the best Angels ever. It just seemed, well, ordinary. If I had hated it and others had loved it that would make more sense. But this just confuses me.

What did I miss?
Where've we seen her before? (very slightly AtS spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 20:22:18 10/13/02 Sun

I couldn't get over how familiar that electricity babe was in tonight's Angel episode. Why is she so darn familiar? She reminded me both of Faith (Eliza Dushku) and of Glory (actress name escapes me). I know she's not Duskhu. Is she the same actress as Glory? Where've I seen her before?
[> Alexa Davelos -- oboemaboe, 21:39:38 10/13/02 Sun

She was a lot like Faith, but she reminded me of Eve Adele Harlow (Zuleika Robinson) from The Lone Gunmen.
[> [> Correct spelling = Alexa Davalos (spoiler) -- Cleanthes, 21:53:47 10/13/02 Sun

Not exactly a big star, but I did get 19 sites on Google.

Apparently, she'll be playing the vice president's daughter on an upcoming Fox show about the Secret Service. Will it last as long as Firefly?
[> [> [> Apparently she's an up-and-comer -- vh, 09:26:11 10/14/02 Mon

She only has the Angel ep and "The Ghost of F. Scott Fitzgerald" (2002) listed on IMDB (about which there is very little information).
[> [> [> [> Re: Apparently she's an up-and-comer -- Juliet, 11:33:37 10/14/02 Mon

uh oh...she's got the (2002-) thing next to her name...that means she's a recurring.

I'm feeling ambivalent about it right now.
[> [> [> [> [> Minor Spoiler Above and here -- CW, 12:18:26 10/14/02 Mon

But, I thought it was fairly clear from the story, ME wanted her back. The whole what-did-she-do-to-me bit has to come up again. I wonder if this plot line was what Joss and the temporary head man at Amgel had "artistic differences" over.
[> Re: Where've we seen her before? (very slightly AtS spoilery) -- Cheryl, 10:58:54 10/14/02 Mon

I don't know who she is, but I liked her and the chemistry between her (Gwen?) and Angel and hope she makes a return appearance at some point.
[> Where've seen Him Before? -- neaux, 11:50:26 10/14/02 Mon

so... is there life after My So Called Life?

I think the actor with the 12thousand dollar watch is Tom Irwin. Is that right?

if so, he's the dad from MSCL right?
[> [> Yes and yes . . . -- d'Herblay, 12:05:02 10/14/02 Mon

Threw me all night before I went to the IMDb.

Ooh! Anyone want to see some shippy significance in the defeat of the father of Angela Chase? Hey, last year at this time we were drawing great huge conclusions from the vampire couple James and Elizabeth in "Heartthrob"!
[> [> Re: Where've seen Him Before? -- vh, 12:09:33 10/14/02 Mon

Doesn't have this on the guest appearance list, but apparently there is life aftter MSCL (i.e., a steady stream of work).
Amy Acker.... -- sTalking Goat, 21:50:15 10/13/02 Sun

...someone get the girl a pie, a cheeseburger something...
is this what SMG is gonna eventually look like?
*shudders*
[> Selective breeding and the conspiracy that controls us all. -- Apophis, 22:33:21 10/13/02 Sun

Not only is that what SMG will look like, but eventually, the entire human race will be recast in stick figure perfection. Ms. Acker is merely a prototype. Think about it:
The strongest inpulse in Hollywood females is to be as thin as possible. As we know from watching TV, Hollywood people breed almost exclusively among themselves. On top of that, they breed in large numbers and with multiple mates. Their children are numerous, ambitious, and resourceful.
Another thing we all know is that Hollywood, and indeed, all media, is a tool of the vast conspiracy which rules America and the world at large. Why would our masters be breeding exceptionally thin females? I'll tell you. Global warming. You see, the more linear and thin a person is, the better adapted they are to a hot, dry climate. Ergo, when the world is a smoldering desert, our overlords will have a waiting and ready stock of perfectly adapted females to breed with and thus reshape the species after the rest of us have succumbed to our engineered extinction.
Engineered? Of course. You don't think global warming is an accident, do you? It's all connected, my children. Selectively bred humans, a desert world, mass media capable of twisting the minds of the populance... what does it all mean?
Reptillians. Yes, that's right; reptillian beings from another star. Evolved from the dinosaurs, vastly intelligent, merciless, and in possesion of technology millions of years in advance of our own, they have shaped our civilizations and our very lives since time immemorable. Their pawns in the conspiracy are preparing the way for the Earth's rightful rulers. They re-engineer the climate back to the way it was 65 million years ago and provide their masters with a slave race that can withstand the rigors of such a world. The signs are all there, clear as day. Don't punish yourselves for not seeing it sooner; only a few are capable of withstanding the crushing truth, of which (fortunately for you) I am one. I have delivered the message, my children; it's up to you to win the war.
-Apophis, the chaos of freedom raging against the order of slavery
[> [> ROFL! -- sTalking Goat, 22:53:01 10/13/02 Sun

You have been elevated to the status of cult leader and minor demi-God in my eyes This has to be the best thing I've read all weekend.
It even explains Sc|3nT0l0gy and their addiction to various mind altering substance. Genius. Truly I believe!
[> It may just be her body type. -- HonorH, 07:15:04 10/14/02 Mon

Much as we hate to think it, there are some women who just naturally *are* that thin and have trouble gaining weight. AA probably feels self-conscious about being skinny, and one thinks it's no more appropriate to criticize or make fun of her for her body type that it was to make fun of Amber Benson for hers.
[> [> On the other hand... -- KdS, 08:16:11 10/14/02 Mon

It seems to be accepted in some social circles that those in the privileged group have to be willing to accept slightly more ribbing than those in groups that are discriminated against. For example, in AtS itself the writers seem inclined to give Gunn anti-white jibes that would destroy a character's audience sympathy completely in the inverse situation.

OK, I know you're going to quote "Earshot" at me now :-)
[> [> [> Re: On the other hand... -- aliera, 19:45:46 10/14/02 Mon

Well no, I rarely quote...unless, it's poetry. But I am going to request another example...or further explanation...not understanding...priviledged?
[> [> [> [> Sorry, aliera -- KdS, 08:01:30 10/15/02 Tue

Some of other people's responses below have made me feel somewhat ashamed of that post. It was something of a knee-jerk response and I'd rather just let it die.

Hope you understand :-(
[> [> Re: It may just be her body type. -- sTalking Goat, 08:38:57 10/14/02 Mon

This isn't even about jibing her about being skinny. It looks unhealthy. It can't be good when all your ribs are visible, through your shirt.
People can make comments about AB's weight all they want, at least she won't collapse from exhaustion or malnutrition...
[> [> [> If you're wanting to inquire into her health-- -- HonorH, 00:18:25 10/15/02 Tue

inquire into her health. As it is, it does look like you're jibing her about her weight, to borrow your terms. Kind of like if you suggested someone give a chunky actor a StairMaster.

I think it's safe to assume she's healthy unless we're told otherwise, anyway. SMG, too. She's stated that she and FPJ enjoy cooking together and fine food, so I think it's safe to say she's not starving. Beyond that, it's a matter of body-type preference and an actor's personal decisions about how she should look, and should be treated as such.
[> [> Some people just metabolise food a hell of a lot quicker than most...I'm one of them -- Majin Gojira, 11:05:28 10/14/02 Mon

I go through the same stuff....It sucks to be a guy who can just not 'Bulk Up' at all...God knows I've tried.

CUrse me and my high metabolic rate!
[> [> [> Re: Some people just metabolise food a hell of a lot quicker than most...I'm one of them -- Drizzt, 21:02:32 10/14/02 Mon

Hey Majjin

If you WANT to bulk up, the BEST source of info on doing so for laymen/average joe without optimum genetics is...


Muscle Media(magazine)

Just My Oppinion;-)
[> Re: Amy Acker.... -- JSK, 07:41:11 10/14/02 Mon

You're kidding, right?

SMG ALREADY looks like that. I noticed it especially last year in "After Life" and it's been downright PAINFUL to look at her ever since. And AH is going the same route. Check out the scene in AL where Buffy and Willow hug; it looks like two stick-figures intertwining, especially their arms.

Worst part is, SMG's body is so unnaturally thin that her head looks too big for her body. Check out a head-n-shoulders shot sometime; she looks malformed.

Oh for the healthy-looking Buffy of Season One...
[> Re: Amy Acker.... -- JM, 08:45:41 10/14/02 Mon

I'm sure that this is all meant in good fun, and I really dislike to make negative posts. But this whole thread is rather distasteful.

I can understand that there is legitimate concern about Hollywood sponsored body types and and the health of actresses, dancers, models, etc. However, commenting negatively about someone's personal appearance seems no more appropriate than commenting on their sexual or romantic history. And frankly seems little different than treating women as objects vs. people in any other setting.

I really don't want to offend anyone or make anyone uncomfortable, but didn't feel like I could ignore the issue. Masq, if it's me that's behaving inappropriately, please delete my post and I'll spend the day off the boards until I cool off a little.
[> [> I understand your concern (and incidental, accidental speculation) -- Wisewoman, 09:51:51 10/14/02 Mon

However, leaving aside the potential hurt in attributing negative characteristics to specifically named actors, there is a larger issue here (no pun intended).

We've had the discussion about the distinct lack of multiculturalism in the Jossverse. There's a similar lack of multisizeism. Of course, as with people of color, people of size are under-represented on TV in general. The exception seems to be large, white, male comedians in half hour sitcoms.

I want to believe that AA was hired to play Fred on the basis of her talent alone. I want to believe that CC's recent apparent plumpness isn't the reason that we've only seen her shrouded in yards of fabric, or from the neck up in soft focus. I want to believe that SMG's changing body type reflects only her dedication to her own good health.

But I'm a person of size, and it's difficult for me to believe those things.

I don't blame JW or ME for this, BTW. In fact, having re-read what I just wrote, I'm half way to convincing myself that Charisma must be pregnant! I don't think Joss would ostracize her for gaining weight, but the way she's being used and shot (think of the first scene in Deep Down; she's sitting at the dinner table, hidden from the waist down) is typical of a series trying to conceal an actor's pregnancy. But surely we would have heard some rumour of this by now?

Anyway, back to the point, I can't believe that a 150 pound Amy Acker would be playing Fred, regardless of her talent. And that's a shame. If she's healthy, more power to her. If she's starving herself in order to enrich her career, my heart goes out to her. Amy herself is not the issue, as much as the use to which she and actors with bodies types such as hers are put, is.

Okay, I'll shut up now. I have to go check out my sudden "insight" into Charisma...

;o) dub
[> [> [> Agreeing with JM, Dubdub and Sophist -- Rahael, 10:17:25 10/14/02 Mon

I think the imagery of women, and the way that BtVS talks to us about women should be talked about. Since, after all, it is a show which says it is feminist, and openly attempts to show strong women.

However, using size to attack individual women, for the choices they make, for the decisions they take, for the way they live their life - that's unconscionable, and I'm glad JM spoke up. It's a strange sort of 'feminism' which is simply used to knock women down. To deny them intelligence or agency.

Since the decisions/situation under discussion here are in the field of personal life, and in that context do not affect others, it seems strange to attack actresses/actors for even the food they put in their mouth, for the personal bargaining/decisions they make in order to do their job, to get work. It either seems to show actresses as fools, manipulated completely by the corporate machine, or as prisoners. Somewhere in between are women with brains, intelligence and determination, who like many of us are making trade offs in order to do a job they want to do.

Certainly, I would like greater diversity in the people shown in films/tv. Whether it is age, race, size, gender. I think it would lead to an enriching of our culture. It seems paradoxical as the size of the average American or European goes up, the images that we *want to watch* grow thinner and thinner.

And it's not just women. I have read so many comments about Xander getting fatter, or Angel getting porky, or Tara being large, or SMG being too thin. These attacks and comments are hypocritical (since we wouldn't want anyone commenting on us in such a way), and in any case, are directed at the wrong people.

It's interesting, that in one of the DVD commentaries for Season 4 which I transcribed (Hush, I'm pretty sure) Joss admits that he thought Amber Benson was too plump for the role. That someone as slender as Willow would probably be attracted to a girl that was of a similar build (?????!!!). It was Marti who insisted that Amber was the person who should be hired, and he fell in with her judgement on this.

Rahael, who has been underweight, overweight, ideal weight for reasons having nothing to do with any kind of eating disorder or dieting during her time.
[> [> [> [> Thinness and Health -- Dochawk, 13:20:01 10/14/02 Mon

I am going to weigh in here with a couple of thoughts. First off, I think comments about an actor or actress' physique are totally off base (this differs from saying someone is hot or attractive). I was appalled at the Tara/AB imbruglio (and Rah I don't remember Joss saying anything like that on the HUSh commentary, but I will listen again, Joss defended AB when this issue came up on the bronze and Amber publicly excoriated the jerks who were writing about it).

Now as for a persons health, there is no way to know how healthy someone is by looking at them. A woman's body has a mechanism to tell them they are too thin. If she loses her menstrual period, she is too thin, otherwise as long as she gets the proper nutrients she is not. At least from a health perspective.

As for "sizism", I agree television should have more diversity, but their responsibility is to grab viewers any way they can, so do they set the cultural mores or do they follow them? And the continued increase in weight in American and western women (and men) is a national epidemic soon to turn into a national nightmare as we try to pay for all the complications weight can bring on (diabetes, heart attacks, strokes etc).
[> [> [> [> [> Do they set the cultural mores or do they follow them? -- Tchaikovsky, 13:31:47 10/14/02 Mon

Agree with most of what you say here. I have a slight problem with the assertion that it is their responsibility to grab the viewers any way they can. I think that there are ways in which it is incorrect, (and irresponsible) to grab viewers. Sensational violence or sex not furthering the plot? Unwarranted attacks on other programmes for reasons other than satire?

And I think following cultural mores is being a little short-sighted. Particularly in a programme as intelligent as Buffy. Should we condone the parts of films, (some of them wonderfully made) in the 30's where there is implicit racism. Ingrid Bergman's character calls Sam 'boy' in Casablanca- a great film (yes, I know it's a 40's film, I'm just inconsistent) but a nasty, jarring moment. Should we excuse the scene because of the mores of the time? No. In the same way that German Anti-Semitic art of the 30's cannot be condoned because it was socially acceptable to criticise Jews in Nazi Germany.

TCH (not angry, just playful)
[> [> [> [> [> Here's the quote -- Rahael, 13:47:11 10/14/02 Mon

"Amber Benson, obviously, a mainstay of the show now and their relationship, extraordinary, didn't know for sure. I was thinking of someone more physically like Alyson, smaller and less womanly than Amber. It was Marti Noxon, when Amber auditioned who said - she knew the physical type I was thinking of, because I wanted that vulnerability - "Amber's got it in spades" so we brought her back. Marti gets the kudos for that one, though I like to take the credit whenever Amber is around, so make sure Amber doesn't hear this! "

As for the cultural mores, I emphasised this by emphasising in my above post that culture is not made at the top, is not handed forth to us like a tablet of stone - society creates it together.
[> [> [> [> [> [> But I did misremember it slightly -- Rahael, 15:19:28 10/14/02 Mon

I thought he had wanted a slimmer, more 'vulnerable' body type because Tara would be 'like Alyson' (I merged the part where they said they wanted another Willow, who could be put into danger, with the body type they were looking for).

Instead, they wanted someone fragile, vulnerable, and Joss was looking for a certain physical type to convey this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> So it's not that he thought Amber was "too plump"-- -- HonorH, 16:55:31 10/14/02 Mon

He just had in mind a certain fragility and thought the body type that would go with that vulnerability would be small and slim, like, say, Summer Glau as River on "Firefly." Marti saw the vulnerability in Amber in spite of her bigger bone structure and thought she'd be right. Good on Marti, I say.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thinness and Health -- Miss Edith, 14:01:20 10/14/02 Mon

Joss didn't actually say Amber was too large for the part. From what I recall he said that his idea of the character Tara was of a thin girl who would look fragile and vunerable. I think he was trying to be tactful so obviously didn't feel comfortable actually stating that he thought they needed a slimmer actress for the part. But still why a larger actress could not portray vunerability I'm not quite sure? And it was indeed Marti that said Amber was right for the part, regardless of her weight.
As for cultural pressure I have in the past watched Ally McBeal and I recently read an article about David E Kelly's attitude towards womens weight. The actress who played Georgia had to leave the show because she was made to feel so uncomfortable. The lead actress is obviously significantly underweight, and the actress playing Ling and Nell are also very slim. In fact Nell was of a healthy size when first joining the programe but she has since slimmed down to the point of maluntrition. The actress playing Georgia has said the writers and producers spoke to her about her weight and made her feel so uncomfortable that she joined some of the other women on set in an unhealty diet and lost weight. In the end she felt she had to leave the show as it was taking its toll on her health. Pretty sad reflection on Holloywood as the actress was about the size Charisma was in season 1 and 2 of Angel, i.e not even close to overweight.
And Sarah is not naturally thin as in season 1 she was of a fairly healthy weight and I would imagine she works very hard to have the figure she does. As you cannot shrink bones her head as often looked a little large for her body IMO. Of course Sarah does have tough working hours which must contribute to her keeping in shape. It is worrying though particularly as she has said when she meets her fans the first thing they usually say is that she looks so much larger on tv. The camera adds ten pounds hence all the nasty remarks made about Amber. In fact people who have personal encounters with her have said they wonder if she is padded on the show as she is actually slender in real life so the camera does distort your weight, hence many actress feeling the need to slim down. I think Charisma has said she isn't happy with the weight she has gained recently and plans to lose it by kickboxing.
As for AH I have always assumed she is naturally thin as she has never been large as far as I can recall even when younger. And I heard on another board that wardrobe put Amy Ackler in inappropriate outfits. Someone commented that the strappy shirt she was wearing was simply not flattering for her figure. I haven't seen the episode personally so I can't judge but on other boards comments have been made about Amy looking like a stick figure and genuinely ill in last nights episode. If the actor and actress's weights aren't healthy looking than I can understand people feeling the need to comment. It is a bit more serious than just being critical of an actress's appearance if it is a genuine health issue.
[> [> [> [> These are not just private decisions -- Dariel, 13:28:14 10/14/02 Mon

Since the decisions/situation under discussion here are in the field of personal life, and in that context do not affect others, it seems strange to attack actresses/actors for even the food they put in their mouth, for the personal bargaining/decisions they make in order to do their job, to get work.

I would agree with you if not for the fact that actresses are such important role models for young girls/women. At least they are in the U.S. They are public personalities, and the private choices they make about their bodies do affect young girls.

Recently, I picked up a copy of a teen magazine at a doctor's office. It included a photospread on something called the "Teen Choice" awards. The spread included 12 or 16 young actresses, all in rows, including SMG and MT. Every girl/woman had the same body--long legs, thin, no hips. You could have swapped their heads around and never known the difference. The message, which is perpetuated over and over again by the entertainment industry, was clear--there is only one acceptable body type for young women.

Most actresses here, no matter how talented, trade on their looks a great deal. That's very clear if you watch a little TV, see a few films, or look at just one award show. The body and face are part of the package. So I can't feel too sorry when someone criticizes yet another skinny actress. Her body, her appearance, is part of what she's selling.

Folks would be less inclined to criticize if more people in the profession were honest about their dilemma, about how hard it is, for most people, to maintain the "acceptable" body weight and shape. However, they rarely talk about it. Instead, many of them starve themselves and then claim that they are naturally thin. Or that they've just lost their "baby fat."

One actress, Courtney Thorne-Smith, formerly on Ally McBeal, did talk about this in an article, and how she had to diet constantly while on that show. She said that even the wardrobe people put pressure on her to keep thin; it made their job that much easier when she didn't have curves.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: These are not just private decisions -- Miss Edith, 14:19:36 10/14/02 Mon

I remember reading an article about an island that only had tv introduced fairly recently. Apparently the women in that culture had always been proud of their curves and it was considered an attractive body weight. Once they received American tv such as Melrose Place, Friends and Ally McBeal they had a significant number of women with eating disorders. It's been a while since I read the article so I can't remember exactly what the figures were but I think it was something scary like eating disroders increased by 30%. They were nonexistent practically before and I find those shocking statistics meaning that the weight actress's are supposed to attain at least worthy of discussion. The women in that culture are under the impression that most women in the Western world are strikingly thin. American and British tv needs to represent women as they are. Both the UK and the US have more obesity than most other countries, yet on television we generally only see a tiny fraction on womens body sizes represented.
It's true that actress's love talking of how they are thin naturally. Or for another example think of Friend's in which Jennifer Anistan used to be slightly overweight by her own admission. She lose weight in order to get her role on Friends. However she was still pressured to lose weight and has become painfully thin in recent years, with a complete absense of healthy curves. Every time I see her collarbone and her arms it causes me to wince painfully. Yet she is happily advising women to lose weight and appearing on magazine covers sharing her dieting tips with society. How many actress's actually admit constantly counting caleries is a miserable way to live? If they did so perhaps people would have sympathy and understand it is the industry they work in.
But most actress love to talk of how they are at their current weight naturally. That is generally why people will pick up on it and point out that they are to thin. They themselves perpetrate the myth that their weight is totally acceptable and easy to obtain. That is just not realistic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Other distortions -- Darby, 19:59:52 10/14/02 Mon

Keep in mind that in a small society with a nearly nonexistent problem, a 30% increase might be a rise to 13 cases from 10. A rise that you'd think insignificant in raw numbers becomes alarming as a percent change. Never trust comparative statistics in a news article - heck, be suspicious of statistics in general, especially if the raw data isn't available.

I'm not saying that the body-image problem isn't legitimate, I'm just becoming more aware of my "buttons," such as media use of statistics to distort information.

- Darby, returning you now to the regularly-scheduled rants.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: These are not just private decisions -- Rahael, 14:51:38 10/14/02 Mon

First, I wonder what about actors and actresses that make them good role models? Yes, they are talented and work hard, but society is full of talented and hard working people.

You say:

"Folks would be less inclined to criticize if more people in the profession were honest about their dilemma, about how hard it is, for most people, to maintain the "acceptable" body weight and shape. However, they rarely talk about it. Instead, many of them starve themselves and then claim that they are naturally thin. Or that they've just lost their "baby fat." "

But surely, this hypocrisy flows from the fact that these very ordinary, and imperfect people are not good role models, and shouldn't be held up us such. Of course they have to lie! Otherwise they wouldn't be good role models! There is an onus on them to constantly live the lie that such beauty, or physical perfection is "natural" - not because of some dastardly plot to deceive us, but because that's what we want to hear.

"Most actresses here, no matter how talented, trade on their looks a great deal. That's very clear if you watch a little TV, see a few films, or look at just one award show. The body and face are part of the package. So I can't feel too sorry when someone criticizes yet another skinny actress. Her body, her appearance, is part of what she's selling. "

I agree with you when you say that there is a connection between the way actresses look, and the way we tell ourselves we 'should look'. Because, after all, we make them our role models.

I simply cannot blame actresses for this. Nor do I feel she deserves it, nor do I feel that actresses who might indeed develop eating disorders are helped by outpourings of public condemnation. By the way, it's not just actresses who make such trade offs. Ballerinas, and dancers, who are also a kind of 'role model' for young girls ruin their bodies for their work. Some athletes, and I'm thinking of long distance runners can have eating disorders.

There's another aspect to this - girls/women, who develop eating disorders early on, can often be drawn to such careers, as a way of maintaining their lifestyles, so they are away from the control of others.

Either way, this issue is so complex, that it is perhaps not surprising that it is actresses who get blamed, because they are an easy, and very visible target. I think the question of body image, and women's bodies, and how we define what is 'right' and 'beautiful' surely these are immensely complex issues.

I have to declare a vested interest here - I have a young teenage cousin who wants to be an actress. She certainly is very talented, and her mother was an actress too. She learnt her love of acting from watching the rehearsals of her her mother's plays. She sat and listened while we acted, and sang, to raise awareness of certain political issues; just as I had watched and listened as a young child to plays my aunt translated - Lorca, and Tenessee Williams - and acted in - watched them in local theatres, watched her on television. So perhaps I have a completely different idea on why someone would want to be an actress, or love to spend their life entertaining people, making them think, moving them.

To think that my cousin, if she ever does go into acting full time - that all she will be doing is selling her body and trading on her looks, that seems wrong. I'd like to live in a society where they were free from that. Where they didn't have to make that trade off, or feel that they had to do that. But in the meantime, I still won't judge them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These are not just private decisions -- Dariel, 19:35:28 10/14/02 Mon

I'm kind of pooped (headcold), so I'll just say a few things. One is that I don't think actors are behind some "dastardly plot" to sell us on the attainability of physical perfection. It's the media conglomerates--they're behind it! And I don't think actresses should be condemned for having eating disorders either. I just wish they could be honest about it. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if they lied about it if they would just acknowledge that eating disorders exist. Take Calista Flockart, for example. When asked if she had an eating disorder, she claimed not to really know what anorexia was. I think that's criminal. Her publicist, at least, should have come up with some canned statement acknowledging that anorexia was a serious problem, but that Ms. Flockart didn't have it, yada yada. I think this lack of even lip-service reflects the incredible arrogance of the industry, or perhaps, you might say, the tight hold it has over actresses.

As for your cousin and her acting career: Her looks are going to be a factor, no doubt about it. But that can go more than one way. If she's a delicate beauty and a good actress, she can do well. If she's fairly ordinary looking and an excellent actress, she can also do well, and will probably get better parts. If you switch these combinations around though, she's bound to be frustrated.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Problematising a woman's body -- Rahael, 03:46:34 10/15/02 Tue

I think problematising a woman's body and the way it looks, and pointing to it as way of solving the complex issue of eating disorders is not only flawed, but part of the problem. That's why I'm disagreeing.

I think also that the last thing that many people with anorexia will do is admit they have a problem - as far as I know, having been close to two anorexics, this is a symptom.
(Not that I'm claiming that my personal experience is definitive or anything!)

What underlies my response which is, "other people's lives, other people's responsibilities" is that most of us would *hate* being told what to eat, lectured on how to live our lives, told that we are "unhealthy". Most of us are intelligent people who make our choices for all sorts of reasons. And if the person in question does indeed have an illness, the last thing that is going to help is being lectured on it, as this puts the defences up.

If we want our society to develop healthy attitudes to food, there are so many positive ways of going about it than picking on actresses and attributing moral qualities to the eating of food, whether too much or too little simply compounds the problem.

I find personalising the problem in this way simply trivialises the seriousness of the issue.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> right on, rah! -- anom, 22:36:23 10/15/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, God, you had tyo bring up the tried and true "Britney/Eminem" argument didn't you? -- Majin Gojira, 15:30:54 10/14/02 Mon

You know the one. The one where because they are in the public eye they have to be everyones definition of perfection and moral high ground? God, am I sick of that one!

(Insert rant about how tired, old and annoying this argument is. Pointing to examples like Howard Stern. Then saying that people are often too stupid to think about what they see on TV and Movies. Then, follow into the fact that this EXACT SAME ARGEMENT when expanded was used to blame Marylin Manson for the shootings at Columbine. then, if you really want to tick people off, say that this was also the mentality of "The Terrorists" - pissing people off to no end and truely living the cliche and becoming what you were decrying in the first place!)

Ok, I've calmed down a little....sorry, that mentality pisses me off.

the thought that most people lack any independant thinking skills when they are 13 (Wild Guess as to the youngest viewers - ever) and older. I know how stupid people are, but I can't accept that the american public is THAT stupid.

Looking back on what I just typed...I'm thinking that this discussion is a LITTLE OT by now...
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, God, you had tyo bring up the tried and true "Britney/Eminem" argument didn't you? -- Dariel, 17:25:55 10/14/02 Mon

Several posts here have maintained that it is unfair/unkind to make comments about the bodies of actresses. My point was that the bodies of these folks are not private and that their decisions about body weight have an impact on their audience. I don't expect them to suddenly woman the picket lines shouting "ten more pounds." However, I don't accept the idea that their private decisions give them the high moral ground. Especially when those decisions happen to reinforce media images of what young women should look like. In other words, if I want to pick on 'em, I will.

While we're on the subject of Britney...don't care for her music, or that snake. But I do like the fact that she hasn't tried to get rid of her curves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> How about a little Rant back? -- Sara, 19:15:39 10/14/02 Mon

How about people taking responsiblity for their images and actions? Yes Britany, Eminem, and any other jerk looking to make a million dollars has the right to do anything they want. However, when that anything is influencing other people, especially kids, who while not necessarily stupid, are more easily influenced, lets stop the whining about how they never signed up to be a role model. They're making their money selling the image they invent of themselves. Very fair game for criticism, contempt and avoidance. I'll never put a penny of my money into Madonna's hands, lovely as some of her music is, because of every little girl who wore a "boy toy" tee shirt after seeing her. Sorry, but an adult woman who wears "boy toy" on her body is stupid, a 12 year old girl who does, is probably lacking critical thinking skills.

Creating an image which allows you to make money because people like and admire who you are, makes who you are fair game as discussion. If you're an actor, not a personality, you're not fair game, and probably should be allowed to be any size you like without it becoming a problem for people. I wish tv would show people who look all kinds of ways. I think most people would like to see themselves when they watch, and not to many of themselves are size one beauties.

Sara, who reacts to Britany and Eminem like a bull to a red cape...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice rant! -- Dariel, 19:49:14 10/14/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nice rant! -- Majin Gojira, 21:28:54 10/14/02 Mon

Nicely put, but still a rehash of the exact-same argument that annoys me so.

"Yes Britany, Eminem, and any other jerk looking to make a million dollars has the right to do anything they want. However, when that anything is influencing other people, especially kids, who while not necessarily stupid, are more easily influenced, lets stop the whining about how they never signed up to be a role model"

We assigne them to be role models ourselves! They Have a right to whine. Just because someone is famos doesn't mean that they are role models. --Insert famous people's names who are insane criminals who in no way relate to popular media as prime examples...then mention Hannible to bolster my case-- (Eh, I too tired to rant right now)

It's a hole Monkey See-Monkey Do kind of thing. I guess the general public IS that stupid.

Especially Kids

"The Children are our Future" - God, we are so screwed :p

god, I feel like I've brushed up against "The Office of Standards and Practives"...again...

"It all must be perfect, a perfect relfection of what we deem to be perfect"...Ugh.

Ok, not to sound like an indignant little snot, but it just bugs me. a peeve if you will. this issue is just below "Creationism vs. Science" in my list of arguments I get a little heated in.
[> [> [> Who is weak and Who is strong......size in the Buffyverse. -- Rufus, 22:31:25 10/14/02 Mon

Facinating thread. And I remember well from the commentary what Joss said regarding Amber. I don't think it was meant as a slam against her size but I do think it does show a flaw in thinking we all are capable of when we just make assumptions based upon the facade of a person.

Joss wanted someone that Willow would appear to be stronger than and I think he thought that size was the most visible indicator of vunerability....boy is he ever wrong. Marti proved she has a brain by going beyond Ambers frame and detected Ambers capacity to project vunerability. Thinness has been closely associated with vunerability as has height.....but that is only upon first inspection. I know what it's like to be short and at one time as thin as SMG. People made assumptions about my ability to think or take care of myself.......of course that usually lasted about as long as it took me to start speaking.
Bravery, strength, wisdom isn't a size, isn't a colour of hair, skin, age, or gender. Vunerability isn't just the purchase of the petite. Joss learned a lesson by listening to Marti....I can only hope that Hollywood will eventually climb out of the stone age and start thinking outside the box. Our role in that is to start demanding people, actors that look like all of us to be placed in more leading roles. If we don't accept it, Hollywood will have to start rethinking gender/size/race roles in every show.
[> [> [> [> Agreeing with Rah, Rufus, Sophist, and JM -- shadowkat, 07:57:45 10/15/02 Tue

I have to admit that SMG's thinness has urlked me a bit of late. Partly because I watch her in the other seasons and the change is rather alarming, particularly after seeing SNL and Scooby Do. I felt the same way when watching other shows. I actually think Amy looks great this year, older actually then she did last year.

But to leap to the view that these people are unhealthy or should eat more or to complain about their weight online?
Seems to be a little offensive to me and out of line.

We have no idea what a professional actor and celebrity's life is like. SMG probably lost the weight to fit the roles she was playing last year - she's a bit of a method actor and the role of Daphne called for a skinny woman. And Buffy, well just came back from the dead and could barely afford groceries and was very physically active. Not to mention the fact that the actress was doing Btvs and Scooby Doo at the same time, plus getting married and all the product endorsements for Maybelline and all the interviews for the movie. Marsters (Spike) stated when people ranked on his weight at conferences last year - that he was trying to look like a vampire and vampires are metaphors for hunger.

Put yourself in these people's shoes for a sec - can you imagine what it would be like to have complete strangers debate your weight, your size, your personal life - just because you happen to appear in movies and tv shows for a living? Can you imagine what it would be like to do an audition and be rejected because you're the wrong weight or size or shape? If I was an sucessful hollywood actor? I wouldn't go online..it would be frightening.

And I agree with Rufus here: "Bravery, strength, wisdom isn't a size, isn't a colour of hair, skin, age, or gender. Vunerability isn't just the purchase of the petite. Joss learned a lesson by listening to Marti....I can only hope that Hollywood will eventually climb out of the stone age and start thinking outside the box. Our role in that is to start demanding people, actors that look like all of us to be placed in more leading roles. If we don't accept it, Hollywood will have to start rethinking gender/size/race roles in every show."

Shadowkat (who has struggled with size and weight most of her life.)
[> I strongly believe -- Sophist, 09:49:10 10/14/02 Mon

that comments about the actors' physical appearance are unnecessary, hurtful, and uncalled-for. Amber Benson suffered quite a bit from insulting comments that she was "fat". I don't think Amy Acker needs us to be dragged through it.
[> [> Strongly agreed - this criticism is really missing the point, imo-- -- Dyna, 11:00:46 10/14/02 Mon

If your goal is to fight against what you see as excessive body-consciousness, I don't see how subjecting the bodies of others to excessive scrutiny and criticism furthers this goal. It would rather seem to have the opposite effect. When you declare open season to ridicule the bodies of thin women, it's absurd to expect that somehow "the rest of us" will be shielded from the backsplash. Objectification is objectification, no matter who's doing it, or for what cause. You don't fight it by doing it, IMO.
[> [> [> Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Thomas the Skeptic, 12:21:37 10/14/02 Mon

I apologize in advance if I offend anyone with what I'm about to say and I pray (as much as an agnostic can pray) that I'm not about to open a can of worms that will never be closed but; why is even mentioning the physical appearance of an actor an "attack"? I did'nt think that most of the posts in this thread were particularly mean-spirited or vindictive but simply made note of the visibly apparent fact that some of the people discussed had lost considerable amounts of weight. I love SMG, stand in awe of her acting ability, and have tremendous respect for the dedication and self-discipline she brings to what must be a very demanding profession. I also, however, think she has lost an alarming amount of weight in the years that this show has been on the air and I can't help sometimes worrying about her health as a result. I did'nt think this meant I was "objectifying" her but rather that I was reacting with basic human concern for an artist whose work I greatly appreciate. I don't want to start a diatribe against PC here, partly because I'm not even sure that is what the complaints against this thread were but I will say that perhaps some over-sensitivity came into play about remarks that were basically innocent. I may be naive or woefully unenlightened in saying this,and I am certainly willing to hear other opinions on the subject, but I always get a little uneasy when someone suggests curtailing free speech in favor of protecting someone's feelings. One of the inherrent dangers of free expression is the possibility that someone may experience emotional distress at hearing a POV they don't agree with or approve of but, for myself, this is a price I am willing to pay in order to say what I think and feel without having to worry about being taken away by men in black uniforms and beaten mercilessly for the crime of having a position ( cue the battle hymn of the republic, fade to black...)
[> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Sophist, 12:53:23 10/14/02 Mon

I think Rah's post above provides a more complete response to your question, but I'll add some thoughts of my own.

First, "mere" mention of physical appearance does not necessarily constitute an attack. That's a strictly logical truism. However, it's unlikely that physical appearance (especially weight) would be relevant to any discussion of the merits of the show, so it's hard to imagine how such comments could, in practice, be neutral.

In this particular case, I think most people would agree that the comments were not neutral, but judgmental. As Rah points out, such comments deny any agency or exercise of discretion to the individual. They also, as others point out, overlook the different physiology of individuals.

Second, I think you've raised a straw issue in your comments about free speech. No one has suggested deleting the posts, banning the poster, or anything like that. We are making a point about manners. Just as you would not tell someone to his/her face "You're fat" (unless you're Sunday), so it's rude to make such comments in a public forum.

I really don't see the "PC" issue when it comes to matters of personal appearance.* Clearly, there is no reason to spare someone in pointing out flaws in an argument. Just as clearly, pointing out personal flaws is an ad hominem attack that has no logical relevance to any point under discussion (to repeat: if physical appearance is itself a relevant topic of discussion, this may not apply).

Third, I don't think it's our business to worry about the weight of actors. They worry about that, we worry about our own. (I do find it odd that in an era when obesity is the single largest (pun intended) public health problem in the US, some people find time to criticize actresses for being too thin.) We have no idea what considerations go into an individual's weight fluctuations.

*As a footnote, the term PC itself seems devoid of content. It's generally a term employed by those who call themselves conservative to attack something they don't like. It seems to me about as useful and enlightening as "fascist" from the other side.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Wisewoman, 13:57:16 10/14/02 Mon

Actually, I agree with Thomas the Skeptic to a large extent (okay, I'll stop that now).

Physical appearance is, IMO, directly relevant to the discussion of BtVS or any other show. I view the issue of size as being very similar to the issue of race, neither of which can be discussed or dismissed in the same way as, for instance, someone's taste in clothes.

I didn't see sTalking Goat's initial comment as being judgemental, but rather as concern for an individual who appears to be not just fashionably thin but dangerously thin. As I said above, if that's not the case, then more power to AA.

But this discussion has changed into one that isn't about whether AA, or anyone else, is anorexic or bulemic; it's about the representation of "normal" human beings in the media.

I remember during the race discussions that several American posters said they had grown up in, or lived in areas that were predominantly white middle class, much as Sunnydale is portrayed. I haven't been to Southern California for many years, but my recollection is that, in fact, there are no fat people in SoCal. Certainly not anywhere near the beaches. Everyone was uniformly lean, lithe, and tan. I can give ME the benefit of the doubt if they choose to portray Angel Investigations and their associates and clients as fitting this mould.

But really, I'm rationalizing away an important issue simply because I love both BtVS and Angel so much. Unfortunately they, too, are part of the massive American media machine that shifts into high gear every autumn and crushes the vast percentage of its less-than-perfect audience into dust in its wake. If looking critically at the predominant media, particularly American TV, is somehow linked intrinsically with political correctness, okay, guilty as charged, and proud of it.

Amy Acker is not the little girl sitting next to me in grade school who might be traumatized and scarred for life by being singled out and tauntingly called Skinnie Minnie; she's an actor in a somewhat popular television program. If her physicality happens to illustrate one of the issues that I have with the media in general then, in my book, naming her by name is fair game. She's a valid example. I'm not implying anything about her as a person, good or bad, by doing that, and I don't think any of the other posters in this thread had that intent either.

dub ;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Dochawk, 15:17:35 10/14/02 Mon

Just because we think Amy Acker isn't here (that we know of) to hear this discussion does not excuse the personal attacks. And when you use a term like "unhealthy" you are making a personal attack. It is a judgement that talkinggoat is not in a position to make. I have been in the practice of metabolic medicine for 10 years and I wouldn't make it based on a person's looks.

I spend alot of my professional time discussing with patients how not to buy into what Madison avenue and hollywood are selling about body image. But, it is all wrapped up in "image" and how American's (and this a particularly American problem I think, Ete and Rah can correct me if I am wrong) view what is important in themselves and other people. Its not just weight, there is heightism, nosism (the wrong look of a nose can keep an actress unemployed!) etc. Somehow we have to teach teenagers (and the rest of America) that there is much more to value in a person than what they look like, but don't expect corporate media to change anytime soon, its still where the money is.

As to no fat people in Southern California, well you need to come back, I would be out of business if that were true and it is exactly the opposite, obesity is an epidemic here as well as the rest of America. The beaches are full of not that physically attractive people. In fact, Hollywood is full of them, they just aren't the people you see (except for middle aged white overweight men, who do stand-up as WW mentioned). Meet the cinematographers, directors, make-up people, light operators etc.

So yes, there is something objectionable to the way Hollywood/Madison Avenue present the worth of people, but commenting about an individual actress is objectionable to me at least.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Miss Edith, 15:30:21 10/14/02 Mon

Expressing concern for someones health is not an attack. No one said Amy was ugly or she would be more attractive if she put some weight on. A few people simply noticed that she is thinner than is considered healthy. Maybe she does simply have a fast metabilism and she is perfectly healthy, no one is saying that's not a possibility. A few people are just commenting on the fact that she looks like she might be ill. I would hardly call that a "personal attack". I agree that judgements are being made that may not be correct, only Amy can say for sure. I just think suggesting Amy is being personally attacked is an exageration.
People are critisising Hollywood and the media in general more than anything else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Ronia, 19:19:13 10/14/02 Mon

Just a small point...when you say "considered healthy"..who is doing the considering? To me, she looks fine..to my husband, she looks better than fine [ which he commented on a few times before I began to whack him with sofa pillows], I suspect that what you mean instead is what is average..she is thinner than the average person, whether the average person looks healthy or not is an entirely different discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Weird as it is, we observe, notice, and care... -- Darby, 20:20:59 10/14/02 Mon

You mean if you had a patient that you saw every week lose a significant amount of weight over time, you wouldn't notice it? We get to watch these people change week-to-week over a broad expanse of time, probably better than their health professionals do.

I have to say that Amy Acker was hired to be a Waif in a Cave, and I don't believe that she is much thinner now than then - she's just being dressed differently (they did much the same with Calista Flockhart when it was realized that she was being seen as sexy despite being thinner than the Hollywood norm, although she had lost a bit). I myself have remarked at times here about SMG's sometimes alarming weight losses, and it has been from concern for a human I've formed this odd bond with. I'm sure others here have noticed changes in performers that turned out to have problems - Matthew Perry comes to mind. Sometimes you can just see it. And sometimes it isn't really there, but I don't think it's taboo for discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Weird as it is, we observe, notice, and care... -- Miss Edith, 20:56:35 10/14/02 Mon

On The Soprano's the actress playing the teenage girl Meadow was actually anorexic during the first season. It wasn't picked up on because there were thinner actress's in Hollywood and she looked no thinner than the norm. In fact news of her eating disorder only came out pretty recently. Before it was widely known there were a lot of critical comments on the internet about her having gained weight in the second season and how unattractive it was looking.

Of course people with eating disorders don't develop them purely to lose weight, there is generally a lot more going on there. I read the book Wasted by Marya Hornbacher a young women who suffered from anorexia and bulima. She noted that she had mental problems, in regards to being an overachiever and coming from a dysfunctional family hence eating disorders cannot be blamed soley on society. But she felt her problems would not have materialised as an eating disorer if she didn't live in a society with the message that thin is in. She put herself under pressure to be perfect and was constantly bombarded with images of thin women being more succesful and in control of their lifes. She is pretty bitter as she has done as lot of damage to her internal organs and is unable to have children or a normal life. She has a significantly reduced life expectancy owing to heart problems I believe but I have heard she has fallen back into her eating disorder since publishing Wasted. At any rate her basic point was that society is not solely to blame for eating disorders but it is a significant factor.

I myself used to be anorexic and what depressed me was visiting all of the pro anorexia sites on the net. I used to go there for tips and thinspiration photos of actress's and models and yes Sarah Michelle Geller is looked upon as a role model in those circles.

The really awful part was all the young girls who used to come to the sites saying they wanted to learn to be anorexic or bulimic. No one gave them purging tips or starvation tips obviously and they did try to warn them off but there are just so many teenage girls commenting on how they are overweight and therefore ostricized at school etc. So many of them were there because their boyfriends or their families had mocked their size and told them they needed to lose a little weight.

I guess I'm pretty bitter about the media and the message it gives out. I hope I didn't come across as if I was insulting the actress's. Truth be told I actually envy Ally McBeals weight which is not something I'm particularly proud off. I have recovered from my eating disorder but the state society is in does make me sad. There are a significant number of young girls who do have serious body hatred and are going on-line begging for the "pros" to give them tips on how to make themselves disapear.

And this has gotten way O/T and just for the record I do not blame the staff at ME for mainly hiring thin actress's. They are following the standards set by society, and rather than being the cause of eating disorders they are simply a reflection of the message society is interested in. I guess I just don't like the fact that the women they hire to be sex symbols just come across as more propoganda for the masses. How often was Amber portrayed in a sexual way? It seemed as if wardrobe went out of their way to dress her in frumpy, unflattering clothing. Think of the dress which had a stripe right across her midsection or the outfit she wore in OMWF when dancing with Buffy and Anya. She could have looked curveous and gorgeous but wardrobe choose to be her in a skirt that cut her off at the weight and was very unflattering.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Weird as it is, we observe, notice, and care... -- aliera, 22:20:56 10/14/02 Mon

it's not just or even primarily the media. If we're going to continue to discuss this, as we do...we need to deconstruct it further.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Replies to various posts -- Sophist, 17:02:45 10/14/02 Mon

I can see that vh hit this one on the button.

I'm responding to WW, but trying to incorporate responses to Miss E and Dariel as well. Hope I get everyone's arguments correctly. I adopt everything Doc and Rah have said. I agree completely and couldn't disagree more with the others.

Physical appearance is, IMO, directly relevant to the discussion of BtVS or any other show

I might agree to this if we limited it to a discussion, in general terms, of the role of weight in Hollywood, Hollywood's responsibility for body image, etc. I can't for the life of me fathom how Amy Acker's personal weight is relevant to anyone or anything here. In any case, this thread certainly did not begin with that larger issue. It was a personal comment limited to one actor.

I didn't see sTalking Goat's initial comment as being judgemental, but rather as concern for an individual who appears to be not just fashionably thin but dangerously thin.

Thank you for noting that I used the word "judgmental". Others have taken my comment a little further.

I think your statement contains its own refutation. No one here, even someone trained in medicine like Doc, is in any position to make judgments about whether a particular actor is "too thin", much less "dangerously" so. Such statements are, therefore, judgmental.

In fact, such judgments are doubly wrong. First, since they are made in the complete absence of medical evaluation, they represent nothing more than one individual's personal opinion. I could just as easily respond that she's overweight, and Doc that she's just right. What have we proved (other than that we all read Goldilocks)?

Second, it fails to recognize the cultural distortions the other way. Many of the posts are adopting as the norm a cultural standard for appearance that is personal to them and generated based on their experiences within a given culture. They are themselves doing exactly what they are criticizing Hollywood for doing -- imposing their own image of bodily correctness on others.

If you want some more rational basis to judge, try asking what our Paleolithic ancestors looked like. The best information we have suggests that they were much thinner and more muscular than we would consider "normal" today. Our social standards are, in fact, distorted by access to cheap, nutritionless calories, absence of periodic hunger, and lack of "normal" excercise.

Several posts have suggested that actors make money off their bodies and are thus fair game for criticism on that score (however, this wasn't the point of the original post anyway). I deny this. Actors make money off their ability to act. That is, they make money because they are able to move us through facial expressions, delivery, voice, etc. Comments about their looks are demeaning to talented people.

Comments that Hollywood exploits the looks of actors are a little more firmly grounded, but not much. Actors do not come in packages. There are all kinds. Some actors are physically splendid (to me, anyway). Some are not (not naming any names, but there are many). It's ridiculous to lump, say, Jackie Gleason and Jennifer Anniston together and then blame an amorphous entity ("Hollywood") for the perceived characteristics of a select subset.

Just to be clear, I am not approving the practice mentioned by Miss E of pressuring actors to satisfy a producer's body image. Again, however, that was not the point of the original post.

Finally, I have serious doubts about the influence Hollywood supposedly exercises over the minds of impressionable youth. If you take this argument seriously, censorship is the only reasonable response (not just on this issue, but on sex, violence, etc.). In fact, of course, the data are exactly the opposite of what is being claimed -- there is no epidemic of anorexia, there is an epidemic of obesity among young Americans. If Hollywood has that much influence, it would be the other way around.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Replies to various posts -- Wisewoman, 17:56:38 10/14/02 Mon

Sophist, you said:

Several posts have suggested that actors make money off their bodies [...] I deny this. Actors make money off their ability to act. That is, they make money because they are able to move us through facial expressions, delivery, voice, etc.

At this point, I think any comment I could come up with would be an exercise in futility as I feel as if we're not living on the same planet...

Further evidence of this:

In fact, of course, the data are exactly the opposite of what is being claimed -- there is no epidemic of anorexia
[> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Miss Edith, 14:25:34 10/14/02 Mon

I agree with your points. No one said Amy Ackler was disgustingly thin or were cruel about her. Her weight was simply picked up on as a point of concern. If Amy stumbled across this discussion I can't see her breaking down in tears because a few people commented that she is rather thinner than is perhaps considered healthy.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Slightly OT - Why is even the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:42:59 10/14/02 Mon

Well, the post that started this thread was kinda rude: "Someone get her a cheeseburger or something!" I think it was simply this fairly tactless wording that has a lot of people in a tizzy.
[> [> [> [> [> AB responds the weight issue: Why is the mention of an actor's physical appearance an "attack"? -- Dochawk, 17:24:42 10/14/02 Mon

Miss Edith, I disagree with you totally that the original comments weren't cruel. They were. The writer "shudders" at AA's weight and tells her to get a hamburger.

For those of you who don't think such comments are cruel and that actors don't know what people are saying here is Amber Benson on the issue of her weight on the internet:



I've been thinking a lot about what people said about Tara on the internet after the last episode aired. At first, I was very hurt. I tried to disassociate myself from feeling bad by saying: This is Tara that they are talking about, not me. But I couldn't. I guess it hurts when someone calls you ugly or makes nasty comments about your weight whether or not it is really YOU they are referring to. I am just a human being and I feel like I deserve to be treated as such. I also feel that Tara deserves to be treated with a little more kindness and compassion. Yes, I am not a STICK. I am a NORMAL, HEALTHY (I was gonna say Girl, but...) WOMAN. I have breasts and hips and I am very happy that they are part of me. I weigh 118 and I am 5'4". If you saw me in real life, you would think I was on the thin side. But on tv, next to my very petite costars, I do like heavier. I am PROUD to be NORMAL. A body is a beautiful thing to waste. Believe me, I have seen enough of my friends and peers waste away to NOTHING so that they could work in this industry. So that they could perpetuate the LIE that ANOREXIA is Beautiful. IT IS NOT. YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. ALL OF YOU. Just for being. You all can judge me and Tara for being 'fat', 'gay' and 'shy'. I suppose that my being on tv gives you that right. But I DO NOT have to read what you say. I have enjoyed being a lurker. But my feelings just can't take the criticism. Those of you (you know who you are) with sensitivity will understand. Thank you for sticking up for us. Tara and I both appreciate it. I think that being a beautiful, heavy, lesbian witch rocks! No matter what happens I'm glad I get the chance to walk in Tara's shoes. All you girls and guys out there who think that starving, binging and purging and exercising yourself to DEATh is gonna change how you feel inside-- It's NOT. Don't buy inot all the media crap. Love yourself for who you are, not what others THINK you should look like. It's DEFINITELY more important in this life to love each other despite our imperfections.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Words to live by. -- Earl Allison, 17:48:27 10/14/02 Mon

Thank you for this post, Dochawk. I mean that. A lot.

I try to steer clear of comments on weight, for one simple reason.

I'm not one to talk.

I'm at the opposite, extreme end of the spectrum from the gist of the thread (Amy Acker), so talk of weight is very hard for me.

If these women (and men) are happy with themselves, and aren't being warned by their physicians to change things, more power to them.

Let me tell you, the last three sentences from Amber's quote are probably the best advice anyone can ever give you. Ever.

It's also the hardest thing (for some) to do. I know it always has been for me.

I don't really know what to say about the actual thread. I think the best point is, only a doctor can really pass judgement.

It's a nasty can of worms no matter what you do, some will interpret any comments on appearance as attack, others will consider any comments (extreme or not) acceptable. It falls to wiser minds than mine to solve this.

So, in closing;

Be ... excellent, to each other.

Or, for the more stodgy (yes, I am kidding)...

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Thanks for listening.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moving -- Rahael, 17:56:37 10/14/02 Mon

Both the above posts.
[> Was this on the button list? I think this should have been on the button list. -- vh, 13:55:21 10/14/02 Mon

[> [> LOL -- Rahael, 15:44:12 10/14/02 Mon

[> Link somewhat related to this discussion -- d'Herblay, 15:02:05 10/14/02 Mon

Requires registration.
[> Re: Amy Acker.... -- JM, 16:38:42 10/14/02 Mon

Since I haven't been deleted I will accept that my post wasn't entirely out of line.

I did want to say that I thought that Apophis' post was mostly funny and on target about a discussion about appropriate body types. I do think that a generalized discussion is appropriate and warranted. Reality and Hollywood diverge wildly and unhealthily. In both directions. And we as a populous are very influenced by what we are exposed to incessantly.

What sparked my discomfort primarily was the very personal nature of some of the comments. The truth is that most of us don't know these women (or men). We don't know whose weight is affected by genetics and whose by pathology. I am especially thinking of those performers we haven't been monitoring for a number of years for purposes of comparison. And of those whose weight has fluctuated we don't know them well enough to know why. In my own family I know women who gain weight when under stress, and a larger number who loose quite a bit. I have several family members who when upset can't even smell food without feeling sick. They are aware and embarrassed about their over slenderness. Familial helpful comments simply lead to faking eating and hiding food. Though I currently hail from the other side of spectrum, when much younger I was down to 114 lbs. At 5 ft. 7 because my term paper stressed me out so much that I could only eat cheese for a month. Now, in times of stress I tend to McDonald's breakfast sandwiches. Well, one problem solved.

I guess my convoluted point is that these comments can be hurtful, and may not be appropriate to a particular individual. We don't know them.

I suspect, since her weight is so often mentioned on the show, that AA is naturally slender. (And also wonder if her physical type was selected and emphasized in word and clothing to represent the hummingbird quality of Fred's mind and emotions.) I remember in DoN that the most hurtful comment Gunn could come up with was a slam against her weight. Maybe I was identifying the actress too completely with the fictional character. And some of this talk does get back to them. I remember reading an interview with AD, early on his run on Angel about how he avoided the 'Net generally because he knew that Wesley wasn't a widely loved character. This was a seasoned professional's sensitivity to comments about his fictitious portrayal. I just wonder how much more sensitive even younger women might be about comments about their physical reality. They are real people after all. I find it difficult to believe that they don't cease to exist once I flick off the television, but, reportedly, they insist on it.

Once again, I want to emphasize that I don't want to quell debate on an important topic. But I do want to protest overly personalizing it with judgments about people most of us will never meet.

PS I do want to emphasize that I really didn't want to offend, judge, or censor anyone, and am very intrigued by the extended discussion that occurred. I certainly understand yapyabnum's comments about Wes, Justine, and the cage last week a lot more today.
[> [> I find these debates depressing. -- CaptainPugwash, 14:27:58 10/15/02 Tue

I have always been attracted to slim, curvy women (large women do not have a monopoly on curves, folks), and probably always will be.

I am not exactly a oil-painting myself, but I don't tear whats left of my hair out because 'people like me' are not getting major film or television roles. It is a given that to get anywhere in showbiz, you have to be attractive. Even someone like Amber Benson had to get through some sort of screen-test; if her body didn't help her get the job, her face certainly did.

All (young) women (and men) need to be told is that their appearance is largely determined by genetics & underlying physiology. An individual can change their appearance, but only by so much. If you end up being an anorexic because you cannot cope with the limits of what you are, don't blame people like SMG et al for being what you cannot be. I wished I looked (and sounded) like JM (I really did - he is stunning), but I don't and I never will. However, if I can't accept that and take an axe to my face, I'm sure some idiot will blame my disfigurement on the 'artificial' image that JM presents or the fact that there are not enough 'people like me' on television. What nonsense!

I don't even know who this Amy Archer girl is, but she is probably just another naturally slim and athletic women in a long line of naturally slim and athletic women who have landed major television roles. Yet, here are people burdening her with duties, obligations, and other insane responsibilities to people who will (through no fault of their own) never be able to look like her.

I can't believe that an entire generation has bought the hogwash that states that the presence of SMG et al is responsible for the misery of thousands of body-conscious individuals. Deal with it folks, and leave the poor girl alone.
Ground State? Only if you are interested. -- Sang, 00:55:36 10/14/02 Mon

A ground state is a Quantum mechanical term for the lowest energy state of a certain quantum system.

A quantum system, cannot have a continuous energy state. It shoud absorb or release specific amount of energy (quantum) and move to next energy level. If it reaches to the lowest energy level, it cannot release any more energy and become cold. We call this state as a 'ground state'.

Single atom and a uniform crystal are typical quantum state. They absorb and radiate a speicific amount of energy (single frequency photon i.e. light). This is used to analyzes unknown materials or even the components of stars, because specific atoms generates their own specific energy spectrum. It is like an atomic finger print.

Gwen bent a light (absolute nonsense, again..) and explain it to Angel 'I am electrically exciting subatomic particles to bouncing each other before they hit ground states..' This is stupid and meaningless sequeance of physics terms. Nothing she did or said was related to the 'ground state'. Electormagnetic force (more accruate term) is not even relevant at 'subatomic level'.

When you write a fantasy, just write a fantasy. Don't create pseudo science in it. That was why I never liked X-files, while I loved BTVS.
[> Re: Ground State? Only if you are interested. -- TeacherBoy, 01:08:12 10/14/02 Mon

Sang,
Great description of a ground state. But I am wondering, does this really bother you, as a physicist? Or are you just nitpicking? The reason I am asking is that "Angel" seems to be using a lot of physics terms as of late. This invites a lot of nitpicking, and is understandable, but it is a lot like me (a history teacher/astronomy lover) bitching that there is no such place as Quor Toth. I feel like once you accept the premise of a fantasy show, you have to let go a little bit.

Then again, that doesn't make it any less enjoyable to poke fun :)

TeacherBoy
[> [> Re: well actually -- Sang, 01:33:43 10/14/02 Mon

It bothers me. As I wrote, I couldn't enjoy X-file, because of that. I like Fantasy and SF. Only if it stays in there. I wouldn't bothered that much if Gwen didn't try to explain it.

I can accept that, in this fantasy world, we are informed that a person is speaking Chinese while all we are hearing is English. Wouldn't it be weird, however, if they show us a scroll written in English and claims that 'this is an ancient Chinese scroll'? For me those things are like that, I just couldn't stand.

Also, I actually had quite a problem with Gwen's power. It was so inconsistent from begining to end, it actually spoiled fun to watching this episode.

She can blow a kid away at the field where there is no strong power source. And suddenly she can use her power only if there is a power source?

She could knock out Angel with one electric shock long enough to revive Gun and then she couldn't damage him with several electric attack. Come on, she fried $12000 watch with a blink!

Anyway, superhuman with electric power... so 60s. No one believe that one can manipulate and control all those devices with single electric spark.
[> [> [> Re: Sorry Angel 4.2 spoiler above -- Sang, 01:35:51 10/14/02 Mon

[> [> [> Again an example of the clash of Physics and Metaphysics... -- Rufus, 02:07:22 10/14/02 Mon

I just insert my usual magic clause and don't try to overthink it......it seems the writers didn't....
[> [> [> If this makes you feel any better: correct post (skip above) -- SingedCat, 09:11:49 10/14/02 Mon

** It bothers me. As I wrote, I couldn't enjoy X-file, because of that. I like Fantasy and SF. Only if it stays in there. I wouldn't bothered that much if Gwen didn't try to explain it. **

OK, how's this? Gwen has no idea what she's doing, and in fact has not much head for physics. She's read a bunch of stuff that she spouts out to support her incredibly slick image, and may not even believe the crap she's spouting herself, but hey, these apes won't now it's all a line, so why bother to be specific? It scans, at least.


**Also, I actually had quite a problem with Gwen's power. It was so inconsistent from begining to end, it actually spoiled fun to watching this episode....
She can blow a kid away at the field where there is no strong power source. And suddenly she can use her power only if there is a power source? **

Whoa, I didn't catch that one, actually. Are you sure that's right? In the elevator she was her own power source, and used Angel for a conductor, is that what you were thinking?

**She could knock out Angel with one electric shock long enough to revive Gun and then she couldn't damage him with several electric attacks. Come on, she fried $12000 watch with a blink! **

OK, I'm very with you on this one. Very. Great big distraction for me.

** Anyway, superhuman with electric power... so 60s. No one believe that one can manipulate and control all those devices with single electric spark.**

Yeah, could someone please explain to the writers that there's a difference between electric and electronic? That got pretty fuzzy.

Though I bet she'd be really handy jump-starting a car. And hey, can she recharge my battery while she's at it?

She would just kill me. :D
[> [> [> Possible explanations - well, kinda sorta. -- Darby, 09:23:07 10/14/02 Mon

Yeah, the line about why the beams bent was unnecessary and distracting to the tiny fraction of us who know it was nonsense. I think it was to indicate that her control extended beyond the mere zap.

But I saw some nuance that might be consistent...

The point about the elevator was not that there was no power source but that there were no conductors through which she could access the systems - Lucite bars (which I'm not sure aren't conductors - Lucite certainly does some interesting stuff with static electricity) and plastic coatings. Once Angel accessed wiring, she could fry the system.

Also, I think that how she used her power on people was more psychologically than physically affected. When Gunn grabbed her, she panicked and zapped him, then zapped Angel to save him. This also reminded her that, at least with people not trying to kill her, she wasn't prepared to use lethal force. In the fight, she used a power-enhancement to deliver jolts with her blows that should have worked, then a much more controlled heart-jolt that should have put a human down...she was "pulling her punches" with the hunk in the leather coat. She didn't want to seriously injure him but didn't want to risk ratcheting up the juice. May not be all that feasible, but it seemed internally consistent, which is the best one can expect with a fantasy show.

- Darby, who cringed whenever X-Files dipped into biology but watched anyway.
[> [> [> [> Different Interpretation -- Robert, 10:38:52 10/14/02 Mon

>>> "Yeah, the line about why the beams bent was unnecessary and distracting to the tiny fraction of us who know it was nonsense."

Don't let this one line nag at you. She wasn't trying to dazzle Angel with her brilliance. She was trying to baffle him with bullshit, and she knew it was bullshit.

I see this line as an example of meta-narration. The writers were winking at the annoying techno-babble that Star Trek and some other shows are so fond of.

>>> "(which I'm not sure aren't conductors - Lucite certainly does some interesting stuff with static electricity)"

Lucite is non-conductive, in an engineering sense. With enough voltage, you can break down any insulator, thus you have lightning strikes.

You generate static charges on your clothes when you separate two dissimilar non-conductive materials. These charges can subsequently transfer to your body (which is quite conductive).
[> [> [> Recharging -- Malandanza, 10:15:59 10/14/02 Mon

"She can blow a kid away at the field where there is no strong power source. And suddenly she can use her power only if there is a power source?"

How about she has a long recharge period? So with the kid in the field, she had a full charge of electricity after having been isolated for so long. When she's near electrical wires, she can draw on the power source to recharge quickly, but cut off by insulators, all that power she'd used blasting Gunn and Angel left her powerless. It could also explain why she had more trouble hurting Angel after the initial assault -- but imagine her after one of those times she'd been struck by lightning.

As far as pseudo-science goes, the science in this episode bothered me less than the time stop apocalypse episode.

What was really inconsistent was the sudden kissing -- Angel is obsessed with Cordy and on a mission to recover her; Gwen has been untouched since she was a child -- a couple of hits and suddenly they're kissing? Just touching would have been better.
[> scientific babble -- Robert, 07:34:15 10/14/02 Mon

>>> "Gwen bent a light (absolute nonsense, again..) ..."

Why is it nonsense? Gravity bends light.

>>> "I am electrically exciting subatomic particles to bouncing each other before they hit ground states.."

She did say this, but I interpreted the scene differently than you did. In the prologue scene, we were shown that she could not attend school. I am thus assuming that she does really have an education, though she may be well read. From this, I assumed that she was purposely attempting to baffle Angel with bullshit, rather than dazzle him with brilliance. She was already shown to be a capable liar.

>>> "Don't create pseudo science in it. That was why I never liked X-files, while I loved BTVS."

You must have really hated ST:TNG.

All this aside, I think you are treating this incident a little harshly. Both BtVS and AtS have presented science and technology as merely an extension of magic. Thus we have such things as Spike's chip. I realize that your complaint is not that she bent the light, but that she gave a bullshit explanation of how she did it. However, the nature of the explanantion (which explained exactly nothing) and the nature of the young lady herself were clues that her intent was to bullshit rather than explain.
[> Re: titles and eps -- Sang, 14:18:46 10/14/02 Mon

I was a little harsh about this ep. partly because I don't like to see cross over between X-men and Angel, or even worse , mutant X and Angel. Lara Croft with an electric power. hmm.

But mostly, it draw my attension because it was the Title of the ep. Ground State.

They used the titles as a keyword of each ep. Btvs used a title 'Entropy' at S6. That was brilliant. Entropy tells you that once something is done, you cannot reverse it completely.

We, physicists, even have a demon for that subject. The only demon living in Physics world, Maxwell's demon. This mystical/scientific demon has power to reverse the movement of molecules. He use his power to reverse what already happend, like put the spilled water back into the cup.

Then we have a chaos theory, even with the maximal accuracy, we cannot reverse the trajectory of particles completely, because of chaotic factor and uncertainty in Quantum mechanics. So just reversing the directions of molecules are not enough.

Even with the power of demon, we cannot go back to time, we cannot change what already happened. We should live with the consequences what we did.

The title of the ep 'Entropy' was also a great forshadowing of the rest of the eps in S6. I just don't get the point, however, the title they used in this Angel Ep.

Wait until I post about upcoming Angel ep. 'Supersymmetry'.
- grin -

p.s. Robert, gravity cannot be turned on or off, it should be there all the time. And if she can bend light with gravity, the world around her will collapse by it.

p.s. I think I misinterpreted elevator scene. She was powerless only because she cannot use her power without direct contact. Okay, again, the light has no electric current in it. Touching light doesn access the the source, well.. enough of that.

p.s. Yes, I agree the kiss scene might be the strangest scene of the ep.
[> [> Ground State and philosophy -- Cleanthes, 15:50:51 10/14/02 Mon

That scientists use the expression "ground state" doesn't give them power over the term. Where did they get it from?

Philosophy, of course, as with most science. The term was invented as a substitute for "substrate". Locke and Peirce largely define the philosophical usage. Is science really the final arbiter of language?

Locke uses this term as the dark side of what it means to be a substance. It's the thing that bears properties, or in the Angel episode, the thing thru which the charge passes. (and the early scientists examining electricity had far less hybris than the modern ones, hence their willingness to adopt terms from other disciplines)

And this brings up an Angel-related issue that I pondered earlier but now seems sharply illustrated. Grue - is he not perfectly named? (well, I've usually see it spelled Groo, but the difference is trivial)

In Goodman's paradox, induction is shown as incomplete. As Goodman sets it out, emeralds are said to be green because we induce this property from having examined many emeralds in the past. We therefore imagine that future emeralds will be green. But let's imagine a situation we'll call "grue" where something is grue if and only if it was green up to the present and from then on become blue. Okay, well then if emeralds are grue, then we should expect all previous emeralds to be green and all future emeralds to be blue.

Ain't that dopey? But it's really as strong, logically, as the induction that all future emeralds will be green.

But Groo, Cordy's sweetie, was just such a paradoxical creature - grounded as Angel, but relatively speaking NOT.

And the kiss was the best part of the episode. It was charged. C'mon, Boreanaz has far more sexual chemistry with this actress than with Carpenter. Yeah, I'm using the word chemistry in it's non-science sense.
[> [> [> Re: Ground State and philosophy -- Rufus, 17:40:32 10/14/02 Mon

And the kiss was the best part of the episode. It was charged. C'mon, Boreanaz has far more sexual chemistry with this actress than with Carpenter. Yeah, I'm using the word chemistry in it's non-science sense.

Oh yeah, gotta agree with you on that one. Boreanaz seems to have chemistry with just about everyone but Carpenter. I like the "idea" of C/A but when I see the actors try to act out lust.....well, I just don't buy it. That said, many actors who are married and obviously have some sort of chemistry going find that the chemistry doesn't translate onto the screen.
[> [> Re: titles and eps -- lulabel, 18:19:41 10/14/02 Mon

It's funny that the two physics-related episode titles are actually related - the Ground State of a system is also the condition of maximum Entropy. I agree, however that the naming of this episode is not nearly as apt as the Buffy episode Entropy. Given all the raging hormones and electrical thrills we saw, a better title would have been "Excited State"!

Perhaps when they were naming the episode they were thinking more of the term "ground" used in reference to electrical things. This still doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of what happened in the episode other than electricity-babe.

And just to be nerdly - she could have bent the light by changing the density of air in the room, and therefore the index of refraction. Of course to bend the light as much as she did would have required a rather sizable shift of air molecules....probably would have had to suck in all the air molecules for a mile around....
[> [> [> Re: titles and eps -- Robert, 20:41:54 10/14/02 Mon

>>> "And just to be nerdly - she could have bent the light by changing the density of air in the room, and therefore the index of refraction."

I'll buy it. It is certainly no more wacked out than my suggestion of gravity. Obviously neither is technically possible, at least not in the near future. But that isn't the point. Neither BtVS nor AtS are about science and technology. Whenever ME does incorporate science or technology into an episode, they treat it more like magic, and I can accept this. As far as I am concerned, BtVS set the ground rules for science with the episode "I Robot, You Jane", way back in the first season.

I went back and re-watched the scene where Gwen bent the light beams and gave her bogus explanation. I still think she knew it was bogus and was merely being sarcastic. I believe it was a wink or a nod to the sci-fi shows (such as ST:TNG) which so heavily relied upon techno-babble.

Current board | More October 2002