October 2004 posts
Wanted: AtS Season 6 information --
Vickie, 10:54:25 10/05/04 Tue
Tomorrow's the day! Is tomorrow the day? I thought tomorrow was
supposed to be THE DAY.
I can hardly breath.
How will this work? Will there be a thread posted with the episode?
A link to another site? Is there a "broadcast time"?
Or do I just have to keep checking?
Inquiring minds want to know, NOW!
Replies:
[> Come On! We need a Virtual Preview! -- Vickie, 21:39:59
10/05/04 Tue
Please? Just a little sound bite? Angel's eyes and a voiceover?
Pretty please?
[> [> Episode 1 is still in production -- Masq, 07:33:53
10/06/04 Wed
More news when it is available.
[> [> [> Phooey! -- Vickie, 09:15:58 10/06/04
Wed
You guys are worse than the networks! (not!)
[> [> [> [> It's a-comin', Vickie, it's a-comin'!
I'm typing as fast as I can! -- cjl (6.1 co-author), 09:31:08
10/06/04 Wed
Honest. I'm revising Acts II and III now, and we'll make an announcement
as soon as we're ready. As soon as we have the first three or
four scripts done, Season 6 will be on its way...
[> [> [> [> [> We're waitin' on pins & needles...
ouch! -NT -- Zach, 12:59:01 10/06/04 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: Phooey! -- abracapocus,
13:56:14 10/06/04 Wed
To Vickie and any others who might not have checked out other
Virtual Season 6 projects and need something to tide them over
'til Masq and clj are ready to go live with their work, here are...
No Limits --I'm
really enjoying this one. They're "airing" episode 3
tonight (10/6) at 9PM EST. So far it's rock-solid, with strong
characterizations, sparky dialogue and a logically-follows story
line. The front page proclaims the project "slash-friendly",
but so far there are just hints of some kind of Wes/Angel flashback
(and the perpetual bickering of Angel-Spike).
Legends
Never Die --they're through episode 5 now. This one's not
as promising (spelling, vocabulary, grammar and real-world errors),
but you have to admire the effort. I've only read the opening
of episode 1, though.
Not that I, um, really have time for fanfic............
Back to work--
Ab
[> [> [> I shouldn't do this but... hey, evil and
all that. -- The Third Evil, 20:58:33 10/06/04 Wed
Dancin Crazy
July 13, 2004 (Chartreuse)
Written by: Gandalf Greenberg
Teaser
EXT. - ALLEY BEHIND THE HOTEL NIGHT. IT S RAINING, NATCH.
The scene starts right where we left off at the end of NOT FADE
AWAY, with ANGEL and crew gearing up for Wild Bunch Thang '04,
and just as everybody raises their weapons to start up with all
the slashin', hackin', and sundry other uber-violent death, an
unexpected voice is heard from a doorway in the side of the alley:
VOICE
Boss?
Everyone stops dead (or undead) in their tracks, and turns to
look at the source.
ANGEL
Harmony? What... get out of here! I mean...
(lost for words)
... didn't you leave already?
HARMONY
Well, yeah, I did, but then I forgot to give you this before I
left,
and I really thought that you might want it, so I came back and
got it,
and did you know the Wolfram & Hart building is, like, falling
down? I mean
I barely got out of there without getting squashed! And
look at my hair! Now I'm gonna have to go home again and
get cleaned up before Hamilton picks me up later tonight!
Incredibly, or perhaps not, everyone, demons included, are frozen
in place, not sure just what is happening. Angel bends his head
down, covers his face with one hand, shakes his head.
ANGEL
Harm... Hamilton's dead. Otherwise... would I be here?
HARMONY
Dead?
(pauses as it sinks in)
Oh.
(long beat)
Darn.
(brightening)
Hey!
(looks over at Angel)
Then the best man did win!! Hey, good for you, boss! Way to go!!
There is another long pause, and still no one is moving, except
for Gunn, who seems to be hanging on the precipice of uncontrolled
giggling and trying his supreme best not to fall off.
HARMONY
(still with the perky)
Uh, does this mean I could have my old job back?
END TEASER - CUT TO OPENING CREDITS
Act 1
EXT. ALLEY BEHIND HOTEL, SCENE CONTINUED DIRECTLY FROM TEASER
Angel slowly removes his hand from his face and gestures at the
army of 30,000+ heavily armed demon warriors with a broad sweep
of his right arm. The dragon flying about overhead screeches loudly,
as if on cue. Harmony looks out in the direction indicated, momentarily
puzzled, then...
HARMONY
Oohhhhhh.... OK. I see... that is kind of a problem.
ANGEL
Yeah, sorta is.
HARMONY
(more seriously now)
The Senior Partners are kinda pissed, huh?
ANGEL
Yeah, sorta are.
Gunn is having a much harder time not giggling, and a few "sppp...mmmpphh..."
's sneak out. The others briefly look at him, then back at Harmony
again.
HARMONY
(face lighting up again)
Oh! Oh! Then you will need this.
She snaps open her purse, reaches into it and rummages around,
then finally pulls out the mystic amulet that Spike wore when
he sun-zapped the ubervamps in Sunnydale last year, and dangles
it.
HARMONY
Here, catch!
She tosses the amulet to Angel, but the toss is very ineptly thrown,
and the amulet careens over towards Illyria, who effortlessly
reaches out and catches it.
HARMONY
Ooops, sorry! Heh!
ILLYRIA
(looking quizzical)
What is this? It seems effusively decorative.
SPIKE
(already starting to back away)
Uhhh, Blue, uh... you wanna be careful with that!
ANGEL
(astounded, and caught completely off guard, but thinking quickly)
Illyria! Throw it here! Now!
ILLYRIA
Hm.
(ignoring Angel, while inspecting the amulet closely)
It appears to be something worn around the neck, and possibly
mystical.
For inexplicable reasons I'm having a vision of odd, white, half-bubble-shaped
creatures with little smiley faces bent on some arcane cleansing
ritual.
(she immediately places it around her neck,
and snaps home the clasp)
ILLYRIA
What happens now?
The demons suddenly snap-unfreeze and with a deafening roar, re-begin
the attack. As they do, the amulet begins to glow, and as it does,
Illyria makes a low, throaty grunting sound. Angel, clashing violently
with the demon warriors and simultaneously trying to work his
way toward Illyria, yells at her once again.
ANGEL
Illyria!! It won't work with you ! The wearer must be a champion,
with a soul, but more than human!
The amulet is glowing like an arc lamp now, and Illyria herself
is starting to glow with it. Her body shudders a second time,
and she moans loudly, not with pain, but as if caught in a wave
of pleasure.
HARMONY
(still huddled in the doorway)
Holy shi... That kinda looks like fun!
ILLYRIA
Uhhh.
(shudder)
This... is...
(shake)
rather uummm
(shudder)
nice, really!
Angel is almost at Illyria's side, leaving a wake of dead demons
as he goes, when two sets of arms yank him away. Before he knows
what's happening, he finds himself being carried away by Spike
and Gunn, who are running like hell towards the door where Harmony
is standing.
ANGEL
(really pissed)
Hey! Yo!!! Put me the hell down! You...
SPIKE
Time to go.
Not a good place for being a vampire just at the moment
Harmony, who has been staring raptly at the writhing Illyria while
slowly moving one hand southward, hears Angel yelling and drops
out of the moment. Seeing that Gunn and the two vamps are barely
six feet away, she panics, thinking they are going to kill her.
She quickly turns around and moves to yank the door shut behind
her, but by then the others are way too close and all that happens
is a mighty crash as they slam against the partly closed door
and send Harmony flying to the floor inside. Gunn recovers first,
and quickly pulls the door back open again.
HARMONY
Owwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Hey! Watch it!
SPIKE
OWWW!! Bugger!
GUNN
Agghhh... Harmony! What are you doing?
ANGEL
Forget Harm, what the hell are you idiots doing?
Illyria can't...
A deafening thunderclap cuts him off as blinding light fills the
sky outside.
SPIKE
Door! Shut! Now! Been there, done this, trust
me!
ANGEL
Spike, she can't, it isn't possible, she's not...
He sticks his head back outside the doorway, the hairs rising
on the back of his neck as he sees something akin to the world's
biggest Pink Floyd laser lightshow blasting out of Illyria's chest.
Demons are being vaporized by the hundreds as the dazzling beams
flicker back and forth, seeking out targets to immolate. The dragon
is darting about overhead, screeching and flapping wildly as the
one of the death rays starts shooting in its direction. Another
ray suddenly flashes within inches of the doorway. Angel jumps
back abruptly as Spike leaps up and slams the door shut, then
braces himself against the wall and pulls back on the doorknob
with all his might. The door creaks and shudders as the Illyriastorm
rages outside.
GUNN
(helpfully)
Uh, I'd ease up there, Spike, you might pull that thing off, and
then...
SPIKE
(snapping out of it)
Oh. Yeah.
(releases the knob)
OK, good point.
HARMONY
(getting back on her feet, backing away slightly)
So, you don't wanna kill me?
Everyone turns to look at her.
Angel moves first, taking a step in Harmony's direction. She starts
to back up, her expression intense as she tries to intuit his
intentions, but he stops moving forward, and speaks, with surprising
calmness considering the competing din from outside.
ANGEL
Harmony, where did you find that amulet? I thought it disappeared
months ago.
HARMONY
(cautiously)
Well, I uhh... I... I didn't think you wanted it anymore, so I...
(she stops)
ANGEL
(voice rising ever so slightly)
Harmony...
HARMONY
(throwing up her hands)
OK! OK!! I took it! It was just so big and pretty and it
reminded me of
my sweet Blondie Bear and how he was such a big
hero and everything and...
SPIKE
Really? It reminded you of me?
HARMONY
Well, a little bit anyway.
(looks pleasantly moony, then a thought starts to occur)
Not that I should be reminding me of you, being that you
tried to take
unfair advantage of me all those times, like I was some cheap
floozy that you can just use whenever it suits your mood and then
go back to your Slayer bint or your Droogzilla and...
SPIKE
(copying Angel's earlier head-holding-shaking move)
Harm, I'm sorry. Really.
(pause)
Really really. Can we just get past this?
HARMONY
(surprised and delighted)
Really? You are?
You're not just saying that because I just possibly saved your
life and all?
ANGEL
That remains to be seen.
(starts brooding)
How is it possible? She's not a Champion! How can she be a Champion?
I'm not even sure she's a she!
The sound level outside is starting to fall off rapidly, and the
door was no longer shaking and shuddering the way it had been.
GUNN
(nodding toward the outside)
Whatever the case, looks like there might be favorable results,
I figure.
Damn well about time, too.
ANGEL
(starts obsessing)
But it can't be. A soul? Where would she get a soul?
You just can't get them anywhere!
The sound stops completely, and the conversation stops a few seconds
later. The silence continues, 30 seconds pass, then a minute,
then two.
GUNN
Care for a look-see?
HARMONY
So, boss, you OK with the amulet theft thing? I'm not fired?
(suddenly remembers)
Oh, yeah, guess you need to rehire me first before you could
fire me again. Maybe that's too much trouble.
Harmony picks up her purse from where it had fallen on the floor,
attempts to straighten up her hair and clothing, and waves at
Angel, Spike and Gunn.
HARMONY (CONT.)
It's been great!
(big smile)
I'll be seeing you guys! Bye!
(she turns to flee)
Angel places his hand on the doorknob, turns it, opens the door
just a few inches. Without turning his head, he calls back, his
voice an odd but familiar mixture of perplexity and resignation.
ANGEL
Harmony.
(beat)
Don't leave yet.
HARMONY
Really?
ANGEL
Really really.
HARMONY
(effervescent)
Cool!
The gang heads outside. Illyria stands in the middle of the alleyway,
thousands of piles of dust all about her and visible for hundreds
of feet going away. She looks absolutely normal and undamaged,
and there is no sign of activity from the amulet, which still
adorns her neck. They begin to make their way over to her.
SPIKE
Humpph. Well, I could've looked that good afterward too, if it
wasn't
for the whole flamin death thing.
ANGEL
Spike. Not now.
SPIKE
(shrugs)
Just sayin'.
HARMONY
Wow
GUNN
Second that.
ANGEL
(muttering)
Where's the dragon?
(looks around, then notices a really big pile
of vaguely dragon-shaped cinders
off to the far left)
Awww, damn, I wanted to do that! Can't I ever
get a break?
They reach Illyria, who still does not move, so all step forward
a few additional paces and turn to face her, unsure what to say.
At last Gunn breaks the uncomfortable impasse and speaks.
GUNN
Blue? Are you OK?
They are all stunned to see the beginnings of a genuine smile
creep onto Illyria's face; stunned because it is something they
have never seen since she first appeared to them on that fateful
and painful day just a few short months before.
ANGEL
Illyria?
ILLYRIA
(smiling more widely)
Now that...
(There is a long, pregnant pause, then:)
ILLYRIA
... was fun!
FADE TO BLACK - END ACT 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[> [> [> [> That.....was fun! thanks! -- Vickie,
09:29:51 10/07/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You did great! Loved it!
thanks!! -- Lace, 09:59:45 10/10/04 Sun
[> [> [> [> Re: I shouldn't do this but... hey,
evil and all that. -- Jane, 18:22:30 10/07/04 Thu
**giggling hysterically**
Saved by(OMG, I can't even say it!) This was a hoot. Thanks!
[> [> [> [> Nicely done. Just one thing...
-- ZachsMind, 20:54:09 10/07/04 Thu
Gunn had ten minutes to live. Pesky mortal wound oozing blood
into his fashionable threads. So he shoulda fallen by the end
of act one, since ya didn't address fixing him somehow.
Other than that, it was fun. =)
[> [> [> [> [> Well, just like in Monty Python
& the Holy Grail... -- T3E, 15:07:40 10/09/04 Sat
..."I'm (he's) not quite dead yet!"
;-)
[> [> [> [> Re: Wonderfully written, plausible,
and I enjoyed, thank you -- Lace, 10:06:12 10/10/04 Sun
Angel, Season 2 eps 9-11
-- Masq, 13:35:35 10/05/04 Tue
Thoughts -- Angel. Lindsey. Drusilla. Twist endings. Massacres.
The Good Fight vs. Total War.
The Trial
You know, one of the things I never fully appreciated about the
first half of Season 2, being fully immersed in the Angel-Darla
stuff, was how little story Wesley and Cordelia got that wasn't
just them reacting to Angel and his obsession. Then, when Angel
abandons them in mid-season, suddenly they get to have their own
problems.
But prior to that, they mostly just stood around wringing their
hands and wondering what to do about Angel, while Gunn, who should
have known better at this point, continued to enable Angel in
his addiction.
Anyway. So Darla is told in this episode that she is dying of
syphilis. Now I'm not sure if that was part of Wolfram and Hart's
original plan, but one gets the impression they have plans inside
plans when it comes to stuff like this. And Darla, who is now
starting to resent being used by Wolfram and Hart, continues her
search for someone to vamp her with renewed motivation.
In the episode "Darla",
Wolfram and Hart appeared to drag Darla off to kill her (Holland's,
"We're terminating the project"). But I don't think
they wanted her dead. I think that was just more manipulation
of Angel. They wanted Angel to play the hero, to think of himself
as Darla's protector, so that when they played the Syphilis card,
Angel would play the hero again and turn Darla into a vampire
in a desperate attempt to save her life. He would do it, they
thought, with the best (misguided) intentions, and it would be
the trigger to set him down the path of towards dark!souled!Angel.
Of course, the damsel!Darla and the dying!Darla also plucked Lindsey's
manipulation strings, which I don't think Wolfram and Hart intended.
But I DO think it's what Mutant Enemy intended.
The manipulation of Angel and Lindsey puts these two men, who
have more or less the same goal (saving a woman's life) at each
other's throats. And Mutant Enemy are not afraid of building up
their rivalry with beaucoup amounts of homoerotic subtext. Angel
and Lindsey are ostensibly passionate rivals over the same woman.
But long, scrutinizing looks, invasion of physical space, and
brawling and physical violence between men has long been used
as a thinly disguised surrogate for sexual interaction. And in
this case, the subtext lights fire to the textual rivalry.
But Angel isn't so easily led down the path Wolfram and Hart want
him to go. He desperately looks for an alternative to vamping
Darla, and that's where the Trials come in. Angel struggles through
three physically grueling trials in order to earn Darla a second
chance at life.
The twist ending, of course (well, one of them) is that
he doesn't save her. Oh, he earns a second life fair and square;
but then it can't be delivered. This sets up a cosmic debt in
Angel's favor, the payment of which, of course, is a story for
another season. ; )
I think that being forced to suffer the Trials with Angel was
the first experience and understanding of Love that Darla
ever had in 400 years. What Angel would endure for her! Her emotional
appreciation of it was lost the minute she was revamped, of course,
and she wouldn't remember that feeling of Love again until she
gained another soul in Season 3.
"The Trial" is an episode with a twist on top of its
twist. Best.final.minutes.of.an.episode, ever, and the
best reason I can ever give for staying unspoiled. Yes! Drusilla
RAWKS. What makes this ending so chilling (besides slinky Dru
in slo-mo) is that just when Darla finally seems to have made
peace with her life, just when you could actually really believe
she could be redeemed, Mutant Enemy pulls the rug out from under
her.
One final thought before I leave "The Trial". One of
the things I always appreciated about the flashbacks on AtS was
that they were never gratuitous. They always showed you key moments
in the character's past, moments that really shed light on who
the character is in the present. This is as opposed to the flashbacks
on say, Forever Knight, and more than a few on Highlander, that
seemed to have no connection to the present action of the episode
except that they dealt with the same general theme.
That's why the Holtz flashback in "The Trial" was so
jarring. It seemed like they had an extra 15 minutes of air time
they needed to fill, or perhaps it was a cheap excuse for dressing
the characters up in fancy period outfits for the sheer fun of
it (and exploring Darla and Angelus' atypical response to betrayal).
In retrospect, of course, the Holtz flashback set us up for a
significant story line about Angel and Holtz in Season 3, but
it was so premature one wonders if M.E. was just bandying about
the idea of having Holtz as their season 3 menace but hadn't made
up their minds yet.
Reunion
I am seriously thinking "Reunion" might be my favorite
episode of Season 2 (but I haven't rewatched "Reprise"
yet, so I'll get back to you). I have this memory of sitting at
my mother's computer over Christmas vacation trying to do my episode
analysis of "Reunion" with only an AOL web browser and
Word Pad and AOL's ftp utility. All my usual tools for creating
and uploading my analyses were at home with my desktop Mac. I
was sitting there, irritated as hell, struggling with the primitive
technology, rewatching the episode, and I remember thinking in
that moment that AtS was truly as brilliant as its mother show.
It had finally proven itself.
Not that I hadn't enjoyed it before, but Season 1 wasn't the strongest
of the show's seasons and was too stand-alone for my tastes. And
I had been enjoying season 2 so far--Dear Boy, Darla, The Trial--but
in "Reunion" they took the risks a truly great show
takes--when the main character is complicit in the murder of human
beings, no matter how contemptible those human beings might be,
and you UNDERSTOOD his reasons? Wow.
Anyway. So now I will stop squeeing so much about Darla and Angel
and start squeeing about Drusilla.
I can't say I was ever fond of Dru as a character by herself.
She always shone when she was in a pairing--whether it was Dru/Spike
or Dru/Darla or whomever. She needed someone to play off of, a
companion. Someone to tolerate, or fail to tolerate, her complete
looniness.
Drusilla is all about companionship. She is all about family.
Mothers, daughters, fathers, grandmothers. This might be a vestige
of her human life. To torment her, Angelus chose in particular
to kill her family, which I suppose would torment anybody, but
Angelus was the Artiste of mental torture. Why pick that in particular?
Because family was the main focus of Drusilla's life. And her
unlife. After she has her fun hanging with grandmummy and tormenting
daddy in L.A., the first thing she does is run to Sunnydale and
try to bring sonny back into the fold.
The relationship of Drusilla and Darla is complex. One imagines
they were never great "girlfriends" with each other,
at least not until Spike came along. And even then, Dru remained
"Angelus' annoying experiment" in Darla's mind. Darla
always struck me as being the kind of woman who wanted a man in
her life but had no use for children, and let's face it, Dru and
Spike were her children, the ones that Angelus gave her against
her will and then stuck her with when he got his soul back. Dru
annoyed Darla with her looniness and dependence, Spike annoyed
her with his unruliness.
But in the present day, all VampDarla has is Drusilla. And for
Darla to appear the powerful vampire she wants to appear as, she
needs a sidekick, something family-oriented Dru is only too happy
to provide.
Other thoughts. Gunn proves himself useful in this episode, both
as a foil--"if we explain Angel's convoluted family history
to Gunn, we explain it to the viewer", and as a character
in his own right. Again, Gunn cuts through the muck of the gang's
cluelessness and puts them on track to find what they're looking
for (in this case, Unborn!VampDarla).
Lindsey. I love how serenely Lindsey smiles in the wind cellar
as Darla and Drusilla torment the assembled guests. One imagines
he's thinking, "We're all dead! But what a way to go."
And of course the delicious irony of Darla and Drusilla giving
Holland the massacre he encouraged them to have right there in
his own home is just.... That's all I can say, it's just... JUST.
Poetically just.
In the final moments of the episode, Angel finally gives his friends
a seasonal story line they can sink their teeth into. "You're
all fired."
Redefinition
"Reunion" was the final episode of the calendar year
2000, airing probably the second week of December. And so it was
weeks before Redefinition aired in mid-January. Weeks before we
got an answer to the Locked Cellar Mystery -- namely, did anyone
survive?
Ah, those were the days. When it was a matter of weeks,
rather than TWO MONTHS, before new episodes, and you got 10 episodes
in the Fall instead of 7. And the final image you were left with
to live on for two months wasn't a sex scene that made you go
hysterically blind. We were spoiled in Season 2, kids.
Of course, one thing we would get a lot more of later and not
nearly enough of before was Lilah. I didn't realize until now
how little Lilah there was in the first half of season 2. But
Lilah and Lindsey dancing on the hot tin roof of Angel's little
games would be the highlight of our Spring 2001. And we also saw
very little sparring between them before, either--maybe in Untouched
and Reunion? But now we get full-on rivalry.
The thing I remember most about Redefinition at the time it aired
was the debate it spawned among fans. Was Angel doing the right
thing or not? The episode depicts him toughening up, working to
become more ruthless, believing that that was necessary to bring
down Wolfram and Hart.
Some fans argued that Noir Angel was wrong. They gave the classic
argument that you can't fight the devil using the devil's own
methods. If you do, you throw away the very thing you're fighting
for. You become the thing you're trying to fight. Other fans felt
differently.
There was this poster at ATPo at the time named Max. God, I think
at this point, might be the only one who
remembers him. Maybe or .
Anyway, Max's favorite argument was to haul out the Classic Star
Trek Episode "The Savage Curtain". The moral of this
episode is, apparently, that it's the Ends which differentiate
the good guys and the bad guys in a battle, not the Means. We
are the good guys because of what we are fighting for. But our
means must be as ruthless as the bad guys if we have any hope
of winning, and after all, isn't the point of the fight between
good and evil being that the good guys win?
The debate between fans was not just about this abstract philosophical
argument, but also about where Mutant Enemy was going with the
Noir Angel story line. Were they advocating Angel's ruthless methods,
or "The Good Fight" methods of the rest of the gang?
I think we know the answer to that now, but at the time, there
were people who were cheering that Angel was finally embracing
"the War" (Total War). That "the Good Fight"
had been hopelessly na ve and would have ultimately been ineffective
against evil1.
It is the episodes to come that flesh out Mutant Enemy's answer
to the debate (Reprise, Epiphany).
1. I'll have more thoughts about this when I get to 'Epiphany',
but I'm not sure this is entirely wrong. Assuming you can use
the most ruthless methods and still retain your status as good
guys, would we have gotten a different ending to the show than
the Existentialist 'if nothing we do matters all that matters
is what we do' ending of Not Fade Away?
Replies:
[> Just one thing... -- Wizard,
20:03:44 10/05/04 Tue
About Holtz as the S3 bad: remember that ME set up the Mayor as
the Buffy S3 bad in Season 2 with little more than a blink (your
ears) and you'll miss it line in an exchange between Snyder and
a cop.
As memory serves, the exact line is:
Cop: You want to be the one to tell the Mayor?
I can't remember exactly where the line was said. At first, I
was sure that it was in IOHEFY, but the context is that Snyder
doubts that the public will fall for the old standard of 'gangs
on PCP.' It might have been in School Hard, but I'm sure it was
much later than that.
It could easily be exactly as you say, because it is a very plausible
(and realistic) one, but this is ME, and they do many things which
don't make initial sense, but are later revealed to be perfectly
logical, if not brilliant.
[> Re: Angel, Season 2 eps 9-11 -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
11:51:35 10/06/04 Wed
Excellent point about how little there is for Cordy & Wes to do
in the beginning of S2. I always felt one of the strongest aspects
of the 'Gray Angel' period is that it finally allowed those characters
to come into their own. rather than just being Exposition Guy
& Snarky Girl which is too often what roles Wes & Cordy end up
fufilling in S1 & the first half of S2.
[> [> The irony is, though... -- Masq, 16:13:55
10/06/04 Wed
That we all missed season 1 and 2 Cordy after mid-Season 3.
I don't think many of us missed old Wesley, though. He really
came into his own when the mid-season 3 ANGST started!
[> [> [> Ironic, indeed (guess I'm in a Alanis mood
today) -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 10:17:46 10/07/04 Thu
Right you are, Masq.
Especially about Wes, I think S2 &3 of Angel are great but for
me the show really took off in it's final two years in large part
because of Wesley. Wes becomes the first main title supporting
character who is a rich & interesting as Angel himself (my non-main
title exception here is Darla). BTVS never really had this problem
thanks to the strong support from Spike, Giles & Willow who are
just as compelling as Buffy herself and sometimes even more so.
As for Cordy, I don't share the deep love for her that many have.
Love a lot of things about the character but I think Whedon used
her properly on BTVS, with a handful of scenes an episode where
she gets to come in a drop one of those trademark Cordy lines
but she really isn't expected to carry a large piece of the show.
I have some problems with her in the first season of Ats in that
the writers are (for the most part) still treating her like she's
on BTVS although she now has three times the number of scenes
and is carrying a large chunck of the show. For me, she really
comes into her own as a character in S2 especially the Pylea arc
which I think of as the characters high-water mark. Probably not
the most popular opinion but there it is. : )
[> [> [> [> Not a big Cordy fan myself -- Masq,
12:08:11 10/07/04 Thu
I found her pretty tiresome on BtVS. But I'm not a fan who falls
all over myself fawning over snarky characters. I think she was
supposed to be the "what Buffy could have been but wasn't"
character--popular, shallow, distinctly anti-feminist.
That said, I came to like her over on AtS. Because she was just
sooo wrong for a companion to Angel. He wants to sit around and
brood and then run out and kick some butt. She isn't going to
put up with the former for a second (which Angel needs!), and
the latter, well, she finally had to learn to pick up an ax and
risk breaking a nail while fighting the good fight. Working for
Angel, the visions, all of that was working together to really
turn her into an interesting complex character.
Then they had to go and screw it all up with the Evil!Cordelia
business. Honestly, doesn't Joss have any new ideas? "Every
hero must go evil at some point!" Snore.
[> [> [> [> [> Owwww Harsh -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
13:19:59 10/07/04 Thu
The 'new ideas' line is gonna live a mark on Jossy boy. Although,
I can't neseesarily disagree with you. I mean how many more times
could characters die & be resurrected? How many more times could
characters go bad and the walk the path of redemption? I miss
the shows (quite a bit, to be honest) but I don't think they could
go on forever so going out in style is a nice thing to do (David
Chase, I am talking to you).
As for the Evil-Cordy thing, I take that as the writers absolute
exaserpation with what to do about the character. the romance
with Angel didn't work. You had taken her from vain, shallow Cordy
to heroic Cordy. Listening to David Fury & Tim Minear on the Succubus
Club (love the interviews with the writers but why can't they
ask better, or any, follow-up questions) talk about just trying
to figure out what to do with the character in S4 (amenisa? thinks
she's seventeen? Big Bad?) shows a group that has reached a point
where they have nothing left to say about with character. Primarily,
I think because she's a rather shallow character at the core.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Owwww Harsh, The Add-on
-- Mr. Bananagrabber, 13:22:24 10/07/04 Thu
Forgot to add that you are dead right about the greatness of teaming
Cordy with Angel as his 'good fairy' if you will, pushing him
to connect & stop with the broody boy act.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Owwww Harsh,
The Add-on -- Rufus, 15:11:31 10/08/04 Fri
Oh yeah, Cordy as the Good Fairy with better shoes. I liked the
character of Cordy when she said exactly what she thought, then
they went and tried to complicate matters with what appeared to
be more noble motives that got her bumped up to Higher Power status...wait,
that didn't work out so well cause, well cause it was a bit of
conceit to think that it was that easy to become a higher power.
Only someone like Cordy who wanted to be the Princess (Pylea)
would consider the process as easy as an elevator ride to the
sky. This isn't saying that Cordy hadn't gotten a bit less self
centered, but not nearly enough to become god-like over.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Which is why...
-- Masq, 19:10:51 10/08/04 Fri
...she had a smidge, a minor little tiny smidge, of culpability
in what happened to her (the whole Jasmine thing). Not that she
asked for it, or that it's her fault in any way, but hubris is
what sent her up to the sky in Tomorrow, knowing there were people
she was leaving behind that needed her, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Which
is why... -- Wizard,
23:39:25 10/08/04 Fri
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't seen it in a while,
but didn't Skip tell her that she could do a lot more good up
there? I'm not saying that she wasn't arrogant on some level,
but he and Jasmine played her perfectly- the visions didn't hurt
her anymore and she was displaying some pretty impressive power
(killing the hyrdophilic demons that invaded the Hyperion), there
was the whole 'sacrifice' angle in that she would have to give
up her growing relationship with Angel, and the messenger was
Skip, whom she had no reason to distrust.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The
"sacrifice" angle is the problem -- KdS, 02:38:45
10/09/04 Sat
Skip orders her to abandon all her friends without a word of information,
knowing that they'll believe her dead or have to live with that
uncertainty all their lives, and gives no reason for it except
to prove her commitment. Now it's a constant thing in the Buffyverse
that anybody who demands that you betray a friend merely to prove
your loyalty to an abstract concept is evil.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not a big Cordy fan myself
-- BrianWilly, 20:52:27 10/09/04 Sat
I'm in agreement about Cordy. She had her moments on Buffy and
I loved what she added to the cast and stories, but that's not
the same as saying that I liked the character much.
But then, Heroic!Cordy would never have existed and would never
have resonated so much if not for Snarky!Cordy. The very reason
that Cordy as a hero was a brilliant character growth was because
she wasn't one before. It wasn't that she was a villain, like
Angel or Spike...but she was something of an antihero. And that
made her a different sort of hero than any other member of the
gang.
And then...yes, they went and made her evil. If that's not remembered
in fandom history as the single most stupid idea that Joss
Whedon ever had or allowed anyone to put on his shows...well,
the point is that it should be. I really liked Jasmine as a villain,
but I can never think of her storyline now without thinking of
the horrendous plots and convoluted retconning which brought her
to life. And the worst part is that Jasmine could have very easily
been brought onto the scene without the evil Cordy possession(or
whatever it was...Possessed!Cordy sure didn't act like Jasmine
at all. Another flub on the writers' part?).
Grrr. Arrrrg.
[> [> [> [> [> [> From what I've heard .
. . -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:25:20 10/09/04 Sat
Problems with Cordelia's storyline circa Seasons 3 & 4 were partially
due to disagreement within Mutant Enemy regarding what should
happen to Cordy. Now, keep in mind this is just something I read
somewhere on the net, so take it with a grain of salt:
Basically, David Greenwalt intended for Cordelia's ascension to
a higher plane to be the real deal, believing that she really
had earned that saint-like status. Joss and many of the other
writers disagreed, leading into conflicting portrayals (they had
to find some reason in Season 4 for Cordelia's ascension to not
be real some how if they didn't want to go along Greenwalt's path).
Then there came pregnancy problems: when they began plotting the
season, they never planned on a pregnant Cordelia, but Charisma
Carpenter's pregnancy necessitated they include that. My personal
theory is that the beginning of Season 4 was following mostly
the original plan for Cordelia (clearly not evil, just very confused),
but they had to make some changes for the pregnancy storyline.
The revised plan was to have Cordelia be possessed by an evil
force and give birth to Jasmine, but have the old Cordelia come
back after giving birth and kick former PTB butt. Unfortunately,
Charisma simply wasn't able to film anything besides herself lying
down for awhile after going through labor, and so the plan to
bring Cordy back couldn't work.
So here's how I've managed to work out the plan for Cordelia went:
She truly becomes a higher being. (Greenwalt leaves) Cordelia
is spit back out after having been used for something unknown
while she was up there. (Charisma gets pregnant) Cordelia is possessed
by an evil spirit due to her pregnancy, but will rise up her old
self afterwards. (Charisma is in no shape to do any acting) Cordelia
remains comatose for the remainder of the season.
With all the changes that had to be made due to real world complications,
it's easy to see why it became such a mess. When the writers wrote
Cordelia earlier in the season, they weren't prepared for all
the complications which would arise. And, in all fairness, there's
something to keep in mind: we only knew that Cordelia was evil
for five episodes. We first found out when she stabbed Lilah at
the end of "Calvary", and she went comatose at the end
of "Inside Out". That's five episodes; as a matter of
fact, Angel was openly evil that season for just as many episodes
(end of "Awakening" till end of "Orpheus").
Just kinda puts a new perspective on things.
Although, looking back at Season 4, I've gotta say it's dissapointing.
I really got caught up in the flow as it aired, but, viewed as
a whole, so many elements of the arc story (the Beast, the sun
blotting, Cordy's amnesia, Angelus) didn't need to be there. Sure
they were entertaining, and if they had been stand alone episodes
or arcs seperate from the main one, that would be different. However,
they were very much connected to the main storyline despite no
real need to be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: From what I've
heard . . . -- ghady, 12:33:29 10/10/04 Sun
I disagree.
I think all those events (the beast etc...) NEEDED to be there.
The only problem was there wasn't enough explanation.
Wesley said that the rain of fire/blotting out the sun were only
"birth pains." I can live with that.
And the most LOGICAL reason for destroying W&H would be to stop
them from trying to avert Jasmine's birth.
The viewer can also conclude that Jasmine used the beast to wreak
as much havoc as possible so she can *fix* it all when she arrives.
And as for Angelus, well he was simply a distraction jasmine used
to prevent the FG from finding her out.
BUT, again, that was never actually SAID. It would've been better
had something like the following taken place:
1) explanation for angelus:
Evil!Cordy (at the beginning of inside out, addressing angel):
"Look at you, the big hero. All that time as Angelus, and
your little gang of blind idiots couldn't tell that it was all
because of me. But now that you've come back, well.. you must
be so proud."
Wesley (realizing sthg): "Angelus. He was a diversion. A
mere tool to stop any of us from focusing on the identity of the
beastmaster."---------->THIS would've answered all my
"so why did jasmine want angelus to be there?" questions.
On W&H, the beast etc...
Wesley (shiny happy people): All the events we've witnesses these
past months, all the madness, it was birth pains.
Jasmine: But the storm has passed.
Wesley: And Wolfram and Hart?! Where do they stand in all this?!
Jasmine: In the way of my birth of course! I would not have been
able to enter this world with them in it.
Angel: They would've stopped you. Stopped your love from reaching
us all.
THEN.... IN PEACE OUT, AT THE END:
JASMINE
(crying) Why do you hate me so much?
ANGEL
Let's run down the list, huh? Rain of fire, blotting out the sun,
enslaving mankind, and, yeah, oh, yeah, hey, you eat people!
JASMINE
Like you never have? And you were never supposed to be the hero
and save the world from everything that happened! It was me! It
was supposed to be ME! I was the one who was supposed to kill
the beast, put an end to the darkness--
Angel (realizing her plans):--So we'd think you're the goddess
who saved us from hell. (Sighs). Of course. It doens't matter
thought. Thousands of people are dead because of what you've done.
---->couldn't the writers have given us AT LEAST THIS MUCH!?!?!?
oh well..
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's a difference
between "explainable" and "needs to be there"
-- Finn Mac Cool, 14:41:45 10/10/04 Sun
Yes, you can explain Angelus, the Beast, the rain of fire, and
all the rest. That's not the problem. The problem is they didn't
really do anything to advance the story. Let's say you cut out
"Apocalypse Nowish" through "Orpheus", with
the exception of the scenes between Cordelia and Connor and Lilah's
death. If you did that, and then picked up with "Players"
through "Peace Out", you wouldn't really be missing
anything. The Beast, Angelus, and all that other hullabaloo all
got wrapped up fairly nicely before Cordelia got exposed and all
that giving birth/Jasmine stuff happened, and really had little
to no impact on that portion of the story. So, while you can fit
most of the middle of Season 4 into the arc and have it make sense,
as far as advancing the story goes, it was almost entirely padding
with little to no impact on how everything wrapped up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's
a difference between "explainable" and "needs to
be there" -- ghady, 10:49:10 10/11/04 Mon
yea i get what you mean. your problem with S4 is that most of
the things that happened seemed pointless.
my problems with it is the explanation thing, maybe bcs im viewing
the season as a "jasmine's efforts to descend to this earth"
season--everything that happened, i connect to jasmine, not to
the central characters. i don't know if this makes sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No,
I get that connection to Jasmine thing . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
12:37:16 10/11/04 Mon
I just don't think the writers needed to give her so many complications
and hassle to go through to come to Earth when things like the
Beast and Angelus really didn't play a pivotal role in the Jasmine
arc. Sure, they did serve to distract Angel and Co., and the explanation
you gave of her needing to make things as bad as possible before
arising so people would love her all the more. The problem is
that none of that panned out; AI managed to restore everything
to normal before Cordelia gave birth, and the distraction thing
could have been handled simply by making Cordelia give birth faster.
If you cut the Beast, the rain of fire, the sun-blotting, and
Angelus out of the picture, you could still tell "Inside
Out" through "Peace Out" with virtually no changes
needed to be made. While all the apocalyptic events going on did
get some things out of the way (explaining why Wolfram & Hart
wasn't around to try and stop Jasmine, killing Lilah/exposing
her affair with Wes, and getting Faith out of prison) those things
could still have been done without spending so many episodes focused
around a villain and a chain of events that really didn't go anywhere.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
i get it.. very true.. -- ghady, 12:45:30 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Beast --
q 3, 13:16:41 10/10/04 Sun
In a certain light, the Beast's actions are necessary to fulfill
the Loa's portents from Loyalty:
LOA: The first portent will shake the earth. The second will burn
the air. The last will turn the sky to blood.
In other words, the Beast's arrival shakes the earth; the rain
of fire burns the air; blotting the sun turns the sky to blood.
And all that has to happen before Angel (really, this time) kills
his son (either because it's necessary for W&H's mojo, or
looking at the memory wipe as a death in the sense that Quor'toth!Connor
is no longer alive afterwards).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Beast
-- newvague, 19:44:30 10/10/04 Sun
i thought the loa's portents had been fullfilled.
LOA says something like: that the vampire will devour his son
is certain, the dark question you harbour is, when.
by "devour" i had always interpreted this as angel drinking
blood spiked with connor's blood. if this is the case than these
things had all happened when wesley first thought they had.
[> [> [> [> [> Every hero must go evil at some
point! -- dmw, 16:25:43 10/11/04 Mon
You're right, Masq. By BtVS s6 and AtS s4, the hero going evil
had become ME's classic cliche. I understand the problem of having
a good idea and running it into the ground. What I don't understand
is why after such initial success, the idea was executed so poorly
in later seasons.
Let's look at the times when this story became a major season
arc during BtVS/AtS:
BtVS s2: Angel turns evil after sleeping with Buffy, as
an interesting twist on the boyfriend becoming someone completely
different after sleeping with him story. Angel works well in this
role as Buffy's tormenting antagonist.
BtVS s3: Faith turns evil after an accidental killing alienates
her from her last remaining connection with the good in Buffy.
The multiplicity of causes and their deeper human nature made
this a much more interesting story than a vampire turning evil
as a result of a curse in s2. I think this was ME's best rendition
of the hero turns evil story.
AtS s2: Angel becomes dark as a result of W&H's manipulations
and Darla. This story was very different from his going evil in
BtVS2 and held much more potential, but the arc was cut short
and the season ended with the very different Pylea arc. I'm not
sure what happened here.
BtVS s6: The evil Willow arc may have held the most potential
of any of the stories because of her deep, long term connection
with Buffy, but as the story moved from a somewhat abrupt power
corrupts arc to the absurdity of magic addiction with the Sabrina-esque
magic in Smashed/Wrecked then faded away, it lost most of its
possibilities. Resuming it with the cliched hero goes bad for
revenge after a loved one's death, which ME had done with Willow
herself the prior season and with Giles in s2, provided a poor
finish to a story which had started out with so much potential.
AtS s4: The disappointing Cordelia arc that started this
discussion. The magical changes in Cordelia didn't offer any opportunity
for character development, which is the truly interesting characteristic
of this type of story, and as has been pointed out, much of the
arc, fun though it was, was tangentially related at best.
In summary, not only was the hero turns evil story overdone, it
was often not executed well. This story, like most, works best
when it happens for human, not magical or deus ex machina
reasons, and when it occurs through gradual character development,
not sudden or drastic intervention by the hand of the author.
Faith's story in BtVS3 (and continued in BtVS4 and AtS1) followed
those two guidelines and as a result worked the best out of any
of the major hero turns evil story arcs in BtVS and AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, Willow was my FAVORITE
hero-gone-bad by far. -- BrianWilly, 21:03:45 10/11/04
Mon
Everyone's got a problem with the whole magic-addiction storyline
and all that, but I thought it was all rather reasonable and effective.
Evil Willow worked so well for me because it was so far from what
we've known of Willow, and yet perfectly logical for her character
as well.
back to the beginning.. whats
up w/ that?? (pts of view of ME and the First, and It's denial
of God) -- ghady, 11:29:19 10/06/04 Wed
When i first heard the First/Master tell Spike that "that's
where going: right back to the beginning. Not the Bang. Not the
Word. The *true* beginning," i thought that something incredibly
apocalyptic was going to take place.
Turns out that no, that was just Joss' little "thing"
for season 7: making as much references to previous seasons as
possible.
I havent seen End of Days/Chosen yet, but--where things left off
in Touched, it seemed like the whole situation was anything BUT
the way it was in the beginning, whether the beginning of the
series or the beggining of the cosmos.
The First, however, had a different plan (imo), which would inevitably
be thwarted by the army of slayers. It wanted to turn the universe
back into the state it was before history--before the bang or
the Word were even concepts in the mind of God. The First is thus
claiming that it is in fact OLDER than God, and did not come to
existence as a result of our own evil impulses (that's It's answer,
imo, to the question "which came first, evil or the First?")..
How else could the First aspire towards bringing the world back
to the way it was BEFORE THE WORD--IE BEFORE GOD HIMSELF? ("in
the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.)
What *was* there in the beginning? Well, evidently (and acc to
the FE), EVIL. that's all there was--no morals, no ethics, no
GOD, and no concept of God, for whether God actually exists in
the Buffyverse or not, it is the mere CONCEPT--the very THOUGHT
of him--that has rended the FE so feeble and weak. What would
It like better than to go back to a time where that thought is
purged from everyone's minds, assuming that there are any human
minds left to be purged?
imo, all the First wanted to do was to basically kill God and
to take His place as the Lord.
Replies:
[> curse the confusion!! ITS ITS, not it's! noo apostrophe!!
ughhh!!! ignooore such mistakes, PLZ! -- ghady, 11:33:50
10/06/04 Wed
[> [> hey, at least you know the difference.... >sigh<
-- anom, 21:06:02 10/10/04 Sun
[> My take on it.. -- ZachsMind, 12:57:10 10/06/04
Wed
By back to the beginning, Joss meant Buffy was going to face where
her powers came from. She went back in time to those three old
black dudes with the smokey demon spirit. She was going to face
the fate of The Primitive.
Also, by saying back to the beginning, The First Evil was going
to bring into the game those old vampires. The baldheaded ubervamps
were supposed to be the true blooded kind, undiluted by human
beings. Angel & Spike were just astronauts compared to the caveman-like
Tuvok Han (or however that was spelled).
And Xander was going to revert into Popeye. Yuk yuk yuk yuk.
[> This is what happens when you project your own belief
system into a fantasy series... -- Majin Gojira, 15:11:10
10/06/04 Wed
You get offended REAL easily.
There is about as much evidence for God in the Buffyverse as there
is in the Real World. Here you've blindly assumed that the Judeo-Christian
Diety exists as you understand Him in this world exists in Buffy's.
There is no basis for this assumption other than your own Faith.
For your own good, don't bring up the fact that Christian holy
objects hurt vampires. There is a more plausible alternate explination
for that than just "God did it". But your not going
to like it.
Besides, Joss is an Athiest, even though he enjoys certain aspects
of the Christian Mythology (Redemption/Sacrifice mainly).
I really gotta start that essay on Secular Humanism in the Buffyverse...
[> [> I'd like to read that essay!! -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
17:41:46 10/06/04 Wed
[> [> Re: This is what happens when you project your
own belief system into a fantasy series... -- Ricohard,
06:01:43 10/07/04 Thu
We don't know that its just christian holy symbols. Just because
we haven't seen willow or the others wielding a star of david
or other religious symbol doesn't mean they don't work.
[> [> no, i havent assumed that -- ghady, 08:00:54
10/07/04 Thu
that was the point.
i'm not saying whether or not *i* think God exists in the Buffyverse.
i'm sying that the FE believes He exists, or at least acknowledges
the concept of Him, otherwise It wouldn't have said "back
to the beginning [...] not the WORD; the true beginning."
[> [> [> It said "not the bang, not the word"
-- Finn Mac Cool, 08:17:01 10/07/04 Thu
There it's referring both to the scientific Big Bang theory and
the Christian "God said 'Let there be light'" theory.
I took its comments to mean that it discounted both of these theories
as poppycock, hence why it was going to show the "true beginning".
[> [> [> [> oh, i thought you were gonna point
out... -- anom, 20:51:20 10/07/04 Thu
...that the First never says "before" the Word
or the Bang; it says "not" the Word or the Bang.
In fact, you quote it that way yourself at the start of your post
beginning this thread. But then you say:
"The First, however, had a different plan (imo), which would
inevitably be thwarted by the army of slayers. It wanted to turn
the universe back into the state it was before history--before
the bang or the Word were even concepts in the mind of God. The
First is thus claiming that it is in fact OLDER than God...."
Not necessarily, & I certainly didn't take it that way. Even if
the First had said "before" rather than "not,"
that could--& most likely would--mean only before those things
happened, not before God conceived of them, let alone existed.
The "not" can be interpreted 2 ways: it could mean those
events occurred but neither was the true beginning, i.e., it really
does mean "before," or it could mean those things never
happened in the 1st place. After all, we know the history of the
world in the Buffyverse is not as we know it in the real world;
Giles says the world did not begin as a paradise, as "popular
mythology" would have it. In fact, he says this in Welcome
to the Hellmouth--maybe that's what the First meant by
"back to the beginning"!
[> [> [> [> [> oo.. never thought of that..
good pt.. -- ghady, 14:05:49 10/08/04 Fri
[> [> [> As fin has mentioned -- Majin Gojira,
17:36:22 10/07/04 Thu
He referenced the most common theories for the origin of life/the
universe/everything/42 in western society. It does not mean that
either is true in the Buffyverse. It wouldn't have the same resonance
if he said "Before the bang, before the Ordering of Yin and
Yang" (though that would rhyme REAL Well) or "before
the world egg" etc. would not hold as much resonance for
the First Audience (Spike) or the general viewing public. It does
not lend creedence to either statement.
[> Consider the source -- Rich, 18:15:54 10/06/04
Wed
The First's favorite weapon is intimidation - it convinces its'
victims to give up without fighting. It makes a lot of threats,
& loves the sound of its' own voice - how many times did it tell
Buffy she couldn't possibly win ? How many times did it tell Spike
that Buffy wouldn't come for him ? "Back to the beginning"
may be just another example of the First's hype.
[> [> Re: Consider the source -- Alistair, 18:55:50
10/06/04 Wed
I think the first was being glorious and tanting when it mentioned
the bang and the word. It was unlikely being literal. As a matter
of fact, it had no basis for knowing that once its army outnumbers
the humans of Earth, it would be able to possess every man woman
and child on Earth. Beljoxa's eye said that the First always has
been and will be, before the universe began and after it is gone.
It cannot be fought, it cannot be killed, because its not a living
thing. It is eternal in that it defies time.
It likes to talk, thats all. We all saw how much it talked and
taunted.
[> Really good article on "back to the beginning"
and other S7 themes in Slayage... -- Rob, 18:58:39 10/06/04
Wed
Go to http://www.slayage.tv and select the "Current Issue"
button (Issues 11 and 12). And when you get to that page click
on the second article, "'Lessons' for Season Seven of 'Buffy
the Vampire Slayer'" by Elizabeth Rambo.
Rob
[> Logos from a Stoic perspective -- Cleanthes,
17:24:29 10/07/04 Thu
When i first heard the First/Master tell Spike that "that's
where going: right back to the beginning. Not the Bang. Not the
Word. The *true* beginning," i thought that something incredibly
apocalyptic was going to take place.
Logos = "the word".
This is not, originally, a Christian concept, John 1:1 notwithstanding.
"The Word" means cognisance of a central trait linking
whatever a word applies to and a general concept.
If one has Right Reason, then one agrees that words would, if
understandable, underlie any thought applicable to the vasty universe.
So, were the First able to predate "the word", the first
would predate understandableness.
Whoop-de-do. When shit happens, things are shitty. How nice for
the first!
I'm not impressed by this bit of bragging!
[> [> Re: Logos from a Stoic perspective -- Rufus,
15:06:16 10/08/04 Fri
I considered what the First rambled on about as slightly less
insane than the crap that came out of Glory. When you are fixated
on yourself, I guess you begin to think that you pre-date or originated
"the word"...;)
i just read an alternative
scrpt for chosen. is that *real* or not? (cuz some ideas are really
good) -- ghady, 08:44:44 10/07/04 Thu
like joyce appearing as the first
the first being corporeal
dawn telling spike sthg like "someone with a soul but not
a human? sounds like the key to me" (referring to who should
wear the amulet) (plus this ties in rather nicely with the "she
won't choose you" stuff from CwDP. instead of choosing dawn
to wear the amulet, buffy chooses spike)
hmm..
here's the link http://buffy.nu/article.php3?id_article=731
Replies:
[> I don't think it was official -- Earl
Allison, 09:52:13 10/07/04 Thu
I've heard a lot of this before -- I don't think it was an actual
alternate script -- it read too much like addressing fan concerns
more than anything else.
Not to say that, in many ways, it didn't read far better than
the actual (IMHO), but I don't think it was in any way official.
Take it and run.
just saw the buffy finale
&i STILL didnt get an explanation to "it's not spike's time
yet"(sorry...) -- ghady, 11:44:44 10/07/04 Thu
Replies:
[> there isn't one -- Rich, 13:14:09 10/07/04 Thu
I think the quote you're referencing was in "First Date".
Spike's "trigger" was defused in "Lies My Parents
Told Me", which was a couple of episodes later. After that,
the First no longer had the ability to use Spike ( although it
did try to influence him at the end of the season ).
There's no explanation for the remark because whatever the First
was planning never happened - another example of its' tendency
to overestimate itself & underestimate its' opponents.
[> more speculation -- Rich, 13:18:00 10/07/04 Thu
Personally, I think the First's original plan was to use Spike
to turn Buffy, but that's just my opinion. In any case, after
"Lies", that wasn't a realistic possibility -
if it ever was.
[> [> Re: more speculation -- Dlgood, 15:42:44
10/07/04 Thu
I think the First's original plan was to use Spike to turn
Buffy, but that's just my opinion. In any case, after "Lies",
that wasn't a realistic possibility - if it ever was.
But the first knew about William turning his mother -- that's
why it was able to use the song to trigger him. Knowing that Spike
knew that turning his mother wouldn't work for him, it makes no
particular sense for the FE to expect Spike to turn her.
Unless the FE is deeply stupid.
[> [> [> Or it figured that the brainwashing would
override his better judgement -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:27:49
10/07/04 Thu
[> [> [> I think timing is relevent here -- Rich,
20:13:55 10/07/04 Thu
The "not time yet" remark was made before "Lies".
Therefore:
1. Although the First knew that Spike had turned his mother, Spike
himself had no conscious memory of it, nor of the outcome. Therefore,
it would not have affected his actions.
2. The trigger was still active, making Spike susceptible to manipulation.Of
course:
2a. Spike had refused to harm Buffy even when the trigger was
active ( in "Sleeper" ), but:
2b. The First may still have hoped to overcome his resistance
- I think the torture when Spike was a captive may have been for
this reason.Besides:
3. I think the First *IS* deeply stupid.
[> [> [> [> The First was deeply stupid.. --
ZachsMind, 06:22:28 10/08/04 Fri
The First being rather dumb helps support my theory that The First
was secretly a mystical hologram-like puppet, controlled remotely
by Amy Madison the Wanna Blessed Be.
[> Re: just saw the buffy -- BURBULY, 15:02:25 10/10/04
Sun
BURBULY BOO
BURBULY BOO
ZIM ZAM WAMMY JAM
WOO WOO WOO
BURBULY BOO
BURBULY BOO
SPLIPPITY SPLAPPITY
SPLOO SPLOO SPLOO
I have a new nephew!! --
Masquerade, 19:02:53 10/08/04 Fri
David, born noon US Central time, 9 pounds, 9 ounces, my brother's
first child, and my second nephew.
It took me this long to post because I've been answering non-stop
emails all day!!
Replies:
[> Mazol tov! -- Cheryl, 19:22:36 10/08/04 Fri
Becoming an aunt was one of the greatest things that ever happened
to me. I have a nephew (4 1/2 yrs) and niece (11 mos) and spend
as much time as I can with them.
Congratulations!
[> [> Congratulations, Auntie Masq! -- Jane, 19:35:26
10/08/04 Fri
Great news. I think being an aunt is cool. I have 13 nieces and
nephews, and 4 great-nephews and 1 great-niece. (My brothers and
sisters are so much older than I am ;) I wish.) At least the kids
all think I'm cool.
[> [> [> Congrats! -- Wizard,
23:33:31 10/08/04 Fri
A number of my female friends have nieces and nephews, and they
just adore them. Masq, you are in for something great.
[> Congratulations! -- Vickie, 09:07:59 10/09/04
Sat
[> [> Re: Congratulations! -- David, 15:42:07
10/09/04 Sat
Yeah congratulations on being gaining another nephew. Kinda makes
me wish i had a brother or sister so i could be a uncle:)
BTW, your nephew has a great name :):)
[> [> [> Thanks! -- Masq, 18:04:31 10/09/04
Sat
BTW, your nephew has a great name :):)
I think so. Then name on your post startled me for about .005ths
of a second. ; )
[> hey, mazel tov!! -- anom, 18:24:32 10/09/04 Sat
I assume, based on the "no news is good news" principle,
that everyone involved is doing fine. Hope you can get away for
that 1st visit soon!
[> [> First visit in December -- Masq, 09:00:58
10/10/04 Sun
By then he'll be old enough to travel to his grandma and grandpa's
place in Arizona, which is where I go for the Holidays every year.
Baby is doing great, he had all his newborn tests and passed with
flying colors (he should! His dad's a professor!). Mom had a c-section,
but was up and walking around yesterday (the baby was born on
Friday).
Both families are pleased as punch. ; )
[> [> [> seen the pics now--awwwww! -- anom, 16:36:21
10/11/04 Mon
One of the perks of reading LJ! Even brooding is cute at that
age...but I still hope he doesn't spend too much time doing it.
@>)
And speaking of Ariz., yes, I'll be there around the same time
as you! We can have that meet w/Cactus Watcher & Cheryl! (You
2 were talking about me? Awww.... @>D) Travel plans aren't
nailed down yet, but it looks like I'll be in Tucson (close enough,
right?) from 12/26 to 12/30. We should be able to find some time
to get together...can't spend all my time at the family
reunion, after all! It'll be great to see you again, Masq, & I'm
looking forward to meeting you, CW & Cheryl!
[> [> [> [> Re: seen the pics now--awwwww!
-- CW, 05:54:21 10/12/04 Tue
(close enough, right?)
It's about 100 miles from Tucson to Phoenix, about an hour an
a half by car. I hope you and Masq can find a time when your plans
will mesh, then Cheryl and I can make plans accordingly.
[> [> [> [> Thanks for the dates -- Masq, 12:23:19
10/12/04 Tue
That helps me plan when to be there, because I usually head home
after Christmas and before New Years, but I can add a couple days
onto that this year (to see friends and spend time with David!)
[> [> Hey, anom! -- CW, 17:45:36 10/10/04 Sun
Cheryl and I were just talking about you today. Is it true you're
coming to Phoenix this December also? We'd both like to meet you
and Masq if possible.
[> Congrats! -NT -- Zach, 20:47:05 10/10/04 Sun
[> Congratulations! -- OnM, 04:37:42 10/11/04 Mon
[> Yay for Auntie M! -- Pony, 16:15:11 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> 'Auntie M' - LOL! -- Auntie M, 09:00:13
10/12/04 Tue
[> [> [> heeeee--so i'm not the only one who heard
that in the voice of the young judy garland! -- anom, 08:46:43
10/13/04 Wed
Open plot threads in season
5 of Angel -- Ray, 23:21:09 10/09/04 Sat
Runes tablet in Soul Purpose. Eve made this seem like a big deal
(though possibly just a distraction to keep Wesley from checking
in on Angel).
The robot ninjas in Lineage. This is the biggest thread ever dropped
in the history of the Buffyverse. Anyone know what the plan was
with these guys?
Replies:
[> Another unanswered question -- Cheryl, 08:05:45
10/10/04 Sun
How did Lindsey get the amulet (buried in the hellmouth) and the
power to: 1) bring Spike back and; 2) keep him incorporeal until
he felt like making him corporeal again? Wouldn't that take the
power of someone, oh say, like Willow?
[> [> Re: Another unanswered question -- auroramama,
10:16:56 10/11/04 Mon
Interesting suggestion. I can imagine Willow being tempted into
doing it (presumably at first she hadn't worked out the corporeality
part) after checking out Lindsay's story for unwanted consequences
(Spike in heaven? Nope. Super-depresso Spike? Nope. Huge evil
backlash? Not really. OK, let's go!)
[> [> [> Don't think it's Willow -- Rich, 19:58:40
10/13/04 Wed
I can imagine Willow bringing Spike back. I can even imagine her
doing it for Lindsey, if he fed her a good enough line (which
he could certainly do). I can't imagine her bringing him back
& NOT telling Buffy about it.
[> [> [> [> Good point! -- auroramama, 13:55:33
10/15/04 Fri
[> Re cyborgs -- KdS, 11:30:30 10/10/04 Sun
They bore the symbol of the Black Thorn on their breastplate.
Why the Black Thorn would want to steal Angel's free will, however,
is a mystery, unless the whole thing was a fake-out and the real
objective was just to mess up Wes's head.
[> At what was Gunn failing? What was his part of the deal
with the SP? -- Merle, 00:50:13 10/11/04 Mon
HAPPY BIRTHDAY LITTLEBIT!
-- Ann, passing out cookies and cake, 04:28:16 10/11/04
Mon
Replies:
[> Best Wishes for many more! -- OnM, 04:39:40 10/11/04
Mon
[> [> Thanks OnM!!! -- LittleBit, 15:24:56 10/11/04
Mon
[> Yeah!! -- Masq, 06:21:02 10/11/04 Mon
So glad you found your way here, 'Bit!
Happy Birthday!!
[> [> Thanks, Masq!! -- LittleBit, 15:28:36 10/11/04
Mon
Finding your site and the board here was the best bit of net-surfing
I ever did.
[> hey! happy birthday, 'bit!!!!!! -- anom, 07:30:45
10/11/04 Mon
Chat party tomorrow night! Unless you want it tonight? Pun
Fun One is ready for your birthday cruise party! I've laid
in plenty of chocolate, so all aboard!
[> [> Chat party tonight -- Ann, throwing confetti
this time!!, 09:03:19 10/11/04 Mon
Tonight, Monday, October 11, 2004, at 9:00 Eastern time The Official
'Bit Birthday Chat in The Existential Scoobies chat room.
See you there!
[> [> [> Re: Chat party tonight -- Jane, 10:55:49
10/11/04 Mon
That's 6 p.m. here on the West Coast, right? I'll be there for
awhile before I head off to work. Bring your plates, everyone,
'cause I'm baking a virtual chocolate cake today. [Along with
my virtual Thanksgiving turkey ;)]
HAPPIEST BIRTHDAY EVER, 'Bit!!!
[> [> [> [> Re: Chat party tonight -- LittleBit,
15:44:04 10/11/04 Mon
Yay!!!! And thank you!
[> [> [> I'll be there! -- LittleBit, 15:42:45
10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Re: hey! happy birthday, 'bit!!!!!! -- LittleBit,
15:31:54 10/11/04 Mon
Being a firm believer in the prolonged birthday celebration, I'll
be there both nights!
[> Happy Birthday, sweetie! (hugs) -- LadyStarlight,
08:06:13 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Thankee, beautiful! [hugs back] -- LittleBit,
15:33:27 10/11/04 Mon
[> Happy Birthday! -- Cheryl, 08:52:17 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Thank you! -- LittleBit, 15:35:27 10/11/04
Mon
[> What she said! ;-) See you in chat tonight! Yes, I will
actually be there. -- Rob, 09:09:15 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Thankee, Rob!! And I'll believe you...one more
time. ;-) -- LittleBit, 15:38:20 10/11/04 Mon
[> Happy Day! -- Vickie, 09:51:18 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Thank you, Vickie! -- LittleBit, 15:40:30
10/11/04 Mon
[> Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY LITTLEBIT! -- LittleBit, 15:23:48
10/11/04 Mon
Oooooo!!! Sparklies!!! Thank you!!!
[> Happy happy joy joy to you! -- Pony, 16:14:01
10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Thank you!! -- LittleBit, 17:31:33 10/11/04
Mon
[> Happy birthday! -- TCH, 16:30:11 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Thanks, TCH!!! -- LittleBit, 17:32:42 10/11/04
Mon
Philosophy and Life--thoughts
please... -- Duell, 13:48:36 10/11/04 Mon
Just out of curiousity, of all the different characters' philosophies
that have been represented on the show, which ones do you most
agree or disagree with? Which ones apply the most to your own
life?
I have to say that the person whose worldview I most appreciate
is Wesley's. I often times feel that the ends justifies the means,
even if the means isn't necessarily honest or even moral. If you
can use unethical means to achieve a greater good, then why shouldn't
you? That is just my opinion though, and I would be greatly interested
in hearing the thoughts of others on this topic.
Replies:
[> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please... -- ravenhair,
00:07:30 10/26/04 Tue
"You gotta have something. Gotta be with moving forward"
I like this philosophy from Xander in Restless. He demonstrates
this in the following season during The Gift. The world is ending
but Xander refuses to give up on a future and proposes to Anya.
[> one simple thought >>> -- frisby, 16:10:02
10/11/04 Mon
If the end is 'freedom' and if that goal is considered so valuable
that its cost is a price beyond rubies, which is to say, afortiori
unmeasurable, then even if the means to that end is the death
of millions of people, the act is justified because the end is
so valued (even if in fact its an illusion and doesn't exist,
or even if in fact its positing immediately necessitates its opposite,
'law' for example, as a corollary). That is, anything becomes
justified, because the 'end' in question is ultimately subjective
(say for example my own satisfaction) and can thereby justify
anything (genocide for example). Of course, as the old argument
goes, sometimes the end 'does' justify the means (say for example,
saving a child's life by stealing the needed medicine when no
other alternative exists). In the end, like so much else, it comes
down to a case by case analysis. But for the most part, its a
very hard ethical dilemma......
Machiavelli contended the end justifies the means in the mind
of the ruler but not for the ruled. Kant argued the end however
justt never justifies unjust means. For most of us, we justify
means we don't approve of totally because of ends we desire.
Historically, it was considered justified to use terrible means
to torture heretics or witches because the end or purpose was
to save their immortal souls.
And of course, for some rare individuals, artists sometimes for
example, the means are considered totally apart from any end whatsoever
.....
I think the key word in all of this is 'justification' or justice
or the just. What 'is' justice?
[> [> lol@simple -- Evan, 20:42:35 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> this isn't simple, or clear -- it's complex and
confused -- frisby, 03:23:25 10/12/04 Tue
sorry bout that
it was off the top of my head and became confused
the simple thought was supposed to be that if the 'intention'
is considered the 'end' and the 'act itself' as the means, then,
anything one does is justified if one's intent is good
and this is absurd if made a rule
whether an act is justified requires consideration of not only
the consequences of the act, an the intention of the act, but
also the unconscious motives
[> [> [> This will probably confuse things further
-- Rich, 17:34:42 10/12/04 Tue
The separation between end & means is (IMO) somewhat artificial,
if by "end" we mean the actual outcome rather than just
the intended one. For example - if I commit a murder, my intent
is to cause a death - but the actual outcome includes not only
the death of the victim but also the fact that I made myself a
criminal. In a sense, the means ( & all secondary consequences
of it ) are included in the end & cannot reasonably be separated
from it.
The usual question could be more accurately phrased : Does the
INTENT justify the means ?
[> [> [> [> questions about the epistemology of
"ends justify the means" -- manwitch, 09:22:04
10/13/04 Wed
How do we know that our intended ends are good? More specifically,
how do we know our intended ends are good enough to warrant immoral
means?
How do we know that our intended ends necessitate immoral
means? Can the intention of good ends justify the use of immoral
means as a matter of convenience?
How do we know that our intended ends will be the only consequence
of our immoral means? Are we not morally responsible for, and
our means implicated in, the actual outcomes as well as our intended
outcomes?
For any of these questions, does belief that we are right, or
said another way, ignorance of the answer, justify the use of
immoral means?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: questions about the epistemology
of "ends justify the means" -- Rich, 09:46:15
10/13/04 Wed
"How do we know that our intended ends will be the only consequence
of our immoral means? Are we not morally responsible for, and
our means implicated in, the actual outcomes as well as our intended
outcomes?"
This is more or less what I was trying to get at. When considering
means, we have to consider *all* consequences (insofar as possible),
nor just the intended ones.
[> [> Buffy's philosophy in Season 5 -- Alistair,
08:39:08 10/12/04 Tue
I think I can most follow Buffy's philosophy in the end of Season
5, when she would not allow Dawn to die to save the world. In
Season 7, she knew that if the choice came again, she would do
it, she would sacrifice her sister to save the world, but in Season
5, she sacrificed herself. This ties in to the idea that love
is sacrifice. I don'tbelieve that is all that love is, but it
is a part of it, the ability to let go of the self because of
that love, and to overcome the fear of death. If I was presented
with the choice of the world ending, sacrificing myself, or allowing
my family and friends to die, I would die for them or the world,
in an instant. In Season 5, existentialism and self sacrifice
clashed. Dawn saw Buffy as the only person who came live in the
world, and Buffy saw that in Dawn, she died so that Dawn can live.
I hope that the heart of a hero beats inme, as it did in Buffy
then...
[> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please... -- Buffy's.,
23:19:16 10/11/04 Mon
I don't know if I personally practice her philosophy, but hers
is the one that I most identify with, like the most, and think
of as the highest and most pure way of living.
The Buffy we knew during the majority of the show's run was a
very moral woman, who believed in the sanctity of human life,
filled with love, conviction, and determination to uphold the
greater good(witness her law-abiding ways in "Consequences,"
"Dead Things," and "Villains" to name a few).
She can't seem to stop helping people...whether it's during her
time in LA with Lily or her [unfortunately rarely explored] role
as a high school counselor who came to care about her charges,
often going far above and beyond her call of duty, which is limited
to just killing demons...Buffy has become a true hero and defender
of innocents in ways that aren't just defined by slaying.
Laws are there for a reason, and yes, most of the time they do
work. You follow the law, which is there to protect you, or you
disobey the law and lose the protection which you're usually afforded.
This is of course relating to real life situations and not to
demonslaying and the such.
One thing I like about Buffy's morality is that she actually kept
it quite simple. We don't need grand, complicated moral debates
and lectures and miles upon miles of scripture to know what's
right and what's wrong; the differences between right and wrong
are self-evident, and no one should be able to lead the hearts
and minds of the truly righteous astray. Helping people is good.
Hurting people is bad. Compassion is good. Hatred is bad. Fellowship
is good. Being alone sucks. It ain't the rocket science that it's
often made out to be.
We're not always perfect; we're constantly being defined by what
we want to do and what we end up doing. Everyone thinks bad thoughts
sometimes. Life is hell and everyone wishes that there could be
an easier way, even if the easier way is just giving it all up
-- the constant fighting, the pressure, maintaining your dignity
in the face of harsh reality -- and more than a few characters
on both Buffy and Angel have gone through the temptation to just
do so, just give up. There's no shame in having questionable intentions
sometimes, but the important thing and deciding factor in our
morality is what we decide to do with those intentions. And sometimes
we make mistakes, but we have to learn from them and move on,
not end up repeating history again and again.
Of course, I'm oversimplifying it. In the real world, we're
often called upon to make hard choices, weigh the ends against
the means, and even sometimes choose between the lesser of two
evils. Which means that even though we should trust our inborn
instincts, it doesn't mean that we should rush into reckless judgment.
We each have the potential, the capacity to make the best decisions
regardless of the circumstance; it behooves us not to squander
this potential.
Okay, some of that may be me projecting my own thoughts lol, but
basically that's my overview of the Buffy way of life.
This may make me quite unpopular, but my least favorite philosophies
throughout the two series have always been the philosophies of
Giles Season 7 and Dark!Wesley.
Yes, there are instances where the ends do justify the
means. Saving the entire human race and countless dimensions of
the multiverse would probably be one of them, and various characters
throughout the series have had to make sacrifices on behalf of
themselves for the good of others. In season 5, Giles took it
upon himself to kill Ben. He decided to bear that responsibility...so
that no one else would have to. And I respect that. Giles lives
by the code that if he is protect this sorry world, then he must
at times say and do what others can't and shouldn't have to. That's
a great ideal, when executed correctly. So while Giles' attitude
and murder of Ben in "The Gift" was startling and disturbing,
it wasn't anything we could exactly blame him for.
Giles in Season 7, however, disturbed me more than any other character.
He betrayed Buffy. It wasn't a tiny betrayal like "Oh, maybe
I'll just keep her out of this," it was a fullblown slap
in her face as in "I'm standing here completely treating
you like an idiot, lying to your face, and planning to kill a
souled individual behind your back." How Buffy ever came
to forgive him for this...well, I chalk up to the fact that they
didn't have too much time to resolve this issue and had to have
them make up quickly, before the season's end.
He betrayed Buffy. Nothing anyone can say will change that, nor
make it somehow the right thing to do despite any circumstance
at the time. That's just the way it is.
And Wesley...he also betrayed Angel by taking and losing Connor,
but let me say firstly that I do cut him slack for this; yes it
was a stupid decision, but he really did make it with both Conner's
and Angel's best interests at heart.
What concerns me more is Wesley's state of mind after this
incident. People have said that it was Wesley at his best, dark
and broody and take-no-prisoners and willing to do anything it
takes. I agree that it was an important and very well-done character
arc for good old Wes, but I hardly think that his was a good attitude
to possess. It wasn't just utilitarian in the sense that the results
mattered more than the catalyst; Wesley's darker attitude was
practically nihilistic.
A man who doesn't care about the consequences of his actions on
himself, no matter how altruistic his intentions, is a man who
has nothing to lose. There's a difference between being a martyr
versus being self-destructive. There's a difference between doing
the things that no one should have to versus picking those options
as the first choice.
Case in point: Wesley torturing a young junkie girl for information
on Angelus in "Release." As Faith said to him, that
was completely over the line...if such a tactic was utilized in
Sunnydale, the perp would have been hunted down by the
Scoobs and brought to justice. It wasn't even that Wesley considered
himself too important to be bothered by ethical reasoning, he
wasn't giving himself special treatment or anything. Quite the
opposite, it was that he simply just didn't care at all. More
specifically, he didn't care about himself...his own moral quirks
were beneath notice. He didn't have anything to lose, so just
didn't care about what lines he crosses morally, as long as it
gets the job done.
That's not a healthy philosophy. Again, it's the philosophy of
nihilism: nothing matters and everything's going to hell in a
handbasket for me anyway(allegorically...I'm not sure if nihilism
believes in a hell), so why bother with the trivialties?
[> [> Ah..."Buffy's" was supposed to be the
title, not my name:p -- BrianWilly, 23:21:30 10/11/04 Mon
[> [> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please...
-- Ames, 07:56:50 10/12/04 Tue
I agree with you on this one, but of course the problem people
have with "the end justifies the means" arguments is
shown by Buffy's statements to Giles about saving Dawn vs. saving
the world in The Gift. Many people seem to consider it the ultimate
weakness of Buffy's moral philosophy that she couldn't bring herself
to do what was necessary. My response to that is:
a) How could you say someone is truly moral if they don't seem
prepared to draw the line somewhere?
b) We don't know what she actually would have done in the end.
She found a different choice, partly because she rejected the
obvious choice as immoral.
As for Wesley's attitude after the Connor kidnapping, I think
we have to cut him some slack - remember what he said when asked
what had happened to him: "I had my throat cut and all my
friends abandoned me."
[> [> [> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please...
-- manwitch, 09:44:20 10/12/04 Tue
I also agree with nearly all of what Brian Willy has said. An
interesting thing about the "ends justify the means"
crowd when talking Buffy and Angel is that they frequently forget
to acknowledge that Giles was wrong. He wasn't just willing to
use unethical means to achieve his end, he was willing to use
unnecessary ones. The fact that he didn't know that is pretty
much exactly the point. There is no algorithm to tell us what
the correct ends are or when they warrant unethical means. What
Giles did, actually, was to demand of someone else (Buffy) the
use of horrifically immoral means to achieve his end, even though
Buffy herself did not agree that his end held primacy. She felt
another end was more important. I have yet to hear anyone explain
why Giles's end was correct and worthy of unethical means while
Buffy's end was not even worthy of pursuit. Its especially interesting
given that the "end" showed Giles's means, his whole
understanding of the situation, to be incorrect.
Wesley in your example is the same thing as Giles. He was wrong.
His end and his means were based on his own misunderstanding and
his own betrayal of and refusal to trust the very friends he later
feels abandoned him. Wesley is doing something there that I refer
to as "evading his own responsibility for his choices."
"What happened to you, Wes?"
"The world was mean to me! You were mean to me! You're all
MEANIES!"
What an admirable, captivating man.
I will say that there are a great many moments when I find Giles
extremely admirable, although I think in Seasons 5 and 7 he does
find himself, under great pressure, making the wrong choices.
Buffy is wonderful. I also amdire Dawn and Tara. Buffy, Dawn,
Tara, and Giles all have a quality of presence, being present
in people's lives, being present in the moment. I love the suggestion
from Dawn's character that our history is a fiction, our memories
just waking dreams. Our reality is what we are and do now, in
this present moment. I also love the suggestion from Dawn that
we are the link between dimensions; that in our experience of
life, even possibly to death, we express the presence of the immortal
and divine in the mortal and human. I also love the idea of potential
that Dawn suggests. We are always a becoming. We are never so
determinate that we lack further possibility. And although we
are only brief custodians of life's power, we nevertheless contain
within us boundless potential and the ability always to choose
how that power that isn't really ours will illuminate us. I love
that character.
I like Oz's inner peace, but I'm bugged by his nearly out of character
response to Tara, and his willingness to sort of blame willow
for his "animal" nature.
Spike has some qualities that I actually like, even as a soul-less
vampire. He often has the ability to let go of things. He doesn't
worry over the morality of things he did as a vampire because
he is ok with the fact that as a vamprie he's supposed to be immoral.
What I like is not the immoral behavior, but the ability to let
go of the past. He wants to experience unlife on the edge, seeking
out slayers and such. Again, while his specifics might be a little
destructive or distasteful, I like the desire to experience the
full range that life has to offer, rather than hiding in a cave,
which, in fairness, he also does sometimes.
[> [> [> [> I don't blame Giles for his attitude
in "The Gift." -- BrianWilly, 17:50:39 10/12/04
Tue
I don't agree with him, and I agree with you that it's
the wrong approach, but I don't blame him. Like Giles himself
says: for him doing the right thing sometimes includes doing things
that other people won't or can't. As far as he knows -- and he
has gone over this thoroughly -- the world will end in bloody
torment if Dawn doesn't die. He made the best decision he as Giles
could, under the circumstances.
From Ames' post:
"I agree with you on this one, but of course the problem
people have with "the end justifies the means" arguments
is shown by Buffy's statements to Giles about saving Dawn vs.
saving the world in The Gift. Many people seem to consider it
the ultimate weakness of Buffy's moral philosophy that she couldn't
bring herself to do what was necessary."
I think the problem of trying to compare Buffy and Giles' arguments
in this episode is that you're going at it from completely two
different entities. Dawn is not Giles' sister. Dawn is not the
only blood relative that Giles has left(Hank Summers really doesn't
count). Giles does not love Dawn in the way that Buffy does. So
yes, it's not as emotionally devastating for him to suggest that
Dawn should be killed. Buffy has a different relationship with
Dawn than any of them and so any such suggestion is pure torture
to her; if Giles had any blameworthy faults in this episode, it
was that he had not considered this. He can go off about saving
the world and doing what's necessary, but that's only because
he was more detached from Dawn than Buffy was. Consider this:
what if Jenny Calendar was The Key? Would Giles have been so staunch
about her death being the only solution? I can't even say anything
one way or another for certain...that's how interesting Giles
as a character is. But to truly judge the validity of Buffy's
argument versus Giles' argument in something like this, the situation
would have to be that both of them feel the exact same
level of objectivity.
It's somewhat akin to the argument that Xander and Buffy had over
Anya's fate in Season 7...Buffy doesn't love her, and likes her
a lot less than her other friends. It's not exactly a breeze
for her to contemplate killing Anya, but compared to Xander's
state of mind she's in a whole other plane of existence.
(However, I do think that in this instance Buffy was right. Anya
was hardly innocent; she went and killed twelve human beings.
Twelve people is a whole lot of people, people. How should Buffy
prevent her from killing others in the future? The same and only
way that she prevents all other hostile demons from hurting
humans: she must slay her. It sounds callous and violent and aggressive
and self-important, but it's not. Buffy is given the moral obligation
to protect the innocent, defenseless human race against the dangerous
monsters in the dark because there is really no other way. The
human population is under assault from the demon world, not the
other way around. And it's not like Buffy just goes out recklessly
slaughtering anything that doesn't look quite right.
(In Xander's defense, he has many good points as well: this isn't
just some random demon of the week that you'll behead every Tuesday.
This is ANYA! Anya, who has helped them all out countless times
in the past, helped save the world on at least one occasion, and
is as much a part of this Scooby family as Giles or Dawn. You
just don't decide to chop her up, even if she's a demon again.
You just don't. To say that Buffy would be surrendering or at
least ignoring that precious element of humanity and compassion
and rightness which she claims to treasure if she goes through
with this act would be putting it lightly indeed. And those are
things which you can't ignore and put on hold.
(Okay, enough diversions)))
[> [> [> [> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please...
-- Rich, 17:53:38 10/12/04 Tue
I also like Spike's attitude, but I see it a little differently.
I don't think he's "ok" with what he did as a vampire
- I think he just realizes that he can't change any of it by agonizing
or brooding. What he *can* do is try to do the right thing in
the present. He doesn't worry about what he did then - he thinks
about what to do now.
[> [> [> [> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please...
-- Duell, 08:59:51 10/13/04 Wed
But Wesley had no reason to think he was misunderstanding anything.
In fact, given that, as far as we know, he had never seen a prophecy
go wrong, he was doing what I think most people would have done.
Trying to avoid an outcome that would hurt those he cared about.
And they turned on him for it. He didn't avoid responsibility
for his actions because he honestly didn't think he did anything
wrong.
Giles truly felt that he was doing what had to be done, and what
no one else was willing to do. He was legitimate in his intentions.
I will say however, it was wrong of him to lie to Buffy, especially
since he obviously planned to stay around and help if Spike had
been killed. How did he plan on helping someone who didn't trust
him and had no reason to?
I also have to comment on the fact that, when Oz said he couldn't
be around Willow for her own safety, he wasn't blaming her for
anything. He was merely acknowledging that his emotions weren't
exactly in check when he was around her. He never acted like it
was her fault, just that it was something that was completely
out of either of their hands.
On a side note, I have to say that I can't stand Buffy's "if
you kill Dawn, you die" attitude at the end of season 5.
Yes, Dawn is her sister, but we're talking about the end of all
humanity. She can kill re-ensouled Angel at the end of season
two, but she can't let Dawn die to save the world. I can't say
it is a choice that I would ever want, but she was willing to
sacrifice not just her life, but the life of everyone she knew
and loved, just for her sister. That is not noble, it is selfish.
She didn't want to have to live with the fact that she couldn't
save Dawn, so she was willing to let herself die to keep it from
happening.
[> [> [> [> [> I thought Oz said... -- manwitch,
09:40:03 10/13/04 Wed
something to the effect of "who would have thought that you
are the one that brings it out of me." I don't remember the
actual line, and its possible I have it wrong.
But I remember it as an almost explicit statement of Willow's
role in his transformation. It seemed very un-Oz, and in any case,
he should get over it.
At least, that was my opinion regarding his last appearance.
Otherwise he seemed like a pretty even-keel sort of dude.
I will always disagree with your interpretation, which is shared
by many and to which you are thoroughly entitled, of Buffy in
the gift. The fact that Dawn did not need to die shows Giles to
be in error. To hold Buffy morally accountable for NOT killing
Dawn is therefor to ask that she kill Dawn as a matter of convenience.
Buffy's "end" was not to destroy the world or even allow
it to be destroyed. It was to protect Dawn. Her desire to protect
Dawn does not absolve anyone else of their responsibility to protect
the world. It just means that the simple and ultimately unnecessary
option of killing Dawn is made a little more difficult. Buffy
saw Dawn as an end in herself. Buffy chose to use herself (Buffy)
as means to that end (Dawn's preservation). Buffy is using moral
means for a moral end. Giles wants to use Buffy and Dawn (making
Buffy kill her sister) as means to his end of saving the world.
Glory wants to use Dawn as a means to achieve her end of returning
to her dimension. Both Giles and Glory are willing to use Dawn
as a thing to further their goals. How then, are they morally
distinguishable? I see why Buffy is morally distinguishable. But
Glory and Giles are doing the same thing. The only difference
is the difference between their goals. No one will explain to
me why one goal is better than the other or why either is better
than Buffy's. If there's no God and valuation is arbitrary and
no goal is inherently better than any other, than at least Buffy's
does not entail immoral means. I don't see why its a given that
saving the world is more important than saving Dawn. I know that
some people do think it is, but they have yet to explain the source
for that value judgement.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Because... -- Duell,
10:23:12 10/14/04 Thu
1) But I remember it as an almost explicit statement of Willow's
role in his transformation. It seemed very un-Oz, and in any case,
he should get over it.
~~~ Well, if life is any indication, it is very hard to just "get
over" something. Sometimes emotions are beyond our control.
While that doesn't absolve someone of their responsibility in
the case of, say, a jealous husband who beats his wife, I think
you can allow for it in Oz's case. I mean, he does have a primal,
violent canine living beneath his calm exterior (that's something
I've actually considered before... is a werewolf a type of demon,
or what? Because Joss and Co. never really cover it, although
it does seem to share many of the same characteristics). When
he says Willow is the one thing that brings it out of him, he
isn't blaming her for causing the emotion. He's merely stating
that his emotions for her are still very much at the forefront
of his being, and he cannot control that. As a result, he must
leave so the (demon?) inside him doesn't use that to hurt her.
It is much the same reason Angel was reluctant to truly allow
himself to be with Buffy for the first half of season 1. He was
afraid of what the demon inside would do with the emotions he
was feeling.
2) Both Giles and Glory are willing to use Dawn as a thing to
further their goals. How then, are they morally distinguishable?
I see why Buffy is morally distinguishable. But Glory and Giles
are doing the same thing. The only difference is the difference
between their goals. No one will explain to me why one goal is
better than the other or why either is better than Buffy's.
~~~ Well, for one thing, Glory's goal will cause the death and
torture of billions. So will Buffy's, at least according to Giles's
understanding of it. (On that point, I was never quite clear as
to whether or not Buffy had planned on throwing herself in all
the time. It is never really explained as to if she had thought
all of this through or if it was a spur of the moment thing. If
she had this plan from the beginning, then, yes her plan is much
more morally right than Giles's, but if she just thought it up
then she was actually planning on sacrificing her sister, friends,
family, and countless others in order to keep from having to do
something that would cause her endless pain. And while that may
seem like a forgivable offense to some, I don't necessarily agree.
Of course, I've never had to fend off the hordes of hell and make
such a choice. :) ). Giles, on the other hand, is willing to make
a clearly painful choice to ensure the safety of the rest of world.
I have no doubt that killing Dawn would have tormented him the
rest of his life, but he was willing to do it in order to protect
others. That is why I feel he was not only justified, but in the
right. If you feel that killing Dawn would have been wrong to
save the world, do you also feel that Giles was wrong to murder
Ben?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Because...
-- manwitch, 08:22:20 10/15/04 Fri
Its not that I'm unwilling to cut Oz slack so much. I just thought
it seemed very un-Oz. I mean, he saw Willow with Xander and was
actually pretty cool about it. He didn't wolf out when that happened.
But the idea of Willow being with Tara he gets really upset over.
How unrealistic is that for a male character?
But seriously, it just seemed to be a little more emotional than
Oz was capable of getting, and the stimulus for it didn't seem
like the kind of thing that would freak him out. And then after
that, he seemed to suggest that Willow does it to him. But really
its just that he declined to control himself in that situation.
I guess he just felt like a dork.
A couple of comments on the Gift issues.
Yes, I feel Giles was wrong, in moral terms, to murder Ben. Did
I think it was cool in a dark sort of way, sure I did. And I still
like Giles. But there are a number of indicators that suggest
Giles is morally tainted at the end and that Buffy is not. In
terms of moral philosophy, Buffy's decisions are held up as the
paragon of virtue, Giles's are ominous at best. Tara calls Giles
a killer. Giles himself acknowledges what he is about to do as
non-heroic. Xander suggests that they can kill Ben, a regular
guy, and everyone is crestfallen at the moral depths to which
they are sinking to even suggest it. Buffy won't kill Ben because
her goal is not Ben's death, it is to protect Dawn. So the show
is giving us a lot of messages that while Giles's murder of Ben
is perhaps understandable, and while we may in fact benefit from
it, it consitutes more of a moral price tag than an act of virtue.
Also, you are still, in your response, assuming that saving the
rest of the world is both a necessary goal and a better one than
Buffy's goal of protecting Dawn. Its fine that you value the choices
that way. But what is the source? Does God tell you that saving
the world is more important than the life of an innocent? Or is
it your own existential choice? If its your own choice, why don't
you grant Buffy the same right to make her own valuation?
Personally, I think in the existential void the world is a wasteland.
It is not in and of itself ipso facto worthy of saving. We have
to live in it in such a way that it has value and becomes a place
that ought to be saved. By protecting Dawn, Buffy does that. Giles
equation is "world big. dawn small. save world save more."
Buffy's equation is "Dawn is reason for life. Dawn is value
of life and the world. Lose Dawn, lose life and world. Save Dawn,
save life and world." Buffy just makes more sense to me.
My choice, I know.
I also think that the philosophy of "ends justify the means"
is held up deliberately as a questionable philosophy. Precisely
because Giles is ultimately wrong, we are forced to confront the
fact that we don't know that our end is good or necessary or that
it warrants the means we would use. Nor do we know the consequences
of our means. Nor do we know what else is going to happen and
how its going to turn out. Giles understanding of the situtation,
while in the Magic Box at the start of episode, ends up being
incomplete, and arguably inaccurate. Saying, "well, I did
something really heinous but when I did it I thought it would
be for the best" is hardly a moral philosophy.
Also, killing Dawn to save the world is the plan of General Gregor
and Knights of Byzantium. Does anyone in the viewing audience
really believe for even a moment that we are being asked to concur
with them? Giles gets it wrong. Buffy gets it right. Thank God
(or the existential void) that Buffy was not willing to be so
rash in her judgement as Giles.
Also, people forget that there are also consequences to having
Buffy kill Dawn. Buffy is also supposed to stand against the vampires,
demons, and forces of darkness. She has made an explicit promise
to Dawn to not allow anything to happen to her. If Buffy let's
Dawn die, or God forbid kills her, what protection do any of us
have? If its simply up to Buffy and Giles to decide when we, however
innocent, are an obstacle to their goals and therefore to be expunged,
what security do we have? I'll provide a hint: none. They can
and wiill kill us all when its convenient for them to do so. Some
protector.
But instead, thanks to Buffy, we come away knowing that she will
die for us, no matter what the stakes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Because...
-- Rufus, 22:53:56 10/16/04 Sat
Killing Ben is killing the "what if" scenario. I wonder
just how many people would have posted slamming Buffy for letting
a guy with a resident "god" wander about with the chance
that the "god" could again get out and go on a rampage?
Is Giles right in killing Ben, maybe, maybe not. We will never
know as killing Ben killed Glory. It also makes one consider the
difference between Giles and Buffy that even he acknowledges as
he smothers Ben.
BEN: Need a ... a minute. She could've killed me.
GILES: No she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later Glory will
re-emerge, and ... make Buffy pay for that mercy. And the world
with her. Buffy even knows that...and still she couldn't take
a human life.
GILES: She's a hero, you see. She's not like us.
BEN: Us?
Interesting that Giles says US as he looks at Ben. Ben chose his
own life over that of everyone on the planet, and Giles chooses
the lives of the whole planet (including his surrogate daughter
Buffy's) over Ben's. Which man made the more necessary choice?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Because...
-- Duell, 17:34:42 10/18/04 Mon
Why do I feel that one life is less important than all life? That
question seems incredibly ridiculous to me, not because I feel
it is an unimportant or dumb question, but because I inately understand
my feelings on the subject and can't fully rationalize someone
else's contrary opinion. But I'll give an explanation a shot.
Dawn is but one single human being. Now, while I'm not trying
to make the point that one life is trivial (because that is absurd...
if one life is trivial then all life is just a lot of trivials),
I'm am trying to say that the existence of man is more important
than the existence of a man. If Buffy was planning on letting
the entire world be destroyed, as opposed to killing Dawn, she
wasn't choosing to let Dawn live. She was choosing to let Dawn
AND EVERYBODY ELSE die. Her choice wasn't one of "I can't
kill Dawn because it is wrong to do." It was "I won't
kill Dawn because I would rather let everything and everyone be
killed/tortured for eternity/decimated than live with the knowledge
that I killed my sister." And that is what I feel was the
deciding factor in the moral/immoral argument. Because Giles was
willing to live with doing whatever he had to do to make sure
that everyone on the face of the planet was allowed to survive.
Buffy's desire to save Dawn was ultimately purely selfish, and
that is what I feel was wrong. Had she let Dawn die it would have
devastated her, and she didn't want to deal with that. So her
solution was the complete annihilation of mankind. (That is of
course unless she knew all along that she was going to sacrifice
herself. In that instance, she was right to do what she did, and
to keep it from her friends. However, there's no evidence in the
episode to promote that belief, so it is just a glimmer of hope
I have for her character. Still, Buffy has proven time and again
that her goals are often selfishly motivated to keep her from
having to face up to responsibility.)
As for the Oz thing, if you keep in mind that Oz had been keeping
a primal force deep down in him from releasing its rage on that
monthly cycle, then it is easy to understand why he reacted like
he did. When he caught Willow and Xander, he was hurt, but he
had a stronger control over his instincts. When he came back from
Tibet (and by the way there is a great Christopher Golden book
called Oz: Into the Wild that chronicles that journey), he had,
for all intents and purposes, just been keeping his rage. The
boy was pent up.
It is kind of like what happened when Angel first kissed Buffy.
He had been containing the demon within for so long that when
the emotion got the better of him he let his guard down and it
took advantage of that moment to come out. The only difference
is that Angelus was tainted by a conscience, while WolfOz is merely
a mindless animal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> At
that point, Oz's changes were based on the lunar cycle. --
BrianWilly, 17:38:59 10/20/04 Wed
Only after he went to Tibet and engaged himself in arcane rituals
did the changes begin to depend on his emotions. Before that,
if it wasn't a full moon (or the nights before and after) there
was no dice no matter how angry he got. The same with Veruca and
Nina. So the fact that he wolfed out over Willow/Tara and not
Willow/Xander had nothing to do with how Tara compared with Xander.
[> [> [> [> [> [> In New Moon Rising Oz said..
-- Rufus, 22:41:28 10/16/04 Sat
OZ: I shouldn't have come back now.... I just thought I'd changed.
WILLOW: You have changed. You stopped the wolf from coming out.
I saw it.
OZ: But I couldn't look at you. I mean, it turns out...
the one thing that brings it out in me is you... which falls under
the heading of ironic in my book.
One thing about living is that the longer you do just that, live,
the more you find out just how many new ways life can kick you
in the ass with a new surprise. Oz came back thinking he was coming
back to a place suspended in time, to a place just waiting for
him. In going to find himself he lost track of the rest of the
equation or the others he left to make safe from his beast. Oz
found out that in trying to get over himself without the help
of his friends, he could only go so far in taming his inner wolf.
[> [> [> [> [> The reliability of Prophecy
-- Rich, 09:49:34 10/13/04 Wed
The very first prophecy we know of ( & Wesley should have known
this ), said that "Buffy will kill the Master, & she will
die". Considering how that one turned out, a certain amount
of scepticism would have been reasonable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The reliability of
Prophecy -- q 3, 13:08:43 10/13/04 Wed
Though it almost seems like that's what Wesley was counting on
- if "The father will kill the son" was immutable prophecy,
his actions would do nothing to stop it, and might even facilitate
it. But if prophecies can be taken head-on and thwarted, then
he seems to be at least potentially justified in his actions,
as the ex-watcher rogue demon hunter kidnapping his best friend's
baby might be just the unforseen variable that upsets the prophecy
(like Xander and Angel's loyalty were in Buffy's case).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The reliability
of Prophecy -- Duell, 10:04:37 10/14/04 Thu
And, as you've seen, he may have gone about it the wrong way,
but he was trying to do what he could to prevent it from happening.
Wesley makes it quite clear throughout the show that, although
some things may be pre-destined, we should still try and do the
right thing because that's what distinguishes the good guys from
the bad. That's why he took Connor. It's also the reason that
he rescued Angel from the bottom of the ocean. He even says as
much to Lilah, that Angel is to play a pivotal role in the Apocalypse.
That being the case, even if Wesley hadn't got Angel out, he would
have eventually been freed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The reliability of
me -- Rich, 13:25:22 10/13/04 Wed
Actually, the quote should have been "Buffy will FACE the
Master", not "kill the Master". My bad, sorry
[> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please... -- newvague,
18:05:33 10/12/04 Tue
i've always identified most with Angel's thoughts in Epiphany.
he says something like "if nothing we do matters, than all
that matters is what we do...the smallest act of kindness is the
greatest thing in the world."
i'm agnostic, and do not expect any cosmic rewards for my actions.
i don't believe in a divine plan. when the good things we do are
no longer about pleasing a god, or winning a ticket to heaven,
they become infinatly more valuable. without these alterior motives,
acts of kindness are their own reward. they are done because we
wish to change a life for the better, or the world for the better.
[> [> Re: Philosophy and Life--thoughts please...
-- Duell, 09:01:24 10/13/04 Wed
In response to that, I have to agree with Joey's philosophy on
"Friends."
"There is no such thing as an unselfish act of kindness."
[> [> [> That wasn't meant to sound rude, by the way.
I think it may have. Sorry if it did! -- Duell, 10:25:36
10/14/04 Thu
Happy Birthday, Bit!
-- Sheri, 15:54:34 10/11/04 Mon
I'm afraid I won't be able to make it to your b-day chat, as my
mean old Finance instructor is choosing to celebrate neither Veteran's
Day, nor your Birthday.
Cause he's a cold cold cold man.
Have a very happy birthday!
Replies:
[> Re: Happy Birthday, Bit! -- LittleBit, 17:35:03
10/11/04 Mon
Awwww. I can understand not celebrating a holiday, but not honoring
my birthday? That's just wrong. *wink*
Current board
| More October 2004