Previous September 2002

More September 2002

some questions -- marcus, 18:22:45 09/28/02 Sat

If the answer is yes to this query is yes, then my question will sound very stupid, but when Tara and then Dracula tell Buffy that she has no idea "what's to come, what [she is, and that she hasn't] even begun," then are they referring to her future death in "The Gift." That would seem like the obvious answer, but I have always entertained the notion that it referred collectively to what would come between the end of season 4 and the end of the show (so her death plus other big stuff). Or else the words portended whatever happens in the series finale.
In "Real Me," when Dawn says at then end that everyone thinks she's little-miss-nobody and that they will see soon what she really is, what does that mean? Dawn didn't know she was the Key!!! The only thing I can think is that she was resentful of the fact that she felt no one payed attention to her and underestimated her, and she was just venting and vowing to herself to prove to everyone that she wasn't just Buffy's obnoxious little sister. So tell me what she meant by that statement at the end of the ep.

[> Re: some answers -- CW, 18:40:50 09/28/02 Sat

Dracula simply sensed a great untapped power in Buffy. The scene from Restless more likely refers not to her death, but the fact that she would come back from death to fight on. Before season six she had every reason to believe that her death was the end for her, but it turned out she didn't know what was to come.

Dawn's statement was the same as any other younger sybling. 'You'll be surprised when you find out... I'm not just your little brother/sister.' It turns out she was more right than she thought.

[> My thoughts (spec, no spoilers): -- HonorH, 19:42:50 09/28/02 Sat

I think the Tara/Drac quote was meant to refer to "The Gift" and beyond. I think we've yet to see the full payout on it. Something big is coming. Something powerful. And Buffy's going to be tested again, possibly in a way that she's never been tested before.

As for Dawn, the words were those of a younger sibling who feels she's never included and goes unnoticed. They were ironic, however, in that no one *did* know she's way more than just a "stupid little sister."

How to refer to that "2nd" Vampire with a Soul -- David Frisby, 23:19:50 09/28/02 Sat

Liam became Angelus who (when his soul was restored) became Angel. William became Spike who (now that a 2nd vampire has had his soul restored) should insist everyone refer to him as Will.

Liam:Angelus:Angel::William:Spike:Will

[> I, for one -- HonorH, 23:27:53 09/28/02 Sat

. . . shall let SpikeWilliam v2.0 decide for himself what he wants to be called.

[> [> I'm going to call him Audrey Hepburn -- Rochefort, 23:52:08 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> Follow your conscience, O Skeezy Cheese. -- HonorH, 12:44:52 09/29/02 Sun

[> Corollary question - -- Darby, 08:12:01 09/29/02 Sun

I'm not the first one to point out that this really messes with a bunch of the prophecies on Angel, which used to only apply to one entity.

The question is, was Spike part of the great Jossian plan all along? Is this just a neat bit of gum in the works, but ultimately to have no effect on the Angelverse? Can the metaphoric linguistics of the prophecies be stretched to mean Conor instead? Are they planning yet another souled-vamp to really change all of the rules we thought we were following? Should I just shut up and wait for them to tell us? ...But, wahhhh, that's just too hard to do!

[> [> prophecies (possible spoilers) -- Apophis, 09:47:36 09/29/02 Sun

I don't think any prophecies will be re-imagined due to Spike's soul or Connor's birth. The Angel prophecies referred to a VAMPIRE with a soul, which automatically disqualifies Connor (besides, why would he need to become human if he's already there?). Spike won't be their focus because the prophecies were introduced on Angel, meaning that no one who only watches BtVS would know about them and would cause rampant confusion. That, and no more crossovers (plus, it would be shockingly disappointing). I don't think it would refer to a NEW ensouled vampire simply because the "vampire with a soul" trick will only stretch so far; if more and more start popping up, what would be the point?

[> [> [> Re: prophecies (minor spoiler suggested regarding ats and btvs) -- shadowkat, 10:11:23 09/29/02 Sun

All I'll say is Whedon and Company write both shows and have repeatedly said over the years that they are in the same universe and affect each other. There were numerous cross-overs in prior years. And there will be a small minor cross-over this year btw.

So I think it is safe to assume, that even if you don't watch both shows, the prophecies in Angel? Are also possible for Buffy. Which means I wouldn't put it past Whedon to Shanshu Spike instead of Angel. Doesn't require a cross-over to do it. No reason for anyone to tell Angel right away. Nothing is set in stone in Whedonverse. I also wouldn't put it past Whedon to show the whole Shanshu prophecy was rewritten by some horrible demon. After all Saijhan rewrote the prophecy on Connor.

[> [> [> [> Not likely because ... -- Earl Allison, 11:47:17 09/29/02 Sun

Mind you, this is just IMHO, but to pull a fast one like that, to substitute Spike for Angel in those prophecies would be a grevious error -- people were watching the show for ANGEL, not Spike, and to slip in one for the other would likely kill the show -- as I would think a vast majority of viewers would tune out.

It'd be a slap in the face, not just to Angel, but to the viewers, one they likely wouldn't forgive.

I'd be one of them.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not likely because ... IF WE'VE LEARNED ONE THING, IT'S DON'T TRUST A %&!# PROPHECY! -- leslie, 13:37:19 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not likely because ... -- Isabel, 14:42:17 09/29/02 Sun

I don't know about anyone else, but when I heard the Shanshu Prophecy 2 years ago I thought, "Come On! A convenient prophecy about turning human for Angel. How many vampires with a soul are there?" It seemed so pat, especially after Angel turned down becoming human to save Buffy already.

The start of the next season had Angel positive that if he was a good enough boy, he'd get it. He has since learned that the Shanshu is not the point of his existance. Doing good, just because, is. If he doesn't become human, he'll deal by being an eternal champion. If he shanshus, great. He'll still deal.

I love the irony that Spike didn't know about that prophecy when he got the soul. He may never hear about that prophecy since we've seen how much LA and Sunnydale don't keep in touch. I can totally see him waking up human one day and being pissed as hell. If I remember some of the requirements that Wesley listed the vampire with a soul had to fight a fiend, maybe more than one. Wouldn't Glory count as a fiend? She was a hell-goddess from a different dimension. That might translate as 'fiend' in prophecy speak. Maybe not. Don't know.

Plus I seem to remember Holland Manners mentioning to Lilah and Linsey at one point that the reason that W&H was so interested in Angel was the fact that the vampire with a soul was prophesied to be pivotal in the coming apocalyptic battle between good and evil. There was some confusion about which side he'd choose. Could there have been conflicting prophesies about a vampire with a soul fighting on both the good and evil side? Now that there are two, both sets of prophecies could be right, the only question left being which vamp on which side?

I find the possibility of plot synergy enthralling. This could be the last year of Buffy. After this year UPN is no longer contractually bound to take Angel if the WB cancels it. Angel had so-so ratings last year and I suspected that the reason it wasn't cancelled was the WB didn't want it on UPN. UPN may or may not take Angel next year if it is cancelled. So why not plan to send them off with a bang, but leave the plots so that, if Sarah decides to stay on and/or Angel is picked up next year, the series can continue?

And like Leslie said, we can't trust any prophecy anyway.

[> [> [> [> [> I don't know -- ponygirl, 12:32:13 09/30/02 Mon

... don't you think something like a Shanshu switcheroo would force Angel to prove that he really did buy into his epiphany about doing good without reward? Angel has been told for years that he's important, that he's a major player, that whatever his decisions are they matter, deeply, to all sides. He has received constant intervention from Whistler on to convince him of his own importance. It's the reverse of Liam's life, where his father told him constantly that he was worthless. Could Angel continue to function without this certainty in his place in the world? Look how he reacted when Groo seemed to be taking his place as champion. I think Angel finding out that the prophecies might not necessarily apply to him would be an extremely interesting twist for his character. A humbling experience to be sure, but one that could lead to a lot of juicy character growth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't know -- yabyumpan, 13:22:02 09/30/02 Mon

" I think Angel finding out that the prophecies might not necessarily apply to him would be an extremely interesting twist for his character. A humbling experience to be sure, but one that could lead to a lot of juicy character growth."

No spoilers but I think that we might get something like this this year. Not necesserily regarding the prophacy but I think after all that's happened he might just say 'screw the PTB' and (hopefully)continue with the work without them. He may well believe after 'Amends' that they brought him back for 'the mission' but they seemed to have screwed him around so much, making his life difficult and painful that i could see him thinking that he'd be better off ignoring them (if he can) and working to his own agenda.

[> [> [> The Connor conundrum -- Darby, 14:24:55 09/29/02 Sun

Keep in mind that the prophecies are translated ancient languages, and what seemed reasonable to translate as "vampire with a soul" when there was just Angel to connect it to might have been some noun-form combining vampire and soul, and vampire and human essence, which is looked at again might apply to Connor as well. Remember how Wesley tried to get his prophecies to stretch that way - the assumption is that this is a common possibility, just think about the variable interpretations of Revelations or Nostradamus - and that Assyrian subjunctive is a bitch...

[> [> [> [> Re: The Connor conundrum -- celticross, 14:27:09 09/29/02 Sun

Ooooooo....*devilish thought* What if Connor IS Angel's shanshu?

[> [> [> [> [> whoa! ka... -- anom, 23:13:29 09/29/02 Sun

...BOOM!!!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Connor conundrum -- yabyumpan, 07:41:02 09/30/02 Mon

Wesley suggested something similar to that in 'Offspring'

Wes: "You know the first prophecy that said that the vampire with a soul would be pivotal in the battle between good and evil?"

Gunn: "That Shanshu one?"

Wes: "Maybe it's not you. Maybe your child is a pivotal figure. Maybe your destiny is simply to help bring to the world."

Angel after a beat: "Or to stop it."

(from psyches site)

although this quote from TSILA seems quite specific to Angel (and poss Cordy)

Lindsey: "You need the words of Anatole to cure your friend. She is your connection to the Powers That Be. And since it's foretold that we sever all your connections (holds the scroll into the flames burning in the urn beside him) well..."
Angel throws the scythe, cutting off Lindsey's hand at the wrist. Lindsey drops the cross and screams as he drops to the ground. He is cradling his bleeding stump against his chest, as Angel goes to retrieve the scroll from the floor beside him.
Angel: "Don't believe everything you're foretold."

We'll just have to wait and see although I admit that I will be pretty p***** if the prophecy does turn out to mean about Spike. Spike may have chosen to get a soul to get or get back at Buffy but Angel in IWRY chose to forego his chance to be human and return to being a Vampire with a soul and a pretty mean curse, for the sake of 'the mission'.

I think the final word on this should go to Fred

Fred: "Can I say something about destiny?- Screw destiny! If this evil thing comes we'll fight it, and we'll keep fighting it until we whoop it. 'cause destiny is just another word for inevitable and nothing's inevitable as long as you stand up, look it in the eye, and say 'your evitable!' - Well, you- you catch my drift."

Are you listening ME, enough with the prophesies already!

[> [> [> [> [> Nah. -- HonorH, 11:39:45 09/30/02 Mon

Connor isn't Angel's Shanshu (although I think Angel would actually be okay with that)--he's Darla's redemption. He's the balance. A life, a soul, and a chance for redemption were all taken from Darla in "The Trial." Having Connor gave them back to her.

Of course, my pet theory is also that Darla's soul was reincarnated into Connor, which makes the already-twisted family dynamics positively pretzel-esque.

[> Can't call him Will... -- alcibiades, 09:47:26 09/29/02 Sun

...since that is what Buffy calls Willow.

[> [> Re: are we sure he's a vampire? -- kerick, 10:39:35 09/29/02 Sun

I'm not positive that Spike is still a vampire. Perhaps when he was given his soul back he was also turned back into a human, or did I miss something?

[> [> [> Re: are we sure he's a vampire? (yes) -- David Frisby, 10:51:42 09/29/02 Sun

In the recent interview with Marti she noted he's still a vampire.

[> [> [> [> thanks -- kerick, 10:57:14 09/29/02 Sun

Thanks, I pretty much just watch the show and don't follow the media. I appreciate the info

[> [> [> Re: are we sure he's a vampire? -- TRM, 14:12:29 09/29/02 Sun

I actually did become confused a bit as to whether he was a vampire, until he showed Buffy that he tried to cut out his heart. So I think he does need to be a vampire -- or a person who is really bad at using a knife (I would assume that a real person would at least be able to do more damage than the scratches he showed).

[> [> [> Re: are we sure he's a vampire? -- Dochawk, 17:45:43 09/29/02 Sun

How about we believe Lurky. He says he will return Spike's soul. We know from Angel a soul is not all that is needed to make him human, so Spike needs more as well.

[> [> [> [> Re: are we sure he's a vampire? -- J, 13:06:03 09/30/02 Mon

We know from Angel a soul is not all that is needed to make him human, so Spike needs more as well.

What, like dominoes? :-)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: are we sure he's a vampire? -- Dochawk, 17:19:41 09/30/02 Mon

Re Dominos: When Spike needs to eat the pizza not the pizza delivery guy than we'll have a good suggestion he is more. Of course, Dominos is just evil so it could go either way.

Spoilers for season opener -What's it about -- Jacobs Gate, 01:49:25 09/29/02 Sun


Spoiler's space.

...
...

...


...
...
...
...

The last speech by the "force" said it all. We are all back to High School folks. No more dorm rooms, etc. That's the easy thing to interpret from that speech. This show will be about the high school experience, which to a greater or lesser effect scars us all.

But here's the more interesting thing about the speech. At the beginning of the show Buffy was teaching Dawn and she said:

It's about power.
Who's got it.
And who knows how to us it.

So, Dawn. Who has the power?

Dawn says "I have the stake." Buffy replies that the stake is not the power. Dawn finally admits that the Vampire is the one with the power. Buffy said never for get it.

And at the end of the episode the "force" said to Spike (paraphasing)"You think that you get your soul back and everything will be ok. A soul can be slippery. You thought your soul would make you your own man. You will never be independent. You will learn, if you haven't figured it out by now, you are pathetic. You tried to do what's "right" just like her (right now until shown otherwise I am assuming her to be the Slayer). But it isn't about "Right", or "Wrong". It's about power.

All laws, all governments ultimately exist at the point of the gun. But, it must be also said not any gun, not any sword, not any stake, but the stake of those who know how to weld it effectly. Many people have swords, stakes, guns, and they are important, but to use these weapons effectively takes strength, takes skill takes a greal will to do what it takes to use the weapon in a way to gain or keep the power.

Buffy, as the Slayer, has learned over the years, that yes, as the Slayer she has the power. But if any of us think we have the power, we are most mistaken.

I found it interesting that the creatures we met tonight were Buffy's unsaved. The power (Buffy) wasn't there when they needed saving (probably saving Willow, or Xander). Can't really blame Buffy. Can't save them all. It's not possible. And in any war, innocents die, that is just one of the many evil things in war.

So, these three people where caught in the battle between Buffy and the forces of darkness, and as a result of Buffy not being there for whatever reason, they died. They didn't have the power.

In the end, it didn't matter if they were good people or bad people, just that they were caught on the wrong end of power.

Now good and evil must both use power to get what they want. What we call good, tries to use that power when they have achieved it in ways they feel beneficial, while those we call evil use power in selfish and harmful ways. But in the end they both have to get power, and in the getting of the power they seem indistinquishable from one another.

It's late and I seem to be rambling. But the point in real life it isn't good that triumphs over evil, or evil triumphs over good, it's simply about power. You can be good, or you can be bad, but neither quality will help or hinder you. It's not about good against evil. It's about power, Who's got it. And who knows how to us it. And until you learn that and how to obtain and use some power for yourself, you will be as pathetic as Spike is.

By the way most women (most not all) really don't understand power. They are more interested in emotions. How does someone feel about this and that. That all to often limits their strategic options. Men on the other hand (most not all) are more able to put emotions aside to obtain a strategic goal, without worrying about how people "feel" about it.

By the way to learn some of the rules of obtaining and maintaining power, this web page below might be of interest.

http://www.iwan.com/elffers/low/start/index2.html

[> Re: Spoilers for season opener -What's it about -- Queenbee, 06:32:55 09/29/02 Sun

come here, dearie(she gestures hypnotically at mouth of the hive)momma will show you all she doesn't know about power(undulating, executing a little dance indicating where evil can be found)...unable to set aside my emotions, i am whimsically moved to express how i feel about my limited strategic options....
(where is our a d'Horrible demonic presence when we need him?)

[> power, emotions, gender, oh my! -- parakeet, 00:44:33 09/30/02 Mon

There have been many men and women who have done something very foolish, while thinking themselves to be very smart, because they hadn't taken the true situation, with all its messy emotions, into account. That's objection #1.
Objection #2 is that men are less emotional than women. Sorry, this just doesn't jive with my personal experience. Sure, there have been studies (such alarming words!) that have indicated that women pay more attention to the emotions of others than men do, but (assuming this is true), so what? Don't men base their decisions on emotions (lust, greed, joy, sulkiness, faith, anger, pride, want, satisfaction, etc.) just as often as women do? What is your personal experience? If men's actions (or women's, for that matter) are being based on rationality, on any kind of a regular basis, then I haven't been very observant. Of course! That guy trying to force his suitcase through too small a space while cursing and arguing with the polite attendant was seeing some strategic advantage to which I was blind (what with being seated and all). I was foolish to try to actually understand the reality of the situation and react accordingly (as many men do, as well).

[> This is a simplistic view of power -- AzRahael, 05:21:59 09/30/02 Mon

Power does not just reside in physical force, nor in skill with weapons.

Nor does it simply exist when someone can force you to do something, whether it is by political, social or economic power. Whether it is wielded by legitimate or illegitimate power, our language of strength and weakness, oppressor and oppressed, invader and invaded - are all impoverished. I'm not saying that "victims" have power in the sense our regular trolls like to describe ("they carry around a nuclear weapon ready to detonate it and make everyone feel guilty!", yadda yadda yadda)

No, I'm saying that power arises out of coercion and resistance. Of needs and wants. It sparks at the meeting point, and is not simply possessed by one person and imposed on the other. Where there is power, there is resistance. And the act of resistance, whether physical, or mental makes up a relationship of power.

Even when Buffy is 'Helpless' she is 'powerful'.

Yes, everything is about power, but I can't agree with your description - you think everything is determined by one kind of power, while I'd say that power is found in all relationships, all places. One very powerful relationship is between mother and child. Who has the power? the child is utterly dependent, utterly helpless. Yet he/she has a power over the mother, and at one stage, imagines that the mother is only one part of him/her and that this helpless thing commands the entire universe. And within this relationship, all shades of emotion are found. Love, and resentment, and anger, and hate and envy and rage. And it has a power to affect us all our lives.

Love in all its forms has a power over us. So has rage and vengeance and anger. Isn't Willow powerful? and isn't she powered by emotion? Isn't she more powerful than Warren? How does this match up to your description of women and emotion?

Women have been traditionally associated with emotion, and men with rationality, and this association has been used to deny them political and social power. No rational power, therefore no right to participate in real life. This is a false and harmful dichotomy. And when a powerful myth is propagated and perpetuated in order to gain power, and keep it away from a particular group, you have to start wondering - why are they so afraid? Why do they have to take power from those who are supposedly passive and powerless and fragile? Could it be they have power? and not just the sexual power that has to be 'controlled' and 'restrained' and 'legislated' for.

A really great discussion about power in all its complexities is happening below, in Jon's thread.

You said:

"By the way most women (most not all) really don't understand power. They are more interested in emotions. How does someone feel about this and that. That all to often limits their strategic options. Men on the other hand (most not all) are more able to put emotions aside to obtain a strategic goal, without worrying about how people "feel" about it."

Good luck with this analysis of your 'strategic options', as you go through life.

[> Re: Spoilers for season opener -What's it about -- Arethusa, 07:33:16 09/30/02 Mon

Power is not simply a hammer used to force your way through life. Power is a relationship, and like all relationships, there are many facets of it. It's give and take, force and weakness; a process, not a goal. Who is content merely acquiring power? It has to be expended, exchanged, or even relinquished to be actually used. When you say there's no difference between using power for good or bad, you are divorcing power from its context-human lives, and their interactions. Using a scythe to kill or using it to cut down grain for a family to eat has definite real life repercussions-one will sustain your life, the other will send you to jail. Even if you've got power, it's what you do with it that counts, because power doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Women don't understand power? If you want your words to have power, you must make them more convincing. Give evidence. Power can't exist without a context, and that context is human interactions. Women don't have human interactions? Women don't jockey for power with their parents, peers, business associates, children, spouses, governments? They let their emotions determine their options? Are you saying they are incapable of reason, or just that they don't use it? Something the many women that argue and discuss daily here would be suprised to hear. Any man who doesn't concern himself with the consequences of his use of power won't hold that power long. If you recheck that website, you'll see that many of the rules are concerned with manipulating the emotions of others to gain power. Are men incapable of doing that?

I knew a guy who was clueless to emotions, and his decisions were all about power. He was constantly manipulating situations to contol those around them. He was very unhappy because he didn't realize yet that just having power (in his case, money and freedom) wasn't enough to get him what he wanted-ironically, close human relationships. He just made everyone feel manipulated and used, and the girl he was paying to keep him company simply rejected his power when she got bored.

Who Should Guest Star On Buffy? -- xaliasslayer, 10:55:23 09/29/02 Sun

Which actors would you like to see make a guest appearance on Buffy?

[> My picks: -- HonorH, 11:12:40 09/29/02 Sun

(indulging my other obsession)

Adrian Paul of "Highlander". He's an awesome stuntman/actor, and one dang sexy man. He'd be perfect. Let 'im bring his own sword!

Also, Patrick Stewart really, *really* needs to play a Watcher. So does Cate Blanchett.

[> [> Cate Blanchett as... -- Solitude1056, 15:55:14 09/29/02 Sun

the so-far-unseen Miss Harkness?

[> [> [> Ooh, yeah! -- HonorH, 16:50:28 09/29/02 Sun

The other possibility for that role would be Nadia Cameron, the beautiful actress who played Rebecca on Highlander. She's got the same porcelain beauty and serene presence.

[> Re: Who Should Guest Star On Buffy? Greenboy from Ats -- wiscoboy, 11:46:18 09/29/02 Sun

[> Re: Who Should Guest Star On Buffy? -- mucifer, 14:29:44 09/29/02 Sun

I would love to see a clever little scene with Juliet Landau and Martin Landau. The man got an oscar for playing Bela Lagosi. Juliet said in an interview that he likes the show.

[> Bruce Campbell,preferably as Xander's cousin who has occult problems. -- AurraSing, 14:54:07 09/29/02 Sun

He can even leave the chain-saw at home for all I care but it would be fantastic to see Bruce on Buffy.Or almost any show on network tv,for that matter.

[> [> I wholeheartedly agree -- neaux, 15:13:38 09/29/02 Sun

Just his appearance in an episode of X-files was simply amazing.. just think what he would do for Buffy.

although I would rather see him as a villian.

[> [> [> Ditto. Imagine Ash and ASH on the same TV show. Boggles the mind. -- cjl, 06:58:39 09/30/02 Mon

[> Dennis Leary. Just imagine his pissed-off self in vamp-face. :) -- Harry Parachute, 14:54:44 09/29/02 Sun

[> Re: Who Should Guest Star On Buffy? -- Ralph Dula, 16:37:57 09/29/02 Sun

In no particular order:

Lance Henrikson
Fred Ward
Tim Thomerson
Megan Gallagher

and, of course, the Sprint PCS guy as the season's Big Bad. Ever since Sunnydale became a Verizon town in Season 6 I'm sure he's been wanting to wipe it off the face of the earth.

[> hey, what about Britney Spears? -- ponygoyle (the truly wicked one), 18:12:03 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> Want me to eat your liver? -- Honorificus (Whose Breasts are Real), 21:28:24 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> Love/Fear the Liver-Chomping Perky Breasted One (All Hail) -- pr10n, 21:45:44 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> don't tease! -- ponygoyle all aflutter at attentions from the evil H, 06:23:08 09/30/02 Mon

[> [> Re: hey, what about Britney Spears? -- TRM, 21:49:23 09/29/02 Sun

You know, I really did think the Britney rumor to be horrible indeed, until I heard that Britney was rumored to play April, which made a lot of sense to me; just as Michael Jackson was surprising well suited for his role in MIB 2.

[> [> [> Britney as April would've had a certain irony. -- HonorH, 22:43:13 09/29/02 Sun

Pre-fab girl plays pre-fab girl.

[> Norm McDonald. -- Rochefort, 19:24:07 09/29/02 Sun

[> Re: Who Should Guest Star On Buffy? -- cascante, 19:30:33 09/29/02 Sun

Susan Sarandon in flashback as William's mother. Would help explain Spike's gorgeous checkbone structure. LOL

Plus I'm sure JM would love to work with her.

[> Diana Rigg -- OnM, 20:59:08 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> execellant choice -- gds, 19:30:36 09/30/02 Mon

We have been led to believe no slayer lived long enough to die of old age, but if anyone could do it - it would be Emma Peel.

[> Forest Whitaker as...well, as whatever, I just love the guy! -- grifter, 02:17:02 09/30/02 Mon

[> [> Even in "Battlefield Earth"? -- HonorH, 16:34:31 09/30/02 Mon

I'm just glad his career wasn't permanently trashed by that movie. Egads, it was awful!

[> Sir Alec Guinness . . . -- d'Horrible, 03:58:56 09/30/02 Mon

So what if he's dead? He could play a zombie!

Nothing says sweeps-period stunt casting class like the dessicated corpse of Sir Alec Guinness playing the King of the Zombies. Can't you just imagine the rave reviews? The King of the Zanya shippers? The bits on sale on E-Bay? I smell Emmy! And just the faintest whiff of methane.

Anyone who thinks that the putrid, decomposing body of Sir Alec Guinness could not pull off such a demanding role needs to go rent Kind Hearts and Coronets. I tell you, that man can do anything!

Anyway, if Buffy doesn't get there first, Will & Grace is sure to. I can see it now: Grace thinks she has finally met the man of her dreams when the dapper, debonair, delapidated remains of Sir Alec Guinness move in across the hall, but does he have his eye on Jack? And a bit of cranium on Karen? They'd do it, too. The people at Will & Grace are ghouls.

If Joss knows what he's doing, he'll rush right out to sign up the rotten, rancid, rank remnants of Sir Alec Guinness. It will be ratings gold! Unless, of course, Sir Alec Guinness has been cremated. But that's just too disturbing to contemplate.

[> No one who is well known -- Robert, 07:59:07 09/30/02 Mon

>>> "Which actors would you like to see make a guest appearance on Buffy?"

To have well known recognizable actors doing guest roles on BtVS would be a distraction from the story Mr. Whedon is telling us. It harkens back to the days when it was chic for name actors to do guest appearance on "Batman" or "Love Boat" or "The Simpsons". It may have worked for those shows, given the nature of the shows, but I don't think it would enhance BtVS and I don't want to see it. Imagine a "Very Special All-Star Buffy". I'm sure UPN would love it. They would see it as just like "Celebrity Bootcamp". Oh my God! I'm making myself ill just thinking about it.

On the other hand, if the name actor is not recognizable, due to the demon costume or make-up, then I no longer have any objection.

[> [> Joel Gray didn't hurt -- Vickie, 10:34:27 09/30/02 Mon

Those of us who already loved him waited impatiently and loved his performance. Those who didn't, as far as I can tell, said "who?" and loved his performance anyway.

[> SMG's pick would be ... -- Cleanthes, 18:56:20 09/30/02 Mon

Shannen Doherty, who also attended Sarah's wedding, and, hey, is free of Charmed obligations.

See:
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Awful/Archive2001/010614b.html
(yeah, that was last year, but, well, networking is still networking)

I personally would like to see Renee O'Connor, fresh from playing Lady Macbeth on stage take up the role on Buffy. You know, all the Shakespeare characters come alive once every 87.5 years on the Hellmouth! (you didn't know? well, you gotta read really dusty tomes)

[> [> Great idea, cleanthes... -- Rob, 23:23:44 09/30/02 Mon

I would love to see Renee O'Connor on "Buffy," or Lucy Lawless, or Ted Raimi. I'm not sure as who, but they would each be fantastic.

My guest actor wish for "Buffy"? Hank Azaria. He is amazing, and would be great playing a darkly comic role...a demon perhaps. He's great at voices, as he's proven on "The Simpsons," and he would be the perfect guest star, IMO, because, although he's famous, it's a more low-key, non-superstar famous that wouldn't overshadow the show.

Rob

[> Michelle Yeoh -- HonorH, 11:33:56 10/01/02 Tue

In a flashback to the oldest living Slayer.

A lesson Buffy has failed to learn -- alcibiades, 11:27:35 09/29/02 Sun

It's interesting, although entirely in character as a flaw, that after everything she learned last year that Buffy doesn't mention Spike to either Xander proactively or to Dawn when Dawn queries how she knew about the talisman. The latter case is not just a failure to mention Spike -- it is a cover up job. Here, in Episode 7.1, she still has the tendency to deal with him as her dirty little secret, as her special province.

Last year, keeping Spike a secret resulted in a lot of harm to Buffy, to Spike, and to the Scoobies and to Buffy's leadership over the Scoobies -- and consequently it adversely effected the fight against evil.

This is one lesson Buffy has not learned in Episode 1. Wonder if she will right this tendency anytime soon.

[> Re: A lesson Buffy has failed to learn -- celticross, 11:57:28 09/29/02 Sun

Reminds me of her cover up for Angel in the beginning of Season 3...what's her deal with hiding souled vampires? :) (though she doesn't know about Spike's soul)

[> I noticed that, too (7.1 spoilers here and above) -- HonorH, 12:23:04 09/29/02 Sun

On the one hand, I can see why Buffy was so freaked out by the whole sitch that her "cover it up" instinct automatically kicked in. She wants to figure out how to deal with this herself before telling Dawn or Xander, who, I would think, would be only too willing to give the problem a permanent solution right now, given the attempted rape. OTOH, she really should know by now that secrets on the Hellmouth never keep.

In S5, I was pleasantly surprised to see Buffy immediately confiding Dawn's true nature to Giles after she learned about it. She did, however (and not without reason), keep it from her friends and family. I'm hoping she chooses to tell Dawn and Xander about Spike before he reveals himself. Next week should tell the tale.

[> [> Re: I noticed that, too (7.1 spoilers here and above) -- yuri, 00:39:27 09/30/02 Mon

yeah, at first I was like "covering up Spike again are we? haven't we been down that path? no good." But I think she really did learn the lesson she needed to learn then, and this is a little different and the situation was stressful... I guess we will have to just wait and see, but I would guess that buffy comes clean to someone. She doesn't seem in a place where she'd even be tempted to sweep stuff under the rug. and her refusal to let the talisman thingies phase her with their guilt was somehow indicative of that. She seems to be plowing forward right now- that's how she appears to me - bluntly and purposefully, just like she likes it. Getting caught up in murky anything is the last thing she wants to do... but I guess that's usually true of Buffy. I don't know, I guess the question then is, does she realize what reactions of hers will make things murkier and which will make things easier? Because she wasn't so good at judging that last year. Hmm, not sure if I'm making sense or not, so on to the next post for me!

[> Re: A lesson Buffy has failed to learn -- meritaten, 12:32:07 09/29/02 Sun

I noticed that as well. I am hoping that Buffy simply saw that that it wasn't the right time to share this with Dawn, as it wuld be upsetting her her. Also, Spike would be difficult to explain in front of Kit and Carlos. However, I think that is probably rather optimistic. I guess we will know when we see how long it will take for Buffy to tell her friends.

[> [> Re: A lesson Buffy has failed to learn -- leslie, 15:54:08 09/29/02 Sun

"Also, Spike would be difficult to explain in front of Kit and Carlos."

It would be pretty hilarious to see her try, though.... another dead dog, now come back to life?

[> [> [> "angry puppy" :) -- Ete, 18:30:46 09/29/02 Sun

[> Not necessarily a failure. -- OnM, 20:55:56 09/29/02 Sun

If it turns out that she conceals Spike's existence for an extended time, then I would say you are correct, but I think that under the circumstances it was only prudent that she not say anything just yet.

It is obvious that something is wrong with Spike. She didn't have the time to investigate at the moment, but I think it likely that she will. Once she has determined just what is going on-- or at least makes an attempt to-- only then would it be a good idea to inform the others.

My hope is that this weeks ep will show her doing exactly that-- of course, we shall see.

[> aha! i can post this here instead of in that thread that got archived! -- anom, 22:59:17 09/29/02 Sun

Originally titled "a few 'huh?'s," in response to Tamara. I'll add to it that it wouldn't have been a good idea to tell Xander--she would have had to waste time dealing w/his reaction. And I agree that she needs to find out more about what's going on--once she tells Xander &/or Dawn, they'll have lotsa questions, & she doesn't have any of the answers.

[post intended for previous thread]
"I would have wanted to scoop him [Spike] up and take him home and nurse him back to health. As usual, Buffy and I are different. She, true to character, did not tell anyone he was back."

Huh? When was she going to tell anyone? First she gets the kids out of the basement, then she sends them to class. She wasn't going to tell Dawn in front of the others. Then she talks to the principal. Should she have told him about Spike? As far as we (& Buffy) know, he has no clue that Sunnydale isn't a normal town. And she probably needs to think the situation over before she decides what to do & whether to tell anyone.

"I have to admit that she was trying to save Dawn at the time, but you have to wonder if she even gave him a second thought after the crisis."

Huh? Why is this something to "admit"? And the last we see of Buffy in this ep, she's finished talking to Principal Wood & she looks off to the side. She may be about to check on Spike...or not. Maybe she just wants to check out the basement in general, or ask Xander how the hell(mouth) this happened (didn't they put in a new foundation?). But it certainly looks like something's on her mind.

"Interesting that once she realized that Spike was incapable of helping her save Dawn, she left him pretty quick."

Huh? again. He did help her save Dawn & the others, by telling her about the talisman. Meanwhile, she had to find them & hold off the dead folks, who she knew could hurt them. Given the immediate threat to them, do you think she should have stayed with Spike, who as far as I could tell, while he wasn't in great shape, wasn't in immediate danger?

[> [> Also- Spoilers for 7.1 -- Arethusa, 07:51:04 09/30/02 Mon

she told Spike she'd be back, right before she left him.

Yet Another Spike Conundrum (7.1 Spoiler) -- HonorH, 17:31:38 09/29/02 Sun

A question to chew on until Tuesday: what *was* Spike trying to claw out of his chest?

The obvious would be his soul--after all, the demon touched Spike's chest when returning it, so Spike, in his semi-delusional state, might have decided that's where the soul resides.

Also a possibility, and probably what Buffy thought, is his heart. It's certainly inside his chest, and it, too, has caused him a great deal of pain and trouble.

A third possibility, though, which was brought up in an otherwise unremarkable fanfic, is his demon. Could Spike-with-a-soul be trying to rid himself of his demonic impulses? He wants to be good for Buffy, and the demon part of him isn't. Perhaps, again in his delusions, he thinks that ridding himself of his demon would make him worthy of Buffy.

So: soul, heart, demon, or any combination of the above. Thoughts, anyone?

[> My vote is for... -- Wisewoman, 18:20:17 09/29/02 Sun

...soul. As mentioned, that's where the cave-demon seemed to insert it.

We do have some indication that Spike "feels" things that he remembers as human feelings in the area of his heart (OMWF: "If my heart could beat it would break my chest") but also recognizes that his heart is not beating and therefore not the actual site of those feelings. Of course the heart as an organ isn't really the site of the feelings that we, as human beings, attribute to it either. I believe we really feel them in our souls.

Okay, now I suddenly, with absolute clarity, realize that I'm seriously trying to discuss the possibility that a character on TV who was previously human but is now a vampire might remember the feelings that real human beings experience as coming from their hearts even though they can't possibly reside there, and even though he hasn't been a human being in decades and carries a non-functioning heart within his undead vampire body. *drops head to chest* *shakes head* *sighs*

BUT! I do think I understand why he's been trying to cut out his soul. I believe it is William's soul rather than a generic substitute, and I remember who William was before Drusilla vamped him, and I imagine how he would feel to wake after over 100 years with the memory of all those people his demon-infected body had tortured and killed.

Uh-oh, here comes the interminable soul debate. I know that canon states "who we were informs all that we become." I interpret this to mean that William's personality and memories were ingredients in the formation of Spike. But William himself wasn't. I don't think his personality was him. I don't think his memories were him. I think his soul was him.

I know the whole, "soul as guiding star" aspect of the canon as well, and the idea that the soul just nudges its owner away from the Dark Side, but I can't accept that that's all there is to it. I accept that in the Buffyverse I don't have a leg to stand on, but I stubbornly cling to the belief that things like empathy reside in the soul. Perhaps the psychopath is the real-life embodiment of the souless creature that the vampire represents in the Buffyverse.

If Spike is trying to get rid of the thing that's causing him such agony and madness then it's gotta be his soul. He's trying to give his demon the upper hand again, to stop his pain.

Gee, I think one of my buttons got pushed there...hmmmm...okay, I'll stop now.

;o) dub

[> [> I second that. -- Deeva, 20:10:49 09/29/02 Sun

I truly believe that Spike was trying to cut out his soul. After all he had 120 plus years getting used to his vampire life. Having a soul just plunked right into you has gotta sting a bit. And what do you do when it hurts? You eliminate whatever is causing the pain or at least try to minimize it.

[> [> I'm with dubdub on this one, The Second Evil alleges... News at eleven -- The Second Evil, 20:38:14 09/29/02 Sun

...a character on TV who was previously human but is now a vampire might remember the feelings that real human beings experience as coming from their hearts even though they can't possibly reside there, and even though he hasn't been a human being in decades and carries a non-functioning heart within his undead vampire body.

Valid self-response there, except that while we know rationally that we don't "feel" with our hearts, there's a reason we have the phrases "heart-sick" or "broken-hearted." A broken heart does feel like your heart is breaking - literally as much as figuratively/emotionally. This summer, a good friend died in a motorcycle crash. At his funeral, his wife mentioned to me that she was spending her days with a feeling like her heart had broken inside her chest - a very physical, tangible feeling of pain, of wrongness, seated squarely in the spot that we know to be nothing but a complicated series of muscles and blood.

So if we conjecture that Spike is heart-broken/heart-sick over the soul's realization of his past 100 years, then it's reasonable to expect that he'd be feeling physical pain - and not in his head, or his hands, but in that nether region we call "the heart." We - as living humans - are aware that our hearts beat, and sometimes (like after running while out of shape) are aware of it more so. But the majority of the time we pay it no more mind than we would the effort of breathing continuously. So I can't imagine that although a vampire would know intellectually his/her heart doesn't beat, it wouldn't still occupy the same conceptual arena as a living heart, since one might be no more aware of a non-beating heart (the majority of the time) than one is of a beating heart.

Besides, the heart has reasons that reason knows not (with apologies to Francis Bacon)...

1056

[> [> [> My gut reaction - heart... (and hellooooo everyone!) -- yuri, 00:28:25 09/30/02 Mon

Yeah, on my first veiwing (which was tonight) I thought heart. I am very familiar with that pain that comes in the heart area - it's so goddamn real. I could see spike (or whatever the hell we're calling him) clawing at it in a fit of emotional hell. It could also very well be both soul and heart, if we were to associate one body part as the home of the soul, it would be the heart, no?

In any case, it's really interesting to think of what Buffy musta thought was going on... Maybe oh my god, he's been a masochistic hermit all summer? (Wait, is that much different from last season?) I'm also really intrigued by the fact that in the preview for next week he's all bleached and standing up straight again... So many possibilities... anyhow it's probably all been discussed so I'm gonna stop here and go read some more posts. 'sgreat to be back in the swing o' buffy, but it sucks the proverbial big one to only get it the saturday after everyone (and it's at 9 so I have to tape it and watch it latah. sigh.) I empathize so much more now with so many people who are always lamenting the late viewings.

Anyhow, I concur with the general slant, astounding, very promising, and wonderfully annoying in that "what the hell is going on, I can't wait till the next ep" sort of way.

[> [> A second second -- pr10n, 21:40:44 09/29/02 Sun

But I want to play a motivation game (yes with a fictional character, joining Wisewoman on the Head Shaking Stoop of Shame).

Wisewoman said:

> If Spike is trying to get rid of the thing that's causing
> him such agony and madness then it's gotta be his soul.
> He's trying to give his
> demon the upper hand again, to stop his pain.

But what about this:

He's trying to stop his pain, *and that will* give his demon the upper hand.

William is confused, guilty of horrific sloppy murder, and poorly coifed, but he is not without courage. He has real feelings and tries to sort through them using imagery, and then has the stones to write that down and THEN NOT BURN THE NOTES.

Furthermore, I think William is a basically good guy who would not voluntarily give in to the beastie that caused such horror.

But trying to "end pain" without finding some art in the doing is an affront to his poetic soul.

Poet!Spike has to live with pain and grow from it -- by pain I mean realization of weakness, recognition of failure, rejection, despair and recovery, great achey burn scars -- that ol' black magic of being alive. See also Buffy circa OMWF, in "Ow It Hurts Please Kiss Booboo" mode, I'm-so-stagnant mode, hat with horns and plumage mode.

Clawing out your soul because it hurts, yeah ok (Kurt Cobain sings Floyd the Barber). Making all the pain go away, not so good for the daily artistic production (Kurt Cobain photo secreted through Internet).

The demon wins if Our Recently Souled Hero doesn't figure out how to confront the pain and come through it stronger.

Anticlimactic closer: It's time to separate the barrels from the bungs.

[> [> From OMWF -- Rufus, 01:23:39 09/30/02 Mon

The line that comes to me is .......

"There's a traitor here beneath my breast"

I think he was digging for the heart, it may not beat, but seems to have gotten him in a whole lotta trouble.

[> [> Agree with Wisewoman -- shadowkat, 07:34:23 09/30/02 Mon

I agree with dubdub on this one. All the way, dub. And no, I don't believe you don't have a leg to stand on. The text as it stands? Can be read both ways. Also, the canon keeps getting rewritten in small ways by the writers. The quotes people keep quoting are from Giles' Watcher manuals which ME has taken pains at different points to show us aren't necessarily written in stone or entirely reliable (see Shanshu in La, Forgiving, Prophecy Girl, etc...for examples).

The difficult thing about TV shows, is they aren't like the first draft of a book - you can't go back and correct everything, you're stuck with what's on the screen. The best you can do is try to write information that discredits what was put up before or places doubt on it, so you can reinvent and make the show richer as you go along. That's tough to do without writing yourself into a corner. Considering the situation? I think they've done a good job.
And I'll caution you - not to take Giles, Angel's, Watchers, or prophecies as written in stone. The show is a little more fluid than that. The one thing that they have stuck with more or less is the view that a vampire can't be redeemed or anything but inherently evil without it's human soul. But what the soul means? From my own lengthy analysis of soul metaphors on both shows and in every episode?
The one consistency I've found is : a) conscience and
b)personality or essence of the human.

I think the confusion arises from the fact that many viewers believe the demon has no personality in the human hybrid. The demon has no emotions. Odd. The show has gone overboard to show us the opposite. In the vampire - it's not the remanents of the human providing the vampire with its feelings and emotions. The demon brings those with it.
So the hybrid is probably a combination of the memories the human left behind combined with the demons emotions, hence the twisted result. Spike the demon retains William's memories, but he does not feel the same way about them that William did. He has William's personality - partly due to the memories, also the residue or ghost that Soul left behind when it left. An imprint if you will.

A soul is more than just a conscience or moral compass.
ME clearly states this in Who ARe You, Double or Nothing,
Living Conditions, Innocence, Becoming PArt II, Lullaby, Lie to Me, Harvest, and the War Zone. It's the essence of the original human being, it is their feelings, their personality, their connection to the universe, their compass, their conscience. Without it - they may be able to be animated by an evil presence which can copy their personality, can remember their lives, and appear to become that person in every way except the most important one, the one that is beyond words. Spike without a soul was an unique and interesting demon with emotions feelings love, but the demon felt those things, he was a monster with a ghost's personality, a ghost's memories, and ghost's yearnings - which he was able to twist in a destructive way.
With a soul Spike is a man with a demon living inside him,
and contains the soul now influences all the demon's memories, feelings, desires and yearnings. The man is no longer just a ghost. The question is - what is the demon now?


In answer to the question regarding what Spike tried to claw out:

Spike tried to claw out the soul.

Buffy believed it was the heart.

Why? Because they make a big point of the demon putting the soul into his chest - by laying the demon claw over his chest. The soul hurts him and he wants to claw it out.
Plus they show this scene not long after Willow tells Giles she wishes they could remove the Dark power she ingested at the same time Spike got the soul. So, the visual references at the end of last year and the textual references at the beginning of this year clearly point to a soul.

I think the reason they show this - is to point out how painful it is to have a soul, a reminder of Angel's comment way back in Innocence - "The pain is gone." The soul is a painful thing - when you have lived without for so long.
I'm not sure we can begin to imagine it. If it was his heart? He would have tried to dig it out a long time ago.
I think the reason it looks so ambiguous is to fool Buffy.
Buffy thinks he's suicidal - that he tried to take his heart out because of her. If she only knew the full story.

At any rate - I'm sure they'll make all this clearer in the next few episodes. I also think they'll make it clearer this year in Angel. I think this year the whole vampire with a soul notion will be explored and flipped on its head.

I know some people are sick of Spike - but let's face it, he's the one character none of us can predict or figure out and if we can figure him out and predict him? We know exactly where the show is going. It's like fitting that
last piece into the jigsaw puzzle.

The character frustrates me at times though, even now...because I'm still not sure if I got him right. You truly can argue it both ways at this point.

Just my theory for what it's worth...feel free to rip it to shreds.
;-) SK

[> [> Re: My vote is for... -- purplegrrl, 10:25:05 09/30/02 Mon

Agreed.

Spike did not get what he wanted (to be the "Big Bad" chipless vampire) because he wasn't specific enough to the demon. Proves there's truth in the adage "be careful what you ask for" -- or in Spike's case, be *very* careful.

And the addition of a soul into the complex mix that is Spike has driven him a little around the bend. I can't wait to see how this all plays out.

[> [> [> Re: My vote is for... (Spoilers for 7.1) -- shadowkat, 11:16:08 09/30/02 Mon

"Spike did not get what he wanted (to be the "Big Bad" chipless vampire) because he wasn't specific enough to the demon. Proves there's truth in the adage "be careful what you ask for" -- or in Spike's case, be *very* careful."

Actually it's made very clear in the episode that Spike asked the Lurker demon for a soul and was not tricked.

Spike says after Buffy leaves him: "The thing of it is. I had a speech. I learned it. But God she won't understand.
She'll never understand."

Then just in case you're unclear?

The Entity says in the Mayor's voice "You thought if you got a soul, everything would be jim-dandy. But a soul's slippery than a greased monkey, why do you think I sold mine. You thought it would make you your own man and I can appreciate that."

I think you can take that for what it is.

This does not mean Spike wouldn't regret his decision or try to remove the soul at another point, it burns him.

Although have to say Honor H did make a cool point that I missed about the soul trying to take out the demon.
Still doesn't work with the diaglogue we're given.

"I tried..I tried to take it out." He says with some shame to Buffy. He can't take out the demon - in his head that is what he is.

[> I vote for the demon... -- Dariel, 11:22:56 09/30/02 Mon

Spike tried to hide the cuts from Buffy--he moves away from her and closes his shirt. Turns his head to the wall. He seems very William-like and very ashamed when he says "I tried to cut it out." He doesn't come across as Spike wanting to escape the pain of the soul, but as a guilt-ridden William wanting to escape the horror that is the demon. William has, in a sense, woke up in a dead body that is shared by a monster. And that would have to be horrifying.

[> [> Re: I vote for the demon... -- Joan, 13:21:44 09/30/02 Mon

Agree,as well. It was the William essence trying to rid itself of his "roommate from Hell" and ashamed of failing. What Buffy will never understand is, of course, ambiguous. Is it that though he is now a creature she could trust she might not believe him-or does he refer to something evil that he knows is coming that she will never believe. What do you think?

Classic Movie of the Week - September 28th 2002 -- OnM, 20:45:29 09/29/02 Sun

*******

Friendship is one mind in two bodies.

............ Mencius

*******

For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen.

............ Douglas Adams (from The Hitchhikerís Gude to the Galaxy)

*******

A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out.

............ Walter Winchell

*******

Well sometimes, life gives us lessons sent in ridiculous packaging.

............ Dar Williams (from The Pointless, Yet Poignant, Crisis of a Co-Ed)

*******

Iím at the checkout counter of one of the local mini-market chains, waiting to pay for the small stack of
little pies that Iím fond of, and typically indulge in once a day for dessert after dinner. The young lady
standing at the register turns to me after tapping a few keys on the machineís touchpanel, announcing that
the total is $3.66. Having done this many times before, I already have four dollar bills and 16 cents in
change in my hand. I momentarily get a baffled look due to the change that Iím giving her in addition to
the bills, but she dutifully punches it into the panel, then I see the little look of enlightenment arise on her
face as the machine reports that the change is $0.50. She hands me the two quarters, and says, with
reasonable cheerfulness, considering the crappy job she has, ëThank you-- have a good day!î

I give my standard response, also reasonably cheerfully, even though Iím probably no more inherently
likely to have a ëgood dayí than she is-- ìThatís always possible!î

What can I say? A little optimism never hurt, as long as itís just a little. One certainly canít afford
to be too damn happy, otherwise itís all the more painful when life slaps you back down in its own
endlessly annoying fashion. Which of course, it inevitably will. Take this column, for example, my own
little corner of cine-Buffy cyberspace. As those of you who read last weekís offering already know, I have
decided to put the CMotW on an extended hiatus, likely until next summer. Iím not really overjoyed about
this, because I have taken great delight in being able to prop up my ego for the last year and a half and as a
pleasant bonus, apparently made some enjoyable reading for my fellow ATPo-erís.

I wonít go into the details of the reasons whyfore, since I did that last week, but it is a necessary move. I
accept the need for the change, and move on. Will a time come when my day job doesnít drain away most
of my spare time and creative energies, allowing me to indulge myself once more? Of course it may-- ìItís
always possible!î

Every once in a while, I read one of those magazine or newspaper articles that survey ëthe averge
Americaní and discover that ëmost working men and women generally like their lives, who they are, what
they are doingí. Where in heavenís name do they find these people? Iíve almost never met anyone
in my entire life who says things like that, so are the magazine reporters just taking at face value what the
interviewees think they want to hear? Or is it a matter of not admitting it to oneself? Once you have made a
public declaration that your life sucks, is it no longer possible to doublethink it within the tighter, more
intimate confines of your one and only mind?

I know that in my own instance, the doublethinking is what saves my sanity, because on the one hand I
donít possess any other really salable skills, Iím pushing 50 and so would be seen as more of a liability than
an asset to any future employer (and their health-care providers), and besides which it could be
worse. Oh, yeah, there is no amount of doubt-- many other folks I know do have it worse than
me, so who the hell am I to complain? Thatís the problem with rationality and intelligence-- if theyíre used
correctly, they allow you to consider and balance out all the pros and cons of any given situation, and come
to the conclusion that if you had it to do all over again, youíd probably just get a nice lobotomy early on
and then so not care.

Fortunately for the protagonists of this weekís Classic Movie, Romy and Michele's High School
Reunion, they were naturally gifted with the lack of brains that may not make you a success in
contemporary American culture, but can at least make you happy with your lot in life, since it never occurs
to you what you may be missing.

Now, this is tricky territory to explore, and it is very easy to make a misstep and send the wrong message,
which is that stupidity is something to be valued, or at least good for a few hearty laughs at someone elseís
expense. Romy White and Michele Weinberger (played by Mira Sorvino and Lisa Kudrow respectively)
arenít so much stupid as they are benignly clueless to most of the ënormalí ways of the world. Inseperably
close friends for apparently their entire lives, Romy and Michele are pretty much what the movie poster or
disc jacket depicts them as-- kind of near-mirror images of one another. These two women have shared
mutual intersts and a common world-view for so many years that they seem more like conjoined twins who
were separated at birth than mere friends.

The screenwriter of the movie, Robin Schiff, adapted the script from a play called The Ladiesí
Room, which in turn was inspired by the conversation of some real individuals whom Schiff happened
to overhear chatting with each other in a night club bathroom. Indeed, one of the aspects of watching
Romy and Michele as the film progresses is the realization that most of us have actually met people
who are just like this in real life, and then we end up being either smug or jealous, depending on our own
perspective.

The film opens with a scene of Romy and Michele each in bed (not the same one, BTW) in their shared
apartment in Los Angeles, watching a video of ëPretty Womaní for what we discover is about the
umpteenth time. ìI just get really happy when they let her shop,î Michele tells Romy, genuine emotion
filling her voice, as they watch the TV screen devotedly. Romy agrees. Later, they get dressed up to go
out nightclubbing, and compliment each other repeatedly on just ëhow cuteí they look. Sorvino and
Kudrow play this scene so perfectly that we begin to realize-- to our amazment-- that there isnít any latent
guile lurking behind the surface. The comments are completely sincere and heartfelt, and any doubts to the
truth of this evaluation will be quashed by the end of the movie.

Romy is a cashier at a Jaguar dealership, and Michele is currently unemployed, although she has vague
dreams of becoming a fashion designer. One day an old high school classmate by the name of Heather
Mooney (Janeane Garofalo, in one of a number of scene-stealing appearances) comes into the Jaguar shop
and is recognized by Romy. During their subsequent conversation, Heather tells Romy that their 10th
reunion bash is coming up at Sagebrush High back in Tucson. Memories of R&Mís high school days,
which were peppered with painful run-ins with the other students who treated them as outsiders or crazies,
come flooding back as the two flip through a yearbook later on that evening. R&M are generally pretty
happy with their lives since high school, even though they havenít accomplished much in conventional
terms since then. At first, the two women decide that they want nothing to do with the reunion, but later
think that it would be OK to go as long as they can somehow make an ëimpressioní on the others there.

Well, easier said than done. Romy devises a plan to borrow a used Jag from the car dealership, and the two
concoct a plan to pose as business executives. Now, all they need is a business to be in. Uh-oh...

I wonít spoil what is one of the funniest moments of the film, which is the nature of the ëbusinessí, except
to say itís something so absurd that it canít possibly succeed-- and of course, it doesnít. But at the same
time you are laughing, you also feel saddened that all of this attemped deceit is nothing more than an effort
to get back at people who once treated you badly without any remotely valid reason for doing so.

R&M werenít the only unpopular kids in school, of course. There is Sandy Frink (Alan Cumming), the
class science nerd, who carried a hopeless crush on Michelle. There was the overweight, but tirelessly
cheerful Toby Walters (Camryn Manheim), who was always ignored either because of or despite her
exhuberent displays of ëschool spirití. Then there is the relentlessly angry and profane Heather, who is
always sneaking outside for a cigarette and getting pissed because she never gets time to finish it before the
bell rings. She keeps running into a silent, mysterious ëcowboyí figure (Justin Theroux) who never comes
near her, but just flicks his own cigarette at her feet when her lighter fails to work, and then walks away.

Even though you are well aware in advance of what will happen at, and on the way to the reunion, the film
is well crafted enough that there are still surprises, a number of them delightfully oddball. I personally
would have concluded the film just slightly differently, but thatís a quibble. Despite the fact that Kudrow
and Sorvino are playing ëcartoonsí, they arenít two dimensional or uninteresting ones. The film also
doesnít ask any deep questions, nor should it do so-- this is a comedy first and foremost, and even the
character who is the arch-nemesis of Romy and Michele, and who tends to get the most comeuppance by
the end of the reunion, is still shown as being a victim herself (even though she is currently unaware of her
status as such), and therefore avoids being completely demonized. The director and screenwriter seem
more concerned with uplifting the psychologically downtrodden and allowing them to regain a reasonable
perspective than meting out vengeance to the ëevildoersí.

And sometimes thatís all that is needed-- to venture the simple idea that ëItís always possibleí.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technically, in the end, we all are who we are:

Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion is available on DVD. (The review copy was on
laserdisc). The film was released in 1997 and running time is 1 hour and 32 minutes. The original theatrical
aspect ratio was 1.85:1, which was preserved on the laserdisc edition and presumably on the DVD. The
film was produced by Laurence Mark. Cinematography was by Reynaldo Villalobos, with film editing by
David Finfer. Production design was by Mayne Berke, with set decoration by Jackie Carr, and costumes by
Mona May.

Original Music was by Steve Bartek & James Newton Howard. Non-Original Music was by Burt
Bacharach, Charlotte Caffey, Thomas Dolby, Boy George, Chris Hughes, Chrissie Hynde, Howard Jones,
Cyndi Lauper, Kenny Loggins, Rick Nowels, Roland Orzabal, Robert Palmer, Ian Stanley, Johann Strauss,
Jane Wiedlin and Ludwig van Beethoven. The original theatrical sound mix was Dolby Digital.

Cast overview:

Mira Sorvino .... Romy White
Lisa Kudrow .... Michele Weinberger
Janeane Garofalo .... Heather Mooney
Alan Cumming .... Sandy Frink
Julia Campbell .... Christy Masters
Mia Cottet .... Cheryl
Kristin Bauer .... Kelly
Elaine Hendrix .... Lisa Luder
Vincent Ventresca .... Billy
Camryn Manheim .... Toby Walters
Justin Theroux .... Cowboy
Jacob Vargas .... Ramon
Tami-Adrian George .... Receptionist at 'Singled Out'
Neil Dickson .... Boutique Manager
E.J. Callahan .... Mr. Lish

*******

Miscellaneous:

Uno) ... As I mentioned last week, there was a scheduled ëguest hostí planned for that time that did not
work out due to factors beyond the writerís control. Said review should get here eventually, and when it
does, it will be posted sometime around the usual weekend timeslot for CMotW. It should be a really good
one, so by all means keep an eye out!

Dos) ... Hereís a currently playing film that Iíve recently seen and urge you to do the same: The Good
Girl by director Miguel Arteta. This movie shares some basic thematic ties with this weekís selection,
although it is not a comedy and has a somewhat bleak, albeit realistic ending. If youíve never seen Jennifer
Aniston outside of her work on Friends, you should definitely check this out-- sheís absolutely
superb. Highly recommended.

Tres) ... On the DVD front, although I think the vast majority of ATPo-ers are already aware of this, it
never hurts to give a little reminder-- Buffy Season 3 is scheduled to be released in January of
2003, just a mere 3.5 months from now. If you still havenít given in to the Call of the Disc, now you will
have at least three great reasons to do so, and besides players are cheaper than ever! Hereís hoping
the schedule continues at about the same rate (or faster!) and we get to see Season 4 and maybe even 5
released by January 2004. Oh, yeah! Commentaries, commentaries...


*******

The Question of the Week:

Being a forward looking, and not backward-lamenting inquiry, the Question of the Week has
already departed the building. But, it did rather courteously leave behind this last little interrogative, which
I hereby present to you:

What upcoming film in the next few months (or next year) are you most looking forward to seeing?

So thar it be. And speaking of being, Classic Movie of the Week should return to this familiar
ATPo webspace in the early Summer of 2003. In the meantime, The Clone and I will be dedicating
ourselves to the further investigation of the many glorious realms of the Buffyverse, in hope of bringing
light where there is darkness, and elucidation where there is perplexity. (OK, Iíll be writing long, rambly
flights of quasi-analytical fancy, and The Clone will be munching pretzels and drinking brewskis. Whaddya
expect on a service technicianís wages? ;-)

Whatever the reality, I once again thank one and all for your many kind words and thoughts, and by all
means, donít be a stranger to the wonderful world of cinema... when you see something you like, please
share it with the rest of us... and post ëem if youíve got ëem!

Take care!

:-)

*******

[> Great movie choice! (Which I will not spoil this time ;o) ) -- Rob, 22:04:19 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> Re: Great movie choice! (Which I will not spoil this time ;o) ) -- ponygirl, 09:13:10 09/30/02 Mon

Any movie with an interpretive dance set to Time After Time is a wonderful thing.

[> A movie worth dying to see.. The Transporter -- neaux, 04:44:32 09/30/02 Mon

Well after a delay, finally The Transporter is coming out this Month which I am dying to see. The movie looks to kick more ass than any XanderZone stunt.

Jason Stathem is THE NEXT big action star.. and making a movie produced by Luc Besson is a step in the right direction.

Add a little Shu Qi to the mix and you have one HOT film! When everyone hears Shu Qi, they immediately think soft porn.. but hey, she's done tons of movies in the last couple of years. From Gorgeous to the classic Storm Riders... its cool to see her doing an English film.

did I mention I cant wait to see this film?

[> "Secretary" -- AurraSing, 06:53:11 09/30/02 Mon

I watched the trailer on Apple.com and nearly died laughing. Maggie Glynehaal ("Donnie Darko" and Jake's sister) plays an unhappy young woman who gets a job as a secretary for an uptight boss played by James Spader.

This movie delves into the dark little world of what it takes to make a truly sad person happy-and the answer may not be what you think! The movie is already getting some great reviews (Entertainment Weekly gave it an A-) and is being released shortly.......I probably will have to wait to see it on video since I don't have easy access to a theater but I plan to rent it the day it comes out.

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - September 28th 2002 -- Rendyl, 07:47:03 09/30/02 Mon

***discover that ëmost working men and women generally like their lives, who they are, what they are doingí. Where in heavenís name do they find these people?***

My answer to a question like this is always "if you don't like your job why are you doing it?" -but that is sort of not the answer you seem to be looking for. (grin) I happen to fall into the 'like my life' category. Like my life. Like myself. Like my job. (love sentence fragments) I am not in denial I just think for most people you have to make the kind of life you want. Enough of that.

***What upcoming film in the next few months (or next year) are you most looking forward to seeing?***

At the risk of exposing my hidden geekness I am looking forward to the new Harry Potter film, the next LoTR film, and (don't laugh) Jackie Chan's new movie. (stop laughing) I love Jackie. I suspect I would pay to watch a movie of him mowing the lawn.

Ren

More on framing as metaphor on Angel -- alcibiades, 21:41:20 09/29/02 Sun

Well the framing metaphor for the determination of Angel's family was alive and well in Tomorrow.

From Angel's POV, the episode is about his hopes for a family finally coming true. He's got his son -- Holtz has given him back and recognized and given his blessing to their relationship, and then amazingly, he seems to have Cordy as well.

Cordy promises to meet Angel at Point Dume -- and she comes to the meeting tricked out in a long white dress -- can anyone say wedding dress -- but on the way to the "wedding", like Xander, she ditches Angel to explore her own destiny. Xander was tripped up by still dealing with being the son of an abusive couple and feeling zero self worth. Cordy is tripped up by ongoing delusions of her own grandeur originally instilled in her also by her parents.

Cordy never arrives, that leaves Angel all alone and a bit edgy to deal with Connor, who then seals his father off in a box, which is framed with a window and tosses him into the sea all by himself.

IOW, Connor rejects him, that leaves Angel all alone to brood with the utter wreckage of his own dearest wishes which he had felt were finally, finally on the brink of realization.
He moves from zenith to nadir in less than an hour.

And more than that, his dreams of family have been constricted to their narrowest point, which is the lonely individual with only himself for company and then drownded. In terms of the framing metaphor, Angel's new family of one is framed within that box.

I wonder if Angel is going to have to abandon his dreams of family before he is able to rebuild himself and be redeemed. Just as Spike is going to have to find his own point of self-motivation, and not through being love's bitch.

[> Whadja think of the New Preivew (spoiler for 4.1)? -- alcibiades, 07:43:48 09/30/02 Mon

I thought it looked great but I could not figure out who a couple of the people were in the shots -- perhaps someone new.

That last line -- no hug? -- from Angel to Connor presumably was perfect.

[> Poss spoilers for S4 AtS -- yabyumpan, 08:47:29 09/30/02 Mon

"I wonder if Angel is going to have to abandon his dreams of family before he is able to rebuild himself and be redeemed."

From the spoilers I've seen, I think this year is going to be very much about re-building his family: re-connecting with Connor, trying to find Cordy, poss re-uniting with Wesley. The show has always had a great emphasis on 'Family' and how connection with others 'is' his path to redemption. He spent 90+ years without even thinking he could be redeemed let alone moving along the path to redemption, for him to 'abandon his dreams of family' would be, IMO, a huge step back.

I think he realised in S2 that he couldn't actually 'be' redeemed, that in part, was what his 'Epiphany' was about. His journey, as I see it now, is no longer about redemption but just doing 'the right thing'; learning what that is and how to do it is the path to maturity and becoming 'whole'.
I think his 'rebuilding' will be re-establishing his family and continuing to try to 'do the right thing'

[> [> Family -- Rahael, 09:05:48 09/30/02 Mon

I'll have to agree and disagree with Alcibiades and Yaby on different points.

Well, 'family' - has such a wholesome vibe. Love and togetherness and affection.

Ironic, in the light of the discussion of Oedipus Rex in another thread.

Ironic when we consider Liam's own family. The ones he ate. The little sister he drained. The father he hated. The mother he killed.

Surely he did indeed gain a family in Season3? Of course there was the pain and the bitterness and the attempt at patricide and betrayal. Is that really so unusual for Angel/us? He's had another kind of family before, chock ful of all kinds of bad things.

Perhaps, just as he learned that there might be no such thing as redemption, there might be no perfect ideal of family. Just the people who he has around him, and their complex relationships with him. Who have the power to make him happy (but not too much!!) or plunge him to the depths of despair.

On a side note - what happens when one is redeemed? How do you know it? Does life get less hard? do choices become easier? how does it differ from the state that Buffy or Dawn is in? Do they need redemption or is it only accorded to people who do Very Bad Things? Does your soul (whatever that is) get a shiny new colour? Do you go to heaven rather than hell? Of all the metaphysical muddles on the show, I find the ideal of 'redemption' the most difficult to comprehend. How does one ever get 'redeemed' from the blood of the person you killed? It only really works if you believe in heaven I suppose, in that you get to go there rather than hell. And in that way, it seems a curiously crude and backward notion for such complex shows as BtVS and AtS.

Will 'I ate my family' Angel ever be redeemed from what he did to his first family by creating a new one? (Whether it's the FF or the AI team). Isn't it only a new form of obsession? Until Angel tackles this, and lets go of his 'dream of family', he seems to stumble.

[> [> [> Re: Family -- Arethusa, 09:32:45 09/30/02 Mon

Redeem: to get or to win back. (Mirriam Webster) Angel keeps trying to get back something he lost, but never can because once it's gone, it's gone. His innocence. His family. The lives he ended. The other lives he destroyed. He's had an epiphany, but he still doesn't always get it, except when it comes to Connor. For once, Angel is less important than the other. So he lives in the moment, instead of forcing a situation. He gives Connor the power. Gives him room to leave, in the hope he comes back. Lets him set the pace, so he won't be scared off. Shows him in word and deed that he will always love Connor, no matter what. No conditions. Not working towards a specific goal. Just trying to be there for his son.

When Connor was taken from him, Angel, in his rage, forgot that the ends don't justify the means, and using power for evil endangers those whom he hopes to protect. And he lost his son. Whenever he concentrates on bending others to his will, he loses control of everyone, because he is no longer actually seeing the people around him, what they are going through and the emotions they are experiencing. In his obsession over his son, and the hope of redemption his birth seemed to imply to Angel, Angel neglected a frightened and isolated Wesley, and lost everything-son, family and mission.

[> [> [> [> Excellent -- Rahael, 09:39:13 09/30/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Family -- yabyumpan, 13:01:09 09/30/02 Mon

"When Connor was taken from him, Angel, in his rage, forgot that the ends don't justify the means, and using power for evil endangers those whom he hopes to protect. And he lost his son. Whenever he concentrates on bending others to his will, he loses control of everyone, because he is no longer actually seeing the people around him, what they are going through and the emotions they are experiencing. In his obsession over his son, and the hope of redemption his birth seemed to imply to Angel, Angel neglected a frightened and isolated Wesley, and lost everything-son, family and mission."

I've got to disagree with this passage for a few things. First, you seem to imply when you say " and he lost his son" that this was a result of his rage and using power for evil. I think that what happened with Holtz 200 years before obviously led to his son being taken and so I can see that he bares some responsability but before his son was taken there was no rage etc, quite the opposite, he had actually let his guard down and was very trusting of those around him.
As to neglecting Wesley, I really don't see it. He checked in with Wesley many times during 'Loyalty' and 'Sleep Tight', commenting on how tierd he was looking, asking if he was ok. I don't want to get into another right/wrong Wesley discussion but Angel asked to be involved in his research, it was Wesley's choice not to let him in.
I don't see that he was overly obsessed with Connor either, he went to the Ballett and left him with lorne, he went out on missions (the demons at the start of ST). He was 'obsessed' in the same way that any new parent would be, with wonder and excitement about his son. Would he have been a better person/vampire if he'd neglected Connor in some way to try and persuade Wes to talk to him. He respected and trusted Wesley to do what was right. I don't see how Angel is in anyway responsable for Wesley's actions.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Family -- Arethsua, 18:36:30 09/30/02 Mon

Yes, I should have edited that sentence out. (Doing taxes and reading the Buffyboard simutaneously doesn't work.) I don't hold any character responsible for another's actions, generally. I don't think Angel neglected Wesley or Connor. What Angel neglected was his epiphany. Once again, Angel's focus shifted from living in the now, helping who he could and building relationships with his coworkers, to his future with his human (like) son.

[> Re: More on framing as metaphor on Angel -- alcibiades, 14:57:53 09/30/02 Mon

Another point on framing.

Didn't notice until a friend pointed out that when Angel rearranges the frame over the bed he intends for Connor, he repositions the frame so that it is slightly askew but in the opposite direction than what he saw. In fact, he doesn't notice that the picture frame is stil askew -- perhaps because he can't see it from the angle he is standing at.

IOW, it is a great foreshadowing of the fact that Connor's attack is going to come from a direction that he cannot see, is blind to from where he is standing.

More obviously later there is the fact that he can't fully walk into Connor's room, but tht is more of a quotidien insight which we explored fully last year viz Spike and Buffy in NA.

A thing.. -- yuri, 01:21:42 09/30/02 Mon

So I've found a little enclave of Buffy fanatics here at college, and was pleasantly suprised to find that they outanalyzed me on our first veiwing together (I'm planning on sending them this-a-way soon) and one thing they said was hello - spike never knew the mayor! Is this for sure, because I have NO mind for detail like that whatsoever (and I can't FULLY trust these people yet, I mean, we just met!)? And if this has been touched on already I'd totally appreciate a heads up about where that was. If it is true, then what does that mean? The entity is then less likely to be in spike's mind? (that's the camp I'm in already) and what do Buffy's ex-demons (ha, funny way to put it) represent to spike? The club he's trying to get out of? No, sorta already did that. I dunno.

Also, alcibiades I just read your post in the archives about being confused about motives and whatnot, and I'm right there with you. Were the talisman guys really only pretending to not want Buffy to get near spike? Why, then? Is their encounter somehow more favorable to someone/thing if it happens in that context? I can't see whoever brought them on (i had a moment when I was positive it was spike who had, but that's sort of passed...) as doing so without the realization that it would lead buffy to spike. Really not getting it yet. Will I by the end of the next ep? I hope so.

k, apologies again if I've missed any big key threads and so am reiterating up the wall. in the wall? am I in the wall?

[> Re: A thing.. -- Quentin Collins, 01:53:19 09/30/02 Mon

While there was never a meeting between Spike and the Mayor onscreen, I don't think that that necessarily means that they never met. At any rate the Mayor was well aware of Spike and kept tabs on him it seems. Even if Spike never met the Mayor in the flesh, he may have seen him on television or at some sort of speech. I haven't watched "Lovers Walk" in quite some time, but there may be some clue there as to how well Spike knows the Mayor.

At one point, I thought that it might all be in Spike's head, but Buffy's first rule, that it is always real sort of resonates with me as if it is meant by Joss to apply to that as well.

[> Re: A (nother) thing..(Speculation S7, mild Spoilers for 7.1) -- grifter, 01:56:06 09/30/02 Mon

I don¥t think Spike ever met the Mayor on-screen, and he also never met (but probably knew about) the Master on-screen.
I never thought the shape-changey-thingy was a figment of Spike¥s imagination, and this affirms it to me...

As for the Talisman-ghosts: maybe the Big Bad will keep sending monsters at Buffy find out about her strengths/weaknesses or keep her busy or whatever for part of the season?

[> No biggee (speculation) -- CW, 07:08:53 09/30/02 Mon

It's just a good hint that whatever is messing with Spike isn't all in his head. Whether it's the First Evil, that showed up in season three to torment Angel, or as I'm begining to suspect, it's a manifestation of the Hellmouth itself, it knows things that Spike doesn't.

[> Re: A thing.. (7.1 spoilers, natch) -- tim, 09:37:42 09/30/02 Mon

QC mentioned "Lover's Walk"--there's a scene in that ep between the Mayor and his deputy when Wilkins makes a comment about "He [Spike] caused all sorts of trouble last year. We had a devil of a time guessing what he'd do next." (This may not be exact. No time to check Psyche right now.) Clearly, they knew of each other, even if they were never formally introduced. The Master, on the other hand, is in Spike's family line, so they probably met at a reunion or something, while munching on cold fried chicken. ;)

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference, though. The point of the segment (IMO) was to move backwards through every BB that had come before, back to the beginning, which was (creepy, spooky moment) the Slayer. Had they skipped over the BB's Spike had no on-screen contact with, it would have seemed jarring and disconnected. I guess what I'm saying is that my guess is that the Mayor and the Master were included not to provide any special cues about what the Hell(mouth) was going on, but simply because they were part of the natural progression. Imbuing it with special significance may be looking too closely at the canvas.

--th

Spike again *spoiler for 7.1* -- Veelana, 06:59:04 09/30/02 Mon

Hi,

I know everyone assumes that Spike is still all vampy and i know this HAS been said in an interview, BUT i still believe he is human.

Why?

Reason 1:
Spike wanted to be "restored to his former self, so the slayer gets what she deserves". Spike never was a vampire with a soul, so he cant be "restored" to one, plus Buffy clearly does not deserve another brooding "i-cant-be-with-you" Boyfriend

Reason 2:
In contrary to popular belives, a dead persons hair does not grow.
As far as I know, the subject hasnt been brought up in the show, so it could work in the Buffyverse, but we havent seen it yet.

Reason 3:
I couldnt see it too clearly (cause i was whatching the episode on my computerscreen), but i¥m fairly sure that some of spikes Wounds where not really new and should have healed if he was still "all grrrr"

Reason 4:
Adam adresses him as "Number 17" instead of "Hostile 17".
I dont think the Initiative would classify any Vampire as "non-hostile", no matter how ensouled he is.

If I brought up something that has been discussed already, please forgive me. I just found this board and i really like to know what you guys think about my speculations.

cu
Veelana

[> Does a persons hair grow after death? Re: Angel -- JCC, 09:15:55 09/30/02 Mon

In Amends, Angel had a tash when he was a vampire, even though he didn't when he was vamped.

All good points V. That's the most rational explanation of the "Spike is human" theory I've read.

[> Re: Spike again *spoiler for 7.1* -- Hilary, 13:59:17 09/30/02 Mon

I agree with you completely, Veelana, & have been saying so all summer. Lessons only confirmed my belief.

In addition to your reasons, I think "Spike" is human because he is clearly William -- not Spike -- in Lessons. (And I don't buy the theory that William is to be his vampire with a soul persona.) The Spike in Lessons speaks in riddles & rhymes & seems a bit of a wuss.

Also, he asked the cave demon to make him what he was -- he never was a vampire with a soul.

Further, it makes sense that becoming William again would make 'Spike' insane. Imagine not only having your soul or conscience returned to you after more than a century of murdering humans but also your mortality -- that is, knowing in the Heideggerean sense that you are a Being-towards-death.

Interestingly, Spike was William's creation -- his reinvention of himself as a Big Bad -- and as Spike he has chosen to be what he was & rejected -- William.

But it's his hair in Lessons that confirmed it for me.

-- Hilary

btw, this is my first post of this board too.

[> [> Re: Spike again *spoiler for 7.1* -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:14:58 09/30/02 Mon

One important thing to consider:

In "Villains", the cave demon reads Spike's thoughts and knows about his "castration" and his love for Buffy. And, Spike's words are "give me what I came here for". The demon would know what Spike wanted without needing to be told. And, while Spike was never a vampire with a soul, he was once a creature with a soul, I think that is what he meant, and the demon would know this.

[> [> [> and also can the non-living... -- TRM, 16:04:39 09/30/02 Mon

gain weight? Spike seems a little less anorexic this season; I really do think he looks better with a little more flesh. Of course, I doubt this was not some huge Jossian plan.

I'm not too sure about whether we should necessarily equate a vampire with a corpse, since they do quite a many things that most dead things don't do -- some degree of homeostasis being one of them (but if they have cold blood, do they need to adjust their environment to regulate their body temperature like lizards? would extreme cold kill vampires as well as burning?). Otherwise, we could easily argue that the blood in Spike's body should be resting at his feet, and well... that's none too attractive. I believe there was some discussion about a metaphysical subsitute for circulation on this board sometime earlier. I would probably adopt a similar construct with respect to hair, nail, and skin growth as well as various other natural processes.

[> [> On hair growth and vampires -- HonorH, 16:33:01 09/30/02 Mon

But--and this is a big but--Angel was shown to have short, James Dean hair in the 1950s. When we catch up with him again in New York with Whistler, his hair was long and skanky. So Angel's hair, at least, does grow. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm taking TPTB-Jossverse at their word. Spike's a vampire.

Welcome to both of you.

[> Spoiler 7.1 -- HonorH, 16:29:29 09/30/02 Mon

I can't believe he's human. Buffy was close enough to him to have noticed. She touched him. If he'd been warm, she'd have realized it. Furthermore, I don't think Spike would've survived this long as a human. Tell me he's been eating. As a vampire, he can survive indefinitely without food (see Angel's current location). That could also be why those wounds haven't healed--he's not eating. Also, if he were human, the scratches were deep enough that he should've been actively bleeding, and he wasn't. See again his eating habits. And we've been shown multiple times in canon that vampire hair does, indeed, grow. Furthermore, if you're going to accept his hair growth as a sign that he's human, you've got to ask yourself why he doesn't have a beard as well.

[> Rebuttal -- ZachsMind, 21:29:31 09/30/02 Mon

I acknowledge your theory that Spike is fully human, but I respectfully disagree.

Reason 1:
Spike wanted to be "restored to his former self, so the slayer gets what she deserves". Spike never was a vampire with a soul, so he cant be "restored" to one, plus Buffy clearly does not deserve another brooding "i-cant-be-with-you" Boyfriend

When Angeles first got his soul back, he was not a vampire with a soul at that time. He was a vampire, and the gypsies cursed him with a soul. Spike got his voluntarily, but the basic metaphysics work the same. The series has established that on rare conditions, a vampire can definitely retrieve his soul, and still remain a vampire. The curse of Angel does not apply to Spike. If he ever achieved true bliss, he wouldn't lose his soul, so in theory, Spike could pose as a romantic interest for Buffy without the risk of losing his soul. There are however entirely different risks involved.

Reason 2:
In contrary to popular belives, a dead persons hair does not grow. As far as I know, the subject hasnt been brought up in the show, so it could work in the Buffyverse, but we havent seen it yet.

I strongly disagree. Standard vampire mythology includes several references to vampires growing long fingernails and hair, though they were undead. Standard medical research of human physiology indicates that even after dead, the human body continues to grow nails and hair though the rest of the body is inert. We know from the episode Lover's Walk, that Spike's natural hair style is much similar to what he's brandishing now. He didn't bleach his hair and start doing the Billy Idol look until around the 1970s. It's probable that Spike regularly bleaches his hair and we just don't see it. Just like it's an assumption one can make that the characters use the bathroom regularly, even though the cameras do not reveal it to us.

Reason 3:
I couldnt see it too clearly (cause i was whatching the episode on my computerscreen), but i¥m fairly sure that some of spikes Wounds where not really new and should have healed if he was still "all grrrr"

The wounds appeared fresh and recent to me. Perhaps there's scarring. He may have attempted it more than once. We are also to assume that Spike's been through his own form of hell over the summer, so he's probably not in peak health. A vampire's healing properties seem to be more sheer force of will than anything else, and as we will soon see (I predict) Spike's will to live is diminishing. He's attempted to kill himself before. He's a weak-willed creature. My guess is he'll try to kill himself again before this season is over.

Reason 4:
Adam adresses him as "Number 17" instead of "Hostile 17".
I dont think the Initiative would classify any Vampire as "non-hostile", no matter how ensouled he is.

Remember the "Adam" you refer to was not really the Adam of the Initiative. The shapechanger didn't refer to Spike as a hostile, because at the moment he's anything but hostile. He's defeated. He's gone mad. As we saw when the shapechanger morphed into The Master, the shapechanger was attempting to intimidate and belittle Spike, and was achieving some measure of success.

[> [> vamp hair & nails -- anom, 21:55:48 09/30/02 Mon

"It's probable that Spike regularly bleaches his hair and we just don't see it."

One time (don't remember which ep) Buffy bursts into Spike's crypt while he's applying black nail polish, so presumably his nails grow, & so does his hair. Well, unless it just wears off & he needs to touch it up once in a while.

[> [> [> Angel's hair grew. -- HonorH, 22:19:23 09/30/02 Mon

Remember in AYNOHYEB how Angel had that short, James Dean hair in the 1950s? By the time we caught up with him in the early '90s, his hair was long and shaggy. So we've got at least one canonical instance of vamp hair growing.

Another possibility would be SpikeWilliam himself. When we first meet him in FFL, his hair's bad, but not particularly long. By the time he kills the Chinese Slayer, he's wearing a queue.

Given that, I don't think the state of Spike's hair proves anything.