September 2003 posts
Buffy
essay from "ReasonOnline" -- MaeveRigan, 07:43:58
09/03/03 Wed
"Why Buffy Kicked Ass: The deep meaning of TV's favorite
vampire slayer"
by Virginia Postrel
Reason Online
http://www.reason.com/0308/cr.vp.why.shtml
[> Re: Buffy essay from
"ReasonOnline" -- DEN, 09:06:01 09/03/03 Wed
Perhaps the single most insightful essay yet written on the show's
essential character. Thanks for posting the reference!
[> [> Re: Buffy essay
from "ReasonOnline" -- jane, 09:37:33 09/03/03
Wed
Thanks for the link. Very thoughtful, and apt, especially since
I just watched "Chosen" again last night! The essay
reaffirms for me why Buffy is so compelling.
[> Re: Buffy essay from
"ReasonOnline" -- Darby, 10:00:04 09/03/03 Wed
I didn't find it very insightful, but rather obvious, useful to
those unfamiliar to the show but not to people who already know
all of this. But I did enjoy reading it.
I did find it interesting how the show can, again and again, be
used to expound the particular virtues important to the analyst.
Sometimes the same characters or incidents are used to make diametrically
opposed points. But then, that's often what happens here.
I'm wondering, though, why it seems to be unimportant that the
principal characters don't really pay for their crimes - the writer
is too familiar with the show to have missed that, right-?
[> [> Re: Paying for
Crimes -- DEN, 11:49:09 09/03/03 Wed
Maybe I'm just being difficult, but it seems to me that for practical
purposes nobody got a free pass. Buffy? Willow? Angel? Even Spike!
The payments might have been on the karmic side rather than the
legal one--but most of the really hard cases were also far over
into the supernatural zone, and correspondingly difficult to integrate
into real-world legal and moral systems (Giles/Ben probably the
best example--though I think it invites comparison to the question
of how to deal with the German POW in "Saving Private Ryan,
or the issue of torture most recently raised by Dershowitz.)
[> [> [> nobody?
-- anom, 21:49:35 09/03/03 Wed
"The payments might have been on the karmic side rather than
the legal one--but most of the really hard cases were also far
over into the supernatural zone, and correspondingly difficult
to integrate into real-world legal and moral systems (Giles/Ben
probably the best example...)"
It may be the best example of something the real-world systems
couldn't deal with, but not of karmic payment. We haven't seen
any kind of payment on the part of Giles for killing Ben. That
doesn't necessarily mean he got a free pass; the payment could
have happened offscreen, but the show hasn't addressed it.
[> Re: Buffy essay from
"ReasonOnline" -- Claudia, 10:44:06 09/03/03
Wed
I don't know why, but that essay made me feel uneasy. It just
did.
[> [> Re: Buffy essay
from "ReasonOnline" -- DEN, 11:35:13 09/03/03
Wed
No snark intended, but its overall tone was very "conservative."
The author's assertion that evil exists and cannot be negotiated
away is particularly likely to make a good number of posters uncomfortable.
It sounds so "Bushy"-- never mind whether or not it
may be true!
[> [> [> Re: Buffy
essay from "ReasonOnline" - Thank You! -- Claudia,
12:01:18 09/03/03 Wed
[No snark intended, but its overall tone was very "conservative."
The author's assertion that evil exists and cannot be negotiated
away is particularly likely to make a good number of posters uncomfortable.
It sounds so "Bushy"-- never mind whether or not it
may be true!]
Thank you! I think you've hit the mark! You're right. It did sound
right-wing. It seemed as if the author was using the show to support
the conservative politics of this country. And it made me feel
uncomfortable.
[> [> [> [> Political
Implications -- DickBD, 12:58:39 09/03/03 Wed
I have mixed feelings about Libertarians. I am all for personal
liberties, but many Libertarians, most of them atheists, get very
doctrinaire about such things as "evil" and the supposed
magic of "privatizing."
However, there have been essays here by socialists who analyzed
Buffy from that doctrinaire perspective, too. The same things
have been done with Shakespeare. In that way, Buffy is not in
such bad company.
[> I generally liked the
essay, but there was one glaring omission.... -- cjl, 12:37:57
09/03/03 Wed
One of the most important statements of the series:
You Must Confront the Evil Within Yourself
To ignore this basic principle--that evil is within every human
heart--is to give in to the arrogance of Quentin Travers and the
Watchers, self-righteous crusaders who lost contact with the humanity
they were supposed to help protect.
[> [> Excellent point,
cjl -- MaeveRigan, 13:31:16 09/03/03 Wed
[> [> [> "I heartily
agree!" (NT) -- Claudia, 14:05:59 09/03/03 Wed
[> [> Confronting the
evil within is not a libertarian value, methinks. -- Dariel,
19:50:49 09/03/03 Wed
Probably why Postrel didn't get it.
[> [> [> If Joss had
followed his instincts.... -- cjl, 20:01:53 09/03/03 Wed
....and went with a Buffy vs. Buffy confrontation as the capper
of the First Evil plotline, even a vampire would have gotten the
message of self-reflection.
[> [> [> [> gotten
the message, maybe... -- anom, 22:18:59 09/03/03 Wed
...but still couldn't have followed the example.
Oh, there I go being all literal again. Although now that I think
of it, seeing the FE in his form might have been the closest Spike
had come in a century to seeing himself mirrored...maybe it was
an opportunity for self-reflection! Well, between the beatings
& the torture....
[> [> [> [> Repeat
-- Claudia, 09:09:44 09/04/03 Thu
Wouldn't that have been a repeat of the Angel vs. Angeleus fight
in "Orpheus"?
[> [> [> [> [>
no more than 2 souled vampires are alike -- anom, 22:16:48
09/04/03 Thu
Maybe less so, since they wouldn't be aspects of the same personality
(yeah, we could get into whether this is really true of Angel/us,
but I won't). See quote #3 at top of main page...I think it applies
here too.
[> Fight for you right to
consume -- Buffyboy, 14:00:08 09/03/03 Wed
Reasononline. Free Minds and Free Markets.
Reasononline seems to be a journal, the overall orientation of
which is agnostic or perhaps atheist and that further celebrates
the virtues of the capitalist free market. Since I am agree with
the former but definitely not the later I have a significant disagreement
with the author.
Virginia Postrel believes that 9/11 was some type of watershed
in American history. Prior to this date "wise men" believed
that American culture was going to hell in a hand basket. According
to these pundets Americans had become soft, self-indulgent and
unwilling to fight for what was right. In a phrase these "wise
men" believed that: "Americans had forgotten bourgeois
virtue." But post-9/11 American has show the folly of these
analyses and American have once again show their willingness to
stand up and fight.
The issue here is just what is "bourgeois virtue?" And
how does it relate to sanding up and fighting for what one believes
is right? According to Postrel's analysis of the final Scooby
meeting held in the halls of Sunnydale High just before the final
battle, the connection between "bourgeois virtue" and
the willingness to fight, and possibly die, for what one believes
is right is crystal clear. Let me quote her remarks concerning
this scene in full:
"So what do you guys want to do tomorrow?" Buffy asks
her best friends as they walk to their final battle, a battle
none expects to survive. "I was thinking of shopping, as
per usual." Banter ensues about shoe cravings and the right
look for a guy with an eye patch.
"Aren't we going to discuss this?" asks Giles, befuddled
and a tad disapproving. "Save the world, and go to the mall?"
Well, yes. That's the world they're fighting for.
But are the Scooby's really fighting for the right to go to the
mall? For the right to consume? I think most indefatigably not.
Prior to the 20th Century the bourgeois virtues were (to put it
somewhat crudely, but hopefully not inaccurately), put your nose
to the grindstone, work hard and then re-invest or save the fruits
of your hard work. The 20th Century brought about one significant
change in these virtues and they became, put your nose to the
grindstone, work hard and consume the fruits of your labor. Whatever
one thinks of these virtues (and they certainly not all bad),
the one thing they have never inspired is heroism.
In the scene Postrel refers to above or in Dawn's comment near
the very end of the episode to the effect that she must have fought
on the wrong side because their actions have destroyed the mall,
Postrel seems to miss the obvious point-it's a joke. The Scooby
Gang isn't fighting for the right to consume but to defeat the
manifestations of a palpable evil and the joke is actually used
to emphasize this real motivation. Of course Buffy, Dawn, Willow
and Xander like to consume, as do most American-myself include,
but here is a dimension far more important, an ethical dimension.
What motivates the Scoobies or in fact motivated the truly heroic
actions in the wake of 9/11 (the actions of firefighters, police
officers or just average citizens in the wake of the destruction
or in order to prevent further destruction) was not the hope for
the satisfactions of future consumption, but a confrontation with
the reality of evil actions.
[> [> Re: Fight for you
right to consume -- MaeveRigan, 14:31:24 09/03/03 Wed
Thanks for this! I'd just like to note that I posted the link,
not because I agree with the editorial stances of ReasonOnline
(if it matters to anyone, I don't) but in the interests of ATPo
discussion.
I can't remember if anyone has already pointed this out, but surely
it's obvious that when the "mall" topic arises again
at the very end of "Chosen," it's not just a joke:
GILES: Yes, because the mall was actually in Sunnydale so there's
no hope of going there tomorrow.
DAWN: We destroyed the mall? I fought on the wrong side.
XANDER: All those shops, gone. The Gap, Starbucks, Toy R Us...who
will remember all those landmarks unless we tell the world of
them?
Since all of these stores are chains with branches in almost every
mall in every city, they may be read as a metaphor for the Evil
that may be "scrunched" in Sunnydale, but can never
be destroyed.
I had to laugh when the re-run of "Chosen" was followed
by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, sponsored by McDonalds!"
Oh yes - FE is still quite active ;-) And isn't it nice to know
that little "Doublemeat Palace" skirmish didn't do any
permanent damage?
[> [> [> Re: Fight
for you right to consume -- skeeve, 07:58:29 09/04/03 Thu
MaeveRigan: I can't remember if anyone has already pointed
this out, but surely it's obvious that when the "mall"
topic arises again at the very end of "Chosen," it's
not just a joke:
Twasn't obvious to me.
Also, it took me a couple readings before I realized that "not
just a joke" meant not only a joke.
[> [> Re: Fight for your
right to consume -- Vickie, 14:53:20 09/03/03 Wed
Exactly! As if Ms. Postrel doesn't get irony!
BYW, good to see you posting!
[> Re: Thanks for the FYI
-- aliera, 16:09:35 09/03/03 Wed
I missed this one.
When She Was
Bad and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- Rochefort, 09:54:35
09/03/03 Wed
When She Was Bad is one of my favorite all time episodes. To me,
it rings incredibly real; I'd have only liked to have seen its
content stretched across a few episodes. Anyway, I think it was
utterly brilliant. I was wondering if anyone else agrees with
me, however, that in When She Was Bad, Buffy is experiencing Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. Joss goes out of his way to give her
almost every single symptom (as described in the DSM-IV). It's
too bad it's only an hour because it's the realest portryal of
the struggle to overcome the aftermath of a shocking and violent
trauma I've seen.
Rochefort
[> Re: When She Was Bad
and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- ponygirl, 10:13:31
09/03/03 Wed
I think that's probably a pretty accurate way of describing what
Buffy was going through. I wonder though if she ever really got
over it. Looking back it seems like a lot of Buffy's issues got
their start in WSWB: her superiority complex stemming from experiencing
something no one else could understand; the inferiority complex
as a result of her friend-endangering actions; the emotional distance.
And most of these issues Buffy supressed by episode's end under
the larger fear of being abandoned by her friends.
It is a great episode, my very first BtVS, and that sequence of
Buffy entering the Bronze to "Sugar Water" instantly
won my heart forever.
[> [> Re: When She Was
Bad and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- Rochefort, 18:27:23
09/04/03 Thu
I think I quite agree with you, ponygirl, that many of the WSWB
issues Buffy never got over. I think the death at the end of season
1 formed part of her character. :(
Rochefort
[> Not quite sure I would
diagnosis her this way -- Diana, 12:58:51 09/03/03 Wed
I'd probably label it just "Adjustment Disorder." The
trauma was severe, but she doesn't manifest the persistent increased
arousal required by criterion D for PTSD. This is typically the
most pathognomonic symptom and without it, it isn't PTSD. Without
D-F, it isn't PTSD. Not really sure C is there either, seeing
as she brought it up with her nice dance with Xander.
She was persistently, I believe the technical term is, bitchy.
OT: Asking
for future help from teachers/(in training) -- Seven, 10:18:13
09/03/03 Wed
Hi.
I am currently an Education (Secondary English) Major at Temple
University. I am also a (somewhat) longtime lurker/poster on this
board.
I am just beginnging an education class that deals mainly with
computers and how to incorporate them into class lessons.
Being a future English teacher i never really thought that i would
use them much in my discussions, but this class will require that
i create a lesson plan doing just that.
I am asking anyone with experiance in this area to give me some
suggestions on this. I know that there are some great writers
on this board and this is me hoping that there are some great
teachers as well.
7
[> One possibility --
Darby, 11:29:46 09/03/03 Wed
What you can do may depend upon what is available - but one approach
is the Scavenger Hunt, where you give the students items to find
- sources, specific information, whatever - that will force them
to utilize their electronic resources.
I do a lab
exercise with classes that will either need to abstract electronic
sources or write research papers, so I'm very vague in what I
have them look for (each person can be looking for information
for their own paper), and am more concerned that they understand
how our library's databases and internet search engines and webpages
/ websites work. And it covers plagiarism, a huge problem that
I've been forced to become expert at detecting. But, even if it
doesn't directly hit your needs, at least it shows you one possible
approach.
[> Re: OT: Asking for future
help from teachers/(in training) -- mamcu, 11:54:20 09/03/03
Wed
There are many ways! I've been teaching English for many years,
and computers improved it drastically. Now I teach a literature
course online, so the whole course is computers.
First and most important is getting students to learn to revise
their writing. Best of all is to try to get them to write the
very first draft on the computer, and then give you a print out
for comments--then they use those to make changes. They will find
the revisions much easier, and they will love the way a printed
page looks so neat compared to a handwritten page with many corrections.
You can get them to email drafts of their writing to each other
and to you--MS Word and most other programs have nice reviewing
tools that let you put comments in.
Using email for discussions of what they read out of class is
excellent--my school sets up an online discussion board sort of
like this one for any class.
Use the computer for research--but you'll need to teach them how
to evaluate what they find. I like to show them some really trashy
sites and some good ones on the same topic, and let them see the
difference. Also you need to talk with them about how they can
locate the author of a page, and why they might not trust a site
with no author!
My favorite assignment involves getting a group of students to
read a story or poem, generate a list of questions about it (such
as historical background, different critical questions, author,
etc.), and then all look for the material. They put all that research
into an annotated bibliography and then write research questions
based on that research. You have to work with them, review the
links they find, show them how to do an annotated bibiliography,
teach them the right way to use and document sources, etc. It
can take several weeks before they even start the paper, so expect
it to be some work for you and them. But you could shorten it
by just looking for one question and not assigning the paper.
And if they're really good and you have the resources, you or
they could put the projects online! I've seen some excellent high
school projects like this--here's one:
http://www.springfield.k12.il.us/schools/southeast/bovary/index.html
Also there are lots of grammar, style, and documentation sites
online. The Purdue University Writing Center is excellent.
Good luck!
[> Re: OT: Asking for future
help from teachers/(in training) -- Diana's
Hubby, 14:19:01 09/03/03 Wed
How to best use the computer in the lesson plan depends a lot
on what your lesson plan will cover. If you let me know what you
would be teaching, I might be able to come up with a few ideas
for you.
One of the most commonly used programs is Microsoft PowerPoint.
If you have a computer/laptop wired into a projector you can use
it instead of or in addition to a chalk/dry erase board. You can
design a presentation that has the main talking points of your
lecture, demonstrations of actions you need the class to complete,
as well as video and audio clips. It is a pretty versitile program
and adds some eye candy to the lecture. Instead of just listening
to you talk, students can watch the screen and be visually reminded
of what it is they are listening to. I use it all the time for
a variety of classes I teach ranging from basic navigation, to
how to use certain technical publications.
[> [> Thanks Guys!!
-- Seven, 17:20:47 09/03/03 Wed
You've all given me a great start.
I realize that I was vague in my questions but that is because
the project was only mentioned today and will not be due until
the end of the month, so I have no idea what it will cover. I
just wanted to get a head start on brainstorming.
I will have to include about 4 days (40 minute classes) worth
of work, so I may put all your ideas to good use (as well as some
of my own of course!!)
Again, thanks so much, I'm glad that I could count on this board
for help. (and glad to know there are other teachers out there!)
7
Aack, somebody
scold me! -- Sheri, 14:40:33 09/03/03 Wed
Ok, I really really need to be working... so somebody lecture
me to get back to work and quit checking the board every three
seconds.
'Cause I have NO WILL POWER!
[> Bad Sheri! No biscuit!
-- Alison, who should be doing her English paper ;), 14:48:11
09/03/03 Wed
[> Sheri: Don't you mean
no Will-ow power!! -- Ann, 15:40:41 09/03/03 Wed
[> Re: Aack, somebody scold
me! -- aliera, 16:13:39 09/03/03 Wed
Hard to scold you for that... we're much more fun. ;-)
[> It's ok Sheri, you're
not alone! :-) -- jane, 16:44:19 09/03/03 Wed
[> i know the feeling, sheri!
-- anom, 22:48:36 09/03/03 Wed
I've got plenty I need to get done, but it's really hard to stay
away from the board! How about you make a look at the board a
reward for each hour of work?...half hour?...fifteen minutes?
Maybe we could form a support group....
Cordelia vs
Glory -- JBone,
20:17:24 09/03/03 Wed
She was kind of like Cordelia actually. I'm pretty sure she dies
her hair!
http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html
results
Post comments at Showtime, here, or email me.
[> *Sigh* Which Cordy?
-- HonorH, 20:43:19 09/03/03 Wed
Fashion queen Cordelia from BtVS? Vision girl of AtS seasons 1-2?
Pod-delia of S3? Cordevilia of S4? Too many choices. Thus, I'm
voting for Glory.
[> Re: Cordelia vs Glory
-- Apophis, 21:15:17 09/03/03 Wed
Fashion-related insults abound in this war of wits. Even though
Glory could snap Cordelia like balsa wood, she'd have to penetrate
a solid wall of biting sarcasm and verbal abuse. Before she got
the chance to eat Cordy's brain, Glory would be so humiliated
by the onslaught that she'd throw herself into the heart of a
star... or something. Besides, Cordy deserves to kill a god or
two as payback for how she's been treated by the Powers That Be
(and not the ones that sent her visions).
[> Okay, we've got to set
up some rules for this particular face-off. -- cjl, 21:25:15
09/03/03 Wed
In order to ensure fairness, Glory either has to (a) face off
against Higher Being Cordelia, or (b) engage Cordy in a non-powered
snark-off. If it's (a), power levels are equal, and Cordy's frustration
over not being able to shop on our plane of existence beats out
Glory's "I could crap a better world than this" angst.
If it's (b), Queen C would level a character whose personality
is a cheap imitation of Cordy's in the first place. Either way,
Cordy wins. Big.
[> Re: Cordelia vs Glory
-- Celebaelin, 05:49:43 09/04/03 Thu
Catfight, tending towards the verbal and largely using haute
couture for ammunition. Cordy's visions give her the edge
and her final devastating 'Milan, please, that is so next season'
leaves Glory utterly stumped, wondering how formality became hijacked
to such an extent that a human with an apartment like this
could know about it in advance. Cordy sighs, looks at herself
between profile and three-quarter in the mirror, quietly whispers
'probably' to herself, and then pushes Glory out of the door before
investigating the victory salami.
[> Gloriosky! -- MaeveRigan,
07:55:42 09/04/03 Thu
I'm going with Season 5 Cordelia, i.e., A2 Cordy, before the whole
"higher being," almost-a-demon thing. And in that contest,
Glory is not only more petulant than merely-human Cordelia, she
physically crushes her like a bug. Oh no - there go Angel
seasons 3 and 4! And in some ways, mightn't we all be the better
for it? At least we'd never have the awful vision of Cordelia/Connor
in our minds. Well, a girl can dream ;-) Apologies to Cordelia
fans everywhere!
[> Which Cordy, indeed.
-- deeva, 09:22:47 09/04/03 Thu
I think it's best to just go with the last incarnation of the
character that we've all seen. Cause if we had all of the different
personas of each character facing off against others, this contest
would drag on forever. So anyway, despite Glory's godly strength,
she's got those wicked migraines to deal with. Cordy on the other
hand, pre-coma, pre-baby, post-higher being would eventually smack
down the god of bad home perms and lopsided arses. But Cordy would
certainly stop to swap notes on clothes and shoes.
[> Re: Cordelia vs Glory
-- Anneth, 13:44:05 09/04/03 Thu
Again, much consideration took place before I voted. Finally,
I realized that nobody could cut another down to size like Queen
C. Glory mostly lounged around and whined; essentially the worst
she could do to Spike was tenderize him a little and stick a finger
into his chest. Cordelia, on the other hand, made the wish that
arguably spawned Vamp Willow. And she wasn't even trying
to wreak havoc. Cordy victorious.
Frustration
= Greatness in "Buffy" and "Angel" --
Laura, 22:52:24 09/03/03 Wed
I was currently watching some re-runs of "Buffy" and
"Angel" episodes when something occured to me. There
are many reasons why these shows are so great (good scripts, music,
actors, camera work, etc.) but one rather odd one stood out from
among them. Many times during these shows Joss and co. do stuff
that drives me nuts. They wreck much loved relationships, destroy
our hopes, make characters do annoying things, and pull the floor
out from under us audience members turning our entire perception
of that world upside-down.
This is what I think makes them fantastic shows. They doesn't
let us get too comfortable and though most of us want to strangle
them at times, I believe is a reason we keep coming back.
Am I making any sense?
[> Indeed you are...
-- AngelVSAngelus, 23:32:23 09/03/03 Wed
and that particular secret of great storytelling that seems to
get over looked by too many today is not necessarily frustrating
the audience, but avoiding audience pandering. Story is served
to communicate and simultaneously entertain, ideally, not just
cater to the whims and desires of the audience.
The Firefly
Movie: a win-win situation for Joss and the fans -- cjl, 07:40:37
09/04/03 Thu
In case you haven't heard, MCA/Universal bought the rights to
Firefly from Fox, and they've given Joss the go-ahead: he's gonna
write (and direct!) his movie.
Here's the poop from the Hollywood Reporter:
The short-lived TV series "Firefly" is moving to the
big screen. After taking his "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
feature film and turning it into a successful TV series, Joss
Whedon is about to do the reverse with another one of his creations.
Whedon has teamed with Universal Pictures to turn "Firefly,"
a TV cult favorite, into a feature film.
In addition to having adapted it for the big screen, Whedon will
also make his feature directorial debut with the project. Plans
are to see "Firefly" go into production in first-quarter
2004.
Universal recently acquired the rights to "Firefly"
from 20th Century Fox Television, where Whedon's Mutant Enemy
Inc. production company has a television deal.
The action-adventure series was set 500 years in the future and
centered on a crew aboard a spaceship. The feature version will
incorporate the mythology from the show but will take on a more
epic feel. Whedon hopes to enlist the entire cast to come back
for the feature, depending on their previous commitments, with
new characters added as well.
Whedon is producing the film through his Mutant Enemy Inc. along
with studio-based producer Barry Mendell. Mendell, a former agent
at UTA, used to represent Whedon. Mutant Enemy president Christopher
Buchanan is executive producing. Universal production president
Mary Parent is shepherding the project.
"Ever since the show went off the air, our fan base has grown
even more," Buchanan said. "We've had tremendous outpouring
from the U.S. and Canada as well as the U.K., which just finished
a run of 'Firefly' over there. Every comic book and sci-fi convention
has had a 'Firefly' presence since the show first aired."
For the series, which ran this past season, Whedon produced 15
hours of television, including a two-hour episode. Three shows
never aired on Fox but will likely be featured on the series'
DVD release, due out in December. Buchanan said fans created such
a demand that DVD presales on Amazon.com sold out within 24 hours.
******************************
This is a gutsy move by Universal, banking on Firefly's cult audience
and Whedon's track record with Buffy and Angel to sell tickets
to the movie. It could easily turn into a $70-100 million disaster
if they put out the film and the North American public is paralyzed
by not caring very much, but I have to applaud the daring.
So, as I said in the message subject, it's win-win:
Joss gets his big-as-the-universe movie budget toybox, and a chance
to redeem his "failed" project. Maybe with a movie budget,
Joss can make his Firefly universe more compelling.
We get to see the Serenity crew again. More River! More Jayne!
More Wash! More Book! (Ron Glass, one of my favorite unsung comic
actors.)
I get to see Gina Torres on a 30-foot movie screen.
The women in the audience get another eyeful of Captain Tightpants.
(Joss and Nathan Fillon have a chance to scrub all memories of
Caleb out of our brains.)
And good news for those ANGEL fans who think Jeff Bell and Steve
DeKnight were doing just fine without Joss (you know who you are)--Joss
will be kinda busy for the next year or so, and won't have as
much time for ANGEL.
Numfar, do the dance of joy. And direct it. In technicolor.
[> Yay! -- ponygirl,
08:04:13 09/04/03 Thu
Though I imagine it's going to be tricky to write it as something
that can work for people without any prior knowledge of the show
and still give the fans the characters they know and love.
This has got to be very cool for Joss. Talk about going full circle
- from the failure of his movie he creates BtVS and now from his
failed tv series he makes a movie. I still have a nagging worry
about Joss not giving his full attention to AtS, but maybe that's
just me. It is a happy day! All that and Space starts airing Firefly
on Monday!
[> It's a shame my cubicle
is so tiny... -- Sheri, 08:52:20 09/04/03 Thu
'Cause I'm really wanting to do some cartwheels right about now!
Thanks for spreading the truly cool news!
[> Taking back the skies
-- Valheru, 12:03:30 09/04/03 Thu
Woohoo! There's a party in my eye socket and everyone's invited!
I really have a good feeling about this. If Joss can get most
everyone else back, cast and crew, then I'm pretty confident he
can make a damn fine movie. I mean, what would be different between
making the television series and the motion picture? 1) No inept
Fox idiots forcing changes (though Universal could very well be
just as idiotic), 2) the freedom to produce without the pressure-cooker
that is a TV schedule, 3) bigger budget.
The thing is, Joss has already made some shows that if I didn't
know better, I'd think they were movies. "Becoming",
"Amends", "Graduation Day", "Hush",
"Restless", "The Body", "The Gift",
"OMWF", "City Of...", "Chosen".
All very cinematic episodes, despite having tiny-for-Hollywood
budgets. But "Serenity" is the test case. Frankly, I'm
kinda mad that Fox aired the episode at all, since I could easily
envision it as a movie with a little re-working. If "Serenity"
is anything to go by, then the movie should be wonderful.
The only concern I have at this point is the possibility of Joss
developing delusions of grandeur. With "Motion Picture"
in the title, Joss could get a little flamboyant and allow the
flash and style to overwhelm everything else. But hopefully, Joss
has been tempered enough to overcome such tendencies and make
a hell of a movie.
BTW, any word on what Tim Minear's involvment is at this point?
As for AtS, I'm not that worried. They've already gone
through, what? 4 episodes? Probably 11 by the holidays break.
So the season will be half completed before Joss would start diverting
most of his time to Firefly. And I think Bell, DeKnight,
and Fury proved in S4 that they could produce AtS handily
on their own. So as long as Joss still has time to break the episodes,
things should be fine. And I'd expect production of Firefly
to be pretty swift, so Joss might be into post-production in time
to possibly squeeze in one more AtS episode before the
end of the season.
[> [> as for AtS
-- celticross, 17:22:07 09/04/03 Thu
And besides, AtS has never had the kind of hands on involvement
from Joss that BtVS did, and I don't think anyone would complain
about the overall quality of the show.
[> Re: The Firefly Movie:
a win-win situation for Joss and the fans -- Ace_of_Sevens,
12:58:21 09/04/03 Thu
"This is a gutsy move by Universal, banking on Firefly's
cult audience and Whedon's track record with Buffy and Angel to
sell tickets to the movie. It could easily turn into a $70-100
million disaster if they put out the film and the North American
public is paralyzed by not caring very much, but I have to applaud
the daring."
I don't think it's that risky. Joss comes from a TV background,
the actors are cheap and the Serenity set is already bult. I'd
be shocked if the movie cost more than $40 million. It will probably
be a lot less.
[> [> Really? They kept
the Serenity sets up on the Fox lot? -- cjl, 13:02:49 09/04/03
Thu
Yeah, that could knock the price tag down a bit.
But I could also see Joss going nuts with FX and crowded spaceport
shots (like he had in "Serenity"), which could pump
the budget back up again. Let's see how much rope--uh, money--Universal
is willing to lay out for this project.
[> [> [> Re: Really?
They kept the Serenity sets up on the Fox lot? -- shambleau,
13:14:17 09/04/03 Thu
Nah, it's been torn down. Read an announcement months ago. And
give him all the rope you want boys. Please.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Really? They kept the Serenity sets up on the Fox lot? --
Ace_of_Sevens, 16:21:00 09/04/03 Thu
The Serenity has been disassembled and put in storage, but not
completely torn down. Should be fairly easy on the budget.
And keep in mind the two-hour premiere where Joss went nuts still
only cost $9 million to make. A movie would cost more, but not
an order of magnitude more.
[> What's a word that outdoes
"ecstatic"? Wheee!!! -- shambleau, 13:01:16 09/04/03
Thu
Never mind, it'll do for now. Firefly was my favorite ME show
last year. Get goosebumps just thinking of Joss pulling this off.
I've always thought that he would be a terrific movie writer/director.
He has an amazing visual flair and I expect great things. I don't
know whether it will be a popular success, but I'll do my part
by going multiple times and dragging along friends and acquaintances.
Hell, I may invite strangers!
Joss gets to be the writer AND director! No script by committee!
(Although if he called in Tim Minear to help out, I wouldn't complain.)
If Universal has agreed to this, I think the chances of them interfering
are not that great. Did he get a big budget, though? Does anybody
know? I doubt if Universal is willing to risk that, although I
don't think that a big budget would go to Joss's head anyway.
It is SO nice to have something to look forward to! AtS wasn't
doing it for me. I was hoping that Joss could keep me watching
Angel, even though the only character I have an emotional connection
to now is Wesley. I agree that Joss has got enough time to set
a direction and tone for the show before he hops to the movie.
I hope it's a direction I can get into.
[> [> I agree regarding
AtS! -- Robert, 15:59:27 09/04/03 Thu
>>> It is SO nice to have something to look forward
to! AtS wasn't doing it for me.
AtS has held my interest much less than BtVS or Firefly. I am
a sci-fi junky to start with. I have always prefered science fiction
to fantasy. They only character in AtS for whom I truly cared
was Cordelia, and know she's gone. Alas!
On the other hand, I share some of the misgivings expressed by
others regarding a Firefly movie. I'm not yet willing to accept
that Universal will truly give Joss Whedon full artistic control.
I'm afraid that ultimately he (and all of us) will be screwed
by the powers-that-be. If he is able to retain control, then I
have no doubt that he will create something awesome and wonderful.
[> [> Re: What's a word
that outdoes "ecstatic"? Wheee!!! -- lcolford, 00:57:10
09/05/03 Fri
Euphoria. At last some vindication after the FOX debacle. From
the little I've read about Joss he has mentioned his desire to
direct a feature and this provides him with a perfect set up.
What first time director can walk in on a project where an ensemble
cast already know their characters, get along together, the sets
are already in storage for the crew (waiting for the good word,
I venture) to reassemble. The big snafu will be creative control,
final edit and promotion.
Fortunately, the Firefly fan 'verse is already taking the show
to the road via sci-fi conventions to promote the dvds and now,
the Big.Damn.Movie. One just finished in Toronto where people
packed in a small room to watch all the eps and sing the "Jayne"
song!
[> So excited! -- Nino, 16:59:10 09/04/03
Thu
[> It won't be ready for
the July 2004 meet, will it? -- Arethusa, 19:37:09 09/04/03
Thu
Maybe three months for filming, and what-six months for post-production?
It would be very cool if were out during the meet.
Find out which
moral philosopher you most resemble -- Sophist, 09:19:20
09/04/03 Thu
Here
[> Cool! -- Earl
Allison, 10:01:12 09/04/03 Thu
Thanks for the link, here are the top five I came out with;
Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
Aquinas (93%)
Kant (90%)
David Hume (85%)
Aristotle (84%)
I'm especially happy with Aquinas -- I always appreciated his
stance that, even being Christian, he could see that (in his view)
Man could override the Divine Gift of Life by his own actions,
and therefore be eligible for capital punishment -- and no, I'm
not a bloodthirsty monster :)
Take it and run.
[> Huh. -- Arethusa,
11:29:24 09/04/03 Thu
1. Kant (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (91%)
3. Aquinas (84%)
4. Ayn Rand (72%)
5. Prescriptivism (68%)
How on earth did Rand get up there? I dislike her philosophy quite
a bit. And my Sartre-O-Meter is below 50%. I'm a bad, bad existentialist.
[> The answer is --
skeeve, 11:46:12 09/04/03 Thu
Alfred P. Doolittle.
[> Interesting...Jean Paul
Sartre -- s'kat, 11:52:36 09/04/03 Thu
Considering I've never been ablt to get myself to read Sartre
- this is fascinating in of itself. ;-)
The other is John Stuart Mill - 91%
Sartre with 100%
Kant with 89%.
I have the least in common with the Stoics, St. Augustine, and
the Cynics. (no real surprise there)
Does that make me an existentialist? ;-)
[> [> Hmmm took it again
and it's Kant then JS Mill. Sartre is 4th -- s'kat, 21:26:59
09/04/03 Thu
1. Kant (100%) Click here for info
2. John Stuart Mill (98%) Click here for info
3. Epicureans (82%) Click here for info
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (80%) Click here for info
5. Prescriptivism (71%) Click here for info
6. Jeremy Bentham (66%) Click here for info
7. Spinoza (65%) Click here for info
8. Ayn Rand (57%) Click here for info
9. Aquinas (56%) Click here for info
10. Aristotle (54%) Click here for info
11. Nietzsche (52%) Click here for info
12. Ockham (52%) Click here for info
13. Nel Noddings (45%) Click here for info
14. Stoics (38%) Click here for info
15. David Hume (35%) Click here for info
16. Thomas Hobbes (32%) Click here for info
17. St. Augustine (27%) Click here for info
18. Cynics (15%) Click here for info
19. Plato (10%) Click here for info
Have no idea what Prescriptivisim is and like Darby, never heard
of John Stuart Mill, but he seems to be the most consistent, with
Kant and Sartre changing places. ;-)
good news - Rand went down several places. The Bottom three
changed slightly ...so maybe my philosophy depends on my mood??
;-)
[> [> Sartre it is
-- tomfool, 09:16:03 09/05/03 Fri
Hmm. I get 100% with Sartre too (with a dash of Hume, Noddings,
and Nietzsche). Maybe that's why lots of your stuff resonates
with me.
[> I get -- KdS, 12:00:51
09/04/03 Thu
1. Kant (100%) Click here for info
2. John Stuart Mill (98%)
3. Aquinas (90%)
4. Aristotle (87%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (85%)
6. Epicureans (82%)
7. Spinoza (77%)
8. Jean-Paul Sartre (67%)
9. Prescriptivism (64%)
10. Stoics (58%)
And I suspect you may get Rand if you place a high value on reason,
even if what conclusions you draw by reason are very different
from hers.
[> There will be no Aquinas
at this table! -- Masq, 12:06:59 09/04/03 Thu
I did this quiz back in July. OK, Spinoza I totally get. But Aquinas?
Plus, I thought Hume would be higher.
1. Aquinas (100%)
2. Spinoza (99%)
3. Aristotle (92%)
4. John Stuart Mill (82%)
5. Epicureans (78%)
6. Jeremy Bentham (69%)
7. St. Augustine (58%)
8. Kant (55%)
9. Ockham (53%)
10. Jean-Paul Sartre (49%)
11. Prescriptivism (41%)
12. Plato (40%)
13. Stoics (37%)
14. Ayn Rand (35%)
15. Nel Noddings (28%)
16. Nietzsche (22%)
17. Cynics (14%)
18. David Hume (14%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (4%)
[> [> Who is this Aquinas
guy, and why is he at my table? -- Rufus, 15:01:58 09/04/03
Thu
1. Aquinas (100%)
2. Jeremy Bentham (87%)
3. Plato (86%) Click here for info
4. Aristotle (84%)
5. Ayn Rand (73%)
6. John Stuart Mill (73%)
7. Jean-Paul Sartre (71%)
8. St. Augustine (68%)
9. Epicureans (61%)
10. Kant (61%)
11. David Hume (58%)
12. Nietzsche (58%)
13. Spinoza (50%)
14. Thomas Hobbes (49%)
15. Prescriptivism (45%)
16. Stoics (43%)
17. Nel Noddings (38%)
18. Cynics (36%)
19. Ockham (28%)
[> [> [> He told a
fable / While at my table / Yes, he was here / But he had no beer
-- OnM (4% Burma Shave), 20:07:04 09/04/03 Thu
Ye Aulde Top Ten for meself:
1. Aquinas (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (84%)
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%)
4. Spinoza (76%)
5. St. Augustine (74%)
6. Kant (70%)
7. Prescriptivism (70%)
8. Ockham (68%)
9. Aristotle (54%)
10. Epicureans (54%)
Does anyone here have enough time to waste curiousity to
make up a board profile from these listings?
Might be, uhhh, something, that's for sure.
;-)
[> [> [> [> Colour
me philisophically confused.. -- jane, 20:27:01 09/04/03
Thu
1. John Stuart Mill 100%
[> [> [> [> [>
and my posting skills challenged. -- jane, 20:32:05
09/04/03 Thu
oops, hit send too soon! To continue:
2.Aquinas 91%
3.Jeremy Bentham 91%
4.Epicureans 84%
5.Kant 82%
Have no clue as to what this says about my philisophical stand.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thinking of doing my own philosophical research, just
in a slightly different venue. -- OnM, knowing a real philosopher
when he sees Mel Blanc, 21:18:19 09/04/03 Thu
Which of the following best describes the fundamental dynamic
and/or paradigm of the Roadrunnerverse?
( ) The Coyote is a metaphor for Sisyphus, but the Roadrunner
is not the rock, it is God. The rock is Acme.
( ) Gravity in the Roadrunnerverse is a metaphor for situational
morality.
( ) Acme represents the military-industrial complex and its misuse
by elements of extremist right-wing social forces.
( ) The Roadrunner only appears to be mono-linguistic, in reality
it is merely commenting satirically on the Coyote's obsessional
behavior.
( ) Anvils are heavy, and Dr. Strange is always changing size.
***
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> hmmm....... -- lynx, 01:51:14 09/06/03 Sat
arrgghh. i cannot decide between these three.....
( ) Gravity in the Roadrunnerverse is a metaphor for situational
morality.
( ) Acme represents the military-industrial complex and its misuse
by elements of extremist right-wing social forces.
( ) The Roadrunner only appears to be mono-linguistic, in reality
it is merely commenting satirically on the Coyote's obsessional
behavior.
[> Spinoza, Sartre and J.S.
Mill. I can live with that. -- cjl, 12:14:18 09/04/03 Thu
My results:
1. Spinoza (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (82%)
3. John Stuart Mill (77%)
4. Kant (74%)
5. Prescriptivism (72%)
6. Aquinas (68%)
7. Epicureans (68%)
8. Nietzsche (66%)
9. Ockham (63%)
10. Jeremy Bentham (62%)
11. St. Augustine (55%)
12. Aristotle (50%)
13. Stoics (47%)
14. David Hume (38%)
15. Nel Noddings (28%)
16. Thomas Hobbes (27%)
17. Ayn Rand (23%)
18. Plato (20%)
19. Cynics (15%)
[> Uh oh... -- Darby,
12:32:17 09/04/03 Thu
Here we go...
Do I get booted from the board if I admit that I don't know who
my lead guy is? Yes? Oh, never mind then...
1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Kant (96%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (78%)
4. Prescriptivism (77%)
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (74%)
6. Ayn Rand (66%)
7. Epicureans (56%)
8. Aquinas (40%)
9. Spinoza (34%)
10. Aristotle (33%)
11. Ockham (31%)
12. Nel Noddings (28%)
13. Stoics (21%)
14. Thomas Hobbes (20%)
15. Plato (20%)
16. Nietzsche (17%)
17. St. Augustine (17%)
18. Cynics (14%)
19. David Hume (13%)
[> [> Re: Uh oh...
-- Masq, 13:08:26 09/04/03 Thu
A spoonful of Buffy helps the
philosophy go down...
[> [> [> Thanks!
-- Darby, 13:56:12 09/04/03 Thu
You piqued my interest enough to get me looking further, and from
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/milljs.htm
I find it really isn't too far off from me.
[> [> [> Hmmm what
happens if you have Kant and Mill? Schizophrenic? -- s'kat,
21:31:43 09/04/03 Thu
Okay according to this Kant and Mill's theories are opposed.
"Utilitarianism is more accurately stated as "Choose
the act in a circumstance that would produce a greater balance
of benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness to those involved
over mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to those involved."
For example, in Revelations Xander argues that "lots of dead
people" constitutes a reason to kill Angel--one human soul
dying (Angel's) is better than many human souls dying (his potential
victims). If Xander can show that it is likely that Angel will
lose his soul again, then on Utilitarian grounds, Angel should
die to save the possible consequences of Angelus' reemergence.
Utilitarianism can be opposed Immanuel Kant's Deontological Ethics."
So uhm how is it possible to have 100% Kant and 89% Mill??
I get 100% Sartre and Mill....
[> [> Soul Mates!
-- Sara, feeling very philosophical, 15:59:27 09/04/03 Thu
Same number one as Darby, but how did Ayn Rand end up in my number
2 spot? It's not true!!!! NO! NO! NO!
1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (76%)
3. Kant (75%)
4. Aquinas (72%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (71%)
6. Aristotle (64%)
7. Jean-Paul Sartre (56%)
8. Epicureans (56%)
9. Spinoza (47%)
10. Prescriptivism (46%)
11. Stoics (45%)
12. David Hume (43%)
13. Plato (40%)
14. St. Augustine (36%)
15. Cynics (35%)
16. Nietzsche (33%)
17. Thomas Hobbes (33%)
18. Nel Noddings (19%)
19. Ockham (17%)
[> [> [> Rand
-- Masq, 16:20:22 09/04/03 Thu
See KdS's comment above, or, I'll just reproduce it here:
"And I suspect you may get Rand if you place a high value
on reason, even if what conclusions you draw by reason are very
different from hers."
[> I pretty much agree with
the list, for the most part -- Diana, 12:39:55 09/04/03
Thu
1. Jean-Paul Sartre
2. Nel Noddings
3. Jeremy Bentham
4. Nietzsche
5. St. Augustine
Though I'm not an existentialist, damn it. Life has meaning, but
it is the individual's responsibility to find what this is. We
don't give meaning, we discover it. The Word of God is written
on the Heart. The more the individual is in touch with this (conscious
or unconscious), the better our "choices" will be and
the happier they will make us. Happiness is the way we know we
are in touch with this.
[> I do not consider this
an honest test -- Celebaelin, 12:51:19 09/04/03 Thu
For what it's worth
1. Kant (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (89%)
3. Aquinas (88%)
4. Stoics (84%)
5. Aristotle (84%)
6. John Stuart Mill (78%)
7. Spinoza (73%)
8. Prescriptivism (70%)
9. Nietzsche (69%)
10. Jeremy Bentham (62%)
11. Epicureans (61%)
12. St. Augustine (59%)
13. Plato (54%)
14. David Hume (51%)
15. Ockham (50%)
16. Cynics (48%)
17. Jean-Paul Sartre (44%)
18. Nel Noddings (34%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (30%)
Even by the outlines of the 'click here for info' listings I don't
agree with Kant '100%' and the only item on the list that I'd
agree with Ayn Rand about is that we have free will (see also
KdS). How the blue bloody blazes did Nietzsche end up higher than
Bentham?
For Bentham look at
Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Jeremy Bentham
and
The UCL Bentham
Project
C
[> Interesting, I'm both
100% Aquinas and 100% Kant -- fresne, 13:17:28 09/04/03
Thu
1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. Kant (100%) Click here for info
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (93%) Click here for info
4. Spinoza (90%) Click here for info
5. John Stuart Mill (80%) Click here for info
6. St. Augustine (75%) Click here for info
7. Prescriptivism (73%) Click here for info
8. Aristotle (69%) Click here for info
9. Ayn Rand (68%) Click here for info
10. Jeremy Bentham (62%) Click here for info
11. Ockham (62%) Click here for info
12. Stoics (49%) Click here for info
13. Plato (46%) Click here for info
14. Nel Noddings (40%) Click here for info
15. Nietzsche (40%) Click here for info
16. Epicureans (38%) Click here for info
17. Cynics (20%) Click here for info
18. David Hume (18%) Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes (0%) Click here for info
Although, I could swear I've done this test before and gotten
different answers. Probably the level of caffeine in my philosophy.
[> [> you too, fresne?
At least I'm not alone :) -- celticross, 17:15:09 09/04/03
Thu
[> [> Thanks! - I just
want to let you know I'm keeping this one for posterity. --
OnM, 20:23:25 09/04/03 Thu
*** Although, I could swear I've done this test before and
gotten different answers. Probably the level of caffeine in my
philosophy. ***
[> [> [> Whoops! Dropped
tag! Attn: archivers, sorry! -- OnM, 20:25:42 09/04/03
Thu
[> I selected 'Doesn't matter/Dislike
all answer choices' for almost all of them. -- Finn Mac Cool,
15:03:09 09/04/03 Thu
I've given up trying to create my own moral philosophy for the
time being. I've found that, while I may believe something to
be right or wrong, my conscience doesn't necessarily obey. I may
do something I consider wrong but feel OK about it. Likewise,
I might do something I consider OK and feel bad. So my current
moral philosophy amounts to simply: I'm just gonna do what feels
right, whether or not it seems wrong from a concious perspective.
Any clue which philosopher this would fall under (really wasn't
offered as an option too much on the quiz)?
[> [> Psychological Hedonism
-- Celebaelin, 15:33:19 09/04/03 Thu
If 'feels right' equates with pleasure then it's Psychological
Hedonism you're describing and I think that's in line with John
Stuart Mill's conception of the nature of man (and Bentham's*)
but not I think in accordance with their moral philosophy.
* and Freud's
http://www.utilitarianism.com/psychohed.htm
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hedonism.htm
[> What a day I must have
had -- Ann, 15:29:36 09/04/03 Thu
The first time I did the test at work I got:
1. Spinoza (100%)
2. Kant (93%)
3. Aquinas (86%)
4. John Stuart Mill (80%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (65%)
6. Aristotle (61%)
7. Epicureans (60%)
8. Nel Noddings (60%)
9. Prescriptivism (60%)
10. St. Augustine (56%)
The second time I did it at home after work I got:
1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Kant (100%)
3. Aquinas (86%)
4. Spinoza (78%)
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%)
6. Epicureans (73%)
7. Prescriptivism (73%)
8. Ayn Rand (65%)
9. Jeremy Bentham (63%)
10. Nel Noddings (63%)
I'm not sure what the heck this means as I had a pretty good day
recruiting students to my program.
[> 100% Kant, 95% Spinoza
-- dub ;o), 18:03:17 09/04/03 Thu
I pity this Hobbes guy. He's at the bottom of the list for just
about all of us!
[> another Jean-Paul Sartre
- no shock, though. -- Sophie, 18:36:55 09/04/03 Thu
[> Aristotle, Kant and Aquinas
(100%, 100% and 98%, respectively) -- LadyStarlight, 18:59:20
09/04/03 Thu
Huh. May have to do some research later to figure out what this
actually means. ;)
[> What's with all the Kant?
-- ponygirl, 19:07:31 09/04/03 Thu
What does this all mean?
1. Kant (100%)
2. Aquinas (86%)
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (83%)
4. Ayn Rand (82%)
5. John Stuart Mill (81%)
6. Aristotle (79%)
7. Jeremy Bentham (73%)
8. Spinoza (67%)
9. Prescriptivism (62%)
10. Stoics (59%)
[> How fun! -- Eloise519,
21:21:11 09/04/03 Thu
Thanks, Sophist.
Sartre - 100%
Bentham - 100%
Kant - 90%
Rand - 87%
JS Mill - 87%
[> Aristotle and I must
be best buds! -- neaux, 05:04:14 09/05/03 Fri
Aristotle 100% Rock on baby!
[> [> Re: Existentialism:
C'est moi! -- Brian, 05:46:35 09/05/03 Fri
[> This is so humbling!
-- MaeveRigan, 08:36:47 09/05/03 Fri
And yet reassuring, in a way. I feel I'm in very good company:
1. St. Augustine (100%)
2. Aquinas (77%)
3. Spinoza (66%)
But also, a bit like Wayne & Garth--I'm not worthy!
[> [> me too -- mamcu,
10:22:32 09/05/03 Fri
I had the same philosophers--since this is so western-biased,
I guess St. A and Ac are stand-ins for Buddha & co, in my thinking,
if you can call it that.
[> How come no Eastern thinkers?
-- mamcu, 09:13:09 09/05/03 Fri
Or were Confucius, Buddha, Laozi, and all those others not worth
considering from a moral point of view?
[> I argue that the test
is biased, slanted, and proves nothing.. -- ZachsMind, 09:45:14
09/05/03 Fri
It was mildly fun, but the questions given and answers made available
did not cover every variation, so often I felt my opinion was
not properly notated in the quiz, and therefore see no validity
in the results. It's like asking the question "What color
is this orange?" and then giving very color under the rainbow
except the one which it is. Which is of course, purple.
Kant and I agreeing close to 100%?? HARDLY. This guy once pointed
out "Houses are black houses but black houses are not all
houses." Okay. So far I'm with him. Then he turns around
and says "reason is the final authority for morality."
If reason is moral authority than authority is moral reason...
i. e. Might Makes Right. NOT. BZZT! Sorry Kant but you're wrong.
NEXT!
I disagree with Aquinas on many points, although I do have a soft
spot in my heart for Aquinas, the poor misunderstood, short-sighted
little guy. I agree more with Aristotle, but not exclusively.
Nietzsche and I come to some similar conclusions: conventional
morality as dictated by society is a crutch, we do have free will
but I also believe there's predeterminism, we should be passionate
beings. but he comes to these conclusions because he believes
there is no god and I do because I know there is.
Basically all these guys were barking up a wrong tree when the
kitten was actually down the street on a rooftop.
I believe pleasure is something unrelated to morality or freedom
or any concept outside individual psyche. Some individuals find
pleasure in doing good, some in doing evil, but most find levels
of pleasure in both to varying degrees, depending upon a wide
array of criteria. There seems to be no legitimate consistency
among all human beings, or of any slice of humanity. Each individual
is wired differently.
So basically, I think all the gentlemen listed below are full
of crap. =)
1. Kant (100%)
2. Aquinas (97%) (The Ned Flanders of the great philosophers)
3. Aristotle (90%) (Ah crap bigger'n yew)
4. John Stuart Mill (88%) (boring)
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (86%) (hack)
6. Stoics (83%)
7. Spinoza (74%)
8. Nietzsche (67%)
9. St. Augustine (67%)
10. David Hume (62%)
11. Epicureans (62%)
12. Nel Noddings (62%)
13. Ockham (58%)
14. Jeremy Bentham (55%)
15. Cynics (41%) ( I AM a cynic by nature)
16. Plato (41%) (Plato rocked the casbah in his day.)
17. Ayn Rand (39%) (I understand her reasoning, but find it ultimately
far too idealistic to be feasible.)
18. Prescriptivism (39%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (20%) (and where might I ask is Calvin?)
[> Physically, I look nothing
like Mill...but if you're talking philosophical resemblance...
-- Random, 11:05:10 09/05/03 Fri
I have to say that my results are surprising and unsurprising.
I wonder how my Mill outdistanced every other one by a fair margin.
I am gratified to see the Epicurieans and Aquinas in the top five
along with Mill, Kant and Bentham (none of whom are particularly
surprising.) But, as such things go, this quiz is an amusing aside,
but not comprehensive enough or long enough to provide much real
insight or depth.
1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Epicureans (79%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (75%)
4. Kant (71%)
5. Aquinas (69%)
6. Spinoza (62%)
7. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%)
8. Aristotle (58%)
9. Nel Noddings (46%)
10. Prescriptivism (45%)
11. St. Augustine (37%)
12. Ockham (34%)
13. Stoics (31%)
14. Ayn Rand (30%)
15. Nietzsche (29%)
16. Cynics (27%)
17. David Hume (23%)
18. Plato (23%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (23%)
[> I matched Kant 100%
-- Q, 15:43:35 09/06/03 Sat
[> A question -- matching
mole, 15:15:33 09/07/03 Sun
After a couple of unsuccessful attempts I realized that my problem
was that I was conflating my personal morality (how I would live
my life) and global morality (how I, in my great vanity, think
the world should be ordered). The trouble is the two things are
kind of in conflict with one another. My ideal world is one in
which no one imposes their personal morality on another (influence
is OK but imposition is not). More on this below as I am curious,
as an ignorant scientist, if any philosophers actually think the
same way I do about how society should be ordered.
But first the results
When I re-did the test just using my own personal tendencies and
firmly putting 'dislike all choices' for any question that could
only be applied society-wide I matched the Epicureans 100% and
had 75-80% matches with a diverse bunch of others including Jeremy
Bentham, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, the Stoics, Spinoza,
and Aquinas. Sartre just missed the 75% cut-off. I suspect my
high correspondence with the Epicureans has more to do with my
personal prediliction for the simple life than any particular
moral precept I might have.
On a societal level I think a moral society is one in which freedom
and responsibility are in balance. I define freedom very broadly
as the ability to take action, thus including economic and social
factors within the definition as well as legal and political forces.
The wealthy are inherently more free than the poor because they
have a wider scope of possible actions. Individuals with more
freedom have a greater impact on the situations of others (e.g.
a factory owner is free to close down his factory which has a
great impact on the workers). Therefore individuals with more
freedom should also have a greater responsibility for the overall
welfare of society (and not just in economic terms although I
used an economic example). Individuals should be free to pursue
their individual morality with the responsiblity to avoid unduly
infringing on the morality of others.
Does this sound similar to the ideas of any real philosophers
(rather than a pretend philosopher like myself)?
[> [> Re: A question
-- Sophist, 19:29:04 09/07/03 Sun
I'm not sure I can answer your question without giving a history
of philosopy. I'll try to give the Cliff Notes version at the
risk of accuracy.
Aristotle and Plato both said that being a good man means, in
essence, being a good citizen. A good citizen in an aristocracy
would behave differently than a good citizen in a democracy. Man
can achieve moral perfection only in the perfect polis (city).
Christianity had divergent trends. No person can be morally perfect.
The issue was how best to carry out divine will. Some believed
that the highest moral excellence could only come about through
individual asceticism and prayer away from the corrupting influence
of society, but in obedience to divine law. Others (similar to
the Greeks) that proper behavior in social roles, combined with
obedience to divine law, was best.
Both Greeks and Christians before, say, 1700, would reject your
basic premise and say that morality must be imposed on the individual
from outside (either by the polis or by divine law). Since in
both cases the "true" morality was known, there was
no problem in enforcing it on you.
Only with the Enlightenment do philosophers begin to move toward
your view that one person should not impose moral behavior on
another. Even then there are limits -- no one argues that society
can't enforce laws against conduct that harms others (as you noted
in your penultimate sentence).
Therefore individuals with more freedom should also have a
greater responsibility for the overall welfare of society (and
not just in economic terms although I used an economic example).
This was nearly universally accepted as true prior to 1800 at
least. I can give you quotes to that effect from most of the Founders.
Only in the last 200 years have some suggested differently. The
Catholic Church, at least, still adheres to this view today.
[> huh--the page isn't working
for me, but it doesn't matter... -- anom, 22:00:21 09/07/03
Sun
...because I couldn't fill it out even if I could fill it out.
Um, what I mean is, the page loaded w/no checkboxes or other way
to enter my choices, but most of my answers fell somewhere in
between the ones offered anyway. Or I consider >1 of the choices
to be true (for the last q., I think any of them could
describe a virtuous person, but I wouldn't say it doesn't matter).
Well, that's why I have so much trouble w/questionnaires.
[> [> i tried again--it
worked this time, but... -- anom, 23:18:40 09/08/03 Mon
...I didn't match anyone! I got all 0's! I didn't even know that
was possible!
OK, I answered "doesn't matter/dislike all choices"
for the majority of the questions. But I managed to choose specific
answers for 5 of them. Maybe it was that I didn't choose any
answer for the last q. As I said above, I think any of the descriptions
could fit a virtuous person. I wanted to answer "All of the
above," but that option wasn't given. I couldn't choose "doesn't
matter," because it does--in fact, I chose "High"
as the value I put on my (non)-answer.
So. Guess I'm just not philosophical. Or maybe this means I should
found my own philosophy? Probably not--one of the main reasons
I couldn't choose answers is that I don't like to generalize,
esp. about how people should live or who's "virtuous."
True, some of the q's. had answer choices that took that into
account, & I think those were the q's. where I answered something
other than "doesn't matter/dislike choices."
Strange that I answered to a large extent the way Finn did...but
for different reasons. Running true to form here....
following
on OnM's movie thread(just missed) - solaris spoilers -- MsGiles,
09:38:08 09/04/03 Thu
Coen brothers: haven't seen Blood Simple, but will do when I get
the chance. Saw The Big Lebowski a while back, thought it really
funny and quirky. Then Oh Brother Where Art Thou. Found this watchable,
but I didn't like it quite as much. I thought the Clooney character
a bit over-egged (that phrase has been in the news a lot lately.
Seems where war is concerned, you can't make an omelette without
breaking too many eggs..), and the story a bit fluffy. Lebowski
had that sharp edge of danger lurking behind the slapstick, making
me just that bit scared for the antiheroes, and making the humour
more edgy. Brother was self-consciously a 'romp', and I just didn't
get that drawn in, in spite of big George looking (and acting)
a lot like Clark Gable (G.C. .. C.G. .. hmmm)
And then we go on to Tarkovsky and Lem. Thanks for mentioning
Solaris again! With Soderburg's effort, there's a nice little
trilogy of treatments here, each taking a different slant, each
mining something different, or maybe assembling something different
from the raw materials, like a sort of literary scrap-heap challege.
Each seeing their own preoccupations in the basic story assembled
by Lem: the story of a scientist finding his personal life irresistibly
intruding into his researches.
miner for a heart of gold
After seeing the Soderburgh film, I re-read Lem's story. I was
surprised how much my memory of it had been usurped by the Tarkovsky
version. Lem was interested in the intellectual and philosophical
rather than the emotional ramifications of his idea, the conflict
between objective science and subjective experience, as filtered
through the observations of the psychologist Kelvin. Much of the
book deals with 'research' into the Solaris phenomenon, and the
scientists' attempts to understand it, and in that respect it
relates more to traditional science fiction than either film.
There's a lot of satirical speculation, phrased as researchers
theories about the sentience or otherwise of Solaris itself, and
the reasons for its many manifestations, which Kelvin reads about
in the station's library. Lem uses the planet Solaris to pose
the question: if we ever encountered truly alien intelligence,
how would we recognise it as intelligence? How communicate? Why
do we expect alien life to be similar to ourselves? He emphasises
the question by making his alien intelligence as un-humanoid and
as incomprehensible as he can. Is it even intelligent, in any
sense that we can understand? It's an issue often approached in
SF, with varying degrees of success - perhaps the sea on the planet
'Solaris' is the equivalent of the 'super-intelligent shades of
the colour blue' satirised (lovingly) by Douglas Adams.
'Physician, heal thyself!'
But Lem does not stop here, and it is no accident that he has
made his hero a psychologist, rather than a xenobiologist, a geologist,
a chemist. Kelvin has come to Solaris to try and understand, not
the alien entity itself, but its effect on the humans studying
it. By the end, it is himself he is trying to understand, having
seen too far into his own heart. The question of how to understand
the alien is submerged in the scientists' inability to understand
themselves. It is this level of the Lem story that has attracted
Tarkovsky and Soderburgh to create the two film versions.
Tarkovsky's Solaris, like 'Stalker' and 'Nostalgia', uses the
plot as a way of musing on his obsessions: the nature of memory,
the lost past, the hearts desire, life's mistakes, the possibility
of redemption or retrieval. It combines the ache of loss with
an sense of unfinished business, unresolved anxiety. His Kelvin
is also a rationalist, but he seems emotionally disconnected from
the world around him, a feeling emphasised by the long long sequence
spent driving throught the city, near the start of the film. The
leaving of earth for the Solaris research station (although cut
back cinematically for financial reasons) seems like just another
level of loss, of leaving. The station itself is reminiscent of
the ship in 'Alien': like the Nostromo, it is claustrophobic and
slightly run-down, with corridors and cell-like living spaces
which at first seem to barely hold at bay the horrors which are
then found to be inhabiting them, locked in with the imprisoned
humans.
In this version, it seems the scientists crewing the space station
are being driven mad by being confonted inescapably with their
own repressed desires. It's rather like HonorH's transposition
of slashfic to the holodeck, gone horribly out of control. Kelvin's
overriding sense of guilt, of loss, is associated with his wife
Hari (or Rheya), whose death he feels responsible for. However,
as we flash back on his life, it is his childhood, and his relationship
with his parents, that seems to underly his sense of detachment
from the world, the disconnection that ruined his relationship
with Hari in the first place.
is Solaris God?
I was a bit dubious about the Soderburgh Solaris. Not that I don't
like Clooney, but I couldn't see him doing Tarkovsky's buttoned-down
angst. In the end the film has interest and credibility, and it
has significant differences to the Tarkovsky take.
Predicably, the romantic element of the film, and specifically,
Kelvin's relationship with Rheya, is played up, and we lose any
sense that problems with their marriage might be linked to his
childhood. The flash-back structure is still there, but Kelvin
has become a successful, work-driven, egotistical rationalist,
while she is emotional, mystical, religious and volatile. Although
the film portrays a credible relationship between a driven man
and an emotionally fragile woman, it treads perilously close to
stereotypes here. Kelvin is fascinated by Rheya's mysterious and
exotic appearance, but once they are married he dismisses her,
persists in belittling her religious beliefs, humiliates her in
public. Competes with her, instead of co-operating. When she dies,
she gives him a hollow victory. When she returns, in the station,
he has to deal with his scientific disbelief, his fear of madness,
and his desire to resume their love affair.
This is not the only level on which the film operates, and this
is what lifts it above Clooney fan-fodder. Woven in with Kelvin's
rediscovery of his desire, guilt and doubt about Rheya, is a discussion
of identity. How to deal with the Solaris creations? Are the 'holodeck'
Rheyas real people? They seem to draw their appearance and memories
from Kelvin's perception of the original Rheya, but the longer
they exist, the more independant self-awareness they have. The
script emphasises this theme with the character Snow. He is an
annoying young techhead in this version - but is he also an alien
construct? or is he a person in his own right, regardless of his
origins? If they succeed in permanently removing the people that
Solaris seems to be summoning from their subconscious, what are
they in fact destroying? Symptoms of their own guilt? Efforts
of some alien intelligence to communicate? Or some potential that
they can't yet understand?
endings
There are subtle differences between the endings of each version,
differences that give clues as to the motivations behind the different
interpretations. Lem has Kelvin sinking towards the surface of
the alien planet in a spirit of personal reconciliation. What
he sees on the surface below him is unclear. He is giving himself
up to the unknown, but while he is lowering the rational, analytical
barriers that have enabled him to keep a distance from his own
emotions, he does not know what he is moving towards. Solaris
remains incomprehensible, its motives, its nature still a mystery.
The only resolution that Kelvin has achieved is within himself.
The conclusion of Tarkovsky's film also offers a kind of healing,
but there is a more strongly implied religious element. Kelvin
gives himself up to the planet, and finds himself returning to
his parent's home. he kneels, and his father stands in the doorway,
placing a hand on his head to form a very iconic image of forgiveness.
We pull back, to see that the house and its surroundings are isolated
in the storm-like turbulence of the planet. Has Kelvin effectively
created his own resolution, a hallucination to console himself,
or is Solaris God, able to offer absolution? Maybe for Tarkovsky
the important thing is the need, the yearning, rather than the
answer. There is no clear answer, but neither is there dispair.
The conclusion of the Soderburgh film is the most overtly religious,
and I personally feel this spoils the film a little, by closing
off some of the avenues of interpretation. Rheya is the exponent
of religion, Kelvin its rational opponent, in this film. As they
fall towards the planet's surface, and the space station breaks
up, he finds himself able to take the hand offered him by the
intelligence, in the form of a child. He finds himself with Rheya,
able to be forgiven and redeemed.
Apologies for inaccuracies and bad assumptions. My memory is
rubbish, and i haven't been able to check everything
[> Likewise following on
-- KdS, 12:45:37 09/04/03 Thu
(Crossposted from my LJ)
Given that rock music started out as the music of youth, we're
only just getting to the time when rock stars are having to confront
old age and natural death. (This fact has been used by some cretins
to suggest to other cretins who don't understand statistics that
all rock stars are struck down in their youth by the judgement
of God, forgetting all the rock stars who just haven't had time
to die of old age yet.) Therefore, there's been relatively little
rock music made by people who know they are liable to die fairly
soon, the album or single as farewell and autoepitaph. I'm ignoring
the rather better represented and less honourable tradition of
the rock album as suicide note, largely because while music made
by the clinically despairing may be aesthetically pleasing, close
study of the lyrics should be made with extreme caution.
When one discards the music made by people who wanted or felt
they needed to die before their natural time, one finds a remarkable
absence of the sort of lyric that gets quoted at the beginning
of fics in which an entire canon die tragically. For example,
if one takes Queen's final two singles, which were released before
Freddy Mercury's terminal illness had been publicly reported but
whose import is impossible to miss with hindsight, one finds blazing
defiance in "The Show Must Go On". In "I'm Going
Slightly Mad" one sees a wry, brittle amusement that may
strike some in today's emotions-on-sleeve world as unhealthy,
but would have been regarded in certain circles a century of fifty
years ago as the finest way to react.
When the individual reported to be terminally ill is one of the
finest and most under-rewarded rock lyricists of the last thirty
years, one approaches what will probably prove to be his final
album with some trepidation. One feels uncomfortable about judging
work produced in such circumstances, but at the same time one
hopes that it will provide rewards above morbid curiosity. In
the case of Warren Zevon's "The Wind", my highest hopes
were rewarded.
Zevon's lyrics have always tended to the morbid, the blackly humorous,
and the damaged-but-struggling. His previous album, "My Ride's
Here", according to all sources recorded before his diagnosis,
concluded with two excellent tracks whose valedictory air was
so pronounced that one has to suspect some subconscious awareness
of what was brewing in his lungs. "The Wind" is a similar
assortment of rock numbers and ballads, but here every track is
either explicitly or implicitly touched by approaching doom to
some degree. Yet the album never approaches despair. Covering
Bob Dylan's "Knocking on Heaven's Door" might be considered
over-the-top (especially the moans of "open up, open up"
at the end), but one can hardly expect good taste from the author
of "Excitable Boy" and at least it reclaims the song
from the appalling Axl Rose who last recorded it.
It takes a genuine talent to write lines as convincingly unflattering
to oneself, and not self-consciously gloomy as
Gets a little lonely folks you know what I mean
I'm looking for a woman with low self-esteem
To lay me out and ease my worried mind
But the core of the album are four utterly simple and beautiful
ballds which reveal, or give the impression of revealing, more
than ever before: "She's Too Good To Me", El Amor de
mi Vida", "Please Stay" and the ultimate farewell
"Keep Me in Your Heart". Given our joint fandom, you
can't blame me for relating certain fictional pairings to these
lines from "She's Too Good for Me"
I want her to be happy
I want her to be free
I want her to be everything she couldn't be with me
I'd wait here for a thousand years if she'd come back to me
I have everything she wants but nothing that she needs
But what really reassures me about the man's greatness is that
repeated line "Keep me in your heart for a while". Note
that "for a while". Not forever. Not until you die.
Just as long as you need to and until you move on. I hope when
my time comes I'll be as generous as that.
[> [> Wow! Now that was
something... -- OnM, 20:48:58 09/04/03 Thu
... and quite wonderful it was!
I'd like to respond at greater length, but my time zone's pretty
late in the PM at the mo.
For now, thanks to both of you for your thoughts!
:-) :-)
[> [> Echoing the praise
for KdS and MsGiles! -- ponygirl, 08:14:33 09/05/03 Fri
I had the best response a reviewer could hope for - I want to
re-watch Solaris and buy the Zevon CD.
KdS your last paragraph just slid in like a knife. And I mean
that in the best bittersweet way. Lovely.
[> Please see Wow! --->
(for you too, Ms Giles) ^ -- OnM, 20:51:58 09/04/03 Thu
[> Wow, indeed! Wonderful
essays on Solaris and Zevon, MsGiles and Kds!! -- shadowkat,
21:07:32 09/04/03 Thu
I haven't seen Solaris, but after reading Ms. Giles essay, I want
to. And I'm not overly familar with Zevon, but now I'm curious.
Good reads!
[> Thanks for kind words.
I've sent you an email, OnM -- MsGiles, 07:10:23 09/05/03
Fri
Cross & Holy
Water -- Claudia, 12:03:31 09/04/03 Thu
According to Jossverse, the first organized attempt to battle
vampires and demons occurred in Sumeria (right?). Yet, all we
have seen Buffy and her gang use Christian symbols like a cross
and holy water. Of course, naturally they would use these symbols,
living in the Western Hemisphere of the world.
But I wonder, can other religious symbols be used in Jossverse,
as a deterent against vampires? Like the Star of David? Or a Dancing
Shiva, or the Crescent Moon & Star?
[> Nope -- Darby, 12:20:35
09/04/03 Thu
Joss has said that he felt that they needed some of the "classic"
vampire mythology on the show, to make it accessible from the
start, and that's where the Christian Imagery comes from. It's
up to all of us to invent our own little backstories to explain
it, but Joss, typically, doesn't seem to really care if it's logical
or not, as long as it can be used metaphorically.
[> Re: Cross & Holy Water
-- Gyrus, 12:22:40 09/04/03 Thu
Joss has mentioned in interviews that there is a particular enmity
between vampires and Christianity that renders vampires vulnerable
to crosses and holy water (though, AFAIK, he hasn't explained
what that history is). So no, I don't think other symbols would
do the same job.
Of course, the real reason that crosses and holy water work on
BTVS is that they work in all the old movies, and Joss wanted
to use a lot of old-movie conventions on the show.
[> [> Re: Cross & Holy
Water -- Jean, 08:09:35 09/05/03 Fri
The cross is actually a pre-christian symbol of an eastern hemisphere
sun god. So think Sun god vampires....Just think
[> In addition... --
KdS, 12:51:36 09/04/03 Thu
Joss has publicly said that he deliberately avoided examining
the question of whether non-Christian religious symbols would
damage vamps because of the potential for offense whichever way
he went.
Pity, because I was very amused by the Doctor Who story
in which a devoutly committed Communist repelled a vamp with his
red star cap badge.
[> [> Re: In addition...
-- Claudia, 13:24:59 09/04/03 Thu
So, by having the First Slayer come from Sumeria, Whedon was basically
setting himself up to contradict himself. Hmm, not very smart.
[> [> [> Where are
you getting Sumeria from? -- ponygirl, 14:07:25 09/04/03
Thu
Since the Shadowmen were speaking Swahili that would suggest that
they were in central or eastern Africa.
[> [> [> [> Don't
Blame Me -- Claudia, 09:40:14 09/05/03 Fri
"Where are you getting Sumeria from? Since the Shadowmen
were speaking Swahili that would suggest that they were in central
or eastern Africa."
Don't blame me. Blame the writers of "Get It Done".
Dawn was trying to translate some Sumerian book. And since it
came from the Slayer's bag - which originated with the First Slayer,
I only made assumptions.
[> [> [> [> [>
Sumeria was in Southern Iraq -- Darby, 10:00:24 09/06/03
Sat
See at
http://ragz-international.com/Sumer-Akkad.jpg
[> [> [> [> [>
I think you're making a couple of assumptions here . . .
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:12:15 09/06/03 Sat
First, that the book Dawn was translating was written by the Shadowmen.
It could very well have been written at some later date, or it
might be a translation of an earlier book.
Second, that the First Slayer possessed the bag. What makes you
think that she did? After all, the fact that all the Slayers between
Nikki and Buffy didn't have it show that having the bag isn't
essential to Slayerdom, but just a nice bonus. For all we know,
it was created sometime in the Middle Ages, or it started out
as one Slayer's personal weapons bag, her Watcher gave it to the
next Slayer, and it gathered more stuff as time passed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> do we have a time frame for the shadow men? -- tam,
22:58:36 09/06/03 Sat
when was the first slayer activated? i am sure it was indicated
in the show, but i canna remember
[> [> [> Re: not very
smart -- Robert, 16:32:52 09/04/03 Thu
Isn't this a little harsh? When he produced season one, he had
no idea that there would be a season two, much less than a season
seven. With such a long running show, errors were inevitable.
For internal continuity, the best example would be Babylon
5, but J. Michael Straczynski wrote a complete five-year story
arc before beginning production on the first episode. This almost
resulted in travesty since the show was sold to TNT after its
fourth year, where its was subsequently ruined. One only needs
to look at what FOX Network did to Firefly to realize the
a multi-year story arc is very risky in the current television
environment.
Personally, I believe that Joss Whedon did the very best job imaginable
given the environment in which he worked, and he did it brilliantly.
The lack of perfection is merely an indication that he isn't God.
[> [> Re: In addition...
-- Rook, 13:47:26 09/04/03 Thu
How does TFS coming from sumeria contradict Christian symbols
having an effect on vamps?
TFS didn't use Christian symbols, Buffy does. If the symbols were
developed at a later time, but somehow imbued to have an effect
on vampires, it makes perfect sense.
After all, TFS didn't have access to a crossbow...so is the fact
that Buffy uses a crossbow some kind of contradiction?
[> Enigmatic Atheist
-- Nino, 15:01:07
09/04/03 Thu
It's not even ALL Christian imagery. In "CWDP" the vamp
in the graveyard easily picked up a statue of the Virgin Mary
to hit Buffy with, so even Christian imagery is limited to crosses
and holy water.
Also, in "Passion" (i'm pretty sure) Willow hangs up
a cross to ward off vamps, noting that her Jewish father would
not be pleased. If a Star of David were equally effective, you
would think that this route would have been taken in the circumstance.
Joss has said that these things work because people put faith
in them...he even said that it was possible that at some point
in history a priest may have worked some mojo that made crosses
and holy water effective....I think we just have to suspend our
disbelief and say that Joss had to pick which methods from common
mythology would be effective to hurt vamps, and which wouldn't....and
for whatever reason, the enigmatic atheist chose some traditional
Christian symbols.
[> [> Did I Say - ALL?
-- Claudia, 09:43:01 09/05/03 Fri
"It's not even ALL Christian imagery. In "CWDP"
the vamp in the graveyard easily picked up a statue of the Virgin
Mary to hit Buffy with, so even Christian imagery is limited to
crosses and holy water."
Did I say ALL Christian imagery? Or did I only point out the cross
and the Holy Water?
[> [> [> Wow...simmer
down -- Nino,
10:11:06 09/05/03 Fri
I was just making an observation that Joss chose not to use all
Christian imagery and siting an example...i wasn't putting words
in your mouth or attacking your post...I don't quite see how my
words seemed offensive, but you seem quick to try and get in an
online feud with me for some reason, unbeknownst to me, so maybe
I should just stop replying to your posts...I just thought you
brought up an interesting topic and wanted to join in the discussion,
but apparently I am not welcome...
[> Holy Water isn't only
Christian -- tam, 21:40:02 09/04/03 Thu
this made me curious -- water is considered essential to life
-- we (humans/earthlings/whatever) even say life cannot exist
on this planet or that planet because there is no water, we assume
that all life needs water, that all living things require what
earth's living things require -- anyhow -- so i looked on the
internet to see what other faiths say about water
From www.newadvent.org/cathen The Pontifical of Scrapion of Thumis,
a fourth-century bishop, and likewise the "testamentum Domini",
a Syriac composition dating from the fifth to the sixth century,
contain a blessing of oil and water during Mass. The formula in
Scrapion's Pontifical is as follows: "We bless these creatures
in the Name of Jesus Christ, Thy only Son; we invoke upon this
water and this oil the Name of Him Who suffered, Who was crucified,
Who arose from the dead, and Who sits at the right of the Uncreated.
Grant unto these creatures the power to heal; may all fevers,
every evil spirit, and all maladies be put to flight by him who
either drinks these beverages or is anointed with them, and may
they be a remedy in the Name of Jesus Christ, Thy only Son."
From www.ghen.net/hindufaq Several Hindu rituals are related to
water. Abhishekha or "Sprinkling (bath) ablution," for
example, is bathing the deity with holy water - BATH. Water from
Vessel is used to give bath to the idol of God. It is done like
a steady current trickle of water, just like our love for God
(Bhakti) should be like a stead unbroken stream towards God. Five
Ingredients (Panchamruta) are mixed and offered also as a bath
liquid. These are SATVIC (good, healthy and harmless items) ingredients
like Milk, Honey, Ghee, Yogurt and Sugar. It symbolizes that pure
thoughts are offered. Devotee's mind should contain only pure
thoughts towards God.
WATER Offerings ( Padya, Arghya and Achamana) : This ritual is
compared with washing of the hands and feet and also water in
his mouth. Devotee (Puja performer) also is reminded to come "clean"
before God and satisfy his thirst first. This body and mind preparing
ritual is necessary for further relationship. The water used in
this ritual - tirtha is then offered as prasad.
Most pilgrimage sites are either water bodies or have a lake or
pond where the devotees take a purifying dip. Because water washes
away physical dirt, Hindus give it symbolic value as a cleanser
of souls. Taking a dip in the holy water of river Ganga and other
auspecious rivers purifies the body and washes away the sin.
The following on BUDDHISM, HINDUISM, ISLAM and JUDAISM are all
from http://www.tthews.de/html/water/content.htm#holy
BUDDHISM
For Buddhist symbolism and ritual is pointless they see spiritual
enlightenment that comes from seeing the reality of unreality.
Bodhidharma, thought to be the first teacher of Zen Buddhism said
in the 5th century:
"This mind is the Buddha. I don't talk about precepts, devotions
or ascetic practices such as immersing yourself in water and fire
treading a wheel of knives, eating one meal a day, or never lying
down. These are fanatical, provisional teachings. Once you recognise
your moving, miraculously aware nature, yours is the mind of all
buddhas."
Water does however feature in Buddhist funerals where water is
poured into a bowl placed before the monks and body. As it fills
and pours over the edge, overflow into the ocean, so likewise
may what is given here reach departed.
HINDUISM
All holy places in India are characterized by the presence of
water. The rivers are considered as preferential residences of
the Holy One. The probably most well known Indian river is the
Ganges.
At its end is the city Varanasi, which is considered the holiest
place of India .The Ganges personifies Goddess Ganga. It stands
for growth, abundance and fertility. Its water is filled, into
small containers, sent away and used even in more distant regions
and for religious ceremonies: the endless cycle of the reincarnation
by water.
ISLAM
In the Islam water embodies among other things fertility. Water,
lives and vegetation have to fight against dryness, death and
desert. In the Islamic paradise the refreshing water takes a central
role. The Koran describes the garden, in which the cool, pure
water flows, as the perfect fulfilment.
For a Muslim water represents the perfect example of purity. And
for the Mystics it is a symbol of the largest ecstasy and a metaphor
for highest spirituality.
Before entering the mosque, before each prayer and before reading
the Koran. The Muslims undergo a ritual cleaning. This has to
be done with running water. So called "small washing"
is made every day before five prayers. Hands, lower arms, the
face and feet as well as a quarter of the head are washed. The
"large washing" is only possible in an Islamic bath
and also be done under running water.
JUDAISM
In the Hebrew Bible water appears in two characteristics: creative
and destructive; most impressively is the narration of the Flood
(1. Mose, 6 ff). Water plays also an important role in the life
of Moses. As child he was rescued out of the Nil river. The name
Mose means translated "The Pulled Out" (2. Mose 2, 1-10).
Ritual washings are already describted in 2. Mose: Aaron and his
sons have to wash hands and feet by themselves, before they are
allowed to step forward to the altar. The miracle of source (4.
Mose 20, 7-11) tells, how Mose strikes water out of a rock, so
that people and animals can survive on their way to Israel.
[> [> more on water in
judaism -- anom, w/my 1st footnotes!, 23:20:47 09/04/03
Thu
Water is used for its symbolic cleansing properties not just by
priests but by regular people. Cleansing from anything that makes
a person "unclean"--leprosy, contact w/a dead body,
having a discharge (incl. of semen or menstrual blood), etc.--is
concluded by immersion in water (many, many places in the Torah,
once the law-giving starts). Orthodox & some Conservative Jews
still bathe in the mikveh* (pool/gathering of waters) for
purification.
There was also a ritual to be used when a husband suspected his
wife of unfaithfulness but had no evidence. Water from the laver
(washstand) near the sacrificial altar** was taken & mixed w/dust
from the floor of the Tabernacle, & then curses written on a scroll
were blotted out in the water. The woman had to drink this water,
& if her husband's accusation was true, it would bring the curses
on the woman (making her belly swell & her thigh "fall away,"
so she'll "be a curse among her people"); if not, she'll
"conceive seed" (i.e., get pregnant), possibly as a
reward for her faithfulness & compensation for her husband's jealousy.
He, on the other hand, pays no penalty for his false accusation
(Numbers 11-31).
tam, I don't recognize your scriptural citations (like "(2.
Mose 2, 1-10)"). What book(s) are these from?
-----------------
*This word is first used in the Creation story, when the waters
under the heavens are separated & gathered into the seas.
**I was surprised to see this translated as "holy water."
But its holiness seems to come from its association w/the sacrifices;
no ritual is performed or formula said over it to make it holy,
although the priest does recite words over the already holy water
to make it the "water that causes the curse." I don't
know of any ritual to render water holy in Judaism.
[> [> [> Re: more
on water in judaism -- tam, 23:40:28 09/04/03 Thu
copied from the internet -- internet addresses are given before
each paragraph - t
[> [> [> [> The
numbering corresponds to the Torah/Pentateuch -- d'Herblay,
00:22:21 09/05/03 Fri
1. Mose, 6 is Genesis, chapters 6-8; 2. Mose 2, 1-10 is Ex. 2:1-10;
etc.
[> [> [> [> [>
thanks--haven't seen that system before -- anom, 08:01:46
09/05/03 Fri
[> [> [> & again w/the
water (still not holy, though) -- anom, 11:43:42 09/05/03
Fri
The service on Sh'mini Atzeres (at the end of Sukkos) includes
extended prayers for rain during Israel's rainy season. Part of
these is a poem asking God to send water, "for a blessing,
not for a curse; for life, not for death; for abundance, not for
famine," in the names of a series of Jewish leaders from
the Torah (& maybe beyond; I can let you know in a couple of months!).
Each verse names 3 times water was significant in the life of
the leader. The verse for Moses uses both of the incidents tam
mentions plus his giving water to the sheep he herded (not, surprisingly,
the splitting of the Red Sea waters). In more recent times, verses
for women in Scripture have been added.
[> [> Re: Holy Water
isn't only Christian - Other Religions? -- Claudia, 09:49:22
09/05/03 Fri
How does "holy water" relate to religions other than
the most widely known ones?
[> [> [> There is
a ritual -- Celebaelin, 08:23:45 09/06/03 Sat
Originally the Druid would stand next to a stream by a rock with
a concave upper surface (by design or accident) with a shallow
bowl full of water and the assembled tribe around him. At the
moment chosen by the druid he would fling the water in the bowl
he held into the concave surface of the rock and 'instantly',
or at least soon, there would be a clap of thunder.
How much trust was placed in the druid would depend on, amongst
other things, how convincing he was with this ritual. It makes
my hair stand on end just thinking about it. The word caledfwlch
is a name for Excalibur, in Welsh caledwch means 'a hardness or
a hard lump', as we know Excalibur was associated with the Lady
of the Lake both in its' origins and its' final destination.
It has been often said that caledfwlch is a word for lightning
however I am assured that the mellt means lightning and taranau
means thunder - hence mellt a thranau for thunder and lightning.
Donner unt blitzen!
C
[> The Cross existed before
Christianity -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:23:22 09/06/03 Sat
It became a symbol because Jesus was crucified on one, but Jesus
was hardly the first case of crucifiction. I know at least the
Romans had been doing it for a while. So, what if crosses always
repelled vampires, and that's why Romans crucified people on them:
keep them from coming back as the undead?
As for a holy water, it must be blessed before it becomes holy.
It could be argued that, within the Buffyverse, this constitutes
a spell, making the water enchanted against vampires.
Gunn vs Joyce
-- JBone,
20:10:03 09/04/03 Thu
vote
here
http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html
I won't have results up until tomorrow. I'm distracted by football.
Post comments here, at Showtime, or email me.
[> Re: Gunn vs Joyce
-- Celebaelin, 20:25:26 09/04/03 Thu
Me first! I vote Joyce purely (if that's the right word) on the
basis of teenage sexual favours. There's no way I can vote against
anyone who would, in less self conscious mood, let Ripper slip
her a length on the hood of a police car, twice. "Rip it
in half and put it in bed with me" you said it Joyce.
[> [> Such a nice young
man -- cjl, 21:32:21 09/04/03 Thu
[Scene: the Summers kitchen, daytime. Gunn is in the seat of honor
at the kitchen table, inhaling some of Joyce's primo oatmeal cookies,
and washing it down with some nice, wholesome milk. Joyce is sitting
at the edge of the table, observing Gunn with a combination of
maternal affection and subconscious lust.]
JOYCE: Well?
GUNN (mouth full): They're great.
JOYCE: I didn't use too much sugar, did I?
GUNN: No, they're perfect.
JOYCE: Thank you..."Charles," is it?
GUNN: That's right, ma'am.
JOYCE: "Ma'am." So polite. You can't find a young man
with manners these days. And even if you do, the girls simply
don't appreciate them.
GUNN: Pardon me?
JOYCE: Never mind. I have to learn that I can't tell my daughters
who they can date. [Pause.] You're single, aren't you, Charles?
GUNN: Yeah. But I don't know if I can handle dating a Slayer.
Maybe I should stay clear of women "in the business"
for a while.
JOYCE: I understand. [Gunn starts to sway in his seat.] Charles,
are you all right?
GUNN: Don't know. Feel a little dizzy. [Realization:] Aw--Mrs.
Summers, you didn't drug the milk, did you?
JOYCE (smiling): Sleeping powder. Don't worry. You'll only be
out for an hour or two.
GUNN: Damn. I'm never gonna hear the end of this back in the office.
[Pitches face first into the cookie dish.]
JOYCE: Such a nice young man. [Drapes a blanket over Gunn's shoulders.]
And a lawyer, too. But my beautiful daughter doesn't seem to appreciate
anything with a pulse...
[> [> [> <g>
no kidding -- Rufus, 21:57:27 09/04/03 Thu
[> [> [> i dunno...don't
remember joyce sounding quite so much like a jewish mother!
-- anom, 11:22:07 09/05/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> There's
no way on Earth I was gonna pass up the lawyer joke. -- cjl,
12:16:10 09/05/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
well, yeah...for that it was worth it! -- anom, 20:07:42
09/07/03 Sun
[> Re: Gunn vs Joyce
-- Apophis, 21:19:36 09/04/03 Thu
Even though I think Joyce will win on the sympathy vote, I'm siding
with Gunn. First, because I'm a Gunn mark, but also because he
could easily take Joyce in a hand-to-hand fight. Sometimes, at
night, I imagine Gunn beating up a middle-aged woman and I giggle
until the doctors come and make me sleep. This is indeed a disturbing
universe.
[> I'm sticking with the
trend to favor men with little or no hair....;) -- Rufus,
21:59:12 09/04/03 Thu
Now if it were between Gunn and Wood I'd have a bit of a problem....but
then there is time-sharing...:):):):)
[> Going against my general
style here... -- Tchaikovsky, 01:21:11 09/05/03 Fri
I've been trying not to undersupport Angel characters, but here
I'm afraid I have to go with Joyce. I'm so fond of her interactions
with Buffy. Her lines in 'Prophecy Girl' and 'Innocence' still
always make me cry.
TCH
[> Joyce has the axe, but
Gunn never gives up, never surrenders. -- Arethusa, 06:48:40
09/05/03 Fri
[> Joyce, of course
-- MaeveRigan, 08:46:24 09/05/03 Fri
Gunn doesn't fight people's mothers who aren't evil. What are
we thinking here? His mama taught him better than that. Now, if
Joyce were a vampire, we'd be talking a battle, and Gunn
would win, but as it is, it's cocoa with little marshmallows again,
and some of those cookies cjl mentioned. Joyce doesn't need drugs,
just mother-love. Stop grinning like that and wash your mind out
with soap!
[> results are up --
Jay, 21:11:33 09/05/03 Fri
here
and here
'Buffy the
Movie' Revisited -- Darby, 20:52:54 09/05/03 Fri
The last time I watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer - The Movie
was...well, I don't really remember how long ago it was, but it
was before I became a devotee of the tv version. I remember thinking
of it as a "cute" movie, and an idea with maybe some
potential, but flawed.
In preparation for the revisit, I obtained The Origin,
a Dark Horse comic based both on the tv show and "adapted
from the original screenplay," by Christopher Golden (best
known as a Buffy novelist, right?) and Daniel Brereton.
It had been so long since I had seen the movie that I hardly recognized
it, but now I see that they really had access to the original,
which I would love to read. Interestingly, the comic suffers from
some of the shortcomings of the movie, and it really helped me
see that the movie the world got was the movie on the page, even
if it wasn't the movie in Joss' head.
From many interviews, on the rare instances when Joss has commented
on his movies, the main problem he has seen is actors and directors
who don't "get it" and can't deliver the dialogue properly.
And that has been true, when the people trying to handle the script
make the wrong assumptions. Joss got spoiled - when your words
go through John Goodman, or Keanu Reeves and Jeff Daniels, or
Tom Hanks, they're going to sound right. At this point
in time, though, I submit that Joss was not fully able to see
how his words would filter through folks not quite as full of
ironic wit. When we read Joss Whedon scripts, we all have an experience
of how it should sound, presented by gifted actors who
from the beginning have had the writer whispering in their ears
about the intent. The words can also sound the way they do in
the movie, and they can actually read that way if you forget
a bit of your Joss-training (get the special shoes!).
The movie opens with the "same" scene that the series
does - Buffy has a meaningful dream. This, however, is a dream
of the past, a Slayer and her Watcher, and Kristy Swanson, Buffy,
is the Slayer while Donald Sutherland, Merrick, is the Watcher.
These are different people in the comic, truly a former Slayer
and Watcher, but there is a certain logic (and a certain confusion)
in having the same actors in present and past, a shorthand about
what she's dreaming. We are told that the Slayer carries a birthmark
- the "Mark of the Coven."
The credits run over an extended cheerleader sequence, not presented
with much flair and absolutely no irony. Several now-familiar
names go by in this movie filmed a dozen years ago - Hilary Swank,
David Arquette, Stephen Root, Natasha Gregson Wagner, as well
as names we would recognize from the series' producers.
Cut from basketball game to the mall and the label "Southern
California: The Lite Ages." Very Joss. But now we see a very
different Buffy, a Buffy in a Cordelia phase (she even delivers
several of Cordelia's later lines), towing a bunch of Buffettes
around. But these are much more cookie-cutter Valley Girls than
Cordelia's crew, and what's more, they are dim; not wise
but ignorant - both readings are in the dialogue, and we get heavy
valley-accented Joss-speak that's hard to follow beneath the eeuuw's.
The male actors come closer to the spirit we expect, but their
lines are more straightforward. This is not a Buffy that will
be easy to warm up to.
Buffy's parents are not Hank and Joyce, and that's a good
thing - these folks are clueless caricatures who would be out
of place on the series but fit in with the tone here - and with
these sorts of scenes, it is no surprise that a director might
play that note throughout.
Hmm, movie Buffy is a bit of a slut...
Another dream sequence from past lives, with some stuntwork to
lay the groundwork for a Slayer as more than human, and an introduction
of the villain (Rutger Hauer) and his henchman (Paul Reubens).
Both of these actors could play proper Whedon villains, and they
do, off-and-on.
Well, maybe not. I like Rutger Hauer, but his Lothos has no real
personality.
A sequence discussing the senior dance cements the impression
that Buffy, et al, are not just ironically ignorant, but pretty
much stupid, not clever catty but mean catty, and as shallow as
they first appeared.
Luke Perry and David Arquette pop in. Perry gets it, but, not
Arquette.
Hey, it's Ricki Lake! She could be a Whedon girl! I wonder if
he thought of her for Willow - the actress used in the semi-pilot
was a similar physical type.
Donald Sutherland appears to fill in the first hints of mythological
backstory. The dreams of former lives. It's a logical way for
Buffy to come to believe the story. And we get a part of the myth
that never makes it further - the combination Spider-vampire Sense
and Menstrual Cramps. A taste decision, a network request, or
a realization that it's more interesting if Buffy can't always
know who's who?
Another major change - in this Buffyverse, the Slayer and her
Watcher are reincarnated over and over, mostly to go after the
movie's Big Bad. For the movie, "Into each generation..."
makes sense.
Buffy's first experience with a vampire, if we rely on what Joss
has said, should have been much more of a true scene of horror,
with real danger, but while it isn't really slapstick, the vampires
do not seem a great threat to life and neck.
There is more threat in the vampiric appearance of Arquette at
Perry's window, even though DA plays it pretty broadly. I wonder
why they decided the series' vampires wouldn't be able to fly.
And have no reflection, because Arquette's is very obvious.
Merrick cautions Buffy on the subject of secret identities, so
the vamps don't find out who she is and start hunting her. It
always seemed odd to me that Giles never really explained why
the Slayer should hide who she is - Buffy may have gotten "the
talk," but most of the tv audience wouldn't have heard it.
Joss quite famously developed a loathing of Donald Sutherland
during the making of the movie, but I can't see a reason in his
performance - in ways he's quite Giles-ish. Is it just because
he wouldn't do a British accent?
As Buffy becomes the Slayer, she moves out of the Cordelia realm
and grows a few synapses. And Kristy Swanson becomes a respectable
Buffy.
For the most part, the stunt work...sucks.
I keep expecting the vamps to dust. That was a very logical change
for a series that had to avoid having to explain a growing pile
of staked bodies.
Hey, it's Ben Affleck! Pretty coincidental, because pretty soon
Project Greenlight's going to be discussed.
The scenes leading into Merrick's death come close to hitting
the proper tone, but the movie's about to go to hell soon, and
not in a good way. The climactic gym-dance-fight stuff is just
too cute, and never sets into a rhythm.
This is a great example of implanted memories - I really thought
that the gym burned down at the end of the movie. Maybe the picture
I've got was Carrie.
Buffy's black coat over white formal dress seems too Prophecy
Girl to be accidental.
Two different characters in two different locales use Wizard
of Oz references within moments of each other. That's distracting.
All in all, the movie was both better and worse than I remembered.
Back to Project Greenlight: this season's fascinating story
brought through a movie that the studio decided had too much drama
(or too much comedy) to be attractive to audiences (and the test
audience agreed), requiring a massive recut at the 11th hour.
12 years ago, a similar idea surfaced about Buffy, although
one could make the case that the Scream movies balanced
horror and comedy. But I still doubt that the Buffy in
Joss' head could easily be made today.
[> Re: 'Buffy the Movie'
Revisited -- MaeveRigan, 21:23:46 09/05/03 Fri
Joss quite famously developed a loathing of Donald Sutherland
during the making of the movie, but I can't see a reason in his
performance - in ways he's quite Giles-ish. Is it just because
he wouldn't do a British accent?
It was because Sutherland kept changing his own lines until "the
dialogue would not make sense". The accent, whatever it was,
doesn't seem to have been the problem.
Joss gives his opinions on the ups and downs of the movie in some
detail in this interview from 2001:
http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3731/avfeature_3731.html
[> [> I had read that...
-- Darby, 21:48:56 09/05/03 Fri
I guess that, even though I had forgotten the details, I expected
some aspects of Merrick to remind me. What the heck did he change
that was so bad?
Well, it's not like Joss doesn't have an ego about his dialogue...
[> Re: 'Buffy the Movie'
Revisited -- CW, 23:22:06 09/05/03 Fri
Have to agree with Darby. In the final product it's hard to tell
Donald Sutherland wasn't right in step with the script. Maybe
he could see the rest of the movie was going campy/absurd and
tried to throw his portrayal of Hawkeye Pierce into it. Even without
Donald Sutherland's script 'corrections' the dialogue is pretty
spotty. It's interesting that the one character whose on-screen
lines least match the published scripts of the first season is
Giles, whether Joss wrote the script or someone else.
Frankly, Joss' dialogue in the movie is pretty bad. I have a taped
copy off Spanish TV in Spanish. Since they couldn't translate
'Joss speak,' they had it make sense according to the action.
There are substantial cuts for comercials, and it's a better film
that way.
The point in the movie where David Arquette flies outside the
window was where for me the movie crossed the line into stupid.
It was as if to say they knew they couldn't do it right. So they
decided make it stupid and campy. (The Spanish version thankfully
cuts Paul Reubens' death scene down to nothing.)
Rutger Hauer always plays the same guy no matter what part he
plays. Maybe he can act, maybe he's just type cast. Personally,
I not really impressed with what I've seen him in.
Kristy Swanson's Buffy isn't that bad compared to what's going
on around her in the film. She's not in SMG's league in acting
skills. But given a better script and decent direction Buffy the
movie could have been a lot better even with Swanson as Buffy.
[> Here ya go, Darby
-- Dead (script fairy) Soul, 02:47:24 09/06/03 Sat
...now I see that they really had access to the original, which
I would love to read.
original
script
I found this via whedonesque.com and have no idea whether or not
it's genuine. In fact, I haven't even read it, but, as I had just
run across a link to it right before having read your post, I
thought I'd pass it along.
[> [> Oh, this is great!
-- Darby, 09:56:00 09/06/03 Sat
I've been looking for this forever! From the style, especially
stage directions, typos, and similarities to Origin, I'd
vote that it's the real thing. And I'm not sure some of the more
horrific elements would have fit in well. But there are lots of
great lines that didn't make it through, like the ones that later
would wind up in the other writers' scripts on the series.
I find the farther I read through the script, the less I see & hear
Kristy Swanson and the more it's SMG. But even though ScriptMerrick
is really Giles, he stays a picture of Donald Sutherland
(I hear ASH sometimes, though).
He didn't get the death scene in the script, but rather this eulogy
-
BUFFY
Ummm, our Father, Who art in Heaven,
duhmm... hallowed be Thy name.
Uhh, kingdom come, daily break, I
don't know. I don't even know if
you're religious. You probably
are. But you're dead, you know.
You're just totally dead. and...
She sits heavily on his grave.
BUFFY
(continuing)
... and I don't know what to do.
You were the one who... I don't
know if the training was over. I
don't even know if I passed. You're
so stupid! How could you be so
stupid? What am I supposed to do
without you? You son of a bitch!
She stops, looks down for a moment.
BUFFY
(continuing)
Amen.
It does back up my theory - Sutherland made up a conflicting mythology
that actually matched the way the dreams were shot better (um,
don't tell Joss that I said so). The script:
BUFFY
How can you keep doing this?
MERRICK
It's what I was raised to do. There
aren't many of us left, the Watchers.
BUFFY
Watchers?
MERRICK
There's a small village in Hampshire,
near Stonehenge...
(sees she doesn't know it)
... near a bunch of big rocks.
That's where I was born. My father
taught me about the training, about
finding the Slayers, reading the
signs. There's a small cluster of
us, a few families, really... most
of the neighboring villagers think
we're just a bunch of harmless old
loonies. I thought so myself for a
time, when I was younger...
(stops himself)
Several other elements that didn't make it into the movie wound
up integrated into the series, often with the Master - rising
from the pool of blood, being under the high school, etc. The
boyfriend becomes a bit of a Riley. The misdirection with "I
know what time sunrise is..."
But the scripted ending! Big Bad taken down by #2 pencil! With
this coda-
EXT. CAMPUS - DAY
Students walk, holding their books talking.
CUT TO:
INT. THE CLASSROOMS - DAY
Students passing notes, yawning, falling asleep.
CUT TO:
INT. THE MALL - DAY
Students window shopping, sucking on slurpies, laughing.
DISSOLVE TO:
ANGLE - A POOL
SHOT FROM ABOVE, the blue water FILLING THE SCREEN. Kimberly
dives gracefully into it, comes up on the other side.
EXT. KIMBERLY'S BACKYARD - DAY
Kim climbs out and joins Jeffrey, Jennifer and a boy and girl
we don't know. They are all in bathing gear, with fluorescent
zinc on their noses.
JENNIFER
She was even crazier after that. I
mean it, you wouldn't even have
recognized her.
KIMBERLY
Buffy?
Jennifer nods. Kimberly wrinkles her nose in distaste.
JENNIFER
She didn't even hardly talk to anyone
in school. All year. She didn't
even go to the prom.
JEFFREY
I heard she got straight A's.
Jennifer glares at him.
JEFFREY
(continuing)
That's what I heard.
KIMBERLY
The worst is, her parents -- this
is true -- her parents were gonna
send her to the Bahamas for
graduation, and she refused. True
story. She said she didn't want to
go. It is to vomit.
BOY
Well, where is she now?
CUT TO:
EXT. A COURTYARD - LATE EVENING
Buffy and Pike are walking up the elaborate stone drive toward
us. We can't really tell where they are, but there are trees,
hills in the background.
Buffy leads the way. She is confident, at ease. She wears a
large old sports jacket, a baseball cap pulled backward. Skirt
and sneakers. Casual, cool, but disarming. She carries a
knapsack.
PIKE
I didn't say it was a bad idea, I
just said the timing was off. We
could maybe wait till later.
BUFFY
Don't be such a fraidy-cat.
PIKE
Who's afraid? Besides me, I mean.
BUFFY
We've come all this way. We just
have to check it out. I got a hunch.
PIKE
You're the boss, boss. I just
thought maybe we should wait.
Buffy stops at a large, elaborately carved door. She turns to
Pike.
BUFFY
Trust me.
ANGLE - DOOR KNOCKER
Buffy grabs the large metal knocker, ringed through a gargoyle's
mouth.
And on the boom of the knocker, we see:
WIDER ANGLE - THE CASTLE
The castle. Archetypal, turreted, terrifying. Standing lonely
on the craggy hill, drenched in the light of the rising moon.
BLACK OUT.
THE END
[> [> yes it's genuine
-- Simon, 01:25:43 09/08/03 Mon
I got the link from the new SFX Buffy special
[> How come Buffy never
had any past-Slayer dreams? They are mentioned in Fray...
-- Nino, 12:23:55
09/06/03 Sat
Finished 'Winter's
Tale' - Yea me! and the best thing about it was... -- Sara,
breathing a huge sigh of relief, 21:06:20 09/05/03 Fri
Rob's essay! Sorry Rob, still not loving the book itself. The
ending was somewhat unsatisfying, much in the same way I found
S7 - loose ends were just not tied up clearly enough for me. Just
didn't get it, I'm afraid. I do have to say that there were specific
moments in the book that were fabulous - wonderful creation of
moods and atmosphere. Ok, s'kat, hope you've been working out
- I'm bringing it for you on Sunday, and you've got to carry it
all the way home!
- Sara, moving on to...I don't know! So many books, so little
space on the night table!!!!!
[> Aw, shucks...Now ya done
made me blush! -- Rob, 08:05:03 09/06/03 Sat
[> [> Gangs of New York
-- mamcu, 18:59:42 09/06/03 Sat
I loved it, though I do agree with Sara--about the end and about
Rob's essay, but not the book as a whole. I thought the visions
of the marsh and the gangs and the frozen north, the whole transformation
was incredible. At a distance, the details of how the end worked
don't bother me--I'm just glad I read it.
Did either of you see Gangs of New York? This probably came up
before, but there were real similarities, not just in the setting
and the gangs, but the apocalyptic ending, also foreshadowing
9/11, and the strange morphing from history to fantasy. I wonder
if there was any connection.
[> [> [> Re: Gangs
of New York -- ponygirl, 11:49:25 09/08/03 Mon
I think the character of Asbury in the book was a shoutout to
the author of Gangs.
It was a very odd experience reading the book. I loved the imagery,
came to crave the environment that was being created and the slow
coming together of all of the characters, yet it still took me
forever to read, and I found that I had to skim over the plot
or end up becoming bogged down and completely confused. I still
don't understand the end or that bridge or the engraved platter
or... really any of it. But I am glad that I read it.
Happy Birthday,
Marie! -- Arethusa, 14:40:38 09/06/03 Sat
[> yeah, marie--happy birthday!
-- anom, 21:58:48 09/06/03 Sat
Sorry you couldn't get a big meet together for the occasion where
you are, but I hope your celebration was every bit as happy as
if you had! I mean, I'm sure you have other friends, right?
And I know you have someone special to celebrate with....
[> [> Aww, thanks, you
folk! This was nice to see today! -- Marie, 03:58:25 09/08/03
Mon
And I had a fabulous time - even alcohol-free! I was taken to
Chester for a surprise weekend away, so I'm knackered today, but
it was great, even if it wasn't quite San Francisco!
Thanks again!
M
[> Happy Birthday Marie!
-- Masq, 06:22:55 09/08/03 Mon
4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040
4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040
4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040
4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040
4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040
4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040 4040404040
Ahhhhhhhhhhh!
[> [> Oooohh!!! See,
that's what makes you the First Evil! -- Marie, 07:56:50
09/08/03 Mon
Just you wait - November, isn't it.....?
Marie-who's-dangerous-when-pregnant
[> [> [> Oh, I was
commiserating... -- Masq, 09:57:26 09/08/03 Mon
Isn't it better to go through these nightmares things with
other folks who know how it feels?
[> [> [> [> Being
40 isn't too bad. -- Arethusa, 11:50:24 09/08/03 Mon
I don't feel much older than before and I do feel a lot more confident.
It's like I've given myself permission to be self-assured, straight-forward
and a little more demanding in life, instead of worrying so much
about what others think. I am planning on being a holy terror
when I am old.
Arethusa, 41 and two days old.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Being 40 isn't too bad. -- Masq, 14:08:06 09/08/03
Mon
That's exactly what my other 40+ female friends say. I'm starting
too look forward to it now.
[> [> [> [> [>
hey, marie! slightly belated happy birthday to you too!
-- anom, 18:50:13 09/08/03 Mon
" It's like I've given myself permission to be self-assured,
straight-forward and a little more demanding in life, instead
of worrying so much about what others think."
I'm at the other end of my 40s & still working on that stuff.
You don't give lessons, do you? @>)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> argh! i meant arethusa! sorry 'bout that--is the inside
message flattering enough to make up for it? -- anom, 19:52:10
09/08/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Your birthday was Saturday? We're twins! But I have a twin...
We're triplets!!! -- Marie, 01:27:04 09/09/03 Tue
[> More belated happies!
Hope you had a great day! -- ponygirl, 08:23:40 09/08/03
Mon
[> Happy birthday, Marie!
-- cjl, 14:25:41 09/08/03 Mon
Belated felicitations from a fellow Virgo--and fellow traveler
on the other side of 40. Trust me--it's only going to get better
(unless you convince yourself it won't).
A few questions
about wolfram & hart -- spike&buffyforever, 14:59:00
09/06/03 Sat
Hi I just have a few questions about W+H. Could someone tell me
what Lilah was in home because she said she wasn't a vampire,
was she a zombie or something?
And finally does anyone know who the senior partners are or have
any theories on them. Thanks.
[> Re: A few questions about
wolfram & hart -- Seven, 16:24:54 09/06/03 Sat
OK
Lilah was essentially a zombie, in my opinion. Some may disagree,
but she was raised from the dead and her "soul" or the
essence that is Lilah, was returned to her former body and her
head re-attached.
This explains her scar on the neck. I see her as being similar
to the zombies that Xander battled/hung-out-with in the Zeppo.
They and Lilah were not being mind-controlled per se, though Lilah
was forced to perform her W&H duties post-mortum. The reason this
is murky is because she didn't seem to mind being forced to do
this. But that's Lilah. So my opinion? Zombie.
As for the Senior Partners. I don't really know for sure. I have
not seen some key episodes of Angel, (i.e. the elevator ride with
Holland Manners) that may shed some light on the subject. My personnal
picture of them is that of a foil to the Powes That Be. Think
of it in the Christian mentality (I know, that's a no-no with
Joss) The Powers are the almighty, the creators or overseers of
all possible worlds. The Senior Partners may be somewhat akin
to Lucifer and his fallen angels who are constantly trying to
corrupt the world out of vengence.
Or
They are possibly the equal and opposite to the powers and are
just the other side of that coin. I'm not sure anyone knows for
sure. We may (I hope) get a better look at it this season.
7
[> [> Sorry, Not a zombie,
something else, here's why -- s'kat, 22:09:42 09/06/03
Sat
If you check back in Bargaining Part I and in Dead Man's Party
and Habeas Corpses - you'll see that Lilah and the guys from The
Zeppo aren't zombies.
Zombies have no minds - they are basically animated corpses, no
mind, no thought, no soul - completely controlled by an outside
force to do its bidding. Also without exception - they all crave
human flesh and eat it at least in Jossverse. (ME takes the zombie
metaphor directly from the classic zombie films: Night of The
Living Dead, Day of The Dead) They also rot. Nothing maintains
them.
Examples: in Dead Man's Party the re-animated corspses or zombies
were controlled by a demonic mask, they were thougtless mindless
things - the one who took the mask was possessed by it. The essence
of the human? Completely gone.
Rotting animated flesh.
In Habeas Corpses - the security voodoo of W&H reanimates the
corspses of the lawyers turning them into zombies.
The essence of the human is gone.
Lilah is a reanimated corspe but not a zombie. She's not rotting.
She retains her wound, but she also retains her essence, personality
and soul. The best way of describing her is as a corporeal ghost,
similar to Holland Manners in
Reprise. She can appear on the earthly plain corporeal for a limited
time but it requires serious magic to keep her there. She's not
a zombie. She isn't being controlled, although she's on the Senior
PArtners business - she's not completely controlled by them, she
has her body on loaner.
She also doesn't hunger for human flesh. A re-animated corspe
is not limited to just being a zombie or a vampire, it can be
other things.
Lilah is also not like the boys in The Zeppo, who aren't zombies
either - the boys in the Zeppo have found a way to continue in
their bodies after death - problem is they can't keep their bodies
from rotting or having wounds. So
they are re-animated corpses, just not zombies per se.
(Example of horror films that have done these types: American
Werewolf in London and My Boyfriend's Dead - both horror comedies
had re-animated corspeses who contained the essence of people
in their bodies, but they were dead.
Another film that does this is Death Becomes Her - starring Goldie
Hawn and Meryl Streep - who also stay alive in dead bodies by
magic but aren't zombies.)
The difference between the boys in the Zeppo and Lilah is they
rot and they came up with their own spell, another outside force
is helping Lilah - she is if you'd like an employee of the Forces
of Darkness, to whom she sold her soul and they give her body
to come back to the earthly realm as a corporeal ghost to convey
their message.
We don't know what the Powers That Be are. According to an interview
in Shiver's magazine in 2000: "Whedon, Writing and Arithmetic
by Joe Mauceri"
"Shivers: What are the powers that are lurking in the background
on Angel? Are they something that might be associated with Buffy's
world? Is there any type of association between them and The Watchers?
Whedon: We're careful with the shows so that the mythologies mesh.
The powers that be, the beings that are sending Doyle his visions,
have sort of sent him to Angel, and they're sort of guiding Angel.
About them we can say very little. It's one of those things where
we're deliberately keeping them in the shadow so that we can reveal
more as time goes on. With Buffy we discovered that the Council
turned out to be incompetent and annoying. I think it'll be different
with this but we do like to keep it sort of vague at the start.
We want to play with the mystery of it. We want to play out the
idea: there's a reason you have to do good, but you don't know
what."
On the show? They never really tell us. IF we are to believe Skip
in Inside Out - Jasmine is the Powers That Be.
But Skip's not exactly reliable. If we are to believe Cordy in
Tomorrow to THAW - then she was briefly. IF we are to believe
Darla in Inside Out - she's a rep for the Powers and Lilah was
a rep for the Forces of Darkness.
I think the best comparison may be between Chaos and Order.
Although the little girl in the white room certainly liked order
and was evil. But - was she working for the Forces of Darkness?
No, perhaps the simplest approach is not to try to compare it
to our religions but just use what the show uses to describe them.
According to ATS - the Senior Partners with W&H work with or alongside
the Forces of Darkness, they basically work with whomever they
see as most beneficial to them. Jasmine, you could claim was very
powerful (W&H like power, to them it's all about power not good
vs. evil or right vs. wrong, they are power-brokers and manipulators
of power - the lawyer metaphor) and she was evil in some ways
(depending on your point of view)- but she was not beneficial
to W&H, she destroyed W&H and W&H's client base. W&H wanted
her gone and fast. Angel and his associates got rid of her for
them - that's why they rewarded AI. The Beast and Jasmine tried
to destroy W&H and almost succeeded. Angel and his crew destroyed
the Beast and Jasmine.
So, the question is - who is on who's side? Who is evil?
Who is good? Was Jasmine evil? Is it that simple?
W&H may be the Forces of Darkness
Jasmine may be the Powers That Be
But...would you rather be a happy zombie under Jasmine?
OR a miserable thinking person with W&H in the world?
See not so simple.
The Senior Partners? They are the top echelon of W&H, the
ones who have moved on and are higher beings on the dark side,
demons? dark angels? fallen angels? don't know.
We've never been told. Just that the evil little girl in the white
room as seen in Long Day's Journy kept them linked to the senior
partners. Who does now? Lilah? Again not sure.
Hope this made sense and helped.
sk
[> [> [> ME Zombies
are inconsistent -- Rook, 07:21:40 09/07/03 Sun
ME Zombies either don't crave human flesh (Giles in Some Assembly
Required, Wesley in Provider) or they do (Angel in Habeas Corpses)
Also, both Angel and Wesley have identified beings with at least
some intelligence as Zombies: The undead boyfriend in Provider,
and the cops in The Thin Dead Line(The cops had enough intelligence
to call for back up in case of witnesses, and to not use guns
because the noise might attract attention. Both of these things
require the ability to reason and distinguish between different
situations.)
Probably the best way to look at ME zombies is as a larger group
consisting of various sub-types, with each sub-type possessing
a mixture of different possible characteristics, as opposed to
vampires, which seem to all share common characteristics with
little or no variation in their strengths or weaknesses.
[> [> [> I doubt any
of them alone is 'The PowerS' -- Seven, 09:18:27 09/07/03
Sun
The way i figure it, Cordy and Jasmine may have been part of the
Powers That Be. They were part of a whole. The only real reference
that I can use is the line from Jasmine in Peace Out.
"The other Powers don't care."
This would lead me to believe that it was not simply Jasmine or
simply Cordy in that role.
7
[> [> [> Zombies in
JossVerse.. -- ZachsMind, 15:41:32 09/07/03 Sun
Although it's important to take into account the reality that
zombies in Joss Whedon's universe are truly dependent on the writer
of a given episodes and the requirements of a give plotline, setting
that aside for a moment, this is how it's best to view zombies
in Joss's universe.
First off, all zombies are really more like "golems"
and I leave you to go look up what those are. Instead of using
just dirt or using an actual statue to create the golem, a magic
user of some sort uses the ready made flesh of deceased humans.
There's levels of economy in that. The actual sciences of the
metasciences left vagued up for us, our best guess is to assume
there are several different ways to bring back the dead, none
of which are all that advantageous. Several have attempted to
play god, but no one's succeeded in being 100% effective in this
regard. Otherwise, immortality would be a more common thing in
Whedon's world.
The people who have sold their souls to W&H's senior partners,
like Manners and Morgan, are zombies just like the mindless thralls
in Dead Man's Party. Zombies are of several different types but
they're so varied as to be individualistic, and dependent on many
different factors. For simplicity's sake, let's say there's three
different categories of things to take into account for each zombie.
1) Divination Source: Where is the power that animated the dead
coming from? Is it God? Satan? Wotan? Osiris? Bob's Animated Dead
Emporium? Consolidated Corpses Incorporated? How many middlemen
are there between the corpse itself and the Forces of Darkness
or Powers That Be which animate it?
2) Magic User Channeling Proficiency: Who is instigating the spell
and how well versed are they? Do they know a variety of spells
and can choose the best one for the given circumstances? Have
they memorized the directions or are they reading from a book
as they do the spell? What is their level of confidence? Their
connections to the forces they wield? The level of mastery can
do a lot to the end result. OR are we just looking at the echoes
of a magic user's effectiveness? Is there a magic user consciously
affecting the course of events, or it is just some ancient artifact
like a mask or totem that's mindlessly awakening the dead?
3) Quality of the recipient: How long has the body been in the
ground? If it's all dust an ashes, the other elements are going
to have to be more powerful to reanimate it with any quality.
If it's only recently been buried, it won't be quite as difficult
to bring it back. Can the recipient be reanimated to full functionality
with minimal drain on magic resources over time? Or is the body
beyond repair and will continue to decay? Are the faculties of
the original available? Was the originally inhabiting soul and
mind available for return, or will the physical body need the
channeling magic user to externally operate it remotely?
These variables differ from one situation to another, which is
why zombies seem to behave dramatically differently in the Joss
Universe. If one looks at each situation on a case by case basis,
they will for the most part make sense. Manners and Morgan come
from similar elements, so their behavior is similar. All the zombies
in The Zeppo operated pretty much the same way cuz they were brought
back by the same guy. Same goes for the ones in Dead Man's Party,
although they do differ from the ones in The Zeppo, because for
Dead Man's Party it was a mystically cursed inanimate object that
was calling the shots. In The Zeppo the magic user channeller
had been a more sentient being. When W&H does it for individuals,
it's under contract and they have hefty resources to get it right.
At the end of season four when it was just a security feature,
not a lot of effort was put into making them more than mindless
drones because it was an emergency contingency, and chances are
the people who signed off on that idea didn't want to actually
be IN their bodies if they were the unfortunate ones trapped in
there at the time.
So they all work well intrinsic to their episode, even if Whedon
never bothered to concoct a detailed consistency throughout the
two series. Demons are made much the same way. They're broken
down into families or clans. Some are less evil than others. When
it comes to people related distantly to characters like Lorne
or Doyle, attempts at consistency were made, but for the most
part each time a new demon character is required, they just just
make up a new name and start from scratch. Less trouble with continuity
that way.
[> [> [> Re: Sorry,
Not a zombie, something else, here's why -- Sgamer82, 20:12:59
09/07/03 Sun
Doesn't Anya say in one episode that zombies don't crave human
flesh unless directed to do so by their zombie master? the zombie
master in "Dead Man's Party" a demon, would of course
have its zombies do that. But no other zombies have done that
to my knowledge.
[> [> [> Re: What
is Lilah? -- Rabel Dusk, 14:21:15 09/08/03 Mon
Perhap's Lilah is a ghost. I don't remember if she touches anything
or anybody - if so, then a corporeal ghost which reflects the
manner of her death (and post death beheading) She is still under
contract to W&H, who have the power to give her a temporary
body.
And don't expect ME to be consistant. They don't have a worked
out cosmos that they refer to. I think that I read once that they
admit winging it from week to week and sometimes contradict themselves.
Current board
| More September 2003