September 2004 posts
Classic Movie of the Week - August 22nd 2004
- Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- OnM, 19:22:02
08/22/04 Sun
*******
One of these days I'm going to get it together
Gonna buy a watch gonna get it together
Stop wasting time
One of these days I'm gonna get out of bed
I'm gonna turn off the TV
Gonna raise the dead
One of these days when I fall in love
It won't fall apart like it always does
One of these days I'll forget about you
Take out the trash that's what I'll do
One of these days and it'll be real soon
I'm gonna kick some ass
Gonna clean my room
Sometime soon
One of these days I'm gonna touch the sky
Like that awful song
"I Believe I Can Fly"
I believe I can fly
One of these days you'll be so sorry
Sorry that you let it slip away
One of these days I just won't care
If you're sorry anyway
One of these days I'm gonna get it together
Gonna be on time
I'm gonna get it together
Stop wasting time
One of these days I'll accept the fact
I'm not getting any younger
And I can't go back
Can't go back
One of these days when I fall in love
It won't fall apart like it always does
One of these days I'll forget about you
Take out the trash that's what I'll do
One of these days I'm gonna
stop saying one of these days...
............ Jill Sobule
*******
I can't touch you now / I'm paralyzed
I'm like a child / With the saddest eyes
You won't talk to me / You're over me
You won't take me back / I need you back
You're so alive / It makes me numb
I could survive / But I don't want to
You're the ruby / And I'm the lead
Feeling heavy / Am I dead ?
But last night, I had a dream
I saved your life / I proved my love
I took the bullet / I killed a shark
I kissed your hand / I thawed your heart
I thawed your heart
You're not around / I'm lost
Seems all I do anymore / Is hit the sauce
And at the end / Of another glass
Is a drop of gin / And I'm sinking
But last night... I had a dream
I saved your life / I proved my love
I took the bullet / I killed a shark
I kicked some ass / I won your heart
I won your heart
But last night... I healed your wounds
I thawed your heart
I thawed your heart
And you melted in my arms
You melted in my arms
............ Phil Roy / Nicholas Cage
*******
Have you ever wondered if somehow your soul got switched at birth
with somebody else? That if only you hadn t been saddled with
the unfortunate circumstance of the wrong brain or body, that
you could have been a contender ?
Yeah, I thought so.
I suspect this is a mostly age-related delusion, but it reared
its annoying head again this last Wednesday when I got out to
see the newly released film Collateral, starring Tom Cruise
and Jamie Foxx. This is a really excellent flick, by the
way, and I heartily recommend that you get out to see it while
it s still in theaters. Being involved in the audio/video trade
as I am, I keep hearing regular reports that after a while, no
one will go out to the movies, because they can just watch them
at home on the big screen . Maybe over the very long, long term
this scenario could evolve, but I really have my doubts-- very
few people have the room or the budget to devote to a fairly genuine
home theater , one that at least approximates the experience of
a real theater. A film like Collateral (and for that matter
a great many others) should be viewed at least one time on the
real big screen with decent sound, the way the filmmakers
intended.
Anyway, back to the brain-body-soul dilemma. What set me to thinking
about the increasing disconnection between what one planned
to do with one s life when in the throes of youth and the reality
that gradually emerges as the decades pass slowly/quickly by was
a comment by Cruise s character about midway throught the flick.
In the film, Foxx s character has been driving cab for 18 years,
with the eventual goal of getting out of it and starting up his
own limousine service, one with a unique and marketable twist
that he feels sure will make it into a profitable enterprise.
And the plan is indeed very reasonable, but until Cruise brings
up the fact that 18 years is a long time to spend waiting to make
the reality manifest, Foxx doesn t realize the degree that he
s been in denial. How long is long enough to make a dream happen?
Boy, I wish I knew. It would certainly make my life easier if
there was a clear, unmoving goal in sight. When I was just getting
out of high school back in 1971, I had no definite goal in mind
as to what I wanted to be as an adult, but I wasn t very worried
because I knew for a fact that most of my fellow graduates didn
t have a clue either.
Oh, many of them had plans for the immediate future-- work a summer
job, go to college in the fall, study medicine or art or journalism
or business. Living as I do in the midst of a heavily agricultural
area, I knew that there were those for whom high school was as
far as it would go; they d be back on the farm tomorrow and possibly
always-- after all, people always need food, don t they? But whatever
they stated publicly for the benefit of parents or professors,
if you were in a position to hear what they really thought as
those first years post-Sunnydale unfolded, you realized that their
journey was just beginning and that the roadway through life possessed
lots of opportunites for detours and perhaps not so many rest
stops as originally envisioned. Exhilarating? Sometimes. Scary?
That too.
But you go on, because there s some kind of dream somewhere, no
matter how loosely or firmly you might be attached to it at any
given time. I figured I was way ahead of the game because I deliberately
kept my dream very on a long leash, and let it wander around enough
to preserve its illusion of freedom. I had no grand desire to
become rich and/or powerful, and that was a big help. I just wanted
to be able to enjoy my various hobbies, buy a very modest little
castle to be king of, and work just hard enough to be able to
retire at 50, before the disabilities and disillusionment started
to creep in.
It was a reasonable plan, and it should have worked. I kept all
my expenses to a bare minimum, bought a cheap house far smaller
than I needed, but figuring I could pay it off quickly and then
save for a better one a decade or so down the line. You know,
right about now. I could repair things, which is a portable skill
, and after all, broken things will always need to be fixed, and
people will pay to fix them. All was well with the world.
Then the world went and changed on me. Oh, I expected it to, I
m no fool after all. (Feel free to start a new thread if you d
like to debate this assertion.) Polital regimes and social mores
mutate, sometimes surprisingly quickly, and a wise worker/dreamer
adjusts the working dream accordingly. What blindsided me, in
retrospect, is that I didn t ever anticipate-- even in my remotest,
darkest, most Reaganesque moments-- that the virulent secular
anti-humanism of the 60 s would resurrect itself, minus the balancing
counter-revolutionary hope for a better future. (Not to mention
the stunningly perverse mutation of being a theologically-driven
anti-humanism this time arround. Yeeesh!)
But if it happens, it must be possible, and now here I am, little-ol
midlife me. People throw things away rather than fix them now
because it s cheaper. I have arthritis, chronic gastric reflux
disease, and an underactive thyroid gland. Oh, and optiorectumosis.
And I have to deal.
Worst of all, I m still working.
No, I take that back. Worst of all is that at minimum I m 15 years
from retirement, and should I even live so long, by the time I
make 65 they ll have moved the retirement age up to 70 in order
to fix the problems with social security. Here I was, laying the
most safe and conservative of lifstyle plans in order to avoid
the pitfalls that I saw so many others of my age bracket stumble
into, and it still wasn t enough. If only I had developed into
a vicious, opportunistic schmuck who didn t care about the wants
or needs of others in my life (like the evil pol in this week
s film frolic), then things could be different. I wouldn t sit
in a darkened theater and feel the resonance that contract-killer
Cruise sets to vibrating when he points out what a self-imposed
loser the humble cabbie of the tale has become.
What can I do? Well, there is only one thing-- while others pass
the Lord and praise the ammunition, I m gonna switch off my brain,
go back to the movies and get me a happy soul for a few blessed
hours in ever-after-land. After all, it worked during the last
great depression, and my parents made it though that desolate
time more-or-less in one peace.
~ ~ ~
Aykroyd: Where do these stairs go?
Murray: They go up.
............ classic line of dialog from Ghostbusters,
1984
~ ~ ~
Veteran film director Ivan Reitman has been at the helm of a number
of often lightweight, but eminently enjoyable films over the past
several decades. Some of his efforts have been misses, but the
good stuff has been very good indeed, and this week s Classic
Movie, Dave, is one of his best works.
The Dave of the title is one Dave Kovic, owner of a tiny temp
agency where he works diligently to get jobs for people who are
in desperate need of them. Dave is one of those lucky few who
takes both great pride and pleasure in his work, work that isn
t just a job to make ends meet but a kind of secular grail in
itself. The temp agency job doesn t bring in a lot of income for
Dave-- after all, just how much money can you get from someone
who is currently unemployed, and may have been for some time?
So as a part-time supplement, Dave uses his coincidental physical
resemblance to the current U.S. president, a fellow named William
'Bill' Mitchell, to generate some extra income by acting for-hire
as a celebrity lookalike . Life is going along all day-to-day-ish
just as it typically does, until one late afternoon when Dave
gets an unexpected visit from the secret service.
What Dave doesn t know is that the real president is a womanizing
sort who regularly cheats on his wife, Ellen (Sigourney Weaver).
During the most recent tryst, the president suffers a severe stroke
that leaves him close to death with no hope of recovery. Taking
advantage of this random circumstance, the machinations of Bob
Alexander (Frank Langella), the president s Secretary of State,
shift into a higher gear. Bob has long harbored big plans to put
himself in charge of the country, aided somewhat reluctantly by
Bill s press secretary Alan Reed (Kevin Dunn), and the imminent
death of his boss puts him on a fast track to power.
Langella really chews the scenery in his role as the power-mad
highest-office appropriator, and in a serious, conventionally
dramatic production his acting chops could be easily classed as
over-the-top, but in a more easy-going film such as this one,
he s just perfect. The press secretary role is written and played
in a nicely ambiguous fashion, with Dunn showing us that Alan
Reed is primarily someone who has gotten caught up in the spin
business for so long that he s forgotten what the baseline of
ethical behavior actually is, and is thus easily steered into
behavior he would otherwise disdain.
Interestingly, we get to see very little of the president himself.
Early in the film, he gives a routine speech at a routine fundraising
dinner and then quickly sneaks off to his rendezvous with his
latest honey. This is when we are informed that the technique
of using body doubles has been going on for some time-- the double
covers not just in cases of actual potential danger, but for prosaic
convenience. Some of them are apparently not very realistic copies,
and when the secret service guys locate Dave Kovic, they are stunned
at the degree of resemblence.
A cover story is quickly fabricated to allow the necessary time
to get Dave into position to stand-in for Bill Harrison for a
more extended time, and the deception works-- while the real president
is confined to a room in the basement of somewhere, hooked to
ventilators and other life-support equipment, Dave is publically
flaunted, shown to be recovering easily from a minor stroke, and
fully ready to remain in command of the country s affairs. Naturally,
Bob Alexander is running the show, and directing it in a manner
that will eventually lead to him discrediting the current vice-president
(who, legally, should be the one in charge right now) and assuming
the role of chief exec.
The vice president, a decent and honorable man, is at first kept
out of the country during the initial portion of the deception,
and then just prior to returning is accused of criminal misdeeds
in an effort to get him removed from office, paving the way for
Alexander s personal coup. Another veteran actor, Ben Kingsley,
underplays the character of the vice president, offering a nice
counterpoint to the deliberate stylistic exaggerations of Langella.
Yes, these are kind of anvils , but they actually work in the
overall context, and every actor in this movie manages to walk
the fine line between going far enough without shattering the
suspension of disbelief.
Speaking of disbelief, Dave is increasingly concerned that things
aren t being played out the way they should be. While he bought
into the original concept that the chaotic events surrounding
the real president s abrupt infirmity called for the drastic measures
of his impersonation, Dave knows full well that something isn
t kosher. The difficulty lies in that Dave actually is a patriot,
and wants to do the right thing, but he s caught up in the machine,
so to speak, and realizes that revealing the truth of the impersonation
would bring about as many or more problems as it would solve.
The means to solve the dilemma gradually emerge as Dave groks
that the devious Bob has ensnared himself in the same position.
Namely, if the truth were to surface, Bob would go down with the
ship also. As such, Dave gets to pull a Checkpoint -like maneuver
where he assertively steps out of the puppet role and beings to
wield genuine presidential power, much to the rage of Bob, who
is galled by the fact that he put Dave in this position in the
first place.
Surrounding this major plot arc is the inevitable sub-plot involving
Bill Harrison s estranged wife, the First Lady. Ellen, who is
fully aware of her husband s sexual peccadillos, avoids even talking
to him anymore, aside from those public instances where the good
of the country necessitates doing so. Dave looks so much like
Bill that even she is fooled at first, but as the story progresses,
she notices that Bill s behavior is very different than before,
and becomes increasingly suspicious. Bob and Alan have been promulgating
the idea that the president s new-found vigor and desire to serve
his country with greater passion came about as a result of the
stroke, that having nipped a little to close to the reaper, he
has re-invented himself and all that. Ellen is highly skeptical,
but the evidence is increasingly convincing.
Like nearly all films of this genre, we know all too well what
is going to happen long before it actually does. Director Reitman
understands this, and makes no attempt to diverge from the accepted
formula, because the formula is just the base of the structure,
not the structure itself. That we see the end coming a mile away
doesn t really matter, because the end is far less important than
the means for getting there-- it s all about the journey.
Is Dave a contender in terms of political satire? To some
extent, yes, but the satire is extremely soft-edged. You can readily
draw inferences that the various characters represent certain
real-world persons, but Reitman blurs the lines sufficiently so
that as soon as you think for sure that he s talking about a given
anyone, you realize that there are other elements that don t quite
fit.
The overriding philosophical viewpoint appears to be that there
are numerous persons out there in legislature-land who are decent
types trapped by circumstances, and at times those circumstances
shift, opportunities arising when they do. The filmmaker s only
real target for genuine derision is the lethal combination of
abject cynicism and hunger for power, which is limited to the
characters of Bill Harrison and Bob Alexander. Almost everyone
else in the film could be aptly described as being well-meaning
, so Reitman seems to be implying that there really only are a
few bad apples in the bunch, and that if we could just provide
a decent come-uppance for these miserable blighters, things would
get better.
That last idea, of course, is patently ridiculous, but this film
is a guilty pleasure, and I m not remotely pretending otherwise.
The halls of realpolitick are filled with types like Harrison
and Alexander, and they aren t chewing the scenery, they re strip-mining
it and making us pay the bill. They aren t going away any time
soon, and there isn t going to be a Dave Kovic stepping in to
clean up their act. But one can dream, and more importantly one
should, and with any luck the dream can be a happy one.
And I ll vote for that.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically not running for anything:
Dave is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc.
The film was released in 1993 and the run time is 1 hour and 40
minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which
was preserved on the laserdisc edition and presumably also on
the DVD. No info is available re: any DVD special features.
Screenwriting credits go to Gary Ross. The film was produced by
Ivan Reitman, Sherry Fadely, Michael C. Gross, Joe Medjuck, Lauren
Shuler Donner and Gordon A. Webb. Cinematography was by Adam Greenberg,
with film editing by Sheldon Kahn. Production design was by J.
Michael Riva, with art direction by David F. Klassen and set decoration
by Michael Taylor. Costume design was by Richard Hornung and Ann
Roth. Original music was by James Newton Howard. The original
theatrical sound mix was in Dolby SR.
Cast Overview:
Kevin Kline .... Dave Kovic / President William Bill Mitchell
Sigourney Weaver .... Ellen Mitchell
Ving Rhames .... Duane Stevenson
Ben Kingsley .... Gary Nance
Charles Grodin .... Murray Blum
Faith Prince .... Alice
Laura Linney .... Randi
Bonnie Hunt .... White House Tour Guide
Parley Baer .... Senate Majority Leader
Stefan Gierasch .... House Majority Leader
Anna Deavere Smith .... Mrs. Travis
Charles Hallahan .... Policeman
Tom Dugan .... Jerry
*******
Miscellaneous Department:
Candidate #1: As much as I would love to claim it as
one of my own classic quips, the Pass the Lord and praise the
ammunition bit is pure Firesign Theater. I bow down all humbly
in tribute to their most excellent satiric wordplay, as should
we all.
Candidate #2: Some upcoming DVD releases deserving of special
attention include:
Michael Tolkin's haunting, brilliant and very disturbing film
The Rapture, starring Mimi Rogers and and a very young
David Duchovny is scheduled for debut on 11/02/2004. Gus Van Sant's
Even Cowgirls Get the Blues starring Tarantino muse Uma
Thurman will be out on the same date.
Two Criterion Collection titles have been delayed slightly from
their original 08/24/2004 street-dates: David Cronenberg's Videodrome
should appear on August 31st, while Richard Linklater's Slacker
is in recline for three more weeks, to be up and around on September
14th.
If you rent, buy or order no other disc this week, be sure to
get yourself a copy of Steven Spielberg's classic TV movie thriller
Duel, which made its DVD debut last week after several
delays. Better and scarier than Jaws by far.
Candidate #3: Some selected other Ivan Reitman films:
Evolution (2001)
Six Days Seven Nights (1998)
Fathers' Day (1997)
Junior (1994)
Kindergarten Cop (1990)
Ghostbusters II (1989)
Twins (1988)
Legal Eagles (1986)
Ghost Busters (1984)
Stripes (1981)
Meatballs (1979)
Candidate #4: Read some more about Phil Roy at: http://www.acousticlive.com/feb.3.htm
And some more about Jill Sobule at: http://www.acousticlive.com/apr.4.feat.htm
*******
Question of the Week:
Multiple choice this time around, gentle readers. Being that I
m so easy to get along with, you may even choose more than one
answer.
Q: Do you go to the movies (or play them at home on video) primarily
to:
1) relax
2) get a thrill kind of rush
3) gain a safe emotional outlet
4) distance yourself from reality temporarily
5) use them as the fulcrum for a social gathering
6) see a favorite actor/actress (or director, etc.)
7) entertain the kids
8) get away from the kids
9) other (elaborate as you wish)
And so we re in the final stretch of the annual GP/BT trip. (Sorry,
Olympics playing in the background. Do they have stretches in
like, diving or beach volleyball?) Hope you ve been having fun
for the past four weeks, and as is my custom, next week I ll be
finishing out the month by recommending a sci-fi/fantasy/horror
genre of film, and for sure one in the GP category.
Until then, post em if you ve got em, and I ll see you
next week.
Take care!
*******
Replies:
[> Wow, On, that *Ghostbusters* is one classic movie, that's
for sure! -- Evil Clone, 19:31:40 08/22/04 Sun
( If you can't beat 'em, be sneaky. )
[> Ghostbusters ROX!! -- dub ;o), 21:51:46 08/22/04
Sun
And in response to the QotW, a combination of 2 and 4, I think,
although 4 doesn't always happen.
There's another option, though, and I'd say sometimes I go to
the movies to have something to think about, not necessarily distancing
from reality. Some good films present (or even introduce) concepts
that I may not have previously considered, and I love it when
that happens.
;o) dub
[> 9) other (elaborate as you wish) -- d'Herblay, 22:29:09
08/22/04 Sun
I've looked at your list of possibilities, and none of them seem
to strike a chord with me. I think this is because when I go to
see a movie, my primary intent is to see a movie.
[> #2 for me -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:45:53 08/22/04
Sun
I like to see movies because they have the power to invoke strong
emotions. Dramas can make me feel sad or glad for the characters
in them, comedies can make me laugh out loud, suspense/horror
movies can give me a nice jolt of fear, and action movies make
me go "woah!" (that plus, sometimes, I get pleasant
tingling sensation across my skin during action scenes, usually
when the hero comes to the rescue; I'm not quite sure how to explain
it, but it feels good).
Of course, technically I think I should also include #9, since
for the past year I've been writing movie reviews for the local
paper, so it has technically been my job to see them (although
I've enjoyed doing it very much).
[> [> Hey! I remember that! -- OnM, 06:14:01 08/23/04
Mon
You told me last year that the local paper review bit was a possible
upcoming gig-- glad to see it worked out. Does the paper have
an online version, and are your reviews available? Inquiring minds
want to know!
:-)
[> [> [> Re: Hey! I remember that! -- Finn Mac
Cool, 07:41:44 08/23/04 Mon
They're archived at www.postbulletin.com, unfortunately you have
to subsribe to it in order to view anything, so it's not really
worth the trouble. At any rate, since I'm heading off to college
this fall, that gig's pretty much over. I'm sending my last review
in this week.
[> I'm #9, too... -- Rob, 23:33:34 08/22/04 Sun
...which for me is: "To analyze,"... or over-analyze,
as the case may be. Although I can enjoy a fluffy film every now
and then, I really enjoy the ones I can sink my teeth into, find
meaning in, and perhaps even compose an essay on or discuss with
my friends later. Even when I go see, for example, a thriller,
I prefer a more intelligent one, such as The Bourne Supremacy.
A lot of my friends think I'm crazy for that, but I like it better
when my brain can get a bit of a work-out rather than just sitting
their passively in the theatre. If the plot itself does not have
a great deal of depth, I at least ask that there be something
interesting to mull over, such as the direction or editing. (Bourne
was a great example of a movie with perhaps not a plot with a
great deal of depth, but one with involving characters and very
interesting direction.) Not that I'm a snob in the least. My favorite
film of the summer was Spider-Man 2. I absolutely adored
the film, from top to bottom, and spent more hours dissecting
and analyzing it, both in posts and in my own brain than most
people would probably do for more "important" or "serious"
films.
Rob
[> I generally don't go to the movies, but I do have a pick
worth watching... -- Rufus, 23:55:49 08/22/04 Sun
The Magnificent Seven...it has a commentary track, making of documentary,
and the movie itself. Firefly brought me back to Westerns and
I just happened to be in a store with this movie in a sale bin,
I couldn't resist.
[> [> Hey, me too! -- CW, 07:42:31 08/23/04 Mon
I'd just bought the movie that The Magnificient Seven was
based on, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and thought, gee, I'd
like see to the American version again. Then a week later, there
it was in the bargain bin. Glad I wasn't the only one to get a
good deal on it!
I guess I pick 1) on the quiz. I think of movies as fun not something
to get too concerned about.
[> [> [> Re: Hey, me too! -- Rufus, 22:51:39
08/23/04 Mon
There was supposed to be a collectors booklet with the DVD, but
mine was empty of anything other than the disc itself...I don't
know if I missed anything.
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey, me too! -- CW, 07:44:59
08/24/04 Tue
Just checked the cover of mine. Looks like we're both proud owners
of invisible collector's booklets. Oh, well, It's not like I would
have paid more if I thought it was in there. ;o)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 22nd 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- Ann, 06:39:07 08/23/04
Mon
I loved Dave when it came out. Kline and Weaver are brilliant
together. I loved Ice Storm also, it shook me to the core. My
friend cried for 20 minutes following it as apparently her childhood
was just like theirs.
Reasons:
1) relax sometimes. My second viewing of HP-POA turned out to
be for just this reason
2) get a thrill kind of rush Speed began as a # 6 (like a car
accident you can t look away) and then became this reason
3) gain a safe emotional outlet not particularly, that is what
poetry is sometimes for
4) distance yourself from reality temporarily not usually
5) use them as the fulcrum for a social gathering mostly just
a date with my husband, I would rather go to dinner or where ever
to actually talk with other friends, not that I don t talk with
my husband lol
6) see a favorite actor/actress (or director, etc.) most often.
7) entertain the kids yes although so many times, those same movies
don t accomplish the same effect for adults (this summer broke
that rule with HP POA and Spiderman2)
8) get away from the kids see #5
9) other (elaborate as you wish) My reason for movie viewing is
mostly just to see the movie. Nevertheless, like all things, other
reasons can make themselves heard depending on mood and movie.
[> Seeing the original Jaws in the theater -- manwitch,
06:02:14 08/24/04 Tue
" If you rent, buy or order no other disc this week, be
sure to get yourself a copy of Steven Spielberg's classic TV movie
thriller Duel, which made its DVD debut last week after several
delays. Better and scarier than Jaws by far."
High praise indeed. I agree people would enjoy this movie. But,
a few words for Jaws,</> if I may.
I'm sure some people on this board remember the days when movie
theaters were gargantic. Like big. And you would be in a theater
with like over a thousand other people if the pic sold out.
Well, Jaws sold out like gangbusters. My mom was an English lit
teacher at the time, and she used Jaws in one of her classes,
so we were psyched to go see the movie when it came out. We tried
to see it at the Golf Mill theater outside of Chicago, cuz, well,
we lived near there. Four times we tried. The lines for this picutre
were like nothing we had seen before. Not even Poseidon Adventure
had lines like this. You had to get to the theater to cue up two
hours at least before show time if you wanted to get in. There
were lines literally going around a city block, stretching into
the distance. There was no online ticket purchase back then. If
you went to the 6 o'clock show and got to the theater at 5 oclock,
you were told it was already sold out. And these are HUGE theaters
compared with piss ant TV screening rooms of today.
This went on for what seemed like months. Towards the end of summer
we finally got in. The theater had employees in the aisle who
would keep track of where the empty seats were, so as you were
huddled into the theater they would shout "One seat down
here in row 4." When my family went there weren't five seats
together anywhere in the theater. I was ten, I think at the time,
and I had to sit by myself, albeit with thousands of strangers,
in row 4. And the screens were just really really big. It wasn't
like sitting in row 4 today, which you have to do now just so
you can see the tiny images. No, back then, row 4 put your face
right in it.
Jaws was just a friggin brilliant, hilarious, powerful, gripping,
and terrifying movie. It has what has got to be one of the greatest
film scores ever done. And I'm not just talking about the title
theme. The slow development of its story, and its lead characters
is more sophisticated and deeper than anything Spielberg had done
before, i.e. Duel. Plus, its just way way way more terrifying.
To see Ben Gardiner's head come out of that boat in a theater
of a thousand terrified people is an experience worth having.
People would clutch onto people they didn't know for protection
and comfort. It was frickin wild. I can't really even think of
anything to compare to that experience. Maybe Silence of the Lambs.
Maybe the original Alien. But the alterations in the venue itself
kinda diminish the slow build of collective terror that was the
experience of seeing Jaws.
After Duel, there wasn't an explosion of magazines or documentaries
or tv programs or books about psycotic truck drivers and what
happens if you pass them. After Jaws there was an explosion of
interest in sharks. The reason was because the thought of being
eaten alive by one of those things is largely more horrifying
than the thought of passing a truck on the highway. Plus, Jaws
inspired a number of horrible sequels that make one forget just
how good the original was.
Jaws is a great movie. Duel is an interesting look at the origins
of Steven Spielberg. I grant its gripping and a lot of fun. But
it certainly lacks the depth of Jaws. It lacks the characters.
It lacks the music, which is a huge part of what made Jaws terrifying
and successful. And I just don't think it does or ever will touch
people in that deep primordial way that the fear of being eaten
does.
Jaws is the largest single factor in why I studied music and composition
in school and why I majored in composition at IU and Film Scoring
at Berklee. That should not mean anything to anyone, but it does
to me. If you had been sitting in row 4 at age ten, that movie
would be seared into you memory.
So I just felt the need to defend this treasure. I know no one
was knocking it. They were praising something else and using Jaws
as the standard. Forgive my neuroses. Jaws just holds a very special
place for me. Its one of the great films of all time. After all
of Spielberg's masterpieces, to me it still ranks as one of his
best (if not the best) pieces of story-telling. Its only flaw
is the special effects available at the time. But the story-telling
is flawless, even as it deviates from the book.
I'll give him the Color Purple and Close Encounters, but I'd take
Jaws over ET, Schindler, Private Ryan, Amistad, Jurrasic Park,
Empire, even Raiders, although I find that absolutely charming.
I'd even take Jaws over 1941.
That was a joke.
Don't get me completely wrong. Duel is worth seeing. It'll get
your gut in a knot to be sure. Its a very suspenseful thriller.
But personally I would set your expectations a little lower. "Better
and scarier than Jaws by far" I think is overstating the
case. It'll seem new, cuz not everybody's seen it a hundred thousand
times.
So, I don't mean to knock Duel</>, and I'm glad its out
on DVD and glad people are singing its praises. Movies are largely
a matter of personal preference, and if people prefer Duel, they
should go right on doing so.
That door has been closed to me since I was ten. See what happens
when you take little kids to those movies?
Jaws is a really well crafted film.
[> [> Sorry about the missing token. -- manwitch,
06:03:27 08/24/04 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Sorry about the missing token. --
manwitch, 06:08:32 08/24/04 Tue
So do I just need to put in an end token in another post? Is that
what cures it?
[> [> [> [> You can fix the broken tag, post again,
and... -- OnM, 18:38:01 08/24/04 Tue
...get d'herb or Masq to delete the original. Unfortunately that's
about the only way, since there's no after-posting edit privileges
here on Voy.
[> [> Re: Seeing the original Jaws in the theater
-- OnM, 19:13:27 08/24/04 Tue
*** Jaws just holds a very special place for me. Its one of
the great films of all time. After all of Spielberg's masterpieces,
to me it still ranks as one of his best (if not the best) pieces
of story-telling. Its only flaw is the special effects available
at the time. But the story-telling is flawless, even as it deviates
from the book. ***
One of the things that always makes me happy is when an artist
who started out pretty much at the top of his/her game while still
very young, continues to make challenging and interesting films
(or music, or whatever) throughout their lifetime. Paul Simon
was someone who did that with his music, and I would have to say
that the older Simon is even better than the younger one.
The same is true with Spielberg, I believe. His two most recent
films, Catch Me if You Can and The Terminal were
incredibly great, perhaps his best work yet. Even AI: Artificial
Intelligence merits serious attention despite the oft-lamented
un-Kubrickian 'happy ending', because too many critics have focussed
on the last 20 minutes and in doing so forget just how perfectly
Spielberg channeled Kubrick for the first 2 hours. The sad truth
is (IMHO, of course) that Kubrick seemed to lose much of his gift
in the latter years of his career, and AI was actually
realized better than he could have done it.
Your point about seeing Jaws in a 'real' theater is well
taken, and I am now intrigued into wondering how Duel would
look on a big screen, which after all, it was never made for.
I'll have to try it out on the big theater rig at work and see,
I guess!
What scares people isn't much different than what arouses people
sexually-- that is, it can be almost anything, and it's very individualistic.
Being on the roadways with crazy people a large part of the time
could easily terrify you more than sharks, if you aren't the type
to ever go swimming in the ocean, wouldn't you say?
I was going to finish up the post by making a comparison relative
to the endings of each film, but I decided to erase it for fear
of spoiling anyone who hasn't seen Duel yet, as I suspect
that there may be quite a few who haven't. The comment related
to the appearance of the evil trucker relative to what we see
of the shark in Jaws, which is one of the ways that makes
Jaws just a wee bit more 'conventional', but just a bit--
you'll get no argument from me that it is a masterful film overall.
[> [> [> Re: Seeing the original Jaws in the theater
(A.I. spoilers) -- Rob, 19:44:41 08/24/04 Tue
Even AI: Artificial Intelligence merits serious attention despite
the oft-lamented un-Kubrickian 'happy ending', because too many
critics have focussed on the last 20 minutes and in doing so forget
just how perfectly Spielberg channeled Kubrick for the first 2
hours. The sad truth is (IMHO, of course) that Kubrick seemed
to lose much of his gift in the latter years of his career, and
AI was actually realized better than he could have done it.
Agreed...And I also have to say that I liked the ending, if only
because after all the misery and hardship and torture that poor
little guy had to go through during the first two hours of the
film, I think he (and the audience, by extension) deserved even
just a short time of happiness, as a reprieve from the overwhelming
sadness of the first 3/4 of the film. And of course, the fact
that after his perfect day, he dies, does keep it from being too
happy. ;-)
And on a another note, the film was meant to be an update of Pinocchio,
so the robot's evolution into "real boy" did have to
happen for the film's journey to be come full circle and be complete.
Had he been left forever at the bottom of the ocean, it would
be as if a story were cut off in mid-sentence. JMHO.
Rob
[> [> Am I the only person in the world -- Caroline,
05:20:57 08/25/04 Wed
who didn't go to film school who thinks that Stephen Spielberg
is one of the most manipulative directors in cinema history? I
can't stand to watch his films because the emotional button-pushing
is so sledgehammer-ish that it leaves me numb and sometimes so
annoyed I want to throw my popcorn (no butter) at the screen.
I can't bring myself into the experience when I'm being so blatantly
manipulated. My repulsion is so complete that even the possibility
of reassurance that he has changed his ways would not get me to
go to see a film he has made.
[> [> [> Re: Am I the only person in the world
-- OnM, 07:17:21 08/25/04 Wed
*** My repulsion is so complete that even the possibility of
reassurance that he has changed his ways would not get me to go
to see a film he has made. ***
I doubt very much that you are the only person who feels this
way, and Spielberg isn't by any means the only director accused
of this characteristic (Mr. 'Titanic' ego, for example).
You feel what you feel, and that's the way it is. [butface]Buuutt...
I would respectfully suggest that you see Catch Me if You Can
and let us know what you think.[/butface]
Seriously, this is exactly the reason that I don't
give the film's title away when I do these reviews until I have
a chance to get readers involved in the sort of flow of things.
If I put "Duel - Steven Spielberg" right up on the post
heading, persons like yourself would be likely to go "Eww,
Spielberg! He's so damn manipulative!" and think "OK,
gonna pass on the Classic Movie this week."
I try to take every film on its own merits, and every actor, every
director, and so forth. Remember, even a blind squirrel finds
some nuts.
;-)
[> [> [> Re: Am I the only person in the world
-- Rob, 09:42:28 08/25/04 Wed
I can't bring myself into the experience when I'm being so
blatantly manipulated. My repulsion is so complete that even the
possibility of reassurance that he has changed his ways would
not get me to go to see a film he has made.
I have the exact opposite reaction to Spielberg. I am always in
awe of how much of a complete genius as a filmmaker he is, because
he knows exactly how to manipulate audience emotions: the perfect
lighting, the perfect musical cue coming in at the perfect moment,
the perfect angle, all of which combine to put the audience in
emotional overload. I personally would classify any director of
any film as manipulative--the act of drawing someone into and
being emotionally affected by a fictional story requires
manipulation--the difference with Spielberg being that he is much
better at it than most people.
Rob
[> [> [> No, I feel that way too -- manwitch,
09:47:56 08/25/04 Wed
But it depends on the manipulation for me. I mean, every film
maker is manipulating us to a degree, right? Duel and Jaws are
basically suspense/thriller movies. Obviously he's attempting
to manipulate you into being scared, disturbed, whatever. But
they are extremely effective and they don't cheese out at the
end.
I hated ET The Extra Terrestrial and His Adventures on Earth when
I first saw it. My opinion hasn't really changed. The ending of
that movie defies the conventions the movie had already established
solely for the purposes of tugging on our heartstrings. Sorry,
but I'll rent Meet Me in St. Louis if that's what I'm after. Oh
Yay, ET's alive! Oh Yay, ET can fly! Too bad he didn't think of
that at the start of the movie instead of futzin about on his
stumpy legs trying to get back to his ship. Woulda saved us all
a couple of hours.
Not that ET doesn't have good film making in it, but to do that
kind of crap at the end is crassly manipulative.
And for me, that's the thing about Spielberg. All of his movies,
every one, has exceptional film making in it. But they frequently
reach a point, usually near the end, where I become indignant.
Even Private Ryan I have to take a deep breath and grind my teeth
at the end.
He has a handful of films, my opinion obviously, that aren't manipulative,
at least not in an objectionable way, and that aren't hitting
you over the head with what you're supposed to think about it.
They are Jaws, Close Encounters, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders
of the Lost Ark, and The Color Purple. Just good stories, well
told. And oddly enough, five of the most memorable and successful
film scores in history (four by John Williams and one by Quincy
Jones).
I'll throw Duel in there too even though its not a feature. Its
a very clean story, and the only thing it manipulates is your
heart rate.
Do you have the same Spielberg reaction to those movies? Or are
you talking ET, Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, and Schindler?
I haven't seen the most recent ones, from AI to the present.
[> [> [> It is a fine line -- Ann, 10:44:30
08/25/04 Wed
I never thought about Spielberg s direction much, just enjoying
the ride, until Shindler's List. I felt very manipulated by that
movie. I think he was trying too hard to represent events that
need very little direction. They speak for themselves. His attempt,
especially with the little girl in the red coat, was the colorization
of horror. I understand his need to make it individual and personal,
but it made it seem contrived and manipulative.
Apparently, because there are a number of people who believe said
events never happened, [boggles] he wanted to make it appear personal.
6 million people is a huge number to grasp. Somehow, his attempt
just cheapened the loss. I don t think the movie succeeded for
me. The upside is he gave his profits away and is using them for
documenting the verbal histories of those that lived through that
horrible time. And the story should be told. Repeatedly.
I guess I also have that feeling about his other historical movies
like A Colour Purple and Private Ryan. He takes on these events,
and there is no way that the commercialization of Hollywood can't
cast an obscene glow on events that are even more obscene.
In college, I took a Jewish Literature class, a Rabbi teaching.
There were two people college age, and the rest were retired Jewish
people who lived (literally) through the Holocaust. What they
spoke of was much more meaningful than that entire movie. That
comparison is why I wasn t impressed with the movie. He tried,
I credit him with trying, but it didn t work for me.
[> [> [> I still cringe at the thought of The Color
Purple. I mean, come on. -- cjl, 11:50:17 08/25/04 Wed
[> [> Agree - why JAWS is a fantastic film (Spoilers
for JAWS) -- s'kat, 08:09:52 08/29/04 Sun
Jaws was just a friggin brilliant, hilarious, powerful, gripping,
and terrifying movie. It has what has got to be one of the greatest
film scores ever done. And I'm not just talking about the title
theme. The slow development of its story, and its lead characters
is more sophisticated and deeper than anything Spielberg had done
before, i.e. Duel. Plus, its just way way way more terrifying.
To see Ben Gardiner's head come out of that boat in a theater
of a thousand terrified people is an experience worth having.
People would clutch onto people they didn't know for protection
and comfort. It was frickin wild. I can't really even think of
anything to compare to that experience. Maybe Silence of the Lambs.
Maybe the original Alien. But the alterations in the venue itself
kinda diminish the slow build of collective terror that was the
experience of seeing Jaws.
I agree with you on JAWS. I saw it at an early age as well for
the first time. But alas never on the big screen. I have however
seen it at least 20 times and often pause when flipping channels
on it, whenever it comes on, BRAVO and TNT seem to show it alot
for some reason. I've also seen a documentary on the making of
JAWS.
Of Spielberg's films, hands down, JAWS is possibly his best work.
It is the least manipulative, the least special effects laden
and the most honest - odd things to say, I know, for a horror
movie with a mechanical shark. What made it great? The scenes
without the shark. The scenes that Spielberg was forced to rely
on because the mechanical shark wouldn't cooperate or work. It
kept breaking down.
There's several I can think of off-hand, scenes I pause to watch
whenever JAWS comes on screen, because of their brilliance.
1. The sequence towards the beginning of the film where
you see the Sheriff having breakfast with his family, it's a normal,
hetic moment, realistically filmed with no fancy footwork. The
dialogue tells us everything we need to know without being too
smulchy or over the top. Schneider's Sheriff is an Ex-New Yorker
who moved to a quiet island to raise his family in safety. Ironically
he is scared to death of water and refuses to enter it. The interaction
between Schieder, the family, the locals in the town perfectly
sets up the character and gives us a reason to care about him.
This is what a good horror film does. The reason JAWS scared the
shit out of you as a child was you *cared* what happened to the
characters. You liked them.
They were familar. You knew them. They'd become friends.
And you did not want them to be hurt. Establishing that link early
on between audience and character is crucial to the success of
a horror film. The ones that don't take the time to do this, aren't
scarey.
2. The scene when Richard Dreyfuss's oceanographer examines the
body and almost throws up. His interaction with the sheriff. We
establish in this scene who this character is and why we should
root for him. It's why you jump when Ben Gardiner's head appears
- because it's Dreyfuss who finds it and you feel for Dreyfus.
3. The two men in the boat hunting JAWs with their wife's holiday
HAM. And how they barely escape. We never see the shark. But we
fear for these two men, which is frightening and comical sequence.
4. The tracking shot on the beach, when the little boy gets killed.
JAWS copiers often would kill a whole slew of people. Speilberg,
because he didn't have the budget, did just one boy on a raft.
A boy his mother worked to get into the water. We follow the mother
and boy, but not in an obvious way up to the point he gets killed.
We also spend time with the Sheriff. The Mayor. How there's nothing
to worry about. How the Sheriff looks tense and is having troubles
relaxing. But finally does. The crowded beach that looks just
like any crowded beach. Then suddenly it happens.
And everyone rushes in. Almost trampling one another. And you
see the tracking shot on the Sheriff, his reaction, how his rushing
to the beach. And the mother calling for her son. One of the best
scenes ever done on film. And we never even saw more than a fin
of the monster. But we cared who died. We felt the death like
a wound. It wasn't gratuitous.
5. The three men in the boat. If you have seen this film, I don't
need to explain more. Xander's line in Graduation Day PArt I comes
directly from this sequence. Roy Schneider says to the shark hunter
Quinn after seeing the shark for the first time - "You're
going to need a bigger boat."
But it's not that line I'm referring to or the scenes with the
shark. It's the quieter scenes. At night. The three men sit and
trade war stories. There's conflict between Quinn and Dreyfuss'
doctor. So they start showing each other scars, each one more
grisely than the last. They are all drunk and have been singing
tunes. Now the competition on the scars. Finally, the last one,
and it's not a scar but a small tattoo. Dreyfuss looks at it and
knows what it means.
Schnieder doesn't and asks. And here Quinn launches in one the
best monologues on film. A monologue that may have gotten the
actor nominated for an Oscar. According to the Making of JAWS
- the actor wrote and came up with most of that monologue himself.
It's a frightening story about a ship going down and sailors being
eaten one by one by sharks. And it is told with no background
music. Complete silence. The score in JAWS is done so well - that
silence scares you. All you hear is the ocean hitting the boat.
In the documentary - Spielberg makes it clear that the reason
JAWS was so good was he was prevented by budget limitations to
do what he wanted. The obstacles he ran into while filming and
how he dealt with them caused JAWS ironically to be amongst the
best horror films or films period ever to be made. And it shows
how making a good film, let along a brilliant film is not only
a miracle but an obstacle course. Dreyfuss and the actor playing
Quinn did not get along. Both actors had substance abuse problems.
Quinn was drunk through a good portion of the shooting.
The shark did not work. They had to find ways of shooting around
it. It rusted up at one point. When they had the boat catch on
fire they almost lost Schnieder in the fire and he barely escaped.
Shooting went over budget. And the special effects Speilberg wanted
to employ to make the shark scary weren't available. So he decided
to show as little of the shark as possible. To rely on other things
for suspense, such as musical score, relationships between people,
dialogue, tracking shots - and as a result created a film masterpiece.
One can't help but wonder how good his other films might have
been if his budget had been as limited? Would the color palette
of The Color Purple been quite as emotionally cloying? Would he
have tried to do the little red coat in Schindler's List which
hurt him more than helped? Would
we have gotten the light display in Empire of The Sun, which almost
took you completely out of a fairly good movie?
What JAWS had that Close Encounters didn't - was no sentimentality.
Speilberg let the movie speak for itself, because he had to. He
couldn't go overboard. Provide the sentimental touches. Which
may be why I think JAWS remains his best work, a work I'm not
sure he's ever come close to repeating or mastering.
[> [> [> Yup to all -- Ann, 11:10:53 08/29/04
Sun
Those all all my favorite scenes and I agree with you completely.
Yes the three men in the boat, (the baker, candlestick maker,
butcher hee) and their stories. Expecially that of the sunken
Indianapolis ship in the WW2 story. Chilling. He had been through
all of it before.
Great movie. I so prefer his action-y movies, to just go along
for the ride, for which he succeeds very well.
[> [> [> [> Re: Yup to all -- s'kat, 12:20:59
08/29/04 Sun
I so prefer his action-y movies, to just go along for the ride,
for which he succeeds very well.
Agreed. I think Spielberg is one of the best *action* filmmakers
out there. Here's a quick list:
Raider of The Lost Arc
Duel
Jurassic Park
JAWS
Those four films were tight, suspenseful, provided us with interesting
characterizations and hit all the right notes.
Even the later Indiana Jones films were good.
It's when he falls into sentimentality, that I think Spielberg
tends to get carried away. It's that old catch-22 scenerio - when
you write what obsesses you, you tend to get self-indulgent. Yes
- that's what drives you to write and create, but at the same
time, there are one too many traps to fall into. Same can be said
about criticism in a way, when you are too emotionally invested
or obsessed with a topic, the criticism suffers - because it is
just pure emotion - not that there is anything wrong with that,
it's just translating pure emotion into words and images without
falling into traps such as overt/cloying sentimentality, bashing,
or preachiness can be difficult, I think. In JAWS, Speilberg avoids
the traps, Schindler's List and Color Purple which were closer
to his heart, he falls into them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yup to all -- Ann, 13:00:07
08/29/04 Sun
which were closer to his heart, he falls into them.
Well said! Now I have to think of that statement in terms of Whedon!
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! -- s'kat, 16:35:49
08/30/04 Mon
sk:which were closer to his heart, he falls into them.
ann:Now I have to think of that statement in terms of Whedon!
LOL! I think it's a statement that possibly applies to everyone.
I know it does to me. The more invested, the more passionate you
feel about a topic, the harder it is to see it rationally or critically
or to write about it well. Notice I'm not saying it's impossible.
Some people can only write about that which they feel passionate
about - Harper Lee only wrote one book - To Kill a Mockingbird,
a subject it is safe to say she felt passionate towards. Others
have more trouble and find that too much emotion clouds or interfers
with their art. I think Whedon falls into the latter category,
I get the feeling he writes best when he is trying to explore
a topic or character (example River in Objects of Space in Firefly)
and worste when he wants to expound on a topic, feels passionately
about it, or adores a character overly much (Fred in Hole in The
World). At least that was my impression.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 22nd 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- DickBD, 12:18:34
08/25/04 Wed
My wife had been wanting to see this movie, and I took her last
night. Because of this review, I enjoyed it a lot more than I
would have otherwise.
I primarily lurk at this site, but I must confess that I really
get a lot out of it. I always make it a point to read whatever
Shadowcat has to say, as well as Rob and Masq, and a bunch of
others, too, of course.
I am really happy that the site has managed to keep going, even
after the shows which inspired them have ended. It is always a
pleasure to visit here, and if I don't contribute, it is because
someone else has already made whatever point I might make--and
done it with more grace.
[> [> The shows that inspired this site have ended? Really?
Gee, I didn't notice. -- OnM, 18:27:00 08/25/04 Wed
Thanks for your kind comments. There is no place like this place,
and we'll keep it that way as long as possible.
:-)
[> [> Thanks -- Masq, 09:39:01 08/26/04 Thu
I didn't want to see this place go away when BtVS and Angel did,
either. I think there are plenty of things for us to talk about,
including the shows that started it all.
[> [> [> Call me crazy -- DickBD, 11:46:15
08/26/04 Thu
But I think the Whedon shows are like Shakespeare, worthy of being
re-watched and discussed. Thank the Powers that Be for DVDs!
[> [> [> [> Re: Call me crazy -- Jane, 17:28:22
08/27/04 Fri
I agree. I think we will watching and discussing these shows for
years to come. I keep watching Buffy over and over - Space just
finished up with Chosen yesterday and started all over again with
Welcome to the Hellmouth today. It's a loop like the Mummy hand
episode!
[> [> [> [> [> Aarf! -- Spot, 14:19:54
08/31/04 Tue
(Sorry, I couln't resist. I was among the last group of schoolchildren
who learned to read with Dick, Jane and Spot books. Arethusa)
CJL on national television tomorrow
night! (and other minor embarrassments) -- cjl (reluctant
TV star), 10:37:49 08/23/04 Mon
Well, folks, it has finally come to pass.
Crank Yankers' telephone assault on the offices of Scientific
American, featuring the befuddled voice of yours truly, will be
on Comedy Central tomorrow night (10:30 p.m. EST, 9:30 p.m. Central,
repeat two hours later). I guess I'm asking everybody on the board
to tune in, even if part of me wants you all to be doing something
important--oh, like cleaning your toilets--while the show is on.
Oddly enough, I will not be able to see my TV debut "live,"
because (1) I don't have cable and (2) I'm going to be in Central
Park for a Todd Rundgren/Joe Jackson concert. But I have a number
of friends and relatives on VCR alert, so I'll have plenty of
opportunity to catch up later. If I'm in the mood. (Sigh.)
In this very special episode, the very special Special Ed (he
of kind heart but limited mental capacity) has constructed a volcano
for his school project and wants his accomplishment to be published
in Scientific American magazine. ("I built a volcano! Yayyyyy!")
He calls the SciAm offices and speaks to a patient, if puzzled
(and unnamed) editorial staff member who tries to explain to Ed
about the facts of life in the magazine business. Ed, however,
doesn't understand why the mean man is harshing his buzz and becomes
very upset. Ed's cousin, also very upset, calls back the puzzled
editorial staff member and accuses him of being an elitist brainiac,
a geek--everything short of going to Star Trek conventions wearing
Vulcan ears. I hear it's all very amusing.
If you read Shadowkat's description of the making of this ep a
couple of months back, you'll know that I've been properly puppet-ized
for this presentation. So it'll be just like Smile Time. Except
puppet!CJL doesn't get to kick any evil puppet ass, doesn't beat
up Spike, and doesn't get to make out with a hot werewolf chick--which
kind of cuts down on the fun part of puppetization.
So get your videotape machines and DVD burners ready, because
this is probably going to be standard viewing for all future ATPo
get-togethers, whether I want it to be or not.
In other news, I'm calling off my September 12th birthday party.
Turns out I've got tickets for the Mets that day--my traditional
"birthday" game with my ex and her son. (I thought it
was on the 16th. Sorry about that.) So cancel your travel plans
and don't bother buying the condiments, because there will be
no picnic in Prospect Park. (Of course, you could all still get
together, but it would kind of weird if you celebrated my birthday
and I didn't show up.)
That's all for now. Tune in next year when CJL is transported
to a lush tropical isle for the third season of Joe Schmo.
Replies:
[> Attention! This extravaganza may be viewed on line NOW!
-- dub ;o), 13:36:24 08/23/04 Mon
I just watched and listened to it! It's already up on the Crank
Yanker's web site!!
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/crankyankers/
Awwww, CJL, your puppet is SO cute, and you are SOOOOO polite.
It's great!!
dub *grinning from ear to ear, and removing the ! key from her
keyboard now*
[> [> Spoilers - cjl's fame -- Ann, 13:52:02 08/23/04
Mon
I had to download Windows 9 but this was worth waiting for.
You were very patient CJL.
I want a t-shirt that says "What about it?"
This is a highly complex yet relatively nerdy response I know,
but I thought you might want to know!!
[> [> [> Additional Spoilers -- dub ;o), 13:59:55
08/23/04 Mon
Did you check out the framed SA "covers" in cjl's office?
They're hilarious.
;o)
[> [> [> Just saw the clip on the Crank Yankers website.
The T-shirt I want... -- cjl, 14:16:34 08/23/04 Mon
....would have Puppet!CJL on the phone with the framed SciAm cover
"Giant Dinosaur Schlong Discovered in Chile" over my
head.
[> [> [> [> Lolol! -- Arethusa, 15:19:03
08/23/04 Mon
Can you tell me how to order the article on making a boyfriend
out of common household chemicals, cjl? Please?
[> [> Black-mail photo within! -- Masq, 14:01:31
08/23/04 Mon
Just 'cause we luv you, CJL!
[> [> [> Um, Masq? -- dub ;o), 14:07:54 08/23/04
Mon
Now, you do know that isn't really the cjl puppet, don't
you?
lolol ;o)
[> [> [> That's Special Ed, Masq. -- cjl, 14:12:56
08/23/04 Mon
My puppet is much cuter. (It's nose is too big, though.)
[> [> [> [> I know, I'm working on it. -- Masq,
16:28:38 08/23/04 Mon
[> [> I got the correct photos ;) -- Tyreseus, 16:43:29
08/23/04 Mon
I think this is the correct puppet.
[> [> [> Very Cool!!!!! LOL -- Ann, 16:46:07
08/23/04 Mon
Iconage alert!
[> [> [> [> Hey CJL, I think they gave you a promotion.
; ) -- Masq, 16:48:37 08/23/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> Potential Icons -- cjl, 17:21:12
08/23/04 Mon
Icon #1
- Shot of Puppet!Angel (text: "Puppet!Angel")
- Shot of Puppet!cjl (text: "Puppet!cjl")
- Split screen shot of puppet!Angel and puppet!cjl (text: "Brothers
under the felt")
Icon #2
- Shot of Puppet!cjl (text: "What about it?")
Icon #3
- Shot of Puppet!cjl (text: "A new breed of hero")
- Shot of Special Ed (text: "His arch nemesis")
- Split screen shot of Puppet!cjl and Special Ed (text: "and
one must die!")
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Potential Icons -- Ann,
17:22:36 08/23/04 Mon
Thank you. Give me time and these will be your birthday gift!
Since the party is cancelled and all.
[> [> [> Re: I got the correct photos ;) -- s'kat,
16:49:11 08/23/04 Mon
The hands of that puppet are operated by the same puppeteer who
did the hands of Puppet Angel.
(I got this from the puppeteer who operates Special Ed.)
[> [> [> [> Re: I got the correct photos ;)
-- Rob, 16:58:17 08/23/04 Mon
I am trying very hard right now to not make a dirty joke about
how that puppeteer was inside both Angel *and* cjl. ;-)
Rob
[> [> [> [> Puppet!cjl had the same puppeteer as
Puppet!Angel? Wow. -- cjl, 17:07:33 08/23/04 Mon
I'm honored. (I think.)
If you've seen the clip, the puppet work is excellent. The movements
are perfectly coordinated with my voice--and the puppet is far
more expressive than I was during the conversation. (I was sitting
shock still at my desk, my shoulders scrunched up with rage--so
that's a GOOD thing...)
Great photos, Tyreseus!
(Dammit, I want a copy of that puppet!)
[> [> [> [> [> Puppet Angel touched, Darla,
Buffy, Electric girl, The Furies, Dru, possibly Spike..........;)
-- Rufus, 17:55:10 08/23/04 Mon
The hands are Angel therefore you have touched all those people
by puppet proxy.
[> [> [> [> [> Truly awesome! -- Pony, 06:46:44
08/24/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> Well...one of the same puppeteers..
(More info on Puppet Angel) -- s'kat, 16:22:15 08/24/04
Tue
Apparently it took four puppeteers to manipulate Puppet!Angel.
That scene where Lorne finds Puppet!Angel torn and struggling?
There were four people holding and manuevering that puppet. They
erased them on screen. I think the only
time he had one puppeteer was in the battle with Spike, when they
wired him to James Marsters and Marsters manipulated the movements.
But I could be wrong on that.
Another tid-bit, DBoreanze helped create Puppet!Angel - he worked
closely with the puppeteer who built the puppet.
[> Re: CJL on national television tomorrow night! (and other
minor embarrassments) -- Jay, 19:53:45 08/23/04 Mon
Jim Florentine is hilarious. I've heard some clips from his CD
"Terrorizing Telemarketers", and he is a pisser. I especially
like the one where is "bathing his grandfather" while
talking business with some telemarketer and his grandfather "has
a heart attack". But he won't let the telemarketer off the
phone because he want to hear about this great deal. The increasingly
lame escuses he gives to keep her on the line, and then she starts
scolding him... yaaahhh!
Will you publish my findings?
[> Interesting (TV Star) -- frisby, 04:20:48 08/25/04
Wed
I saw the piece last night; first time I watched that show although
my wife has before and likes it; sort of an audio candid camera.
I wonder if they require your permission before showing it, whether
you met anyone face to face, and whether the puppets are meant
to caricature the victims or not.
Scientific American huh? Wow! Admirable. I just sent for a free
issue with the option to subscribe; although of course I know
the mag well from my library days. I bet there are intereting
discussions around the water cooler there!
By the way, now that dark matter and dark energy have received
their proper attention, think maybe dark space and dark time are
next?
[> [> Yes, permission is definitely required. --
cjl, 07:27:33 08/25/04 Wed
They needed permission to use my voice, my name, and to use the
corporate name of Scientific American. As you could see and hear,
I did not let them use my name, but our editor-in-chief and corporate
president agreed that they could use the SciAm name.
And boy howdy, did they use it.
"Dark space and dark time"? Hmmmm..........
[> [> [> dark space & time -- frisby, 12:21:52
08/25/04 Wed
maybe the 6-7 "curled-up" dimensions are dark, and maybe
that small unit of time "before the big bang" (square
root of Gh/c5 or the Planck time) is dark --
they're both for sure dark and mysterious to me --
but I do find 'darkness' fascinating, such as the necessity of
a dark particle at the source of each and every snowflake crystal
--
nuf said (again though, I bet its sure very interesting to work
at _Scientific American_ -- although I wonder if Nietzsche's "joyful
science" gets any hearing???
[> [> [> [> seems to me *most* of space is dark...
-- anom, 11:48:22 08/26/04 Thu
...as long as you're not particularly close to a star. As for
time, well, most of us have probably gone through at least one
dark time in our lives....
[> [> [> [> [> ha ha -- and dark matter is what
absorbs light and -- frisby, 11:30:49 08/27/04 Fri
dark energy is what nullifies motion ...
really though, it may be that the 'dark' matter & energy & space
& time is necessary to explain by far most of what is
kind of how dionysos (the god of darkness) is a supergod compared
to apollo (the god of light)
[> [> [> [> [> [> well, that just raises
a question that's already on a button: -- anom, 17:59:13
08/31/04 Tue
"Oh, sure....but what's the speed of dark?"
I'm gonna buy that one at Worldcon! (Hey, maybe if I offered to
take button orders, then I'd get some responses!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> speed of darkness?
-- frisby, 19:06:48 08/31/04 Tue
The theory discussed these days is that dark energy is responsible
for the speed of the expansion of the universe accelerating. That
is, the expansion is speeding up due to dark energy.
Since speed is distance understood in terms of time, and since
distance is an aspect of time, then perhaps the speed of darkness
is dark space understood in terms of dark time? (or dark space
over dark time) (or dark space divided by dark time)
But then again, I will confess that I don't really understand
all this stuff about dark energy, or dark matter. I know what
is said, but ....
Then again, what the heck 'is' electricity ...
By the way, this republican convention on c-span doesn't seem
much like the republicans i've known the past 50 years, especially
the music ... what's going on ...
Also by the way, Manwitch has me now reading up on those seven
chakras -- why 'do' they fit the seven seasons so well??
New York huh?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> oddly enough,
i saw a book by that title at worldcon! -- anom, 22:42:13
09/09/04 Thu
One of my roommates had it in our hotel room. Here's a link
to a review, if you're interested. Absolutely nothing to do w/the
topic of this thread, or even the subthread, but the description
of the plot reminds me strongly of a (the?) major theme of Joss'
Astonishing X-Men. Funny how these connections turn up
in ways you don't expect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> things
like that 'are indeed' odd -- frisby, 04:14:30 09/10/04
Fri
Sounds like an interesting novel -- I did so like _Flowers for
Algeron_
but again on this 'odd' theme, I do wish I could better understand
how it could be that 73% of the universe is composed of dark energy,
and 23% of dark matter, with the remaining 4% accounting for all
the regular matter and energy that we previously thought was 100%
also, how that dark energy is responsible for the expansion rate
of the universe now accelerating (having earlier, already slowed
down), so that today we have a universe (according to contemporary
scientific theories, as goes without saying) that is expanding
faster and faster, or like a monstous appetite screaming more
more more
i also wonder how it is that so much of this reminds me of Niezsche's
doctrine of the world as will to power (but that's another thread)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> you
think *that's* odd? -- anom, 10:48:58 09/10/04 Fri
Check out the News Scan item "Scaled-Up Darkness" in
this month's Scientific American for an interesting idea
on the size of dark matter particles.
The more we learn about the universe, the weirder it seems to
be. I like that--makes me feel more at home in it. @>)
And w/the reference to SciAm, this subthread is now officially
back on topic!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You mean the Sep issue? -- frisby, 13:23:30 09/11/04
Sat
I recently subscribed to "Scientific American" for two
years but haven't gotten my first issue yet. Are you referring
to Sep? I assume those dark matter particles are very very huge?
Speaking of science, guess who it was who first realized the sun
is a star? Took me quite a bit of research to find out. I think
it's perhaps the most amazing thing -- right over our noses and
no one thought it, till -- and he doesn't get much write-up, nothing
like Copernicus (who didn't know it) or Galileo (who also didn't)
or even Newton (who didn't either). And today, who has really
thought out the possible implications of the galatic year?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> that's the one -- anom, 19:45:57 09/11/04 Sat
It starts on p. 26. I'll let you find out for yourself if you
guessed right.
"Speaking of science, guess who it was who first realized
the sun is a star?"
Errrrr...gee, fris, I dunno, & I'd hate to duplicate your time-consuming
research (heh)--why don'tcha just tell us? I s'pose someone would
have had to realize what the stars were 1st...when did that happen?
"And today, who has really thought out the possible implications
of the galatic year?"
Not me! What are your thoughts on it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I'm not 100% sure yet.... -- frisby, 11:51:49
09/12/04 Sun
My interest in this matter goes to Zarathustra's first words "Thou
great star!" which he addresses to the sun, showing he is
a modern man (or human).
But more importantly, of all the people to ever gaze into the
sky during the day or night, of "all" of them "ever"
how many or what percent realized the sun "is" a star?
The answer is very very very few (not even Newton or Galileo).
As for who was first, I think it's Herschel in combination with
his younger sister but I'm not 100% yet. I really wonder if perhaps
some ancient thinker at least pondered the possibility?????
As for the galactic year (250 million earth years), what if there
are something comparable to seasons???
This stuff is important! But of course, for most people, it doesn't
really mean squat to know the sun will die in a few billion years,
burning the earth to a crisp in so doing. Practically, the only
concern is whether its light and warm or not. But for us 'theoretical'
types it matters a great great great deal to know the sun is only
a star, not radically different than any of the other billion
billion stars in the heavens.
As for the discovery of the galaxy, and our place in it, and the
other galaxies, etc., well that's just plain mind-blowing, and
hardly anyone alive today even dares to really think about it.
Like Nietzsche said (who "did" know the sun was a star),
imagine some observer standing on a star far away watching the
earth in some way. They see a little light flash on and then go
off and they say, hmmm, well, that was humanity. We are but a
blip, the planet is but a speck of dust (unless like Kant you
think the moral law within raises our dignity far above anything
in the heavens, or even above the heavens themselves)...
How can humanity continue realizing their entire existence is
but an instant and the planet itself but a speck of dust???????
how? how? how? how?
what is the cure for what Nietzsche called nihilism?
(thanks for asking by the way anom -- i didn't say anon)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> how'd you like to repost this as a new thread,
fris? -- anom, 10:17:30 09/13/04 Mon
Questions of this magnitude deserve their own thread (& it'd give
me more time to think of how to respond!). Besides, I think it's
time we gave cjl a break & let this thread finally drop
out of sight, don't you?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> ok -- will do -- David
Frisby, 16:25:13 09/13/04 Mon
I'll post it as "is the sun really a star?"
[> Special Ed's sound effects -- Vegeta, 07:22:52
08/25/04 Wed
CJL,
When Special Ed was crying and hitting himself at the end of your
conversation could you hear the hitting sound effect? I was just
suprised that Ed went that far...
Vegeta
[> [> Nope, never heard that. Must've added it in during
post-production. -- cjl, 08:25:20 08/25/04 Wed
I feel like one of those "Star Wars" actors who talk
about standing in front of the blue screen all day and don't see
what the hell Lucas is doing until the finished movie.
Heh.
[> Re: CJL on national television tomorrow night! (and other
minor embarrassments) -- LeeAnn, 07:44:11 08/25/04 Wed
I never watch Crank Yankers but happened to catch that one and
I was really impressed with your not caving or wimping out to
the caller, for maintaining Scientific American's dignity. Even
though the last time I read Scientific American I thought almost
every article was written to justify Bush Junta policy and decided
never to read it again.
And I'm still pissed about the wimping out on Kerala thing.
[> [> Re: CJL on national television tomorrow night!
(and other minor embarrassments) -- cjl, 08:23:03 08/25/04
Wed
Thank you. God knows I tried.
"Justify the Bush Junta policy"? Geez, we get volumes
and volumes of letters (and the occasional subscription cancellation)
calling us a rabid, left-wing commie Bush-bashing rag.
Can. Not. Win.
[> [> [> anyone who thinks... -- anom, 22:21:54
08/25/04 Wed
...Scientific American supports Bush policy should see
the exchange in the letters column of this month's issue between
The Editors & a rep of the White House science policy office.
No bashing, they just point out--wait, what am I saying? Go buy
a copy & see for yourself! It's on the 2nd Letters page.
[> I liked it! -- VampRiley, 17:50:24 08/25/04 Wed
Poor special Ed.
And the Superman one rocked. I was dying from laughter.
what words are considered
profane?? -- ghady, 07:31:57 08/27/04 Fri
They can say bitch on TV, but not shit.
They can say "we're screwed" but not "i wanna screw
her." (well, excpet for willow, who said "you screw
a vampire just to feel".. but they beeped that out over here)
Why??
Who comes up w/ all these rules?
And how come TV shows like Six Feet Under can get away w/ "fuck"??
What about nudity?? How much skin-revealing does it take to be
deemed inappropriate??
Replies:
[> [D]evolution -- GreatRewards, 10:23:23 08/27/04
Fri
This isn't the "Leave It To Beaver" TV that we watched
as kids. Today's TV is an ever-[d]evolving amoeba of filth (much
like Steve McQueen's nemesis in that fabulous 1958 movie...I'll
let you guys figure THAT one out!).
It surprises me, too, that we hear so much more foul language
on so-called "regular" tv these days, though it still
appears to be limited (for the most part) to the "cable"
channels higher up on the dial.
Just the other night I happened upon an episode of "Nip/Tuck"
on USA. One of the main characters was having very graphic sex
with a sex doll and it left very little to the imagination. Later,
that same character yelled "Goddamn it" and "asshole"
at someone. I used to think those were taboo words. [D]evolving.
Though there still appears to be a line - a very dim and fuzzy
line - that people aren't yet willing to cross. Take "Sex
& The City", for example, and it's recent move to TBS in
syndication. People were concerned that the show wouldn't translate
to "cleaner" television. They feared that every other
word out of Kim Catrell's mouth would have to be bleeped or muted
or (gasp!) overdubbed, completely ruining the show.
Times they are a-changin', my friends. Don't hurt yourself falling
over when you turn on Sesame Street one of these days and hear
Oscar The Grouch yell at some noisy kids: "Hey! Fuck off
you little runts! Go bother Snuffle-dumbass-gus, or whatever his
Goddamn name is! I'm tryin' ta screw in here!!"
[D]evolve.
[> [> The Blob! -- Vegeta, 11:52:41 08/27/04 Fri
[> [> [> 10 points for Vegeta. :-) -- GreatRewards,
13:08:25 08/27/04 Fri
[> Here's about how I understand it -- Finn Mac Cool,
11:52:11 08/27/04 Fri
The Federal Communications Commission was created a long while
ago to basically give the public a forum through which to control
the airwaves, so anything broadcast along a bandwidth (ie, all
free TV) is FCC regulated. I'm not quite sure how it works in
various time slots, but I know that in primetime TV shows they
can get away with "bitch", "bastard", as well
as "whore", I think, if it's used as a description rather
than an exclamation (I don't think a character can yell out "You
whore!"). Similarly, I think that "screw", when
used in a non-sexual manner, is allowed. Regarding nudity: the
butt, breasts, or groin are strictly off limits (except in some
animation, like "The Simpsons", which can get away with
rear nudity sometimes, or when it's presented on a classic painting.
Now cable is different. Since it's sent through wires and beamed
through satellite, the FCC can't regulate it unless the government
passed some censorship laws that could also be used to invade
people's phone calls and Inernet use. As such, cable TV can choose
to have however much nudity, profanity, and violence they want,
as long as it doesn't drive away advetisers. As such, cable TV
often holds onto primtime broadcast standards (albeit often applying
them to all timeslots, not just the evening), unless they put
up a disclaimer before the show warning of content. Even then,
though, an extremely violent and sex-filled show like "Nip/Tuck"
doesn't show groinal nudity and rarely breast nudity, not to mention
not using the word "fuck" (although "shit"
is used quite freely).
Lastly we come to Pay TV like HBO or Showtime, TV channels that
you have to pay a certain amount to see their programming (not
like with cable where you pay the cable company and the networks
don't see a dime). Because they rely on people paying them and
not advertisers (who might not want their product associated with
profanity and violence), they can do whatever it is they feel
like doing.
[> [> That's what *I* was going to say. (grin) --
GreatRewards, 13:09:43 08/27/04 Fri
[> [> Profane words still forbidden even on HBO --
Cleanthes, 08:23:33
08/31/04 Tue
The words that HBO uses all the time, for instance on their "edgy"
Deadwood, are the obscene and course words, like bitch, bastard,
shit, fuck, cunt. None of these words were forbidden in Chaucer's
time.
The words that HBO doesn't use, but that the actual denizens of
Deadwood will have used are the profane oaths:
Jesus Christ's bloody foreskin, or Mother Mary's tits.
Quaint oaths don't "sell" to modern audiences, so, instead,
we get the "f" word over and over, and, despite frequency
of use, still with a verbal stress in the sentence structure.
I've been around folks who employ course words frequently. They
stress the words no more than the average teenages stresses "like"
or "you know" in sentences.
[> there's a famous routine by george carlin... -- anom,
20:02:31 09/09/04 Thu
...about the "7 words you can't say on TV." Here's a
link
a page w/a transcription of it, although it doesn't come close
to conveying the delivery (it's much funnier to hear), & I thought
there was more after the point where the transcript leaves off.
The routine dates back to 1972, before cable TV. Others in this
thread have gone into the differences btwn. allowable content
on broadcast vs. cable. What I haven't seen mentioned is the censors
who work for the networks themselves--the people who try to keep
content w/in the bounds determined not only by the FCC but by
sponsors & self-appointed gusrdians of "community standards"
(remember the threads about the right-wing groups that called
Buffy a threat to the family?). There are lots of funny
"war stories" about compromises forced by network censors,
like allowing a stronger word in the script in exchange for making
a character's costume less revealing.
There's also a distinction many people don't make btwn. words
that are profane (religion-based words like "hell" & "damn")
& those that are obscene (words having to do w/certain body parts
& their functions). The former have become much more acceptable
than they were in earlier generations. OK, so have the latter,
but not to anywhere near the same extent. Meanwhile, racial & ethnic
slurs, though not addressed by FCC regs, have become far less
acceptable, depending on context.
"...but they beeped that out over here."
Where's "over here"?
[> [> "Over here" is Lebanon. LOL this cable
channel used to bleep "bitch" & "bastard".
Not anymore though -- ghady, 17:55:04 09/11/04 Sat
Favorite Couples on Buffy
-- BuffyObsessed, 10:19:33 08/29/04 Sun
What are your favorite couples or relationships on Buffy? I haven't
decided yet if I like Buffy better with Spike or Angel (a little
help please!) but I think one of my favorite couples was Willow
and Oz. They were so cute together and Oz was so sweet. I hated
that episode where Oz left Willow... I think it was called Wild
at Heart. I also really liked Faith and the Mayor's father-daughter
relationship. That was sweet and he was always looking out for
her.
Replies:
[> How about Willow And Tara -- skpe, 19:18:36 08/29/04
Sun
[> Re: Favorite Couples on Buffy -- Loki, 19:56:10
08/29/04 Sun
I like Buffy and Spike better. I think mostly because I like Angel's
character better when Buffy isn't around. But I haven't seen S7
for BtVS yet.
Wow. Thinking about Willow and Oz actually made me nostalgic.
[> Re: Favorite Couples on Buffy *spoiler* -- BuffyObsessed,
14:06:01 08/30/04 Mon
I've been thinking about this and I decided that one of my other
favorite couples was Anya and Xander. They were so cute together!
Anyways they both made eachother better people and im just mad
they didn't end up together!
[> Best and Worst Couples in the Buffyverse -- cjl,
22:23:30 08/30/04 Mon
I'm going to skip the B/A and B/S couplings, because I've never
been dumb enough to dive into that shark tank without full body
armor. Let's just say that both pairings had their peak periods
and their down periods. BtVS probably wouldn't have gotten off
the ground without the B/A romance, and the latter seasons probably
wouldn't have had as much "kick" without B/S.
But the honest truth is, Buffy's romances never interested me.
I always thought her relationships with her friends, her family,
and her calling were always the keystones to understanding her
character. The way Joss and ME wrote Buffy's love affairs, they
never gave me the level of insight provided by these other areas
of her life. There were great moments in B/A and B/S for sure
(WML and Dead Things in particular), but overall, I was never
all that thrilled with either one.
Which relationships did give me a thrill? Glad you asked:
1. Wes/Lilah. My favorite 'ship in the Whedonverse. In all of
Joss' attempts to craft a classic noir hero/femme fatale pairing,
this was the most successful. Both Wes and Lilah pushed each other's
characters into grey areas they'd never explored previously--Wes
toward darkness and Lilah back toward genuine connection with
human beings. Every scene of W/L crackled, up to and including
Wes' futile attempt to save her soul in Home. The gamesmanship,
the scruffiness, Lilah playing dress-up--all of it entertaining,
morally ambiguous and HOT.
2. Giles/Jenny. Giles' romance with Jenny Calendar was an enormous
leap forward in his development. From their first meeting in IRYJ,
Jenny's presence broke Giles out from his dead end status of Stuffy
Exposition Guy, and ME constantly used the G/J relationship to
peel back layers of Giles' character, revealing the former dark
wizard and bad boy underneath.
3. Willow/Tara. And not just because of its groundbreaking aspects,
although that's a big part of it. I liked the W/T relationship
because when Joss and Co. got down to tackling Willow's power
issues in S5&S6, we had a fascinating study about power dynamics
in a relationship and how even slight imbalances can turn into
abuses. ME was trying to explore similar issues with B/S, but
not hitting the mark nearly as well. I was proud of Tara for dumping
Willow's ass in Tabula Rasa--a rare moment when the darker plotlines
of S6 actually aligned with the characterizations of the previous
five seasons.
4. Spike and Drusilla. Best vampire pairing ever, nudging out
Angel and Darla. Two great actors, and two memorable characters,
providing the hot caramel center of Buffy S2.
**********************
Those were the great ones. The ones I liked, but didn't love (or
loved at the beginning but got bored)? As I said, all of Buffy's
romances. Xander and Anya (stalled after S6). Fred's pair-ups
on ANGEL.
As for the bad:
1. Willow/Kennedy. Rob tells us Iyari Limon is a nice person.
I'll take his word for it. I won't hold the role of Kennedy against
her if I ever meet her. But this was a disastrous pairing from
the start, with no chemistry between Hannigan and Limon whatsoever,
and no credible explanation as to why these two would wind up
together. After relationships with the cool and soulful Oz and
the gentle and spiritual Tara, why would Willow get involved with
someone as immature, aggressive and insensitive as Kennedy? Unlike
the four 'ships listed above, W/K moments in S7 seemed to DETRACT
from Willow's character development. Joss' determination to make
amends to the Kittens and avoid the cliche of Willow as Lonely
Sexless Lesbian Martyr was noble on paper, I suppose--it just
didn't work in practice.
2. Cordy/Angel. Another dead end. The big coming out party for
C/A in "Waiting in the Wings" told you everything you
wanted to know: 1) Boreanaz and Carpenter had no romantic chemistry;
and 2) messing with the brother/sister vibe from previous seasons
would be detrimental to both characters. As it turns out, WitW
was the first of a series of C/A deathblows to Cordelia's character,
continuing with Birthday (demonization for the love of Angel)
and capped by Tomorrow (her mirror epiphany and the oceanside
rendezvous). Carpenter seemed uncomfortable for the entirety of
S4 and the Evil Cordy plotline, and the C/A relationship never
recovered until You're Welcome. At least it ended with some dignity.
[> [> Re: Best and Worst Couples in the Buffyverse
-- BuffyObsessed, 09:21:55 08/31/04 Tue
I have to agree with several of your couples. For the best couples
I also liked Jenny and Giles and Willow and Tara. Jenny was nice,
funny, and always was ready to help out and she was good for Giles.
She helped create a lot of funny and sad episodes, for examples
Passions. I liked Tara and Willow's relationship because Tara
helped Willow to develop her powers and become a really powerful
witch. Also, she tried to do what was best for Willow and stop
her from growing addicted to magic. Willow in turn helped Tara
to stop being shy and develop, as explained in the song Tara sing
"Under Your Spell" during the episode Once More With
Feeling.
I haven't decided yet if I agree with either of your worst couples.
For Willow and Kennedy I haven't seen any season 7 episodes with
Kennedy in them so im going to refrain from making an opinion
about her until I have something to base it on. As for Angel and
Cordelia, while I am not totally supportive of their relationship
I have to say that if Angel doesn't end up with Buffy, Cordy would
have been a perfect match for him instead.
[> [> Re: Best and Worst Couples in the Buffyverse
-- shambleau, 11:46:53 09/01/04 Wed
I completely disagree that the darker plotlines of S6 didn't align
with the previous five seasons characterizations. They were a
brilliant deepening of them, for the most part, IMO, but that's
a debate for another thread.
On the question of why Willow would want to get involved with
someone immature, agressive and insensitive, Xander anyone? Yes,
it happened when she was young. But it happened because she didn't
have enough self-esteem to go out looking for someone who'd return
her affections. How was her self-esteem in S7? When Kennedy showed
up, we weren't too far in time from Willow's sub-conscious making
herself invisible (with Amy's help?) because she didn't think
she was worthy of love or forgiveness. And here's someone with
no connection to the Scoobs who is interested in her.
At the end of Hush, after she'd told Tara she was nothing special
as a witch, Tara said no, Willow WAS special. Willow lit up. If
Tara had been critical of Willow's abilities, subtextual lesbian
connection or not, I think the relationship would not have advanced
so quickly, if at all. And notice how Willow kept Tara away from
her friends so that Tara would focus on her alone. The same dynamic
is at work for Willow with Kennedy. Someone is focusing on her
unworthy ass, and just as she did with Tara, Willow gets her validation
where she can.
As for Kennedy, Willow's the available lesbian, and she's a veteran
Scoobie, so Kennedy gets a rise to the status she thinks she deserves
from being hooked up with her. She's put in charge of the Potentials
and Kennedy loves being in charge. I'm not saying it was all thought
at a conscious level on either party's part, but these are perfectly
credible motivations for their ending up together.
That there's not much chemistry, I'd agree, although the scene
in Chosen where Willow does the spell shows some on Kennedy's
part. But since this relationship is comparable to Buffy/Riley,
the lack of chemistry is fitting. This is not the great love of
Willow's life and it isn't shown as such. So, even though it was
only roughly sketched in, I found it a believable relationship,
based on real psychological tendencies in both characters.
All that said, I did feel it was a sop to the Kittens and their
supporters and it irked the hell out of me for that reason. It
felt like a political decision more than a story decision and
while the two aren't always mutually incompatible, I would have
preferred the story focus elsewhere
Book Melee - next choice
-- Ann, 09:06:45
09/01/04 Wed
Below is a list of choices for possible meleeing. Since people
want to be inspired, I think we need to expand the list of potential
choices we have collated already.
Previously on ... melee list contenders:
Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh - dmw 16:40:39 07/07/04 Wed also Jane,
Sara TCH
Waiting for Godot - El Linchador 08:28:54 07/08/04 Thu, also CJL
Patricia Sullivan's 'Maul' - MsGiles 02:42:15 07/09/04 Fri
Reading Lolita in Tehran - Vickie. Authors discussed include:
Nabokov (Lolita and Pnin), James (Washington Square and Daisy
Miller), Fitzgerald (The Great Gatsby), and Austen (Pride and
Prejudice), among others. 21:43:18 07/10/04 Sat, also CJL
WAITING FOR GODOT - Samuel Beckett and/or
SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR - Luigi Pirandello
THE AMAZING ADVENTURES OF KAVALIER AND KLAY - Michael Chabon
THE LIFE OF PI (soon to be a major motion picture by M. Night
Shyalaman), also Jane
HOUSE OF SAUD, HOUSE OF BUSH - Craig Ungar (the source of a large
chunk of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11")
FAST FOOD NATION (for the Doublemeat Palace lover in all of us)
cjl 07:41:41 07/11/04 Sun
Anom "1984" 15:36:53 07/18/04 Sun
Masq Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment Wed, 21 Jul 2004 06:40:48
UT
Lunasea July 22- Sartre's play "No Exit, Camus "The
Myth of Sisyphus," "The Stranger", play "Caligula."
Ann: Foucault's Pendulum by Unberto Eco (it is time for a reread
and it is hugely funny), Nausea by Sartre, Julian Barnes: A History
of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters (1989)
New contenders suggested last night in chat are :
Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345391802/002-9312351-9645636?v=glance
Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385509510/qid=1094054230/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-9312351-9645636
Good Omens by Neil Gaiman (heck, anything by Gaiman imho)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0441003257/qid=1094054342/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-9312351-9645636
Of course, all other suggestions that might motivate meleeing
are welcome.
Let me know what you think!
Thanks everyone.
Ann
Replies:
[> The book I'm reading right now... -- Rob, 11:05:39
09/01/04 Wed
I am in the middle of Jonathan Lethem's The Fortress of Solitude,
and it is one of the most brilliant books I've read in a long,
long time. It mainly centers around a young boy named Dylan who
is the only white boy in an all-black neighborhood in Brooklyn
in the early seventies, and his friendship with Mingus, a Mullatto
(sp?) boy who moves in next door to him, but it is so much more
than that: it touches on thousands of subjects such as gentrification,
pop music, race relations, comic books (hence the title), and
more. In fact, this mostly realistic book even has an element
of magical realism that comes in later: Dylan comes into the possession
of a magic ring that gives him the power of flight and invisibility,
which he uses to become a superhero himself, and emulate his heroes
from the comic books he loves. But this is the real world, so
his attempts to fix the problems in the world do not work nearly
as well as in the comics. Interestingly, this sci/fi fantasy element
is not mentioned on the book's jacket or in any of the advertising
I've seen, probably so as not to dissuade more mainstream readers
from picking it up, and so that it can remain in the "Fiction/Literature"
section, where it belongs. The writing has a very free-flowing,
Joycean style, and...I can't rave enough about this book. It's
504 pages, which may be too long for the Melee (not sure), but
it's a fast-paced read. I hesitate to compare it to Catcher
in the Rye, because every coming-of-age story since it was
published has been compared to it, to the point that it has become
a cliche, but it is a buildingsroman in a similar style, crossed
with a comic book. I would probably say it's closest in style
to The Adventures of Kavalier and Klay, in how it centers
on a relationship between two boys and in how comic books play
a large part of their lives (in both cases, a superhero is created
by the boys, but in this case, it is more literal...and yet at
the same time, the superhero sections, and the ring's powers,
are extremely metaphorical) but IMO, much more emotionally moving,
resonant, relatable and meaningful...so far, at least.
Rob
[> The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch -- s'kat, 20:02:59
09/01/04 Wed
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
Unnerving Satire about escapism and searching for
enlightenment. It's been recommended before.
Plot in a nutshell: The book in a nutshell takes place in the
distant future, an overly sunny/hot utopia, where people escape
their mundane existence by chewing an illegal drug called Can-D.
What Can-D does is literally translate their spirtual essence
or at least appear to translate it into a male and female doll
on a fantasy layout - created from a popular tv show or movie
several years back. Into this world of consumer products and designer
drugs and desire to evolve into something better, comes the distant
traveler Palmer Eldritch who has brought back with him an even
trippier substance called Chew-Z. This substance promises a bit
more than mere escapism - it promises eternal life, or better
yet a means of finding enlightenment with a price.
[> [> I vote for "Three Stigmata" -- Sara,
12:42:58 09/02/04 Thu
Excellent suggestion, sk! Count me in on this vote!
[> [> [> Re: I vote for "Three Stigmata"
-- s'kat, 17:04:08 09/02/04 Thu
More fodder for the suggestion:
An at times frightening and incredibly amusing novel, Dick deals
with everything from religion to consumerism, (wait is there a
difference), in this tour de force.
Aspects of this novel will remind you of Angel Seasons 4 and 5.
In some respects, I think Whedon may have ripped off Dick's novel,
except the original is far more amusing and unnerving.
I just finished it tonight and am blown away by some of the things
the novelist played with. A book that you just keep wanting to
turn over and over in your brain.
[> [> [> No -- dmw, 19:36:52 09/02/04 Thu
I haven't read it, but after reading a dozen or so of Dick's novels,
I came to the conclusion that while writing on amphetamines was
fine for short stories, it caused his novels to collapse into
incoherence before they reached midpoint. I'd happily reread his
5-volume collection of short stories, but his only novel that
I found tolerable was Ubik.
[> [> [> [> Re: No -- s'kat, 19:02:17 09/03/04
Fri
I've only read two novels by Philip K. Dick: Do Androids Dream
of Electric Sheep and The Three Stigmata of Palmer K. Eldritch.
Haven't read any of his short stories, so can't comment on those.
Nor have I read Ubik, so can't comment.
The two books I read did an excellent job of juggling plot, character,
metaphor, theme and actually saying something new. Difficult to
do in Sci-fi, where many authors either get far too plotty, too
into the technology, or too into theme and forget plot and characters
all together. While the books may not be perfect, they did not
fail on those points.
Palmer K. Eldritch is a book that will haunt me. The characters
were incredibly vivid and real. And the situation a brilliant
satire on our tendency to obsess over tv shows, fictional narratives,
and navel gazing. It also deals with that age old argument which
Whedon wrestled with in Season 4 ATS - if we meet a superior being,
would it be God, the devil, or something else, and would we care?
Especially if it gave us eternal life.
Outside of all that? The book is dang funny, in dark twisted way.
It starts with a post-dated memo, which is funnier after you read
the book.
If Ubik is half as good as good as Palmer, I might give it a chance
someday. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Very much looking forward to
reading this... -- Rob, 00:54:41 09/04/04 Sat
Your reviews have made it sound so enticing that I was thisclose
to buying a copy tonight at Barnes & Noble, but I had to wrench
the book out of my own hand with my...um...other hand, since I
really didn't have the money. I'm still scolding myself for spending
$16.99 on Jonathan Lethem's The Fortress of Solitude a
few days ago. On the bright side, though, I'm 75% through it,
and it is fantastic, probably the best new book I've read in at
least a year. Once I get my next paycheck, I'll pick up Palmer
Eldritch
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Very much looking forward
to reading this... -- s'kat, 11:50:38 09/04/04 Sat
Yep, I have a lovely online friend to thank for my copy. IT was
approximately $9.50 via Amazon, $12.00 normally.
It's a short book though, 230 pages.
What enticed me to get it was D'Herblay who kept recommending,
and kept being ignored.
[> [> [> [> [> "The Man in the High Castle"
-- Sara, 19:53:11 09/05/04 Sun
hey sk - you should definitely look for The Man in the High
Castle, another of Dick's novels that blew me away. The ending
made me gasp. And I'm still not sure if I got all the ramifications,
so if you read it let me know, I'd love to get your take on it!
[> Vote now please -- Ann, 08:34:54 09/06/04 Mon
Please post your choice. We need votes to decide.
I think The Three Sigmata of Palmer Eldritch sounds fascinating
and I have always been interested in stigmata. I am curious how
the stigmata ties into the novel. Raised catholic you know. So
that will be my vote.
Rob, have you got your paycheque yet? ;-)
[> [> Hee...Not yet, but I'm voting for Palmer Eldritch.
;-) -- Rob, 21:41:33 09/06/04 Mon
Always wanted to read a Phillip K. Dick novel, and never got a
chance to, so I'd love to do this one.
Rob
[> [> "eldritch" sounds good, i'll go for it
-- anom, 17:50:56 09/08/04 Wed
That's "go" as in "vote." Don't know if I'll
finish it in time to participate in the Melee, though. I've just
started Lord of the Flies....
[> [> Reading "Three Stigmata" now--so I guess
I'm votin' for it. -- cjl, 13:56:03 09/09/04 Thu
[> The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch - It will be then
-- Ann, 19:17:58 09/09/04 Thu
Given the number of positive votes, the choice will be The Three
Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. I just got my copy from the library
today. Read and post whenever you are able.
We will even wait for you Anom.
d"h, your recommendation is being melee'ed! Persistence pays
off. We aren t ignoring your recommendation now ;-)
And dmw, you have dibs on the next choice or alternatively you
can crucify this novel in your meleeing.
Enjoy!
Ann
[> [> you might have a long wait! -- anom, 21:40:41
09/11/04 Sat
"We will even wait for you Anom."
I'm only on ch. 5 of Lord of the Flies! Gonna keep going
w/it, though--I'm finding out how much I've forgotten since the
1st time I read it, in high school. Then I'll start Palmer
Eldritch.
[> [> [> Re: you might have a long wait! -- Ann,
08:07:40 09/14/04 Tue
Considering how hard a time I am having getting into this book,
your delay might not be a problem. Ack.
[> [> [> [> well, the 1st step's done... --
anom, 23:39:54 09/22/04 Wed
...I've finished Lord of the Flies. The vagaries of the
freelance life have brought me more work than usual, so I'll have
to make this briefer than I'd like. Then, on to Palmer Eldritch.
I'd forgotten a lot about this book since I read it in high school.
In particular, I didn't remember Simon's part in the story, & I
don't feel I have a good understanding of it. Piggy, on the other
hand...well, rereading the book after having watched Buffy
the Vampire Slayer & taking part in the discussions on this
board gives me a different perspective on him. Piggy is the voice
of reason--in many ways, he, like Giles, represents the Mind (maybe
even Ralph's mind, or the entire group's). But he's blind without
his specs. The same lenses that let him see clearly also let the
boys start the fires they need. As their "society" breaks
down, the only one who can think clearly progressively loses his
vision--reason becomes blind. BTW, does anyone have any thoughts
on the fact that Jack, who goes over most completely to savagery,
starts out as the leader of the choir? So much for music's
having charms to soothe the savage breast....
At the end, the officer who finds them turns away, but not in
disgust. Golding specifically attributes it to his feeling "moved
and a little embarrassed." My interpretation is that he's
embarrassed on behalf of the boys (he's giving them time to pull
themselves together). Perhaps he also avoids looking at them because
doesn't want to see anything of himself, or what could happen
to him, in them. I'm not bothered by his turning away as much
as by his expecting a bunch of children--Ralph's only 12, & he's
one of the oldest--to be able to govern themselves because they're
British.
It wasn't in the copy I read for the melee, but I remember a note
in the one I read in high school that explicitly compared the
children's society to adult society, ending by asking who's going
to come & save the adults from themselves. The book's copyright
is dated 1954, less than 10 years after the atom bomb was dropped
on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. At that time the Soviet Union & the U.K.
had developed their own bombs, & testing of atomic weapons was
ongoing; the arms race was well under way, & many were questioning
its implications for civilization. Somewhere in the 1st half of
the book there's a mention of the atom bomb, & an implication
that there may not be a civilization for the boys to return to--maybe
not at the time they're stranded, but as the war progresses. It
also occurs to me that the fire may be meant to represent the
atom bomb, or more broadly, the ability to split the atom, which
can have peaceful uses but also holds the potential to destroy
civilization as we know it--the fire on the island gets out of
control, & there's no one to respond to it as a distress signal.
(Hmm...does Piggy represent scientists, who can think clearly,
as Ralph recognizes, but whose discoveries can lead to destructive
developments, represented by the fire?)
Finally, I watched the premiere of Lost tonight. There
are interesting similarities to Lord of the Flies in the
show's setup, including a Beast that in this instance seems to
be real. I wonder how the adults on the show will do compared
to the children in the book.
[> [> [> [> [> reopening the "lord of the
flies" discussion in post above (w/spoilers) -- anom,
who needs to learn to use clearer subject lines, 20:50:06 09/23/04
Thu
Yeah, no one would know what the content of the above post was
from the subject line I used. Well, it was late, I was sleepy...which
may also account for the following sentence:
"It also occurs to me that the fire may be meant to represent
the atom bomb, or more broadly, the ability to split the atom,
which can have peaceful uses but also holds the potential to destroy
civilization as we know it--the fire on the island gets out of
control, & there's no one to respond to it as a distress signal."
What I meant was that there's no one to respond to the destruction
potentially caused by the bomb by seeing it as a distress signal.
Any comments?
slayer turned vamp-first post
-- newvague, 09:42:55 09/01/04 Wed
hi guys. i've been lurking around here for a while now and i wanted
to make my presence known. so, hello.
and also, i had a thought.
i've always wondered why ME never experimented with the idea of
a slayer turned vampire. given that vampires usually only sire
victims they feel will be benificial in some way, wouldn't it
have been wise of spike to keep one of those two slayers around,
seeing as they have super strength? okay, so spike sired his mother,
and is probably not the best example in this case. regardless
of the circumstances, it seems like a slayer turned vampire should
be some big holy grail for numerous vamps around the world.
if done correctly, i think it would've made a great big bad with
an interesting back story.
although i've missed some episodes in seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy,
and i haven't seen seasons 4 and 5 of angel, the only instance
in which they referenced a slayer turned vampire was in nightmares.
that i know of.
gives whole new meaning to vampire slayer.
Replies:
[> Re: slayer turned vamp -- CW, 10:23:39 09/01/04
Wed
That was what was being toyed around with in the first episode
of season five of Buffy in which Dracula expresses the desire
to turn Buffy. The problem as Drac discovered is that the results
of turning anyone can be surprising. I think the story leaves
open the possibility that a vamped slayer, might me a menace to
humans and vampires as well!
[> [> Re: slayer turned vamp -- Ames, 10:34:42
09/01/04 Wed
One of the Buffy comics (excuse me, "graphic novels")
had a story about a Slayer turned vampire - but they're not considered
canon. Also Joss Whedon's story of Fray, future Slayer, had a
sort-of-Slayer turned vampire (I won't go into spoiler details)
- but the circumstances were unusual and wouldn't necessarily
apply to normal Slayers.
Personally my theory is that Slayers can't normally be vamped.
We saw a little hint of the reason why in Buffy vs. Dracula, and
it was confirmed in Get It Done: Slayers are already possessed
by a form of demon energy which the vampire can't displace.
[> [> [> The theory -- dlgood, 10:52:19 09/01/04
Wed
Personally my theory is that Slayers can't normally be vamped.
We saw a little hint of the reason why in Buffy vs. Dracula, and
it was confirmed in Get It Done: Slayers are already possessed
by a form of demon energy which the vampire can't displace.
I don't think that's necessarily so.
Slayers possess demonic energy; the demonic energy does not possess
them. Nor do I think this necessarily means that a slayer couldn't
be turned.
As one notes in "Buffy vs. Dracula", Dracula does not
follow the turning process - that is, drain Buffy to the point
of death and then give her his blood. Based solely upon what's
been shown onscreen, I don't think there's anyway to predict for
certain, the outcome if he had done so.
[> [> [> [> Re: The theory -- Ames, 12:32:04
09/01/04 Wed
Actually I would argue that becoming the Slayer is a form of involuntary
possession. The Shadowmen made the first Slayer by forcing the
demonic energy into a girl chained to the earth, and each new
Slayer in turn is involuntarily possessed by the power, including
Buffy. It may not be a conscious and self-aware demon, and it
may not displace the soul, but it does have a strong influence
on the actions of the person possessed.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The theory -- Kana, 14:30:58
09/02/04 Thu
I'm not sure. In Terms of the physcial attributes they require
i'm not really sure that it has strong influence over a person's
actions: Faith and Kendra being polar opposites for example. It
certainly doesn't have the same influence that the demon of a
vampire has. It seems entirely plausible. The demon inside angel
was strong enough to displace eyghon.
[> what about a vamp turned slayer? -- manwitch, 13:50:05
09/01/04 Wed
I still continue to wonder if they mightn't have tried a story
of a vamp turned slayer.
I've always thought that Drusilla and Buffy having the same birthday
was significant, and Dru had premonitions, not unlike the dreams
of potentials. She saw stuff she shouldn't have been able to see.
I like to imagine that she was a potential slayer, but Angel ruined
her first and she was never called.
Then, many years later, Willow does this spell, empowering all
the potentials, never really thinking that there might be an undead
potential walking around. Hmmmm.
I think it would also be cool because if they continued Buffy's
spiritual journey, her task after achieving undifferentiated consciousness,
symbolized by her sharing of identity with the other potentials,
would be to live in the world with an awareness of undifferentiated
consciousness and yet differentiate, to live in the world rightly,
to be able to compassionately distinguish between good and evil,
even though they are both illusions.
What better big bad to represent that than a perverse Slayer Vampire
Drusilla.
Anyways, if I was writing the next Buffy season, that's what I
would be exploring. Don't wanna give away the end, but I might
even make Drusilla the one that Shanshus. But alas, no next season
of buffy, and I'm not on staff anyway.
[> [> According to the RPG -- Majin Gojira, 17:29:21
09/01/04 Wed
A Slayer CAN be turned into a Vampire, but it aint easy, and the
result is something very Strong...VERY strong...I don't feel like
getting into the complexities right now...I'm too sticky
[> [> [> Re: According to the RPG -- skpe, 06:45:10
09/02/04 Thu
In one of the "tales of the Slayer" books is a story
about a slayer turned Vamp, (sorry don't remember the name) about
an ancient Greek slayer who falls in love with a vamp and is turned
by him. She now kills both human and vampire.
[> Re: slayer turned vamp-first post -- Donna, 16:47:33
09/02/04 Thu
From what we've seen, when a new vamp wakes up from being sired
they're unaware of what has happened to them. If a slayer was
vamped (given the extra strength that seems to be automatically
endowed to just a normal person when turned), siring a slayer
might not be the best idea for a vampire, especially if they stay
close by.
Current board
| More September 2004