AOQ Review 5-7: "Fool For Love"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
(or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
Writer: Douglas Petrie
Director: Nick Marck
Ah, yes, Buffy and Spike. A pairing that I guess was fantasized about
for years, inexplicable and pretty stupid when you stop to think about
it, but oddly appealing. The actors work well together, so the
show's been glad to play with the idea in episodes like 'Something
Blue," "Who Are You?" and so on. This season the writers have
been playing with Spike's obsession, as a sideshow comedy act,
really. So that's not new. What is very new is that FFL decides to
bring the idea of sparkage between them to the forefront of the series,
make it indispensable to the world of _Buffy_. Wherever it ends up
going, we're very serious now. For better or for worse. FFL can
teach aspiring TV types a valuable lesson: when introducing something
so whacked-out, it helps if your episode is *fucking kickass*.
The teaser echoes "Helpless," starting with yet another Buffy
monologue as she does the Slayer thing, and then abruptly having her
poke herself with her own pointy stick and almost get killed. I was
figuring this would turn out to be a fantasy for Spike or whoever saved
her, but it's the real deal. That's both worrisome and potentially
embarrassing, and it's interesting that she's so forthcoming with
Riley - "he was the regular kind. He just beat me." The banter
between Buffy and her sister works pretty well here, as it seems like
Buffy's trying for affectionate mockery while Dawn takes it
personally. Best line: "Not until you're never."
Getting the Riley-on-Slayer-duty stuff out of the way, I didn't like
it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed as I'd
feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful of chips is
pretty funny. But Riley The Perfect Machine Of Snipe doesn't work
for me, especially given that he so recently had a loss of
super-strength and we haven't seen him readjusting. I know he's
been patrolling with Buffy for a long time, so it's not too
outlandish for him to stake a few enemies, but storming in and taking
out a nest single-handedly seems to be pushing it. Fortunately, this
plot recedes further and further into the background as the show finds
more interesting things on which to spend this time.
The mechanism by which Slayer and Slayer-killer first start spending
time together is elegantly simple. Who would know the details of past
Slayers' deaths? Oh yeah, the buffoonish comic relief guy in the
nearby crypt and has killed hundreds of people. The increasing use of
backstory, including for the suspense moments around ad breaks seems
strange at first, but has enough immediacy and relevance to the
present-day stuff that it ends up coming off nicely.
It's unclear where exactly Spoik (I can start using that one more
frequently if we keep seeing these Drusilla flashbacks) is going to fit
in to the past scenes until Marsters pops up amidst the silly
mustaches. That's very funny, seeing where he really picked up that
"The Bloody" monicker. Even in past lives, he gets to be the guy
everyone kicks around, and I guess I'm as guilty as the rest, since
although I'm aware that he's suffering and miserable, I'd rather
just laugh at the idea that using the right word in a sentence is the
key to his heart. Three more comments on the first flashback: first,
those who're into dissecting themes should note that the first
mention of the recurring idea of being superior, "they're
vulgarians. They're not like you and I," comes from William.
(Poets don't bother with proper grammar.) Second, we continue our
proud tradition of playing up the sexual element of the bloodsucking.
Third, one thing that's not clear to me is exactly how many of the
less flattering details he's actually telling Buffy. I'm going to
operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
One brief moment that made me happy is the highlighting of some of the
differences between some of the evil vampires in our show.
SPIKE: Come on. When was the last time you unleashed it? All out
fight in a mob, back against the wall, nothing but fists and fangs?
Don't you ever get tired of fights you know you're going to win?
ANGELUS: No. A real kill. A good kill. It takes pure artistry.
Without that, we're just animals.
That's a pretty good character synopsis right there.
On to bagging Slayers. The basic story still is pretty much "we
fought, I won, the end." Digressing in a (hopefully) relevant manner
for a second, "Lovers Walk" asked the audience to accept an
important change in the portrayal of Mr. The Bloody, as his comic loser
side, which had always been there in the background, was allowed to
become his primary character trait. That worked out pretty well. Now
viewers have to do the opposite. It becomes relevant that underneath
this likable character is a sadistic mass-murderer who wouldn't have
stacked up such a high body count if he wasn't extremely good at it.
I guess that was done well, since I'm not feeling much cognitive
dissonance. Anyway, I like the unfeeling killing of Chinese Slayer
with the tagline "I'm sorry, love, I don't speak Chinese." (Was
expecting something more like "it's nothing personal.") The
episode finds time for some more humor afterward before moving on to
the intense part; Drusilla in general comes to mind, but I laughed the
most at Spike bounding away from the burning city. How weird is it to
see Angelus and Darla being the ones *not* having fun? [Post-hoc note:
I didn't notice o.f.v. that the dates seem not to match up with what
we've been told about Angel; it took a certain other episode to draw
my attention to and explain that incongruity.]
The jarring change in look compared to what's come before helps the
fight with Afro Slayer stand out - which is good given that it's
the trigger for the climax. My biggest problem with this scene is that
I don't like the move-by-move reenactment idea. Too forced and
silly. On the other hand, having Spike deliver part of his monologue
from within the flashback is a smarter directorial choice. I also like
how although this episode seems like a history lesson and side-romance
rather than a "plot" show, it ends up being entirely grounded in
Buffy's ongoing exploration of what it means to be a Slayer. I
don't know whether we'll learn how right or wrong Spike is about
the death-wish theory or whether it'll remain food for thought, but
it's interesting. Seeing whether our hero is back to normal next
week should be informative.
And that in turn sets up the big sweeping character moment, as the
sexual subtext rapidly becomes almost-text-but-not-quite. Again if we
assume that Buffy knows everything the viewer does, her final
"you're beneath me" along with the money throw is genuinely
vicious. I like it. Marsters for his part sells his part with that
wordless sobbing sound he makes. Well played and intense.
It's more my style to end there, but FFL has a coda triggered by
Joyce's illness, after a funny digression with a slimy but polite
demon (Chaos Demon or Fungus Demon? Pre-LW or post? I'm guessing
pre, since it'd explain why Spike went back to Sunnydale to mope).
Spike coming back with a gun only to be swayed by tears is a little too
melodramatic for me, not a big fan. Then it's as if the episode
noticed my disapproval and tried to win me back by doing the rest of
the scene as perfectly as possible. It worked. The tentative little
shoulder-touch, and the silence before blackout that goes on about
fifteen seconds longer than I expected... okay, show. You had me at
"is there somethin' I can do?"
I'm not even going to try anymore to figure out how the actors'
deals work regarding when they do or don't get an "as
[character]" credit.
So...
One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
AOQ rating: Excellent
[Season Five so far:
1) "Buffy Vs. Dracula" - Good
2) "Real Me" - Decent
3) "The Replacement" - Good
4) "Out Of My Mind" - Weak
5) "No Place Like Home" - Decent
6) "Family" - Excellent
7) "Fool For Love" - Excellent]
Michael Ikeda
news:1150325814.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these
> review threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
> Getting the Riley-on-Slayer-duty stuff out of the way, I didn't
> like it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed
> as I'd feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful
> of chips is pretty funny. But Riley The Perfect Machine Of
> Snipe doesn't work for me, especially given that he so recently
> had a loss of super-strength and we haven't seen him
> readjusting. I know he's been patrolling with Buffy for a long
> time, so it's not too outlandish for him to stake a few enemies,
> but storming in and taking out a nest single-handedly seems to
> be pushing it.
The whole point is that he IS pushing it. Doing something very
stupid because he hasn't adjusted emotionally to losing his
superstrength.
>Third, one
> thing that's not clear to me is exactly how many of the less
> flattering details he's actually telling Buffy. I'm going to
> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we
> see, mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
I tend to assume the reverse. That Spike is leaving out the less
flattering parts since what we DO hear him say tends to contradict
them.
>
> One brief moment that made me happy is the highlighting of some
> of the differences between some of the evil vampires in our
> show. SPIKE: Come on. When was the last time you unleashed it?
> All out fight in a mob, back against the wall, nothing but fists
> and fangs? Don't you ever get tired of fights you know you're
> going to win? ANGELUS: No. A real kill. A good kill. It
> takes pure artistry. Without that, we're just animals.
> That's a pretty good character synopsis right there.
Yes. Spike loves to fight. Angelus loves to cause pain.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
This episode is one of the few that would definitely rank a
"Superlative" for me. It's my 2nd favorite episode of the entire series
(number 1 is still to come). This is the first true Spike story, we get
to learn the history behind "William the Bloody" and it's not a history
I was expecting at all. However, after many re-watches and learning more
about his character, I couldn't see his past being anything but what
they've given us in this episode. It's damn near perfect.
>
> Ah, yes, Buffy and Spike. A pairing that I guess was fantasized about
> for years, inexplicable and pretty stupid when you stop to think about
> it, but oddly appealing. The actors work well together, so the
> show's been glad to play with the idea in episodes like 'Something
> Blue," "Who Are You?" and so on. This season the writers have
> been playing with Spike's obsession, as a sideshow comedy act,
> really. So that's not new. What is very new is that FFL decides to
> bring the idea of sparkage between them to the forefront of the series,
> make it indispensable to the world of _Buffy_. Wherever it ends up
> going, we're very serious now. For better or for worse. FFL can
> teach aspiring TV types a valuable lesson: when introducing something
> so whacked-out, it helps if your episode is *fucking kickass*.
Yes, *fucking kickass* it is.
>
> The teaser echoes "Helpless," starting with yet another Buffy
> monologue as she does the Slayer thing, and then abruptly having her
> poke herself with her own pointy stick and almost get killed. I was
> figuring this would turn out to be a fantasy for Spike or whoever saved
> her, but it's the real deal. That's both worrisome and potentially
> embarrassing, and it's interesting that she's so forthcoming with
> Riley - "he was the regular kind. He just beat me." The banter
> between Buffy and her sister works pretty well here, as it seems like
> Buffy's trying for affectionate mockery while Dawn takes it
> personally. Best line: "Not until you're never."
This episode does a great job of showing the viewer that yes, Buffy is a
superhero but she is also a human being. Even the strongest have their
weak moments, this one was hers and it scared the crap out of her. She
SHOULD have staked that vamp w/o blinking an eye but as with all humans,
she made a mistake and this one caused her to get a stake jammed in her
gut. It goes to show that even the Slayer is not infallible.
>
> Getting the Riley-on-Slayer-duty stuff out of the way, I didn't like
> it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed as I'd
> feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful of chips is
> pretty funny. But Riley The Perfect Machine Of Snipe doesn't work
> for me, especially given that he so recently had a loss of
> super-strength and we haven't seen him readjusting. I know he's
> been patrolling with Buffy for a long time, so it's not too
> outlandish for him to stake a few enemies, but storming in and taking
> out a nest single-handedly seems to be pushing it. Fortunately, this
> plot recedes further and further into the background as the show finds
> more interesting things on which to spend this time.
Also, he's not in the Initiative anymore, so where does he keep those
hand grenades? Under his bed?
> The mechanism by which Slayer and Slayer-killer first start spending
> time together is elegantly simple. Who would know the details of past
> Slayers' deaths? Oh yeah, the buffoonish comic relief guy in the
> nearby crypt and has killed hundreds of people. The increasing use of
> backstory, including for the suspense moments around ad breaks seems
> strange at first, but has enough immediacy and relevance to the
> present-day stuff that it ends up coming off nicely.
I love the look on Buffy and Giles faces when they realize who might
hold the answers. Funny.
>
> It's unclear where exactly Spoik (I can start using that one more
> frequently if we keep seeing these Drusilla flashbacks) is going to fit
> in to the past scenes until Marsters pops up amidst the silly
> mustaches. That's very funny, seeing where he really picked up that
> "The Bloody" monicker. Even in past lives, he gets to be the guy
> everyone kicks around, and I guess I'm as guilty as the rest, since
> although I'm aware that he's suffering and miserable, I'd rather
> just laugh at the idea that using the right word in a sentence is the
> key to his heart. Three more comments on the first flashback: first,
> those who're into dissecting themes should note that the first
> mention of the recurring idea of being superior, "they're
> vulgarians. They're not like you and I," comes from William.
> (Poets don't bother with proper grammar.) Second, we continue our
> proud tradition of playing up the sexual element of the bloodsucking.
> Third, one thing that's not clear to me is exactly how many of the
> less flattering details he's actually telling Buffy. I'm going to
> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
> mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
I've went back and forth with that forever. It's a bit shady because of
Spike's "I've always been bad" comment. Still, I've always preferred and
lean more towards him being truthful because you're right... Buffy's
"You're beneath me" at the end of the alley scene is much more powerful
if she's repeating Cecily's words in spite.
Also, huge kudos to the "dancing" comments. They only added to the
already powerful chemistry between Buffy and Spike.
>
> One brief moment that made me happy is the highlighting of some of the
> differences between some of the evil vampires in our show.
> SPIKE: Come on. When was the last time you unleashed it? All out
> fight in a mob, back against the wall, nothing but fists and fangs?
> Don't you ever get tired of fights you know you're going to win?
> ANGELUS: No. A real kill. A good kill. It takes pure artistry.
> Without that, we're just animals.
> That's a pretty good character synopsis right there.
I agree. Spike just loves to fight and to go in with guns blazing. Angel
prefers the torture, and we've had a nice glimpse of his "artistry" with
one Miss Calender.
>
> On to bagging Slayers. The basic story still is pretty much "we
> fought, I won, the end." Digressing in a (hopefully) relevant manner
> for a second, "Lovers Walk" asked the audience to accept an
> important change in the portrayal of Mr. The Bloody, as his comic loser
> side, which had always been there in the background, was allowed to
> become his primary character trait. That worked out pretty well. Now
> viewers have to do the opposite. It becomes relevant that underneath
> this likable character is a sadistic mass-murderer who wouldn't have
> stacked up such a high body count if he wasn't extremely good at it.
> I guess that was done well, since I'm not feeling much cognitive
> dissonance.
It's true, the viewer has to remind themselves that Spike is a killer.
He IS a sadistic mass murderer and yet, so gosh darn likable. Heck, my
heart went out to him after Buffy's "beneath me" line, until he grabbed
the shotgun.
Anyway, I like the unfeeling killing of Chinese Slayer
> with the tagline "I'm sorry, love, I don't speak Chinese." (Was
> expecting something more like "it's nothing personal.") The
> episode finds time for some more humor afterward before moving on to
> the intense part; Drusilla in general comes to mind, but I laughed the
> most at Spike bounding away from the burning city. How weird is it to
> see Angelus and Darla being the ones *not* having fun? [Post-hoc note:
> I didn't notice o.f.v. that the dates seem not to match up with what
> we've been told about Angel; it took a certain other episode to draw
> my attention to and explain that incongruity.]
The Fanged Four scenes are brilliant. From Dru and Spike getting it on
after the death of the Slayer to hiding in a mine shaft because Spike
can't help but cause a ruckus. Also, the two episodes gives the viewer a
nice insight on that not-so-happy and deadly family.
>
> The jarring change in look compared to what's come before helps the
> fight with Afro Slayer stand out - which is good given that it's
> the trigger for the climax. My biggest problem with this scene is that
> I don't like the move-by-move reenactment idea. Too forced and
> silly.
I loved it. That's what stands out to me as some of the best editing the
series has done.
On the other hand, having Spike deliver part of his monologue
> from within the flashback is a smarter directorial choice. I also like
> how although this episode seems like a history lesson and side-romance
> rather than a "plot" show, it ends up being entirely grounded in
> Buffy's ongoing exploration of what it means to be a Slayer. I
> don't know whether we'll learn how right or wrong Spike is about
> the death-wish theory or whether it'll remain food for thought, but
> it's interesting. Seeing whether our hero is back to normal next
> week should be informative.
Buffy's reactions to his "lessons" also shows just how hard Spike is
hitting home. It does scare her.
>
> And that in turn sets up the big sweeping character moment, as the
> sexual subtext rapidly becomes almost-text-but-not-quite. Again if we
> assume that Buffy knows everything the viewer does, her final
> "you're beneath me" along with the money throw is genuinely
> vicious. I like it. Marsters for his part sells his part with that
> wordless sobbing sound he makes. Well played and intense.
>
> It's more my style to end there, but FFL has a coda triggered by
> Joyce's illness, after a funny digression with a slimy but polite
> demon (Chaos Demon or Fungus Demon? Pre-LW or post? I'm guessing
> pre, since it'd explain why Spike went back to Sunnydale to mope).
> Spike coming back with a gun only to be swayed by tears is a little too
> melodramatic for me, not a big fan.
That's not too melodramatic - that's just Spike. As much as he wants to
get rid of her, in that moment she's also got a much stronger hold on
him then even he realized.
Then it's as if the episode
> noticed my disapproval and tried to win me back by doing the rest of
> the scene as perfectly as possible. It worked. The tentative little
> shoulder-touch, and the silence before blackout that goes on about
> fifteen seconds longer than I expected... okay, show. You had me at
> "is there somethin' I can do?"
A perfect ending to a near perfect episode.
MBangel10 (Melissa)
From the LW transcript:
Spike: It was that truce with Buffy that did it. Dru said I'd gone
soft. Wasn't demon enough for the likes of her. And I told her it didn't
mean anything, I was thinking of her the whole time, but she didn't
care. So, we got to Brazil, and she was... she was just different. I
gave her everything: beautiful jewels, beautiful dresses with beautiful
girls in them, but nothing made her happy. And she would fliiirt!
(sniffs) I caught her on a park bench, making out with a *chaos* demon!
Have you ever seen a chaos demon? They're all slime and antlers. They're
disgusting.
Definitely post LW.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
>(or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
>Writer: Douglas Petrie
>Director: Nick Marck
May I say that this (and the other shoe coming up in your next Angel
review) are one of the points that your humble readers have been
impatiently waiting for you to reach.
A couple of points. The Scoobies patrolling with Riley aggravate him and
seem unprofessional to him, because they are working on a different
paradigm. He's 'secret agent guy' skulking around trying find evidence of
bad paranormal activity and take it down, hard. The Scoobies' role
patrolling with Buffy is basically 'bait'. Buffy doesn't sneak around, she
walks around brazenly, saying, in so many words, 'here's a nummy treat
vamps, come attack men'. The Scoobs were patrolling just as they always do
with Buffy.
Also, Riley wasn't superman when he took out the vamp nest, he was
undercover dude, slipping up and tossing a grenade in, rather than going
hand-to-hand.
I always assumed the reverse, that Spike was telling Buffy the glamourized,
'make Spike look cool' version, while we were seeing the real version.
>
>AOQ rating: Excellent
So, now to see how you rate the other shoe, of this strangest of all
crossover two-parters.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
>> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
>> Writer: Douglas Petrie
>> Director: Nick Marck
>>
Pre-LW or post?
>
> From the LW transcript:
>
> Spike: It was that truce with Buffy that did it. Dru said I'd gone
> soft. Wasn't demon enough for the likes of her. And I told her it didn't
> mean anything, I was thinking of her the whole time, but she didn't
> care. So, we got to Brazil, and she was... she was just different. I
> gave her everything: beautiful jewels, beautiful dresses with beautiful
> girls in them, but nothing made her happy. And she would fliiirt!
> (sniffs) I caught her on a park bench, making out with a *chaos* demon!
> Have you ever seen a chaos demon? They're all slime and antlers. They're
> disgusting.
>
> Definitely post LW.
>
>>
Scratch that... I meant PRE, obviously.
burt...@hotmail.com
>
> One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
Eh, the episode itself was entertaining enough (or most of it was,
anyway), but it utterly *butchers* previous show continuity. I know
continuity isn't Joss's strong suit, but sometimes I can ignore that
and just go with the flow. But it's so bad here that I just can't.
Here's a (reposted) list of the continity problems from before:
1. Inconsistencies on Spike's feelings for Buffy:
In the flashback to the Brazilian scene (set in early S3), Drusilla
leaves Spike because "he's in love with Buffy, she can tell." How she
can tell this from Spike constantly urging Angelus to kill Buffy and
finally abandoning Buffy to die at Angelus' hands in "Becoming, Part
2," I'm not exactly sure, but it's the ep's attempt to set up long-term
feeling on Spike's part, contrary to what was shown before.
2. Inconsistencies on Buffy's feelings for Spike:
"We're dancing. It's all we've ever done." Aww, so Buffy and Spike were
never *really* trying to kill each other, they had feelings for each
other even then? Well, that certainly explains why at the end of
"What's My Line, Part 2," Buffy pauses from rescuing Angel, who's been
tortured and is in danger from the fire, to nail Spike in the back of
the head with a censer and cause (she thinks) his death, even taking a
second to gloat over it, rather then let Spike get away when she had a
credible reason to be focused elsewhere. Yep, dancing, right...
3. Inconsistencies on Spike's background:
Aww, Spike was a poor, sensitive poet who only became a vampire because
mean ol' Cecily rejected him! Doesn't really fit with the character who
took such delight in taunting Nancy-boy Angel, whose brutality and lack
of imagination were explicitly set up as contrast to the ornate
craftsmanship of Angelus' psychological head games ("I've never been
much for the pre-show" "Do you what I find works real good with
Slayers? Killing them."), whose background was being described as a
"Cockney brawler" by David Greenwalt (who only created the character)
as late as the summer before this episode (the S2 DVD features, where
Greenwalt talks about Spike, were recorded before S5 began shooting).
But sensitive boys make better boyfriend candidates than thugs, so...
4. Inconsistencies on Spike's chip:
In "The Yoko Factor," Spike can't even point a *plastic* gun at Xander
because of the pain from the chip.
In "Fool for Love," the entire plot hangs on the premise that Spike can
aim and fire a killing shotgun blast at Buffy, before the pain kicks
in.
What's really weird is that Doug Petrie wrote both episodes.
5. And there's one more, but I'll leave it off because it involves the
next episode from "Angel" which you might not have watched yet.
Regardless, the episode is a complete mess of contradictions to what
we've seen before, and that really does ruin it for me.
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
>>
>> AOQ rating: Excellent
>
> Eh, the episode itself was entertaining enough (or most of it was,
> anyway), but it utterly *butchers* previous show continuity. I know
> continuity isn't Joss's strong suit, but sometimes I can ignore that
> and just go with the flow. But it's so bad here that I just can't.
> Here's a (reposted) list of the continity problems from before:
>
> 1. Inconsistencies on Spike's feelings for Buffy:
>
> In the flashback to the Brazilian scene (set in early S3), Drusilla
> leaves Spike because "he's in love with Buffy, she can tell." How she
> can tell this from Spike constantly urging Angelus to kill Buffy and
> finally abandoning Buffy to die at Angelus' hands in "Becoming, Part
> 2," I'm not exactly sure, but it's the ep's attempt to set up long-term
>
> feeling on Spike's part, contrary to what was shown before.
That's not what Dru said. He's obsessed with Buffy, yes. Dru sees it.
Also, Dru has always had that bit of foresight that is perfectly
consistent with her character and the story lines of past and present.
>
> 2. Inconsistencies on Buffy's feelings for Spike:
>
> "We're dancing. It's all we've ever done." Aww, so Buffy and Spike were
>
> never *really* trying to kill each other, they had feelings for each
> other even then? Well, that certainly explains why at the end of
> "What's My Line, Part 2," Buffy pauses from rescuing Angel, who's been
> tortured and is in danger from the fire, to nail Spike in the back of
> the head with a censer and cause (she thinks) his death, even taking a
> second to gloat over it, rather then let Spike get away when she had a
> credible reason to be focused elsewhere. Yep, dancing, right...
They are showing sexual tension in FFL. Spike has been hanging around
closely with the gang for over a year now. When was he hanging around
with them in mid S2? Your idea of "Lack of continuity" pretty much means
that all the characters actions and feelings must remain exactly the
same for the entire run of the show to avoid a lack of continuity. What
is the point of tuning in if everything stays exactly the same?
>
> 3. Inconsistencies on Spike's background:
>
> Aww, Spike was a poor, sensitive poet who only became a vampire because
>
> mean ol' Cecily rejected him! Doesn't really fit with the character who
>
> took such delight in taunting Nancy-boy Angel, whose brutality and lack
>
> of imagination were explicitly set up as contrast to the ornate
> craftsmanship of Angelus' psychological head games ("I've never been
> much for the pre-show" "Do you what I find works real good with
> Slayers? Killing them."), whose background was being described as a
> "Cockney brawler" by David Greenwalt (who only created the character)
> as late as the summer before this episode (the S2 DVD features, where
> Greenwalt talks about Spike, were recorded before S5 began shooting).
> But sensitive boys make better boyfriend candidates than thugs, so...
FFL explains exactly why Spike wants to be the worst of the worst when
it comes to being an evil vampire. I've posted this before but in the
"Spike thread that wouldn't die..." (which if you have a link to would
be truly helpful) but I can't find it so here is the summary:
Spike being a "cockney brawler" type would not have led him to want to
be the one and only big bad. I'm sorry but having him be a love struck,
meek and soft hearted poet goes a long way in making Spike want to be
everything that his human self wasn't. It works better (which is the
reason I am sure they didn't go with DG's original thoughts) for the
character and the story.
Seriously, if William was a tough guy he probably would have been staked
by the first Slayer he came across instead of getting the upper hand and
beating the Slayer. Hell, he probably wouldn't have gone after her in
the first place because what would he have to prove?. He was trying to
wash away all remnants of William from his persona (notice the "why are
you talking like that?" comment from Angel?) and proving to himself that
he can be the Big Bad.
That's Spike in a nutshell. He always wanted to be something better than
what he was. Having him already be a tough guy would not have made him
nearly as interesting and wouldn't have flowed with the *actual*
continuity of the show.
>
> 4. Inconsistencies on Spike's chip:
>
> In "The Yoko Factor," Spike can't even point a *plastic* gun at Xander
> because of the pain from the chip.
>
> In "Fool for Love," the entire plot hangs on the premise that Spike can
>
> aim and fire a killing shotgun blast at Buffy, before the pain kicks
> in.
He didn't do it though so we don't know what would have happened.
>
> What's really weird is that Doug Petrie wrote both episodes.
Yes, with a bit of guidance from JW I'm sure on FFL. Thank our lucky
stars that "cockney brawler" was only a DG thought and not a JW one.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed as I'd
> feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful of chips is
> pretty funny. But Riley The Perfect Machine Of Snipe doesn't work
> for me, especially given that he so recently had a loss of
also note that xander and willow have been doing this since season one
but we didnt initiative types till season four
maybe they could teach riley a think or two
> The mechanism by which Slayer and Slayer-killer first start spending
> time together is elegantly simple. Who would know the details of past
> Slayers' deaths? Oh yeah, the buffoonish comic relief guy in the
theres also the sad moment between buffy and giles
when buffy comments on watchers and then giles finishes his sentence
on an intellectual level giles expects buffy to be dead within a few years
and then he will have the rest of his life to think about it
and recount all the ways he failed to prepare his slayer
> don't know whether we'll learn how right or wrong Spike is about
> the death-wish theory or whether it'll remain food for thought, but
> it's interesting. Seeing whether our hero is back to normal next
> week should be informative.
remember spikes warning to adam
that its buffys freinds and family that keep her grounded in this world
remember wish buffy without her friends who is cold and brutal
and reckless with her life and has her neck snapped
and remember travers lecture about the slayer being their instrument
in a nightly war against evil
night after night after night alone without relief
knowing the only way to stop being a slayer is to die
it would be hard on anyone
> vicious. I like it. Marsters for his part sells his part with that
> wordless sobbing sound he makes. Well played and intense.
and nonetheless he does gather up his money
> Joyce's illness, after a funny digression with a slimy but polite
> demon (Chaos Demon or Fungus Demon? Pre-LW or post? I'm guessing
its the chaos demon spike kept going on about in lovers walk
the drusilla left him for
and trigered spikes return in lovers walk
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
>
>
> Getting the Riley-on-Slayer-duty stuff out of the way, I didn't like
> it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed as I'd
> feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful of chips is
> pretty funny. But Riley The Perfect Machine Of Snipe doesn't work
> for me, especially given that he so recently had a loss of
> super-strength and we haven't seen him readjusting.
"Super Riley" was the anomaly. Throughout most of the time he was with
Buffy, he wasn't much stronger or faster than a normal, well trained
commando. He's still a well trained commando.
> I know he's
> been patrolling with Buffy for a long time, so it's not too
> outlandish for him to stake a few enemies, but storming in and taking
> out a nest single-handedly seems to be pushing it. Fortunately, this
> plot recedes further and further into the background as the show finds
> more interesting things on which to spend this time.
He only took out one vamp, hand to hand. It was the grenade that took
out the rest, and any yutz could have done that.
>
> It's unclear where exactly Spoik (I can start using that one more
> frequently if we keep seeing these Drusilla flashbacks) is going to fit
> in to the past scenes until Marsters pops up amidst the silly
> mustaches.
And we've had another change in Spike's age here. The date for his
meeting Dru was 1880, making him a vampire for 120 years. In "The
Initiative" he tells Willow that he's 126.
> I'm going to
> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
> mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
I think that the contrast between Spike's introductions to the scenes,
to what we actually see indicates that he *wasn't* telling Buffy the
truth, for at least the first two scenes. "I've always been bad!"
leading into milquetoast William. "I had to get myself a gang," leading
to Angel tossing him up against a wall.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Seriously, if William was a tough guy he probably would have been staked
> by the first Slayer he came across instead of getting the upper hand and
> beating the Slayer.
It was only luck that he wasn't staked by the first Slayer he came
across. She was about to put her stake through his heart, when she gets
knocked off balance by an explosion outside the temple. She died the
way Buffy nearly died in the prologue: a bit of bad luck, and a vamp
having one good day.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> AOQ rating: Excellent
Don't think you'll get too many arguments here, this is one of the series
best episodes.
[snip]
--
You can't stop the signal
Arbitrar Of Quality
MBangel10 (Melissa) wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > Spike coming back with a gun only to be swayed by tears is a little too
> > melodramatic for me, not a big fan.
>
> That's not too melodramatic - that's just Spike. As much as he wants to
> get rid of her, in that moment she's also got a much stronger hold on
> him then even he realized.
I'll allow it.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Eh, the episode itself was entertaining enough (or most of it was,
> anyway), but it utterly *butchers* previous show continuity. I know
> continuity isn't Joss's strong suit, but sometimes I can ignore that
> and just go with the flow. But it's so bad here that I just can't.
> Here's a (reposted) list of the continity problems from before:
>
> 1. Inconsistencies on Spike's feelings for Buffy:
>
> In the flashback to the Brazilian scene (set in early S3), Drusilla
> leaves Spike because "he's in love with Buffy, she can tell." How she
> can tell this from Spike constantly urging Angelus to kill Buffy and
> finally abandoning Buffy to die at Angelus' hands in "Becoming, Part
> 2," I'm not exactly sure, but it's the ep's attempt to set up long-term
>
> feeling on Spike's part, contrary to what was shown before.
She doesn't say that he's in love with Buffy, she says that she sees
her all over him. He's obsessed. That's been part of the show since
at least early S4, and some might argue since "What's My Line?" As for
how Dru knows that, perhaps, say, hanging around with Spike for a few
months would provide that opportunity. Also, as others have pointed
out, her mind doesn't work linearly.
> 2. Inconsistencies on Buffy's feelings for Spike:
>
> "We're dancing. It's all we've ever done." Aww, so Buffy and Spike were
>
> never *really* trying to kill each other, they had feelings for each
> other even then?
Spike's the one who categorizes it that way, not Buffy. To him,
obsessively trying to kill each other *is* making a connection.
> 3. Inconsistencies on Spike's background:
>
> Aww, Spike was a poor, sensitive poet who only became a vampire because mean ol' Cecily rejected him! Doesn't really fit with the character who
> took such delight in taunting Nancy-boy Angel, whose brutality and lack
> of imagination were explicitly set up as contrast to the ornate
> craftsmanship of Angelus' psychological head games ("I've never been
> much for the pre-show" "Do you what I find works real good with
> Slayers? Killing them."), whose background was being described as a
> "Cockney brawler" by David Greenwalt (who only created the character)
> as late as the summer before this episode (the S2 DVD features, where
> Greenwalt talks about Spike, were recorded before S5 began shooting).
> But sensitive boys make better boyfriend candidates than thugs, so...
Melissa's covered this one pretty well. I'll add that it's not exactly
new for a vampire's personality to be distorted compared to its human
predecessor. Consider hard-partying Liam, artiste Angelus, broody
Angel, and nihilistic Evil Angel.
> 4. Inconsistencies on Spike's chip:
Yeah, also a problem in "Family" as is still being discussed to great
lengths.
-AOQ
Horace LaBadie
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> (Poets don't bother with proper grammar.)
"I know I'm a bad poet, but I'm a good man..."
And it's been pointed out that British railroads didn't use spikes.
HWL
One Bit Shy
news:1150325814.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
Whoever Nick Marck is, he sure did a fine job.
> Ah, yes, Buffy and Spike. A pairing that I guess was fantasized about
> for years, inexplicable and pretty stupid when you stop to think about
> it, but oddly appealing. The actors work well together, so the
> show's been glad to play with the idea in episodes like 'Something
> Blue," "Who Are You?" and so on. This season the writers have
> been playing with Spike's obsession, as a sideshow comedy act,
> really. So that's not new. What is very new is that FFL decides to
> bring the idea of sparkage between them to the forefront of the series,
> make it indispensable to the world of _Buffy_. Wherever it ends up
> going, we're very serious now. For better or for worse. FFL can
> teach aspiring TV types a valuable lesson: when introducing something
> so whacked-out, it helps if your episode is *fucking kickass*.
Yes it does, and yes this episode is. I don't think I'm quite where you are
with the sparkage comment - though I'm not certain I follow it completely.
I think you may have missed something. More later...
Back to the kickass show. This is, IMO, one of the great ones. Currently
#6 in my top 10, right behind Innocence. And, along with Innoncence,
notable because it's not especially experimental. Not in the sense that
Hush and Restless are. (#3 and #4 respectively. the top two are yet to
come.) It has a terrific tale to tell. It greatly advances two main
characters. It opens up possible future story lines and sinks its teeth
into serious themes. All with plenty of thrills and chills and whole lot of
style.
> The teaser echoes "Helpless," starting with yet another Buffy
> monologue as she does the Slayer thing, and then abruptly having her
> poke herself with her own pointy stick and almost get killed.
Helpless is a good comparison. But she completed the slay in Helpless,
while here she is severely wounded and must be saved by Riley. And this is
a Buffy who has been performing at a level beyond anything we've seen
before. Remember her crouching like a cat on the crypt ready to spring for
the kill? It's stunning, and has to bring home to Buffy her mortality to an
extent I'm not sure we've seen since Prophecy Girl.
I like the way it's staged too. Essentially the vampire got lucky and found
himself in a position to use Buffy's momentum against her. If either had
moved just a little differently, it woulnd't have happened. Very
effectively shows just how easily and suddenly it really could end for
Buffy.
> but storming in and taking
> out a nest single-handedly seems to be pushing it.
I think that's kind of the point. Perhaps more telling is Riley's remark to
the Scoobies. "We'll come back at daybreak when they're asleep and we're
better armed. It's okay. We can kill them just as dead in the morning." But
he didn't do what he said he would.
> It's unclear where exactly Spoik (I can start using that one more
> frequently if we keep seeing these Drusilla flashbacks) is going to fit
> in to the past scenes until Marsters pops up amidst the silly
> mustaches. That's very funny, seeing where he really picked up that
> "The Bloody" monicker. Even in past lives, he gets to be the guy
> everyone kicks around, and I guess I'm as guilty as the rest, since
> although I'm aware that he's suffering and miserable, I'd rather
> just laugh at the idea that using the right word in a sentence is the
> key to his heart.
Are you talking about Dru pulling "effulgent" out of the air? I rather like
that moment. A little window into Dru's own power, that she can essentially
pull that word out of William's mind. Also a reminder that she has my
favorite vamp face.
> Three more comments on the first flashback: first,
> those who're into dissecting themes should note that the first
> mention of the recurring idea of being superior, "they're
> vulgarians. They're not like you and I," comes from William.
Very observant. I can't say that I've ever thought much about that. Though
Spike is always out to better himself - well, in a fashion.
> (Poets don't bother with proper grammar.) Second, we continue our
> proud tradition of playing up the sexual element of the bloodsucking.
> Third, one thing that's not clear to me is exactly how many of the
> less flattering details he's actually telling Buffy. I'm going to
> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
> mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
I'm not sure. I can certainly imagine him telling Buffy. His behavior back
in Lovers Walk sure shows a willingness to be absurdly open about himself.
(No sense of shame.) He might want to show his old self as something he's
risen above. Makes his triumph as a vampire all that much more impressive.
And I think his always been bad remark is open to many possible
interpretations - maybe even just ironic reference to his bad poetry.
However, I lean towards him editing the early stories for Buffy's benefit.
His remark about getting himself a gang seems harder to rationalize without
assuming he's not telling Buffy everything.
The alley finale can work either way. If he really told Buffy everything,
then the above you remark is pure throw it in your face spite. Not bad.
But I think there may be better nuance if Buffy naturally came up with the
thought on her own. First, it's plenty spiteful that way too. More
importantly, it really accents how, even after his great saga of vampire
triumph, he's still bloody awful William - unworthy. Innately so - not just
because Spike fed a good line to Buffy.
Ok - early scenes. He got his name. And he got a new way of talking. Not
a poofter anymore.
> Anyway, I like the unfeeling killing of Chinese Slayer
> with the tagline "I'm sorry, love, I don't speak Chinese." (Was
> expecting something more like "it's nothing personal.")
"Lesson the first: a Slayer must always reach for her weapon. I've already
got mine."
Did you notice that Spike's killing opening was when that slayer reached for
her stake?
Also, the sword cut to Spike's face is where he gets the scar on his
eyebrow.
> The
> episode finds time for some more humor afterward before moving on to
> the intense part; Drusilla in general comes to mind, but I laughed the
> most at Spike bounding away from the burning city.
Triumphant. Easy to see why Spike would think of that as his best day.
Really nicely shot too, with good music.
> The jarring change in look compared to what's come before helps the
> fight with Afro Slayer stand out - which is good given that it's
> the trigger for the climax.
Where he shows up with his blonde hair and gets his coat. All these little
trademark things built up over the course of 100 plus years like trophies.
But what has it gotten him after all this? Spike's story is truly for
Buffy's benefit, and helpful on that level. But it's also his great boast,
a proud strut before Buffy. Only it leaves him emotionally back where he
started before Dru showed up. A brewing crisis in confidence perhaps?
> My biggest problem with this scene is that
> I don't like the move-by-move reenactment idea. Too forced and
> silly.
I like it. It's the dance. Besides, at that point, Buffy is still looking
to learn something from the fight itself, and they have to sort of shadow
box it because of Buffy's injury and Spike's chip.
> On the other hand, having Spike deliver part of his monologue
> from within the flashback is a smarter directorial choice.
Oh, yes. A touch that helps make this great theater. That little trick
just snaps your attention to what is being said. Much niftier than pausing
to say, "This is important, damn it. Pay attention!"
> I also like
> how although this episode seems like a history lesson and side-romance
> rather than a "plot" show, it ends up being entirely grounded in
> Buffy's ongoing exploration of what it means to be a Slayer. I
> don't know whether we'll learn how right or wrong Spike is about
> the death-wish theory or whether it'll remain food for thought, but
> it's interesting. Seeing whether our hero is back to normal next
> week should be informative.
Indulge me for a moment:
Spike: I could have danced all night with that one.
Buffy: You think we're dancing?
Spike: That's all we've ever done. And the thing about the dance is, you
never get to stop. Every day you wake up, it's the same bloody question that
haunts you: is today the day I die?
Spike: Death is on your heels, baby, and sooner or later it's gonna catch
you. And part of you wants it... not only to stop the fear and uncertainty,
but because you're just a little bit in love with it. Death is your art. You
make it with your hands, day after day. That final gasp. That look of peace.
Part of you is desperate to know: What's it like? Where does it lead you?
And now you see, that's the secret. Not the punch you didn't throw or the
kicks you didn't land. Every Slayer... has a death wish. Even you.
Spike: The only reason you've lasted as long as you have is you've got ties
to the world... your mum, your brat kid sister, the Scoobies. They all tie
you here but you're just putting off the inevitable. Sooner or later, you're
gonna want it. And the second- the second- that happens...You know I'll be
there. I'll slip in... have myself a real good day.
Spike: Here endeth the lesson.
That's my vote for the single best speech in the BtVS series.
> And that in turn sets up the big sweeping character moment, as the
> sexual subtext rapidly becomes almost-text-but-not-quite. Again if we
> assume that Buffy knows everything the viewer does, her final
> "you're beneath me" along with the money throw is genuinely
> vicious. I like it. Marsters for his part sells his part with that
> wordless sobbing sound he makes. Well played and intense.
And he still picks up the money, which makes it all the more pathetic.
> It's more my style to end there, but FFL has a coda triggered by
> Joyce's illness, after a funny digression with a slimy but polite
> demon (Chaos Demon or Fungus Demon? Pre-LW or post? I'm guessing
> pre, since it'd explain why Spike went back to Sunnydale to mope).
> Spike coming back with a gun only to be swayed by tears is a little too
> melodramatic for me, not a big fan. Then it's as if the episode
> noticed my disapproval and tried to win me back by doing the rest of
> the scene as perfectly as possible. It worked. The tentative little
> shoulder-touch, and the silence before blackout that goes on about
> fifteen seconds longer than I expected... okay, show. You had me at
> "is there somethin' I can do?"
The commentary (which is pretty good, but terribly spoilery) delights in
this scene. The setup would seem to leave you with the choice of sex or
violence. Which would it be? Instead, they went somewhere else entirely.
I think this was a great and necessary ending, for when all the raging
passions of the alley scene get thrown aside by the intrusion of the worldly
concern over Joyce's health, what's left is Spike keeping Buffy company when
she needs it, and Buffy accepting it. For the first time to date an idea is
broached that isn't love or hate or sex or violence, but rather -
friendship. That's way more surprising than all the shipper fantasies that
have been teased at until now.
No less difficult, no less perilous, and no more certain of success than
other relationship concepts. But a new idea that actually fits the
qualities that could appeal to Buffy - most especially Spike's ability to
speak with insight and understanding about things that nobody else gets. I
think she could imagine Spike as confidant a hell of lot more easily than as
lover. Now, what Spike could imagine is rather dicier. He's still a
vampire. He's still obsessed with Buffy. But he still knew to keep her
company.
And I think the scene pretty much puts to rest any notion of killing Spike -
at least until the next time he does something unforgivable.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
>
>AOQ rating: Excellent
Absolutely.
OBS
Elisi
> Ah, yes, Buffy and Spike. A pairing that I guess was fantasized about
> for years, inexplicable and pretty stupid when you stop to think about
> it, but oddly appealing. The actors work well together, so the
> show's been glad to play with the idea in episodes like 'Something
> Blue," "Who Are You?" and so on. This season the writers have
> been playing with Spike's obsession, as a sideshow comedy act,
> really. So that's not new. What is very new is that FFL decides to
> bring the idea of sparkage between them to the forefront of the series,
> make it indispensable to the world of _Buffy_. Wherever it ends up
> going, we're very serious now. For better or for worse. FFL can
> teach aspiring TV types a valuable lesson: when introducing something
> so whacked-out, it helps if your episode is *fucking kickass*.
I love how you put that. I don't have time for a long dissection,
sadly, so I'll link you to two other reviews (both written when the
show first aired, so no spoilers):
http://www.billiedoux.com/buffy5x7.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/btvs507.htm#btvs507a
And just a few little points: I don't think Spike told Buffy exactly
what we saw. Oh no. Because half the time his words were flat
contradicted by what we saw."I've always been bad." Followed by the
shot of him as a Bad Poet. "I had to get myself a gang." followed by
the scene of him clearly being the underdog in Angelus' gang. So I
think Buffy's "You're beneath me!" was all her own, but therefore even
more devastating. A 120 years, and the woman he loves *still* says the
same thing to him! (Incidentally, here we get a good glimpse of why she
hasn't staked him...)
Also note this exchange:
Spike: What are you looking at?
Buffy (disgusted): You got off on it.
Spike: Well, yeah. I suppose you're telling me you don't?
Now remember the teaser from 'Buffy Vs Dracula'? Me thinks Buffy might
be getting off on the killing to...
One Bit Shy
news:1150330729.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> 4. Inconsistencies on Spike's chip:
>
> In "The Yoko Factor," Spike can't even point a *plastic* gun at Xander
> because of the pain from the chip.
>
> In "Fool for Love," the entire plot hangs on the premise that Spike can
>
> aim and fire a killing shotgun blast at Buffy, before the pain kicks
> in.
>
> What's really weird is that Doug Petrie wrote both episodes.
He never aims it - let alone fires it - now does he?
We don't know if Spike really had the fortitude to pull that off. We only
know that he was mad enough and rash enough to come up with the fool idea.
Just like usual. Harmony didn't think it would work and tried to stop him
because it would get Spike killed - not Buffy.
There's no inconsistency.
OBS
Elisi
> It was only luck that he wasn't staked by the first Slayer he came
> across. She was about to put her stake through his heart, when she gets
> knocked off balance by an explosion outside the temple. She died the
> way Buffy nearly died in the prologue: a bit of bad luck, and a vamp
> having one good day.
Lesson the first: A Slayer must always reach for her weapon.
Elisi
> She doesn't say that he's in love with Buffy, she says that she sees
> her all over him. He's obsessed. That's been part of the show since
> at least early S4, and some might argue since "What's My Line?" As for
is still being discussed to great
> lengths.
I'd say all the way back to 'Halloween' - remember Spike endlessly
re-watching the tape of Buffy. Dru tries to distract him, but doesn't
have much luck.
And as for the dancing, then I think that the fact that he says he was
*dancing* with the New York Slayer proves that it's not romance he's
talking about.
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Eh, the episode itself was entertaining enough (or most of it was,
> > anyway), but it utterly *butchers* previous show continuity. I know
> > continuity isn't Joss's strong suit, but sometimes I can ignore that
> > and just go with the flow. But it's so bad here that I just can't.
> > Here's a (reposted) list of the continity problems from before:
> >
> > 1. Inconsistencies on Spike's feelings for Buffy:
> >
> > In the flashback to the Brazilian scene (set in early S3), Drusilla
> > leaves Spike because "he's in love with Buffy, she can tell." How she
> > can tell this from Spike constantly urging Angelus to kill Buffy and
> > finally abandoning Buffy to die at Angelus' hands in "Becoming, Part
> > 2," I'm not exactly sure, but it's the ep's attempt to set up long-term
> >
> > feeling on Spike's part, contrary to what was shown before.
>
> She doesn't say that he's in love with Buffy, she says that she sees
> her all over him. He's obsessed. That's been part of the show since
> at least early S4, and some might argue since "What's My Line?"
And some might say since School Hard. Obsession ain't love.
> As for
> how Dru knows that, perhaps, say, hanging around with Spike for a few
> months would provide that opportunity. Also, as others have pointed
> out, her mind doesn't work linearly.
>
> > 2. Inconsistencies on Buffy's feelings for Spike:
> >
> > "We're dancing. It's all we've ever done." Aww, so Buffy and Spike were
> >
> > never *really* trying to kill each other, they had feelings for each
> > other even then?
>
> Spike's the one who categorizes it that way, not Buffy. To him,
> obsessively trying to kill each other *is* making a connection.
Yeah, perish the thought that the vampire-brawler-poet should wax
poetical....
> > 3. Inconsistencies on Spike's background:
> >
> > Aww, Spike was a poor, sensitive poet who only became a vampire because
> > mean ol' Cecily rejected him! Doesn't really fit with the character who
> > took such delight in taunting Nancy-boy Angel, whose brutality and lack
> > of imagination were explicitly set up as contrast to the ornate
> > craftsmanship of Angelus' psychological head games ("I've never been
> > much for the pre-show" "Do you what I find works real good with
> > Slayers? Killing them."), whose background was being described as a
> > "Cockney brawler" by David Greenwalt (who only created the character)
> > as late as the summer before this episode (the S2 DVD features, where
> > Greenwalt talks about Spike, were recorded before S5 began shooting).
> > But sensitive boys make better boyfriend candidates than thugs, so...
>
> Melissa's covered this one pretty well. I'll add that it's not exactly
> new for a vampire's personality to be distorted compared to its human
> predecessor. Consider hard-partying Liam, artiste Angelus, broody
> Angel, and nihilistic Evil Angel.
...and then want a good punch up.
--
Wikipedia: like Usenet, moderated by trolls
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
<snip>
> One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
Yup. marvellous episode (although it has to been seen with its Angel
companion piece to be fully appreciated). Even Dru van Dyke isn't
annoying.
Marred for me only by the tidal wave of squeeing drivel it spawned (you
have *no* idea). But that's hardly the episode's fault.
(Harmony) Watcher
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150347245.1...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
William's bloody awful poetry. Effulgence is in the eye of the beholder, and
it needs no rhyme.
Fcvxr'f bja oybbql njshy wbheany zvtug ernq: GUR FYNLRE'F GRNEF <arjyvar>
Zbbayvg fhyyra qnegf <arjyvar> Npebff gur cnprf gurl fcrne <arjyvar> Vagb
gur irkrq fcvevg'f urneg <arjyvar> Fhozretrq va gur Fynlre'f grnef <arjyvar>
'gvf tebja n ohytr va vg <arjyvar> Fgnxrq & zrfzrevfrq <arjyvar>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Apteryx
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
>
>
> monologue as she does the Slayer thing, and then abruptly having her
> poke herself with her own pointy stick and almost get killed. I was
> figuring this would turn out to be a fantasy for Spike or whoever saved
> her, but it's the real deal. That's both worrisome and potentially
> embarrassing, and it's interesting that she's so forthcoming with
> Riley - "he was the regular kind. He just beat me."
> Getting the Riley-on-Slayer-duty stuff out of the way, I didn't like
> it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed as I'd
> feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful of chips is
> pretty funny.
You must be pretty timorous of potential overplaying, because that was
pretty bad. They've been much better than that patrolling on their own while
Buffy's been late back for the start of a season. The chips are funny
though.
But Riley The Perfect Machine Of Snipe doesn't work
> for me, especially given that he so recently had a loss of
> super-strength and we haven't seen him readjusting. I know he's
> been patrolling with Buffy for a long time, so it's not too
> outlandish for him to stake a few enemies, but storming in and taking
> out a nest single-handedly seems to be pushing it.
Well, he has a plan, but the execution is inept, and proves that vampire
hunters can also be lucky. Clearly a fast moving vampire might have cut him
off from his exit, and he's relying on the grenade at least beheading every
vampire in the crypt (presumably a vampire is unlikely to throw himself on
the grenade to save his fellows, but some might hide behind their fellows).
> The mechanism by which Slayer and Slayer-killer first start spending
> time together is elegantly simple. Who would know the details of past
> Slayers' deaths? Oh yeah, the buffoonish comic relief guy in the
> nearby crypt and has killed hundreds of people.
Its a nice touch when Buffy and Giles realise this, but actually the
creakiness of this mechanism bugs me enough to prevent me from regarding
this as one of the great episodes, despite the great opportunities provided
for vampire backstory. We see how the vampire in the teaser nearly killed
Buffy - he got lucky. Then we see how Spike killed the earlier slayers - he
got lucky. There really wasn't a story there. Even if Buffy supposed that
there was a secret slayer-killing move, why would she expect Spike to tell
her?
> episode finds time for some more humor afterward before moving on to
> the intense part; Drusilla in general comes to mind, but I laughed the
> most at Spike bounding away from the burning city. How weird is it to
> see Angelus and Darla being the ones *not* having fun? [Post-hoc note:
> I didn't notice o.f.v. that the dates seem not to match up with what
> we've been told about Angel; it took a certain other episode to draw
> my attention to and explain that incongruity.]
>
>
> And that in turn sets up the big sweeping character moment, as the
> sexual subtext rapidly becomes almost-text-but-not-quite. Again if we
> assume that Buffy knows everything the viewer does, her final
> "you're beneath me" along with the money throw is genuinely
> vicious. I like it.
I think it is clear from the contrast between Spike's words and what we see
is that she only knows what he tells her. And although, Buffy's words might
betray a more vicious streak in her if she knew she was quoting, they hurt
Spike more if they are an enitrely independent evaluation from another
source.
>
> It's more my style to end there, but FFL has a coda triggered by
> Joyce's illness, after a funny digression with a slimy but polite
> demon (Chaos Demon or Fungus Demon? Pre-LW or post? I'm guessing
> pre, since it'd explain why Spike went back to Sunnydale to mope).
> Spike coming back with a gun only to be swayed by tears is a little too
> melodramatic for me, not a big fan.
I thought that part worked. Angel may be the vampire with soul, but Spike
has always been the vampire with feelings. Its the poet in him.
>
> One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
>
>AOQ rating: Excellent
Agree with the summary. But despite all the times it reaches towards
greatness, it is dragged back by the fact that from the set up, I never
expected the stories of the slayers death would tell Buffy anything she
didn't already know from her own near death experience, and they don't. It's
the other stuff that works. For me its Good, and only the 45th best BtVS
episode. But it is 4th best in Season 5.
--
Apteryx
(Harmony) Watcher
"Horace LaBadie" <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote in message
news:hwlabadiejr-8909...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
(http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=284).
--
==Harmony Watcher==
3D Master
Indeed, not to mention of course that in School Hard, Spike is said to
be "just over two hundred". From a Watcher compiled book, that took
great pains to get his human name "William the Bloody", which was
apparently just a nickname given to him by some posh dipshits because he
was so bad a poet. Which incidentally would make him older than
Drusilla. Here he's suddenly barely over a hundred and Drusilla sired
him. You should guess that if they managed to get that nickname given to
him by a lot of digging, they'd realize they were looking in the wrong
century for the nickname.
Anyway, apparently, those posh dipshits like to say they rather get
railroad spikes rammed through their brains instead of listening to
William's poetry. Hmm, usually when someone makes such claims, the event
you rather have happen, is unlikely, but usually actually possible.
What's the point in claiming something rather happens to you, if it
can't happen? That's like saying; I rather go flying than cycling, and
unless you're Superman that doesn't make much sense. So it seems that
either there have been accidents where workers got spiked with railroad
spikes through the thread (seems unlikely to me), or someone has been
torturing people with railroad spikes.
Wonder who that was... well, actually, we kinda know, don't we?
Especially since the book identified Spike as the railroad spike
torturer, and they bothered to name him "William the Bloody". Why would
you identify him by "William the Bloody" if it's just his poetry that
got him that name? Wouldn't you just call him William
Whateverhislastnameis? The only reason why you identify a human before
demon vampire by the name "William the Bloody" is if HE is that railroad
spike killer. Not the vampire, the human.
Which was originally of course the implication why he went 2 for 2 (at
least) with Slayers; he was already a powerful, deadly fighter, and
super dangerous serial killer that got amped up by a vampire demon.
Interestingly; his statement to Angelus: "Have you forgotten what you do
with Slayers? You kill them." heavily implies that BOTH HE AND ANGELUS,
have killed quite a few more Slayers than just 2, the one who wrote the
book just didn't know of it and/or there were Slayer kills after the
book was written. Given how old the book was that Giles read from;
that's pretty possible, of course now it's JUST the two kills, and one
of them in 1978 LONG after the book was written that Giles read Spike's
abbreviated history from.
It's a mess; all because Spike had to look nice and sweet to the Spike
and Spuffy fanboys and fangirls.
3D Master
--
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!"
- The Kurgan, Highlander
"Give me some sugar, baby!"
- Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness
~~~~~
Author of several stories, which can be found here:
http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/
3D Master
> FFL explains exactly why Spike wants to be the worst of the worst when
> it comes to being an evil vampire. I've posted this before but in the
> "Spike thread that wouldn't die..." (which if you have a link to would
> be truly helpful) but I can't find it so here is the summary:
>
> Spike being a "cockney brawler" type would not have led him to want to
> be the one and only big bad. I'm sorry but having him be a love struck,
> meek and soft hearted poet goes a long way in making Spike want to be
> everything that his human self wasn't. It works better (which is the
> reason I am sure they didn't go with DG's original thoughts) for the
> character and the story.
>
> Seriously, if William was a tough guy he probably would have been staked
> by the first Slayer he came across instead of getting the upper hand and
> beating the Slayer. Hell, he probably wouldn't have gone after her in
> the first place because what would he have to prove?. He was trying to
> wash away all remnants of William from his persona (notice the "why are
> you talking like that?" comment from Angel?) and proving to himself that
> he can be the Big Bad.
>
> That's Spike in a nutshell. He always wanted to be something better than
> what he was. Having him already be a tough guy would not have made him
> nearly as interesting and wouldn't have flowed with the *actual*
> continuity of the show.
Then you don't get the original concept of Spike/William the Bloody, the
just over two hundred years old, older than Drusilla, killing machine.
HE is the railroad torturer/killer. He's not just ANY thug; that's what
he started out as before he progressed into a truly evil, extremely well
fighting machine, sadistic torturer and killer. Angelus saw that, and
went, "ooh! I can work with that, turn him from a lowlife torturer and
killer, to someone like me." and turned him. The implication of WHY
Spike went two for two with Slayers, was that he already WAS an
extremely dangerous, sadistic bastard, killer before he got turned, and
got a vampire amp up afterwards. This was a guy who might have been able
to take out a Slayer when he was still human, now as a vampire...
Also, notice his line to Angelus in S2: "Have you forgotten what you do
with Slayers? You kill 'em." (More than even heavily implying there were
a lot more Slayer-kills for both Angelus and Spike than the two the book
knew about) He states it in the same way he went after Buffy. That's not
a guy who got "lucky" twice like he says in FFL; that's a guy who kills
Slayers for sport. A guy who takes them down easily; who is absolutely
sure that when he fights a Slayer or anyone or anything else for that
matter, they go down, and he's got another notch on his belt; and not
because he's cocky and deluding himself, but because that's been his
experience up until Buffy: Slayer, kill. Slayer, kill. Slayer, kill.
Slayer, kill.
And THAT is why he was actually dangerous, and not a winy poet.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> be "just over two hundred". From a Watcher compiled book, that took
> great pains to get his human name "William the Bloody", which was
watchers are at best guessing what happened
its not they chatted up vampires
or slayers had long relations with them
> apparently just a nickname given to him by some posh dipshits because he
> was so bad a poet. Which incidentally would make him older than
> Drusilla. Here he's suddenly barely over a hundred and Drusilla sired
> him. You should guess that if they managed to get that nickname given to
> him by a lot of digging, they'd realize they were looking in the wrong
> century for the nickname.
i assumed that post drusilla william took those comments about railroad spikes
and actually did torture his former associates and others
sort of -william the bloody? i ll show you bloody you bloody ponce-
3D Master
Than how come Buffy knows to parrot Cecily "You're beneath me"? It's
more likely he told the truth, "I've always been bad!" we just didn't
get to see the "bad part". Those posh dipshits claimed they rather get a
railroad spike through their heads than listen to his poetry. Why? When
you claim something like that, it isn't very powerful if you claim
something that can't/doesn't happen at all. Seems a railroad spike
(serial) killer was already active. Perhaps there were other girls that
said William was beneath him.
> "I had to get myself a gang," leading
> to Angel tossing him up against a wall.
And Angel goes about saying that a mob chased them away. Perhaps the mob
destroyed Spike's gang, and only he, Drusilla, Angel, and Darla
survived. Spike shouldn't call attention to himself and them: as in a
gang taring up the town, or a lot of vampire killings and risings in
order to make up Spike's gang, or both.
Of course, this contradicts Spike's claim that just about everything he
knew, he learned from Angel back in S2: "You were my sire! You were my
Yoda!" Another inconsistency.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > episode finds time for some more humor afterward before moving on to
> > the intense part; Drusilla in general comes to mind, but I laughed the
> > most at Spike bounding away from the burning city.
>
> Triumphant. Easy to see why Spike would think of that as his best day.
> Really nicely shot too, with good music.
and what with the alpha head butting between angel and spike
that mightve been the first time he got dru
Elisi
>Indeed, not to mention of course that in School Hard, Spike is said to
>be "just over two hundred".
OK, so there are a few gaps in continuity - Joss himself has admitted
that they screwed up Spike's timeline. But really - do you consider the
Watchers to be the holders of all information? Buffy seeks out Spike
because she can't find the knowledge she seeks amongst the books. There
are also gaps in Angel's and Darla's stories that we quite simply have
to live with. What this episode does is to flesh out Spike's character,
make him 3 dimensional. And on (almost) every point the story succeeds
formidably. Spike wasn't just a ruthless Slayer killer - he also looked
after Drusilla for almost 120 years, with a love and devotion that
f.ex. Angelus completely lacked, and now we know why.
>From a Watcher compiled book, that took
>great pains to get his human name "William the Bloody", which was
>apparently just a nickname given to him by some posh dipshits because he
>was so bad a poet.
Well he obviously used 'William the Bloody' for quite a while - even in
'Something Blue' Buffy asks if he wants it on the wedding invitations.
It was a derivation of his human nick-name, and rather well done at
that - changing the meaning from 'bloody awful', to literally bloody.
>Interestingly; his statement to Angelus: "Have you forgotten what you do
>with Slayers? You kill them."
The line you quote is in fact not spoken to Angelus, but to The
Annointed One, Collin (in School Hard):
Spike: You've got Slayer problems. That's a bad piece of luck. Do you
know what I find works real good with Slayers? Killing them.
Collin: Can you?
Spike: A lot faster than Nancy-boy there. Yeah, I did a couple Slayers
in my time. I don't like to brag. Who am I kidding? I *love* to brag!
There was this one Slayer during the Boxer Rebellion, and...
>That's like saying; I rather go flying than cycling, and
>unless you're Superman that doesn't make much sense.
Sorry, but people say that sort of thing all the time. He might as well
have said, "I wouldn't listen to it, even for a million pounds!" Would
that have implied that there was a poet in London handing out money so
people would listen to his work?
Anyway, you obviously don't like Spike or what they were doing with
him, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do. As far as I can
tell, you're creating your own 'Spike' who is pretty much just 'Big
Evil Thug #1' and has no resemblance to the character we saw on screen
(and I'm including all of canon, even S2).
kenm47
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
>
No time now. Haven't even finished fully rewatching GWBG on Angel.
Falling behind. But I'll go with Excellent despite IMO some valid
carping by Burt re the effort to "humanize" Spike.
I haven't read all the comments. If this has already been pointed out,
sobeit: the Asian Slayer somehow permanently wounded Spike - the
eyebrow scar from her slashing him
there. Magic sword?
Ken (Brooklyn)
jil...@hotmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
> the intense part; Drusilla in general comes to mind, but I laughed the
> see Angelus and Darla being the ones *not* having fun? [Post-hoc note:
> I didn't notice o.f.v. that the dates seem not to match up with what
> we've been told about Angel; it took a certain other episode to draw
> my attention to and explain that incongruity.]
Oh. Then I can say "GOSH, I have NO idea why Angelus and Darla would
not be having fun! It's as though... some terrible fact is draining
all the joy from them."
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
as i remember one tuesday night in the long ago
we got fool for love followed immediately by darla
a noncrossover crossover
BTR1701
wrote:
> Well, he has a plan, but the execution is inept, and proves that vampire
> hunters can also be lucky. Clearly a fast moving vampire might have cut him
> off from his exit, and he's relying on the grenade at least beheading every
> vampire in the crypt (presumably a vampire is unlikely to throw himself on
> the grenade to save his fellows, but some might hide behind their fellows).
Doesn't really have to behead them for him to get away. We've seen that
shooting a vampire hurts them like hell and pretty much incapacitates
them for a while. I would imagine having an arm or a leg blown off
and/or being riddled with shrapnel would have an even more dramatic and
debilitating effect. Riley could easily get away while the mutilated
vampires are all rolling around in agony. And if he wanted to, he could
come back after the smoke cleared and walk around the crypt staking them
one at a time while they were essentially helpless.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> And I think the scene pretty much puts to rest any notion of killing Spike -
> at least until the next time he does something unforgivable.
The fact that he's already done things that are UNFORGIVABLE without
being staked is what's so ludicrous about the whole thing. There's a
reason the word "unforgivable" means what it does.
BTR1701
3D Master <3d.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 5. And there's one more, but I'll leave it off because it involves the
> > next episode from "Angel" which you might not have watched yet.
> > Regardless, the episode is a complete mess of contradictions to what
> > we've seen before, and that really does ruin it for me.
>
> Indeed, not to mention of course that in School Hard, Spike is said to
> be "just over two hundred". From a Watcher compiled book, that took
> great pains to get his human name "William the Bloody", which was
> apparently just a nickname given to him by some posh dipshits because he
> was so bad a poet. Which incidentally would make him older than
> Drusilla. Here he's suddenly barely over a hundred and Drusilla sired
> him.
And speaking of "School Hard", that was the episode that told us that
Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but some of
this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were even
trying anymore at this point.
BTR1701
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not necessarily true. A Slayer *is* a weapon. She has fantastic
strength. She could just rip a vampire's head off its body. Seize it in
her hands and twist... and keep twisting. Instant dust.
Is that harder to do than using a stake? Probably. But it does transform
Spike's "Lesson the first" from an axiom to something of a lesser
generality.
BTR1701
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Buffy doesn't sneak around, she walks around brazenly, saying,
> in so many words, 'here's a nummy treat vamps, come attack men'.
> The Scoobs were patrolling just as they always do with Buffy.
Which I've always found to be rather odd. It seems that at this point
even the stupidest of vampires would know who the Slayer is. The show
has portrayed a "demon underground" network that passes information
rather efficiently on several occasions. Why the vampires even stay in
town is beyond me. (The show tried to explain this by saying the
Hellmouth draws them in but the ANGEL show ruined that by showing us
that Los Angeles-- and presumably every other city on earth-- has plenty
of vampires, too, so why aren't *they* drawn to the Hellmouth also?) But
assuming the vampires are gonna hang around Sunnydale, why in the hell
wouldn't they immediately hide or head the other way when they see Buffy
strolling through a graveyard? Heck, even the new ones clawing their way
up from the ground were presumably Sunnydale residents before they died
and most of the folks in Sunnydale at this point know that Buffy is
"special" even if they don't exactly know how.
> Also, Riley wasn't superman when he took out the vamp nest, he was
> undercover dude, slipping up and tossing a grenade in, rather than going
> hand-to-hand.
Yes, I don't have nearly as much problem with a regular human guy
tossing a grenade into a crypt as I do with other instances-- like Gunn
or Giles consistently fighting and killing vampires be Serq, bs nyy
crbcyr, orfgvat n inzcver va n qverpg pbasebagngvba.
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Third, one thing that's not clear to me is exactly how many of the
> less flattering details he's actually telling Buffy. I'm going to
> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
> mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
>
Based on how Spike begins his story -- "What can I tell you, baby? I've
always been bad." -- I suspect he left out everything about William the
milquetoast and Cecily.
And I think the alley scene actually works even better if Buffy has no
idea what the impact is of what she's saying. Among other things, this
episode shows that every woman Spike has ever loved has ultimately
decided, independently of each other, that he is unworthy of them.
Which dovetails neatly with the title of the episode.
Mike Zeares
BTR1701 wrote:
>
> And speaking of "School Hard", that was the episode that told us that
> Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
> continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but some of
> this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were even
> trying anymore at this point.
This wasn't a case of them forgetting continuity, or of not caring, but
of deliberately changing their minds because they came up with
something they liked better. Joss did discuss this back in the day,
remember. It's not as if they thought no one would notice.
-- Mike Zeares
BTR1701
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've went back and forth with that forever. It's a bit shady because of
> Spike's "I've always been bad" comment. Still, I've always preferred and
> lean more towards him being truthful because you're right... Buffy's
> "You're beneath me" at the end of the alley scene is much more powerful
> if she's repeating Cecily's words in spite.
I think it's more powerful if she isn't. If Buffy's just repeating
Cecily's words, Spike can dismiss it as just her trying to be mean. If
he never told her what Cecily said and she comes up with the exact same
thing anyway, he has to start to wonder if it might actually be true.
Elisi
> And speaking of "School Hard", that was the episode that told us that
> Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
> continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but some of
> this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were even
> trying anymore at this point.
I think they made it work rather well to be honest.
Fcvxr: 'Pnhfr rirel gvzr lbh ybbx ng zr... lbh frr nyy gur qvegl yvggyr
guvatf V'ir qbar, nyy gur yvirf V'ir gnxra... orpnhfr bs lbh! Qehfvyyn
fverq zr... ohg lbh... lbh znqr zr n zbafgre.
NgF 5.8 Qrfgval.
BTR1701
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > And speaking of "School Hard", that was the episode that told us that
> > Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
> > continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but some of
> > this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were even
> > trying anymore at this point.
>
> I think they made it work rather well to be honest.
It was a blatant contradiction of what had already been established. If
that works for you, so be it, but it's most circles, that's called bad
storytelling.
It's one thing to fudge on whether Spike is 120 years old or 126 or
whatever. That sort of thing doesn't impact the overall plot. But to
abruptly contradict an entire relationship between two characters just
because you suddenly have a "better idea" is bad storytelling, plain and
simple (even if it really *is* a better idea).
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <1150353228....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Sample wrote:
> >
> > > It was only luck that he wasn't staked by the first Slayer he came
> > > across. She was about to put her stake through his heart, when she gets
> > > knocked off balance by an explosion outside the temple. She died the
> > > way Buffy nearly died in the prologue: a bit of bad luck, and a vamp
> > > having one good day.
> >
> > Lesson the first: A Slayer must always reach for her weapon.
>
> Not necessarily true. A Slayer *is* a weapon. She has fantastic
> strength. She could just rip a vampire's head off its body. Seize it in
> her hands and twist... and keep twisting. Instant dust.
why did she need a xacto knife?
Espen Schjønberg
>
> It's one thing to fudge on whether Spike is 120 years old or 126 or
> whatever. That sort of thing doesn't impact the overall plot. But to
> abruptly contradict an entire relationship between two characters just
> because you suddenly have a "better idea" is bad storytelling, plain and
> simple (even if it really *is* a better idea).
I don't think this is so utterly horrible, after all Angel is "still"
Spikes grandsire, and absolutely still his yoda.
It is possible to make "you were my Sire" to fly with the grandsire
history.
Just wanted to say I think so.
--
Espen
Arbitrar Of Quality
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <3p7192hdq64dgbod6...@4ax.com>,
> William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Why the vampires even stay in
> town is beyond me. (The show tried to explain this by saying the
> Hellmouth draws them in but the ANGEL show ruined that by showing us
> that Los Angeles-- and presumably every other city on earth-- has plenty
> of vampires, too, so why aren't *they* drawn to the Hellmouth also?)
Well, L.A. isn't that far from Sunnydale... I always thought that it
was a special place too, given that it has that whole nightlife
reputation going, and Angel seems to keep always coming back.
> But
> assuming the vampires are gonna hang around Sunnydale, why in the hell
> wouldn't they immediately hide or head the other way when they see Buffy
> strolling through a graveyard? Heck, even the new ones clawing their way
> up from the ground were presumably Sunnydale residents before they died
> and most of the folks in Sunnydale at this point know that Buffy is
> "special" even if they don't exactly know how.
In case you haven't noticed, Sunnydale vampires tend to be deeply
stupid.
-AOQ
vague disclaimer
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <3p7192hdq64dgbod6...@4ax.com>,
> William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Buffy doesn't sneak around, she walks around brazenly, saying,
> > in so many words, 'here's a nummy treat vamps, come attack men'.
> > The Scoobs were patrolling just as they always do with Buffy.
>
> Which I've always found to be rather odd. It seems that at this point
> even the stupidest of vampires would know who the Slayer is.
Sebz Gur Tvsg: "Jryy, orra n ybat juvyr fvapr V zrg bar qvqa'g xabj zr."
--
Wikipedia: like Usenet, moderated by trolls
Arbitrar Of Quality
Elisi wrote:
> And just a few little points: I don't think Spike told Buffy exactly
> what we saw. Oh no. Because half the time his words were flat
> contradicted by what we saw."I've always been bad." Followed by the
> shot of him as a Bad Poet. "I had to get myself a gang." followed by
> the scene of him clearly being the underdog in Angelus' gang. So I
> think Buffy's "You're beneath me!" was all her own, but therefore even
> more devastating.
You might be right. But it could be a flippant introduction too: he
starts with the pithy one-line summary and then gradually reveals the
truth. He was pretty open about Dru dumping him once people got him
talking.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
MBangel10 (Melissa) wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > It's more my style to end there, but FFL has a coda triggered by
> > Joyce's illness, after a funny digression with a slimy but polite
> > demon (Chaos Demon or Fungus Demon? Pre-LW or post?
>
> From the LW transcript:
>
> Spike: It was that truce with Buffy that did it. Dru said I'd gone
> soft. Wasn't demon enough for the likes of her. And I told her it didn't
> mean anything, I was thinking of her the whole time, but she didn't
> care. So, we got to Brazil, and she was... she was just different. I
> gave her everything: beautiful jewels, beautiful dresses with beautiful
> girls in them, but nothing made her happy. And she would fliiirt!
> (sniffs) I caught her on a park bench, making out with a *chaos* demon!
> Have you ever seen a chaos demon? They're all slime and antlers. They're
> disgusting.
LW ended with Spike going back to win back and/or abuse Dru, and she
ended up leaving him for a Fungus Demon, as revealed in THLOD.
-AOQ
~the antlers may have it, though~
lili...@gmail.com
thank God they dropped it.
This would have made Spike a boring character along the lines of Luke
in Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest.
But really, that doesn't even matter, because the only place where you
can even remotely find an implication of that kind is in School Hard
and honestly, School Hard is far far very far from being Spike's best
ep. (in fact even JM'll admit it's one of his weakest)
>From what I've heard, the <u>'original' </u> idea for Spike was to have
him be a southern gentleman who was supposed to be a supporting char to
Juliet Landau's Drusilla, be staked in What's my line so that he could
make way for a Drusilla/Angelus relationship.
It's only when JM showed up that they made him British and it's because
of JM's chemistry with JL and his actingskills that they kept the
character around, making him more and more human, more and more
fallible as the story went along.
And that's what the essence is of Spike, his remaining humanity. The
fact that he likes the thrill over the artistry, that he suffers from
some kind of ADHD and short attention span (aka he gets bored
easily*g*) But that when he sets a goal for himself, he'll keep going
till he reaches it. And that comes from his human weaknesses and his
desperate attempts at overcoming his past as a weakling.
Lore
3D Master schreef:
Arbitrar Of Quality
Apteryx wrote:
> Its a nice touch when Buffy and Giles realise this, but actually the
> creakiness of this mechanism bugs me enough to prevent me from regarding
> this as one of the great episodes, despite the great opportunities provided
> for vampire backstory. We see how the vampire in the teaser nearly killed
> Buffy - he got lucky. Then we see how Spike killed the earlier slayers - he
> got lucky. There really wasn't a story there.
The death-wish thing is the story Buffy's thrown and scared by her
moment of weakness, and wants to learn how to prevent it, and instead
gets some things to chew over about herself and about being the Slayer.
Even if Buffy supposed that
> there was a secret slayer-killing move, why would she expect Spike to tell
> her?
She has money.
-AOQ
lili...@gmail.com
Sadistic torturer? Spike?
Since when?
Spike has NEVER been into torture. As Angel said in WML, Spike isn't in
the preshow.
He <b>hired</b> another vampire to torture Angel for him in 'In the
Dark'
If he was really such a 'sadistic torturer' do you really think he
would have handed over the pleasure of that?
I much prefer the idea of him getting the idea of the railroad spikes
from that guy at the party and to then do that a few more times
afterwards, because it makes the other vampires look at him with a
gleam of respect.
Spike plain out rather goes into a mob and kills as many as possible...
That doesn't make it better, but it does NOT make him a sadistic
torturer.
Lore
Arbitrar Of Quality
One Bit Shy wrote:
> Whoever Nick Marck is, he sure did a fine job.
Am I missing an in-joke here?
> > Ah, yes, Buffy and Spike. A pairing that I guess was fantasized about
> > for years, inexplicable and pretty stupid when you stop to think about
> > it, but oddly appealing. The actors work well together, so the
> > show's been glad to play with the idea in episodes like 'Something
> > Blue," "Who Are You?" and so on. This season the writers have
> > been playing with Spike's obsession, as a sideshow comedy act,
> > really. So that's not new. What is very new is that FFL decides to
> > bring the idea of sparkage between them to the forefront of the series,
> > make it indispensable to the world of _Buffy_. Wherever it ends up
> > going, we're very serious now. For better or for worse. FFL can
> > teach aspiring TV types a valuable lesson: when introducing something
> > so whacked-out, it helps if your episode is *fucking kickass*.
>
> Yes it does, and yes this episode is. I don't think I'm quite where you are
> with the sparkage comment - though I'm not certain I follow it completely.
> I think you may have missed something. More later...
I'm just saying that Spike's obsession with Buffy has been a background
thing. Even the end of OOMM could've just been left as something for
Spike to be comic-reliefy about. After FFL, I can't imagine the
obsession, sexual tension, and so on between them not being a central
part of the series as a whole.
> Helpless is a good comparison. But she completed the slay in Helpless,
> while here she is severely wounded and must be saved by Riley. And this is
> a Buffy who has been performing at a level beyond anything we've seen
> before. Remember her crouching like a cat on the crypt ready to spring for
> the kill? It's stunning, and has to bring home to Buffy her mortality to an
> extent I'm not sure we've seen since Prophecy Girl.
>
> I like the way it's staged too. Essentially the vampire got lucky and found
> himself in a position to use Buffy's momentum against her. If either had
> moved just a little differently, it woulnd't have happened. Very
> effectively shows just how easily and suddenly it really could end for
> Buffy.
You clearly know the scene better than I do. I'll just have to take
your word for it that it really was staged so carefully.
-AOQ
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> He was pretty open about Dru dumping him once people got him
> talking.
Well, let's face it, he had an audience.
Xande...@gmail.com
But it stopped being bad storytelling with the idea that "sire" could
refer to earlier descendants in the line.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> threads.
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: Nick Marck
Just a few brief comments here, as I'm about to leave for vacation.
There isn't much that hasn't already been said anyway.
(BTW, does anyone know a way to post using Google Groups using a spamtrap
address instead of your real email?)
> Getting the Riley-on-Slayer-duty stuff out of the way, I didn't like
> it so much. The Scoobie incompetence isn't as overplayed as I'd
> feared, fortunately, and Willow with the hat and handful of chips is
> pretty funny.
Funny but still a little overplayed for me, one of the few things that
bothers me in FFL. I wondered if maybe the Scoobies were deliberately
acting extra casual to tease Riley the professional.
> But Riley The Perfect Machine Of Snipe doesn't work
> for me, especially given that he so recently had a loss of
> super-strength and we haven't seen him readjusting. I know he's
> been patrolling with Buffy for a long time, so it's not too
> outlandish for him to stake a few enemies, but storming in and taking
> out a nest single-handedly seems to be pushing it.
But intentionally so. Beneath his businesslike facade, he's getting
rather reckless. Look at the way Riley walks several steps away from the
door into the tomb, instead of just tossing the grenade in from outside.
I always laugh at Buffy's comment that she knows she has an expiration
date, but wants it to be a long time in the future, "like a Cheeto."
Kind of reminds me of Xander's comments about Twinkies in Inca Mummy Girl.
I also really like the way ASH plays the discomfort Giles feels
contemplating Buffy's death.
> Third, one thing that's not clear to me is exactly how many of the
> less flattering details he's actually telling Buffy. I'm going to
> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
> mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
I'm in the opposing camp. I've always assumed that Spike just gave Buffy
a brief synopsis of the earlier flashbacks, especially the first, but left
out all the embarrassing details. To me *that* makes the alley scene
stronger. Buffy saying "You're beneath me" wouldn't seem as heartfelt if
she was quoting Cecily.
> One-sentence summary: An interesting way to do things.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
Excellent indeed. I might well put in my top ten, and I'm not even one of
your Spike-worshippers.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
BTR1701
Xande...@gmail.com wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <1150379319....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 wrote:
> > >
> > > > And speaking of "School Hard", that was the episode that told us that
> > > > Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
> > > > continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but some of
> > > > this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were even
> > > > trying anymore at this point.
> > >
> > > I think they made it work rather well to be honest.
> >
> > It was a blatant contradiction of what had already been established. If
> > that works for you, so be it, but in most circles, that's called bad
> > storytelling.
> >
> > It's one thing to fudge on whether Spike is 120 years old or 126 or
> > whatever. That sort of thing doesn't impact the overall plot. But to
> > abruptly contradict an entire relationship between two characters just
> > because you suddenly have a "better idea" is bad storytelling, plain and
> > simple (even if it really *is* a better idea).
>
> But it stopped being bad storytelling with the idea that "sire" could
> refer to earlier descendants in the line.
But that didn't really happen. That's just what the fans started saying
to try and reconcile what was nothing more than a blatant continuity
problem.
BTR1701
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
> On 15.06.2006 16:28, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > It's one thing to fudge on whether Spike is 120 years old or 126 or
> > whatever. That sort of thing doesn't impact the overall plot. But to
> > abruptly contradict an entire relationship between two characters just
> > because you suddenly have a "better idea" is bad storytelling, plain and
> > simple (even if it really *is* a better idea).
>
> I don't think this is so utterly horrible,
Well, I don't either. It's bad storytelling but it isn't utterly
horrible.
BTR1701
<mair_fheal-B4665...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <btr1702-0B456F...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1150353228....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don Sample wrote:
> > >
> > > > It was only luck that he wasn't staked by the first Slayer he came
> > > > across. She was about to put her stake through his heart, when she gets
> > > > knocked off balance by an explosion outside the temple. She died the
> > > > way Buffy nearly died in the prologue: a bit of bad luck, and a vamp
> > > > having one good day.
> > >
> > > Lesson the first: A Slayer must always reach for her weapon.
> >
> > Not necessarily true. A Slayer *is* a weapon. She has fantastic
> > strength. She could just rip a vampire's head off its body. Seize it in
> > her hands and twist... and keep twisting. Instant dust.
>
> why did she need a xacto knife?
Who says she needed it? Just because she used one doesn't mean it was
necessary.
BTR1701
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's only when JM showed up that they made him British
Which, if true, is somewhat bizarre since Marsters isn't British. Why
his presence would inspire them to make the character British is beyond
me.
Espen Schjønberg
> Apteryx wrote:
>
>
>>[if]there was a secret slayer-killing move, why would she expect Spike to tell
>>her?
>
>
> She has money.
I am, like, more: She knew he wanted to make himself interesting.
And how to make yourself interesting? Actually say something surprising.
I am "pretty sure" he would have told her, if there was any secret
slayer-killing move.
Of course, you might say: independent on whether it was one the slayer
could defend herself against easier, when she knew about it, or not?
But for Spike here, the fight is somewhat over. He is the type of POW
who just discusses the war with his captives, many secrets has been
given away that way. I think. I think he is giving up on actally killing
Buff here. guvf ebgngrq grkg qbrfa'g npghnyyl gryy nalguvat, whfg jnag
gb znxr zl frys vagrerfgvat.
--
Espen
Elisi
> But that didn't really happen. That's just what the fans started saying
> to try and reconcile what was nothing more than a blatant continuity
> problem.
Just out of interest, do you like Darla?
Espen Schjønberg
>
> (BTW, does anyone know a way to post using Google Groups using a spamtrap
> address instead of your real email?)
Use a real adress, but one you will not use much in the future? Set up
an account at some free emailsite? I did that at excite for some time
ago, it gets tons of spam. But I do actually look through it for real
email, too.
Your email here should have the extra extension .invalid, btw. It should
be chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu.invalid
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.invalid
--
Espen
Don Sample
3D Master <3d.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > In article <1150325814.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm going to
> >> operate under the assumption that she hears about everything we see,
> >> mostly because it makes the alley scene stronger.
> >
> > I think that the contrast between Spike's introductions to the scenes,
> > to what we actually see indicates that he *wasn't* telling Buffy the
> > truth, for at least the first two scenes. "I've always been bad!"
> > leading into milquetoast William.
>
> Than how come Buffy knows to parrot Cecily "You're beneath me"? It's
> more likely he told the truth, "I've always been bad!" we just didn't
> get to see the "bad part".
Or maybe Spike really told a tale of being some bad boy from the wrong
side of the tracks, who fell for an upper class girl, and she rejected
him, telling him "You're beneath me."
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
peachy ashie passion
> Agree with the summary. But despite all the times it reaches towards
> greatness, it is dragged back by the fact that from the set up, I never
> expected the stories of the slayers death would tell Buffy anything she
> didn't already know from her own near death experience, and they don't. It's
> the other stuff that works. For me its Good, and only the 45th best BtVS
> episode. But it is 4th best in Season 5.
>
The secret of therapy is this: You rarely hear anything you didn't
know, but sometimes it still does you good to go over the stuff you
already know.
Most of what needs to be explored is what's inside you, not new
information.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-B4665...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <btr1702-0B456F...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1150353228....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don Sample wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It was only luck that he wasn't staked by the first Slayer he came
> > > > > across. She was about to put her stake through his heart, when she
> > > > > gets
> > > > > knocked off balance by an explosion outside the temple. She died the
> > > > > way Buffy nearly died in the prologue: a bit of bad luck, and a vamp
> > > > > having one good day.
> > > >
> > > > Lesson the first: A Slayer must always reach for her weapon.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily true. A Slayer *is* a weapon. She has fantastic
> > > strength. She could just rip a vampire's head off its body. Seize it in
> > > her hands and twist... and keep twisting. Instant dust.
> >
> > why did she need a xacto knife?
>
> Who says she needed it? Just because she used one doesn't mean it was
> necessary.
ever used an xacto knife?
not really the easiest instrument to decapitate with
Xande...@gmail.com
BTR1701 wrote:
>
> But that didn't really happen. That's just what the fans started saying
> to try and reconcile what was nothing more than a blatant continuity
> problem.
No, actually, it's what Joss said. There is absolutely nothing to
contradict that in canon.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <e6ran1$b1u$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, he has a plan, but the execution is inept, and proves that vampire
> > hunters can also be lucky. Clearly a fast moving vampire might have cut him
> > off from his exit, and he's relying on the grenade at least beheading every
> > vampire in the crypt (presumably a vampire is unlikely to throw himself on
> > the grenade to save his fellows, but some might hide behind their fellows).
>
> Doesn't really have to behead them for him to get away. We've seen that
> shooting a vampire hurts them like hell and pretty much incapacitates
> them for a while. I would imagine having an arm or a leg blown off
> and/or being riddled with shrapnel would have an even more dramatic and
> debilitating effect. Riley could easily get away while the mutilated
> vampires are all rolling around in agony. And if he wanted to, he could
> come back after the smoke cleared and walk around the crypt staking them
> one at a time while they were essentially helpless.
And if it was in incendiary grenade he wouldn't even have to go back to
stake the wounded. Vampires are highly flammable.
Don Sample
"Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > And speaking of "School Hard", that was the episode that told us that
> > Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
> > continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but some of
> > this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were even
> > trying anymore at this point.
>
> This wasn't a case of them forgetting continuity, or of not caring, but
> of deliberately changing their minds because they came up with
> something they liked better. Joss did discuss this back in the day,
> remember. It's not as if they thought no one would notice.
Dru being Spike's sire was part of the planned back-story all along. It
is the line in "School Hard" that was continuity glitch. During the
pre-season publicity tours and such they told people that Dru was
Spike's sire. Then "School Hard" came along, and fans went "Hey, wait a
minute! You said before that Dru was Spike's sire!" and Joss was all
ready with his "The sire of my sire is also my sire" explanation.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It was Joss who first came out with the "the sire of my sire is also my
sire" explanation, and he did it right after "School Hard" aired,
because they'd already been telling people for months that Dru was
Spike's sire.
--
burt...@hotmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Eh, the episode itself was entertaining enough (or most of it was,
> > anyway), but it utterly *butchers* previous show continuity. I know
> > continuity isn't Joss's strong suit, but sometimes I can ignore that
> > and just go with the flow. But it's so bad here that I just can't.
> > Here's a (reposted) list of the continity problems from before:
> >
> > 1. Inconsistencies on Spike's feelings for Buffy:
> >
> > In the flashback to the Brazilian scene (set in early S3), Drusilla
> > leaves Spike because "he's in love with Buffy, she can tell." How she
> > can tell this from Spike constantly urging Angelus to kill Buffy and
> > finally abandoning Buffy to die at Angelus' hands in "Becoming, Part
> > 2," I'm not exactly sure, but it's the ep's attempt to set up long-term
> >
> > feeling on Spike's part, contrary to what was shown before.
>
> She doesn't say that he's in love with Buffy, she says that she sees
> her all over him. He's obsessed. That's been part of the show since
> at least early S4, and some might argue since "What's My Line?" As for
> how Dru knows that, perhaps, say, hanging around with Spike for a few
> months would provide that opportunity. Also, as others have pointed
> out, her mind doesn't work linearly.
She also asks him why he can't kill Buffy, implying that his obsession
is different from what it's been with the other Slayers he's
encountered. The clear implication is that Spike can't kill Buffy
because he feels something for her, and it flies in the face of
previous show continuity on the subject (Spike was trying to kill her
as late as "Harsh Light of Day" and even after that he tried to get her
killed indirectly).
And since I'm not really up for a long debate ATM, I'll just agree to
disagree about the rest.
burt...@hotmail.com
One Bit Shy wrote:
> <burt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150330729.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 4. Inconsistencies on Spike's chip:
> >
> > In "The Yoko Factor," Spike can't even point a *plastic* gun at Xander
> > because of the pain from the chip.
> >
> > In "Fool for Love," the entire plot hangs on the premise that Spike can
> >
> > aim and fire a killing shotgun blast at Buffy, before the pain kicks
> > in.
> >
> > What's really weird is that Doug Petrie wrote both episodes.
>
>
> He never aims it - let alone fires it - now does he?
>
> We don't know if Spike really had the fortitude to pull that off. We only
> know that he was mad enough and rash enough to come up with the fool idea.
> Just like usual. Harmony didn't think it would work and tried to stop him
> because it would get Spike killed - not Buffy.
>
> There's no inconsistency.
But we're clearly meant to think that he could have killed Buffy. Buffy
has to be in danger, otherwise the finale of the episode doesn't work.
If there's no threat, there's no dramatic tension.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <1150384053....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From what I've heard, the <u>'original' </u> idea for Spike was to
> > have him be a southern gentleman
> >
> > It's only when JM showed up that they made him British
>
> Which, if true, is somewhat bizarre since Marsters isn't British. Why
> his presence would inspire them to make the character British is
> beyond me.
Maybe because he could do a better British accent than southern
gentleman accent.
George W Harris
<l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
:In article <1150383884.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
: "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:
:> He was pretty open about Dru dumping him once people got him
:> talking.
:
:Well, let's face it, he had an audience.
Plus, he was drunk.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Don Sample
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> And oh yes, before I forget...
>
> Sadistic torturer? Spike?
> Since when?
>
> Spike has NEVER been into torture. As Angel said in WML, Spike isn't in
> the preshow.
>
> He <b>hired</b> another vampire to torture Angel for him in 'In the
> Dark'
>
> If he was really such a 'sadistic torturer' do you really think he
> would have handed over the pleasure of that?
>
> I much prefer the idea of him getting the idea of the railroad spikes
> from that guy at the party and to then do that a few more times
> afterwards, because it makes the other vampires look at him with a
> gleam of respect.
>
> Spike plain out rather goes into a mob and kills as many as possible...
> That doesn't make it better, but it does NOT make him a sadistic
> torturer.
>
>
> Lore
He has certainly done it. He may not enjoy it as much as Angel, and
when he wanted information from Angel he hired an expert to get it for
him, but that doesn't mean that Spike hasn't partaken of that particular
pleasure himself from time to time.
Jr unir guvf yvggyr rkpunatr sebz "Arire Yrnir Zr" va frnfba frira:
"Qb lbh unir nal vqrn jung V'z pncnoyr bs?"
Ohssl abqf. "V jnf va gur pryyne jvgu lbh. V fnj jung lbh
qvq."
"V'z abg gnyxvat nobhg gur pryyne," fnlf Fcvxr. "Crbcyr
va gur pryyne tbg bss rnfl. V'z gnyxvat nobhg zr. Ohssl,
lbh'ir arire zrg gur erny zr."
"Oryvrir zr, V'z jryy njner bs jung lbh'er pncnoyr bs,"
fnlf Ohssl.
"Ab. Lbh tbg bss rnfl, gbb." Fcvxr fgnaqf hc. "Qb lbh
xabj ubj zhpu oybbq lbh pna qevax sebz n tvey orsber fur'yy
qvr? V qb. Lbh frr, gur gevpx vf gb qevax whfg rabhtu gb xabj
ubj gb qnzntr gurz whfg rabhtu fb gung gurl'yy fgvyy pel jura
lbh 'Pnhfr vg'f abg jbegu vg vs gurl qba'g pel."
"Vg'f abg lbhe snhyg," fnlf Ohssl. "Lbh'er abg gur bar
qbvat guvf."
"V nyernql qvq vg. Vg'f nyernql qbar." Fcvxr fgrcf gbjneq
Ohssl, chyyvat uvf punvaf gnhg. "Lbh jnag gb xabj jung V'ir
qbar gb tveyf Qnja'f ntr?"
Don Sample
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Five, Episode 7: "Fool For Love"
> > (or "The incredible adventures of Punky!Spike and Afro Slayer")
> > Writer: Douglas Petrie
> > Director: Nick Marck
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> No time now. Haven't even finished fully rewatching GWBG on Angel.
> Falling behind. But I'll go with Excellent despite IMO some valid
> carping by Burt re the effort to "humanize" Spike.
>
> I haven't read all the comments. If this has already been pointed out,
> sobeit: the Asian Slayer somehow permanently wounded Spike - the
> eyebrow scar from her slashing him
> there. Magic sword?
Maybe it was specially blessed, only quenched in holy water during its
construction, and things like that.
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <btr1702-2C4221...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1150384053....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > lili...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > From what I've heard, the <u>'original' </u> idea for Spike was to
> > > have him be a southern gentleman
> > >
> > > It's only when JM showed up that they made him British
> >
> > Which, if true, is somewhat bizarre since Marsters isn't British. Why
> > his presence would inspire them to make the character British is
> > beyond me.
>
> Maybe because he could do a better British accent than southern
> gentleman accent.
I bet he can do a regular American accent better than either of the two.
BTR1701
BTR1701
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "like". I wouldn't date her, if that's what
you mean. A little too psychotic for my tastes.
One Bit Shy
news:mair_fheal-A41A9...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
You have experience decapitating with a xacto knife? ;-)
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
What Whedon says outside the show to reconcile his own continuity goofs
isn't relevant. When I said "that didn't really happen", I of course
meant it didn't happen on the show.
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Which is a ridiculous explanation since that would mean that every
vampire ultimately has the same sire, thereby rendering the term
meaningless.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Which I've always found to be rather odd. It seems that at this point
> even the stupidest of vampires would know who the Slayer is. The show
> has portrayed a "demon underground" network that passes information
> rather efficiently on several occasions. Why the vampires even stay in
> town is beyond me. (The show tried to explain this by saying the
> Hellmouth draws them in but the ANGEL show ruined that by showing us
> that Los Angeles-- and presumably every other city on earth-- has plenty
> of vampires, too, so why aren't *they* drawn to the Hellmouth also?)
L.A. seems to have about the same number of vampires and demons as
Sunnydale, but Los Angeles county has a population 200 times greater
than Sunnydale's, so the Hellmouth has a vampire and demon concentration
200 times greater than that of Los Angeles.
L.A. is also the closest big city to the Hellmouth, so its demon
concentration would likely be higher than that of other large cities.
The vamps and demons who want to be close to the Hellmouth, but are
smart enough to avoid the Slayer stay in L.A., where they're close
enough to still make day trips to the Hellmouth if they really need to
get closer.
> But
> assuming the vampires are gonna hang around Sunnydale, why in the hell
> wouldn't they immediately hide or head the other way when they see Buffy
> strolling through a graveyard? Heck, even the new ones clawing their way
> up from the ground were presumably Sunnydale residents before they died
> and most of the folks in Sunnydale at this point know that Buffy is
> "special" even if they don't exactly know how.
Because vampires are stupid. And they're all so full of themselves that
they all pretty much believe that they are the one who's going to take
out the Slayer.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But it did. Here in "Fool for Love" they gave the definitive, in canon,
proof that Dru was Spike's sire.
Xande...@gmail.com
BTR1701 wrote:
> What Whedon says outside the show to reconcile his own continuity goofs
> isn't relevant. When I said "that didn't really happen", I of course
> meant it didn't happen on the show.
Of course that's what you meant. I'm simply saying there's nothing on
the show to contradict that viewpoint, so why not just accept it and
move on rather than saying it was bad storytelling?
Elisi
> Not sure what you mean by "like". I wouldn't date her, if that's what
> you mean. A little too psychotic for my tastes.
Hee! No I meant do you like her character? Since the continuity flaws
for Darla are probably bigger for Darla than for Spike, I was quite
simply wondering if your dislike might have coloured your response.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that if you like something it's
easier to forgive problems - you might not mind Darla's continuity
problems as much as Spike's.
One Bit Shy
news:1150384636.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> Whoever Nick Marck is, he sure did a fine job.
>
> Am I missing an in-joke here?
No. Just saying it was a good job of directing.
>> > Ah, yes, Buffy and Spike. A pairing that I guess was fantasized about
>> > for years, inexplicable and pretty stupid when you stop to think about
>> > it, but oddly appealing. The actors work well together, so the
>> > show's been glad to play with the idea in episodes like 'Something
>> > Blue," "Who Are You?" and so on. This season the writers have
>> > been playing with Spike's obsession, as a sideshow comedy act,
>> > really. So that's not new. What is very new is that FFL decides to
>> > bring the idea of sparkage between them to the forefront of the series,
>> > make it indispensable to the world of _Buffy_. Wherever it ends up
>> > going, we're very serious now. For better or for worse. FFL can
>> > teach aspiring TV types a valuable lesson: when introducing something
>> > so whacked-out, it helps if your episode is *fucking kickass*.
>>
>> Yes it does, and yes this episode is. I don't think I'm quite where you
>> are
>> with the sparkage comment - though I'm not certain I follow it
>> completely.
>> I think you may have missed something. More later...
>
> I'm just saying that Spike's obsession with Buffy has been a background
> thing. Even the end of OOMM could've just been left as something for
> Spike to be comic-reliefy about. After FFL, I can't imagine the
> obsession, sexual tension, and so on between them not being a central
> part of the series as a whole.
OK. That's fair. I just wasn't sure what the qualitative elements of
"sparkage" were. Ultimately not that important. I expect the show will
take us where it wants to in its own time.
OBS
peachy ashie passion
Jeeez!
Some men are SO picky!!
Paul Hyett
>
>Well, he has a plan, but the execution is inept, and proves that vampire
>hunters can also be lucky. Clearly a fast moving vampire might have cut him
>off from his exit, and he's relying on the grenade at least beheading every
>vampire in the crypt (presumably a vampire is unlikely to throw himself on
>the grenade to save his fellows, but some might hide behind their fellows).
ISTM it would be the fire from the explosion that took out the vamps, as
flying shrapnel wouldn't do the job.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
One Bit Shy
news:1150391511.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Do you really think so? Spike - the guy who's grand schemes always falter?
I fully expected him to fail - just wasn't sure how it would happen this
time. I think we're led to understand that Spike *believes* he can do it -
though even there, there's room for some self doubt in Spike. He could
subconsciously be building himself up for a suicide run too. And we might
wonder if it's possible. Perhaps Spike, that full of rage, might be able to
fight through the pain just long enough to pull the trigger.
But that's speculative. All we're actually shown is Spike working himself
up into attempting the grand gesture, and then forgetting about it when he
sees Buffy crying. Both acts true to Spike's established character. The
actual effect of the chip is never tested. It seems odd to me to claim
continuity error with the chip just because Spike *thinks* he can do
something to overcome it.
OBS
Stephen Tempest
>
>"Horace LaBadie" <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:hwlabadiejr-8909...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <1150325814.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > (Poets don't bother with proper grammar.)
>>
>> "I know I'm a bad poet, but I'm a good man..."
>>
>> And it's been pointed out that British railroads didn't use spikes.
>>
>>
>Aristocrat #3 must have visited America then
>(http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=284).
Definitely - since there aren't any railroads in Britain anyway.
(Any *British* aristocrat would have said 'railway')
Stephen
Elisi
> Jr unir guvf yvggyr rkpunatr sebz "Arire Yrnir Zr" va frnfba frira:
>
> "Qb lbh unir nal vqrn jung V'z pncnoyr bs?"
> Ohssl abqf. "V jnf va gur pryyne jvgu lbh. V fnj jung lbh
> qvq."
> "V'z abg gnyxvat nobhg gur pryyne," fnlf Fcvxr. "Crbcyr
> va gur pryyne tbg bss rnfl. V'z gnyxvat nobhg zr. Ohssl,
> lbh'ir arire zrg gur erny zr."
> "Oryvrir zr, V'z jryy njner bs jung lbh'er pncnoyr bs,"
> fnlf Ohssl.
> "Ab. Lbh tbg bss rnfl, gbb." Fcvxr fgnaqf hc. "Qb lbh
> xabj ubj zhpu oybbq lbh pna qevax sebz n tvey orsber fur'yy
> qvr? V qb. Lbh frr, gur gevpx vf gb qevax whfg rabhtu gb xabj
> ubj gb qnzntr gurz whfg rabhtu fb gung gurl'yy fgvyy pel jura
> lbh 'Pnhfr vg'f abg jbegu vg vs gurl qba'g pel."
> "Vg'f abg lbhe snhyg," fnlf Ohssl. "Lbh'er abg gur bar
> qbvat guvf."
> "V nyernql qvq vg. Vg'f nyernql qbar." Fcvxr fgrcf gbjneq
> Ohssl, chyyvat uvf punvaf gnhg. "Lbh jnag gb xabj jung V'ir
> qbar gb tveyf Qnja'f ntr?"
Ha! I knew what that was even before I deciphered! And yes it's a very
valid point - Spike is/was evil with a capital E (not sure what tense
to use now he's chipped). I think that the point Lore was trying to
make was that you wouldn't describe Spike as primarily a 'torturer' -
he likes a good fight much more.
And, just to prove my point with my own little bit of rot-13:
V arire qvq guvax gung zhpu nobhg gur angher bs rivy. Ab. Whfg guerj
zlfrys va. Gubhtug vg jnf n cnegl. V yvxrq gur ehfu. V yvxrq gur
pehapu. Arire qvq ybbx onpx ng gur ivpgvzf.
One Bit Shy
news:btr1702-91ABF0...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <1291s58...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> And I think the scene pretty much puts to rest any notion of killing
>> Spike -
>> at least until the next time he does something unforgivable.
>
> The fact that he's already done things that are UNFORGIVABLE without
> being staked is what's so ludicrous about the whole thing. There's a
> reason the word "unforgivable" means what it does.
Ah, yes, one of the numerous absolutes in our language. Tossed out freely -
and violated just as freely. Humans are funny that way, aren't they?
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Eh, the episode itself was entertaining enough (or most of it was,
> > > anyway), but it utterly *butchers* previous show continuity. I know
> > > continuity isn't Joss's strong suit, but sometimes I can ignore that
> > > and just go with the flow. But it's so bad here that I just can't.
> > > Here's a (reposted) list of the continity problems from before:
> > >
> > > 1. Inconsistencies on Spike's feelings for Buffy:
> > >
> > > In the flashback to the Brazilian scene (set in early S3), Drusilla
> > > leaves Spike because "he's in love with Buffy, she can tell." How she
> > > can tell this from Spike constantly urging Angelus to kill Buffy and
> > > finally abandoning Buffy to die at Angelus' hands in "Becoming, Part
> > > 2," I'm not exactly sure, but it's the ep's attempt to set up long-term
> > >
> > > feeling on Spike's part, contrary to what was shown before.
> >
> > She doesn't say that he's in love with Buffy, she says that she sees
> > her all over him. He's obsessed. That's been part of the show since
> > at least early S4, and some might argue since "What's My Line?" As for
> > how Dru knows that, perhaps, say, hanging around with Spike for a few
> > months would provide that opportunity. Also, as others have pointed
> > out, her mind doesn't work linearly.
>
> She also asks him why he can't kill Buffy, implying that his obsession
> is different from what it's been with the other Slayers he's
> encountered.
Has he ever been obsessed with a Slayer before? I figured he killed
the others in their first fight. Buffy's something new and different,
in part because of her stubborn refusal to get killed.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>Buffy's something new and different,
> in part because of her stubborn refusal to get killed.
(Well, she died once, but she got better.)
-AOQ
Stephen Tempest
>and what with the alpha head butting between angel and spike
>that mightve been the first time he got dru
Abg nppbeqvat gb 'Gur Tvey va Dhrfgvba' - gur synfuonpx va gung jnf
sebz 1894:
NATRYHF: Gung'f jul ur unq hf gbffrq. Fb ur pbhyq ivbyngr...
QNEYN: Ur qvqa'g...
NATRYHF: Ivbyngr bhe jbzra!
JVYYVNZ: Ivbyngr va fhpprffvba!
QNEYN: Pbapheeragyl.
NATRYHF: Pbapheeragyl? Lbh arire yrg hf qb gung.
Gur 'hf' vf gur fvtavsvpnag cneg urer...
Stephen
(Harmony) Watcher
<Xande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150385654.9...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <1150379319....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
that
> > > > Angelus was the one who sired Spike. I know it's not easy to keep
> > > > continuity constant over the course of seven years on a show but
some of
> > > > this stuff is glaringly obvious and makes you wonder if they were
even
> > > > trying anymore at this point.
> > >
> >
> > It was a blatant contradiction of what had already been established. If
> > storytelling.
> >
> > It's one thing to fudge on whether Spike is 120 years old or 126 or
> > whatever. That sort of thing doesn't impact the overall plot. But to
> > abruptly contradict an entire relationship between two characters just
> > because you suddenly have a "better idea" is bad storytelling, plain and
> > simple (even if it really *is* a better idea).
>
> refer to earlier descendants in the line.
>
Exactly. The act of "siring" is a *transitive* binary relation.
The statement
The "sire" of my "sire" is also my "sire".
generalizes the word "sire" into a higher context: nf va "tvivat arj yvsr"
(be hayvsr, vs lbh jvyy), juvpu vf ubj Qeh naq Fcvxr fnj vg. It loses some
lower level contextual meaning, but at the same time, it gains a higher
level abstraction.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
BTR1701
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you mean by "like". I wouldn't date her, if that's what
> > you mean. A little too psychotic for my tastes.
>
> Hee! No I meant do you like her character? Since the continuity flaws
> for Darla are probably bigger for Darla than for Spike, I was quite
> simply wondering if your dislike might have coloured your response.
I don't dislike Spike because of the continuity problems. I'd feel the
same way about his character if Drusilla had been his sire all along.
Rowan Hawthorn
Hey, a wise old man (well, okay, he was a drunk biker, but the other way
sounds better,) told me when I was just a kid, "Don't never get hooked
up with a woman who's got more problems than you got."
Sound advice.
Pity neither of us ever seemed to remember it when we should've...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"