AOQ Angel Review 2-4: "Untouched"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads.
ANGEL
Season Two, Episode 4: "Untouched"
(or "Not touching you! Can't get mad!")
Writer: Meredyth Smith
Director: Joss Whedon
For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
kind.
We're back to the streak of funny banter, during the teasers in
particular. Same comments about ATS's sense of humor as last week.
I could quote the whole scene, but I think I'll confine myself to
"well, our discussions tend to go about three minutes, then it's
strictly name-calling and hair-pulling." Okay, also "how about we
pretend that you work for me... then why don't we pretend that you
don't?" "You can't fire me! I'm Vision Girl. [sticks out
her tongue]"
So, another day, another victim on the run from big scary men.
Granted, she can crush them with dumpsters, so that's a little
different, but still. And yet another person who clearly needs help
but won't accept it from Angel, who's having trouble talking to
her, yadda yadda. Granted, the victims don't all impale him that
way, but still. Then things start to shape up and get genuinely
interesting when we realize that the whole incident was orchestrated by
her friend and roommate the lawyer. This is one of those episodes
where I enjoyed watching the layers unfold.
On a similar note, at first I wasn't digging Daisy McCracken's
performance as Bethany at all. The alternation between affectlessness
and whimpering wasn't doing it for me. But then midway through I
figured out what they were going for. She's supposed to be an
apathetic Gen-Y kid, with all the mumbling and "whatever"s involved
with that. "You sound like an old guy." Exaggerated by the fact
that she's pretty much dead inside, of course. Things are put in
perspective by the last act, in which it's such a relief to see her a
little more whole, feeling comfortable in her own skin as she out-cools
Lilah; quite a contrast. "My friends don't hire men to rape or
kidnap me - at least not my close ones anyway." "I was trying to make
you stronger." "Good job." I guess it'd be contrived if it happened
so well every week, but for once I enjoyed seeing Angel help someone,
and be fairly sure that she'll never need a dark avenger to swoop in
and save her again. Still not a character I'm overly anxious to see
again, but she served her purpose for one show.
Lilah is the one setting things in motion, giving her a rare spotlight
apart from the other lawyers. I'm less interested in Holland than
ever, as the poor-man's-Wilkins (or professional woman's, as the
case may be) vibe is even stronger than it was in "Blind Date."
However, it's entertaining enough seeing the kind of pressure that
those lower on the totem pole work under. Romanov does a good job
playing someone barely clinging to the veneer of being controlled and
in control of things.
This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
often do, at least not so explicitly. You've got talk of sexual
abusive parents, a person setting up someone who trusts her to be
raped, and a point in which it looks like our guest star will kill a
human being in cold blood while Angel cheers her on. (It's unclear
to me what happened to Bethany's dad. He looked alive when she was
holding him off the ground, so the rest of the fall wouldn't have
killed him. But he isn't mentioned again; maybe we're just
supposed to accept that he left and is never coming back for her.)
And our main cast is wallowing in that kind of darkness too. I was a
little captivated by the sequence of events in which Wesley brings up
Bethany's father to her face, his matter-of-fact explanation
afterward ("statistically speaking, the father was the best
guess."), and his understanding that it's time for him to leave now
that he's achieved the desired effect. Yeah, one of our heroes will
intentionally trigger traumatic flashbacks in molested kids if it'll
help figure things out. That kind of Watcher cold-bloodedness should
be interesting to watch in the future - Wesley's always had it, but
now he's being written as an actual person rather than pure comic
relief. That got me thinking about how this is different from Angel,
who himself is known for being a callous bastard at times... I feel
like once Angel has mentally classified someone as "good" or
"needing" he's always kind, to the point of naiveté, which is
where Wesley picks up the slack. And then rounding out the team is
Cordelia; when Angel's in a bad mood, she's theoretically the nice
one (what a difference a few years can make!), but she picks up on the
more human things that the supernatural-focused types might miss
("She'll provide a connection to the world. She's got a very
humanizing influence." - Doyle). And then if she thinks something,
she says it, tact be damned. So I think I'm liking that kind of
complementation among the core trio.
Since we just talked about the lead-in to it, I'll say that the bit
with the squad going after Bethany, and Angel jumping into the van
after her is an exciting sequence, more successful than most in recent
memory. There is the risk that the viewer will still be trying to
recover from laughter induced by "Bethany! You can squash *those*
guys!" but those are the risks you take. I also think the hotel
shaking and the windows blowing out is a good act-ending suspense
moment.
Nothing much to add about the Darla story, but it continues and we
kinda fake-explain some of what she's doing. And there are of course
the memorable flashbacks of them eating each other. I'm still not
clear how much of this stuff Angel remembers during the increasingly
brief periods in which he's awake. In any case, we'll see how long
he can keep denying that unsavory things are happening.
We've seen Lindsey in one scene this year, and have been entirely
Kate-free. I wonder what they're up to.
"Good night, Lilah." I'm just language-geeky enough to be amused
by that, since "lilah" means "night" in Hebrew.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "You know how hard it is to think straight with a re-bar through
your torso?" "Actually, I do. Benefits of a Sunnydale education"
- The repeated joke about the definition of telekenesis
- Angel leaning against the no-entry field, and ultimately falling
through it. Also, Gunn's response to the offer of payment is pretty
funny
- "He is a vampire, you know." "Weird"
So...
One-sentence summary: Iffy stuff early, but turns into a taut little
story.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season Two so far:
1) "Judgment" - Weak
2) "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - Decent
3) "First Impressions" - Good
4) "Untouched" - Good]
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 4: "Untouched"
> (or "Not touching you! Can't get mad!")
> Writer: Meredyth Smith
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
> directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
> kind.
Mere Smith was a fanfic author who also posted on the Bronze, the
official site's posting board, where Joss and some of his minions
interacted with the fans. I don't know the details of how she got
hired by ME, but she was known to them as a fan beforehand. Anyway, a
Bronzer asked her how long it took to write "Untouched." She told how
long the first four drafts took. Then she said that the 5th and final
draft took her no time at all, "because it was written by Joss Whedon."
That kind of rewrite had become a rare thing on either show -- Joss
didn't have time to do it that much any more.
> We're back to the streak of funny banter, during the teasers in
> particular. Same comments about ATS's sense of humor as last week.
> I could quote the whole scene, but I think I'll confine myself to
> "well, our discussions tend to go about three minutes, then it's
> strictly name-calling and hair-pulling." Okay, also "how about we
> pretend that you work for me... then why don't we pretend that you
> don't?" "You can't fire me! I'm Vision Girl. [sticks out
> her tongue]"
"I was top 10 percent of my class!" "What clase was that, Advanced
Bosoms?"
> So, another day, another victim on the run from big scary men.
At least she's not a blonde.
> Still not a character I'm overly anxious to see
> again, but she served her purpose for one show.
I liked the way the Monster-of-the-Week was also the
Damsel-of-the-Week, and the way this stand-alone episode also advanced
(however slightly) the Darla/W&H story. I also liked the guest star a
lot more than you did. Overall, I think this was an example of a
Whedon show firing on all cylindars.
> However, it's entertaining enough seeing the kind of pressure that
> those lower on the totem pole work under. Romanov does a good job
> playing someone barely clinging to the veneer of being controlled and
> in control of things.
Word. She's so good at that. You know, I don't think I was ever
disappointed by her performance in any episode. Everybody else annoyed
me at least once.
> This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
> often do, at least not so explicitly.
Well, Angel was always intended to be darker than Buffy.
> I also think the hotel
> shaking and the windows blowing out is a good act-ending suspense
> moment.
I'd go way past "good" to "awesome!" One of the best act breaks ever.
> Nothing much to add about the Darla story, but it continues and we
> kinda fake-explain some of what she's doing. And there are of course
> the memorable flashbacks of them eating each other. I'm still not
> clear how much of this stuff Angel remembers during the increasingly
> brief periods in which he's awake. In any case, we'll see how long
> he can keep denying that unsavory things are happening.
At least now we know what the heck's been going on. She's using fairy
dust on him. And now I'm having an image of Darla with fairy wings and
a Tinkerbelle costume. Sometimes it's scary to be in my head.
> - "He is a vampire, you know." "Weird"
I loved that.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Iffy stuff early, but turns into a taut little
> story.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
I'm going to pull an Apteryx. Best in S2, second best in the series
(5x5 being #1). That'll be controversial, but I'm sticking to it.
It's by a slim margin; there are other very good eps in S2. I simply
like it more than the other candidates for that slot. It's one of the
few episodes that I'll pop into the DVD player to watch by itself, just
because I'm in the mood to rewatch it. And I never hit the FF button
(at this point, having seen each ep so many times, the ones that I
still watch without hurrying up even a little get an automatic
Excellent. There are very few that meet this standard, even among eps
I like a lot).
-- Mike Zeares
Apteryx
news:1149829373....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>don't?" "You can't fire me! I'm Vision Girl. [sticks out
>her tongue]"
Though later it's You can't fire Wesley. I'll quit, too! - Unless you're
firm!"
>so well every week, but for once I enjoyed seeing Angel help someone,
>and be fairly sure that she'll never need a dark avenger to swoop in
>and save her again. Still not a character I'm overly anxious to see
>again, but she served her purpose for one show.
Bethany is an obstacle to me. I like my demons demonic, and my humans human.
Traditionally (and for a while in the Buffyverse) demons were evil and had
magical powers. Humans were only evil by choice, and not so magical. We've
seen some demons who aren't necessarily evil. Well OK, that's mostly done
for laughs, and that's always a good excuse. But now we have a human who can
move 2 ton dumpsters by the power of her mind. So... what exactly is the
difference between humans and demons now?
>Lilah is the one setting things in motion, giving her a rare spotlight
>apart from the other lawyers. I'm less interested in Holland than
>ever, as the poor-man's-Wilkins (or professional woman's, as the
>case may be) vibe is even stronger than it was in "Blind Date."
>However, it's entertaining enough seeing the kind of pressure that
>those lower on the totem pole work under. Romanov does a good job
>playing someone barely clinging to the veneer of being controlled and
>in control of things.
More Lilah, good.
>This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
>often do, at least not so explicitly. You've got talk of sexual
>abusive parents
Parents? Parents? Whedon seems to have a thing about fathers. I never heard
he had anything against his mother.
>guys!" but those are the risks you take. I also think the hotel
>shaking and the windows blowing out is a good act-ending suspense
>moment.
Easily the most memorable shot of the episode. Hope Angel has insurance -
that won't be cheap.
>Nothing much to add about the Darla story, but it continues and we
>kinda fake-explain some of what she's doing.
Somehow seems kind of mundane in the same episode as supergirl. Not demonic
enough.
>We've seen Lindsey in one scene this year, and have been entirely
>Kate-free. I wonder what they're up to.
We know Lindsey at least is tied up with his project, which Holland doesn't
want Lilah and Bethany to put a crimp in.
>So...
>One-sentence summary: Iffy stuff early, but turns into a taut little
>story.
>AOQ rating: Good
Yeah, it retains my interest, but leaves an empty aftertaste. I'd say
Decent, just short of Good. For me, 43rd best AtS episode, 16th best in
season 2 (moving up 1 place on this rewatching to replace Judgement in that
position)
--
Apteryx
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> move 2 ton dumpsters by the power of her mind. So... what exactly is the
> difference between humans and demons now?
same as it ever was
same as it ever was
bethany has a human soul and conscience
its badly damaged
and lilah is pushing her (a la return of the jedi) to ignore it completely
to become a wolfram and hart hired killer
but angel investigations reawakens it in time
and bethany walks away still damaged but on the light side
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> I'm less interested in Holland than
> ever, as the poor-man's-Wilkins (or professional woman's, as the
> case may be) vibe is even stronger than it was in "Blind Date."
You're dealing with very similar metaphors, so it makes sense that
Holland would be vaguely Wilkins-ish. They both represent evil working
within the system -- running the system, even. And you're dealing with
similar cultural archetypes, the corrupt politician and the corrupt
businessman.
I think what distinguishes them in my mind is that Wilkins was genuine.
I mean, he didn't come out and tell voters, "Hi, ladies and gentlemen,
I want to eat your kids!" But other than that, he was actually a fairly
straight-shooter. He wasn't manipulating Faith, he really cared about
her in a fatherly way. All of his little quirks and foibles weren't
affectations, they were really Richard Wilkins. He really was the sort
of guy who liked the interracial unity of all the peoples of man coming
together in terror of him, or the awed kiddies at the Richard Wilkins
III Museum. He was a sentimentalist -- albeit an evil one. He's like a
Frank Capra character gone mad.
Holland doesn't have a genuine bone in his body. Every word that comes
out of his mouth is manipulation. He's the most Mephistophelian villain
either show has had -- far more than any demon we've seen, he's the
devil figure tempting people with his silver tongue and manipulating
them into ever greater evil. When Wilkins smiles, it's cheerful in a
twisted sort of way. When Holland smiles you feel like you need a wash.
Granted, I may be biased because the actor enjoys the fine, upstanding
name of Sam Anderson, which bespeaks both talent and strength of
character.
--Sam Anderson
gree...@gmail.com
> For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
> directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
> kind.
To add to Zeare's comments, Mere Smith was an actual writer as well as
a fanficcer. She moved to LA "to pursue her dream", and landed a gig as
_Angel_'s script coordinator in season one. (I suspect the Posting
Board Party played a role.) She credited Minear for her promotion to
staff writer. And yeah, she gave all the credit for this episode to
Whedon. She also said he was scheduled to direct it regardless.
> We're back to the streak of funny banter, during the teasers in
> particular.
I've never understood how people could view Wesley's and Cordy's little
hissy-fits as humorous. There was far too much mean-spiritedness in the
name calling, not to mention the eye-roll-worthy level of childishness.
Gunax Tbq guvf vf gur ynfg gvzr jr rire unir gb raqher vg.
> On a similar note, at first I wasn't digging Daisy McCracken's
> performance as Bethany at all. ... Still not a character I'm overly anxious to see
> again, but she served her purpose for one show.
I liked McCracken performance here too. I'd like to see her again, but
not too often.
> Romanov does a good job
> playing someone barely clinging to the veneer of being controlled and
> in control of things.
Yeah, she's one of the few models-turned-actress who can actually act
and stuff.
> This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
> often do, at least not so explicitly.
_Angel_'s raison d'etre.
> (It's unclear
> to me what happened to Bethany's dad. He looked alive when she was
> holding him off the ground, so the rest of the fall wouldn't have
> killed him. But he isn't mentioned again; maybe we're just
> supposed to accept that he left and is never coming back for her.)
Oh, I'm sure he was still alive. At least, he's not dead at Bethany's
hand. So to speak. But, you know, if you can't accept that Bethany
herself won't make sure he doesn't bother her again...
> That kind of Watcher cold-bloodedness should
> be interesting to watch in the future
Nu, ur unf bar fprar pbzvat hc... "Gel gb fnir rirelbar, naq lbh fnir
ab bar." Puvyyvat.
> And then rounding out the team is
> Cordelia...
As someone who has and does like Cordelia, I'd be remiss in not saying
I consider "Untouched" to be the best example of Cordelia overall as a
character. Most of the other writers tend to present her as just one
thing, whatever suits the plot, but Whedon really provided a balanced
view of her in this episode. Vebavp, pbafvqrevat ubj onqyl ur fperjf hc
gur punenpgre yngre va gur frevrf.
> So I think I'm liking that kind of
> complementation among the core trio.
Who are you, and what have you done with AoQ?
> There is the risk that the viewer will still be trying to
> recover from laughter induced by "Bethany! You can squash *those*
> guys!" but those are the risks you take.
I believe the technique has a name, but whatever it is, I love it when
you are presented with a scene that asks you to go without stop
immediately from one emotion to its opposite.
> I also think the hotel
> shaking and the windows blowing out is a good act-ending suspense
> moment.
Kick-ass, and, according to Smith, the only thing that survived
Whedon's rewrite. Of course, the homeowner in me had to wonder where
the money came from to replace those windows afterward...
> AOQ rating: Good
Naw, easily Excellent. Another of _Angel_'s best. And a rarity in
Whedon's world; a transitional episode that's good on it's own merits.
Terry
George W Harris
wrote:
:Bethany is an obstacle to me. I like my demons demonic, and my humans human.
:Traditionally (and for a while in the Buffyverse) demons were evil and had
:magical powers. Humans were only evil by choice, and not so magical. We've
:seen some demons who aren't necessarily evil. Well OK, that's mostly done
:for laughs, and that's always a good excuse. But now we have a human who can
:move 2 ton dumpsters by the power of her mind. So... what exactly is the
:difference between humans and demons now?
We've also seen a human who can see without eyes,
and a human whose eyes can "rocket from the sockets!".
Angel's been pushing the distinction for a while now.
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Xande...@gmail.com
gree...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > That kind of Watcher cold-bloodedness should
> > be interesting to watch in the future
>
> Nu, ur unf bar fprar pbzvat hc... "Gel gb fnir rirelbar, naq lbh fnir
> ab bar." Puvyyvat.
Lbh'er pybfr. Gur npghny yvar vf, "Lbh gel abg gb trg nalbar xvyyrq,
lbh raq hc trggvat rirelbar xvyyrq."
One Bit Shy
news:1149829373....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 4: "Untouched"
> For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
> directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
> kind.
It's also the only episode he directs the whole damned season. So of course
that's the one that's messed up on my DVD. <grumble>
(For those who don't already know, my DVD is severely scratched on this
episode, so I could only watch fragments of it - and rely on the transcript
for the rest.)
> We're back to the streak of funny banter, during the teasers in
> particular.
I liked how bleary eyed Angel walks towards the distant roar of Cordelia and
Wesley having at it and then into the full glory of thier spat, getting
sucked into it himself. What a way to wake up. Bet it makes him want to
head right back to bed.... Well, that and Darla. Heh.
> So, another day, another victim on the run from big scary men.
> Granted, she can crush them with dumpsters, so that's a little
> different, but still. And yet another person who clearly needs help
> but won't accept it from Angel, who's having trouble talking to
> her, yadda yadda. Granted, the victims don't all impale him that
> way, but still.
Seemed reasonably fresh to me. From Cordy's moan that Angel was going to be
too late to faking his way onto the crime scene, the situation seemed pretty
thoroughly spiced up. I don't know how to remove the stock aspect entirely
without getting rid of the visions and no longer sending Angel to rescue
people. And maybe they should someday, but I'm ok for now with seeing just
who and what we find when Angel gets there. The whole scene with the re-bar
through the torso worked quite well for me. "Ah. Oh. Okay, maybe she can
hurt me a little."
> Then things start to shape up and get genuinely
> interesting when we realize that the whole incident was orchestrated by
> her friend and roommate the lawyer. This is one of those episodes
> where I enjoyed watching the layers unfold.
Teeny gripe. I hate Lilah's hair this year.
> On a similar note, at first I wasn't digging Daisy McCracken's
> performance as Bethany at all.
What I saw, I liked a lot. But I missed a lot too. She might not come off
as well in full dose.
> Lilah is the one setting things in motion, giving her a rare spotlight
> apart from the other lawyers. I'm less interested in Holland than
> ever, as the poor-man's-Wilkins (or professional woman's, as the
> case may be) vibe is even stronger than it was in "Blind Date."
> However, it's entertaining enough seeing the kind of pressure that
> those lower on the totem pole work under. Romanov does a good job
> playing someone barely clinging to the veneer of being controlled and
> in control of things.
Lilah seems to play close to the edge, but gulping a bit when she looks
down. She'd be a good candidate for getting in too deep one day. She's a
good enough character to build an episode around.
> This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
> often do, at least not so explicitly. You've got talk of sexual
> abusive parents, a person setting up someone who trusts her to be
> raped, and a point in which it looks like our guest star will kill a
> human being in cold blood while Angel cheers her on. (It's unclear
> to me what happened to Bethany's dad. He looked alive when she was
> holding him off the ground, so the rest of the fall wouldn't have
> killed him. But he isn't mentioned again; maybe we're just
> supposed to accept that he left and is never coming back for her.)
One scene I did see was Bethany trying to seduce Angel in bed. That was
creepy on a couple of levels. On the one hand you really see here how dead
inside (as you put it) she is, and the implication of abuse that she has
endured. So she's sitting there reaching for feeling in one way, while
walling herself off from it in another, asking to be taken advantage of in a
context where doing so would be utterly obscene. That's bad enough. But
then they overlay the image of Darla on her and just generally make Bethany
oddly fetching and desirable at the same time - just egging Angel (and the
viewers) on into desireing her in spite of the obscenity. Yeee. That gave
me the shivers.
> And our main cast is wallowing in that kind of darkness too...
Well, I missed most everything else, and the transcript just isn't enough to
get the real feeling across, so I'm out of things to say.
> So...
> One-sentence summary: Iffy stuff early, but turns into a taut little
> story.
> AOQ rating: Good
I'm going to have to leave this episode unrated. Though I'm glad you
enjoyed it.
OBS
Don Sample
wrote:
> Bethany is an obstacle to me. I like my demons demonic, and my humans human.
> Traditionally (and for a while in the Buffyverse) demons were evil and had
> magical powers. Humans were only evil by choice, and not so magical. We've
> seen some demons who aren't necessarily evil. Well OK, that's mostly done
> for laughs, and that's always a good excuse. But now we have a human who can
> move 2 ton dumpsters by the power of her mind. So... what exactly is the
> difference between humans and demons now?
They've been blurring the line from the beginning. We've been seeing
humans with magic powers from the third Buffy episode, "Witch." Bethany
moving dumpsters is only a difference in scale from Willow floating
pencils. (And Willow and Tara had worked their way up to soft drink
machines in "Hush.")
Not to go all Dumbledore on you, but the good Professor had it right in
the second book: "It is our choices that show what we truly are, far
more than our abilities." That is a message that I think Joss would
agree wholeheartedly with.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
kenm47
And a human without a soul.
Ken (Brooklyn)
gree...@gmail.com
Thanks for the actual, I don't have easy access to the transcripts
here.
Terry
Mike Zeares
gree...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
> > directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
> > kind.
>
> To add to Zeare's comments, Mere Smith was an actual writer as well as
> a fanficcer. She moved to LA "to pursue her dream", and landed a gig as
> _Angel_'s script coordinator in season one. (I suspect the Posting
> Board Party played a role.) She credited Minear for her promotion to
> staff writer. And yeah, she gave all the credit for this episode to
> Whedon. She also said he was scheduled to direct it regardless.
Thanks for adding to what I posted. I either totally forgot or just
never really knew that she was a script coordinator in S1. I had seen
comments from her mentioning her fanfic, and she's often been referred
to as the fanfic writer who made it big. Good move by Minear in
promoting her.
> > We're back to the streak of funny banter, during the teasers in
> > particular.
>
> I've never understood how people could view Wesley's and Cordy's little
> hissy-fits as humorous. There was far too much mean-spiritedness in the
> name calling, not to mention the eye-roll-worthy level of childishness.
That's what makes it funny. YMMV.
> > I also think the hotel
> > shaking and the windows blowing out is a good act-ending suspense
> > moment.
>
> Kick-ass, and, according to Smith, the only thing that survived
> Whedon's rewrite.
Oh, wow. I was just wondering exactly how much he rewrote. No wonder
all the characters were three-dimensional.
> Naw, easily Excellent. Another of _Angel_'s best. And a rarity in
> Whedon's world; a transitional episode that's good on it's own merits.
Ah, good. I'm not the only one who thinks highly of "Untouched." I
thought I might have hung myself out on a limb with my rating.
-- Mike Zeares
gree...@gmail.com
Mike Zeares wrote:
> gree...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've never understood how people could view Wesley's and Cordy's little
> > hissy-fits as humorous. There was far too much mean-spiritedness in the
> > name calling, not to mention the eye-roll-worthy level of childishness.
>
> That's what makes it funny. YMMV.
Well, I get the YMMV part, but this was never as "fun" to me as Doyle
and Cordy lobbing them back and forth, or even Xander and Cordy
bickering. I don't know why. V'z whfg tynq vg'f bire.
> > Naw, easily Excellent. Another of _Angel_'s best. And a rarity in
> > Whedon's world; a transitional episode that's good on it's own merits.
>
> Ah, good. I'm not the only one who thinks highly of "Untouched." I
> thought I might have hung myself out on a limb with my rating.
No way. I mean, I won't go as far as best of the season; gur ryringbe
fprar vf lrg gb pbzr, but good performances, tight script, real
characters, clean story, and it gets us from A to B with no fuss while
moving the season arc forward. And the Hyperion's windows get blown
out. What more can you ask for?
Terry
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season Two, Episode 4: "Untouched"
>(or "Not touching you! Can't get mad!")
>Writer: Meredyth Smith
>Director: Joss Whedon
>
>For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
>directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
>kind.
As Zeares and others have pointed out, lack of official credit didn't mean
lack of writing. Virtually all Buffy scripts and most of the Angel
scripts, especially in the first two seasons, have Whedon's fingerprints
all over them, whether he has a writing credit or not. He made his living
between the Buffy movie and the Buffy series punching up other people's
scripts. He did that a lot on all three of his own series.
However, he was meticulous about seeing that the original writer got
credit, even when he would do an extensive rewrite. Back in his script
doctor days, he did an extensive script revision of Waterworld, but
another writer, who had made a smaller contribution in the right place got
the credit. The writer told Whedon "If you'd have been in my place, you'd
have done the same". It took him several years, but ultimately he had Mal
give his answer to that, in Out of Gas.
>This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
>often do, at least not so explicitly. You've got talk of sexual
>abusive parents,
'parents', plural. So you did pick up on why Wesley figured it out so
quickly (to quote Cordy on subject, "There's not enough 'yuck' in hte
wolrd...")
>And then rounding out the team is
>Cordelia; when Angel's in a bad mood, she's theoretically the nice
>one (what a difference a few years can make!), but she picks up on the
>more human things that the supernatural-focused types might miss
>("She'll provide a connection to the world. She's got a very
>humanizing influence." - Doyle). And then if she thinks something,
>she says it, tact be damned. So I think I'm liking that kind of
>complementation among the core trio.
[looks at AoQ's Buffy season 1 reviews, looks at the above paragraph]
hehehehe
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
>- "You know how hard it is to think straight with a re-bar through
>your torso?" "Actually, I do. Benefits of a Sunnydale education"
Just left it in because it's a great bit (and, as was pointed out back
when Lovers Walk was reviewed, Charisma still has a scar, just below her
breastbone from when She was impaled on a piece of iron rebar as a child).
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
George W Harris
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:However, he was meticulous about seeing that the original writer got
:credit, even when he would do an extensive rewrite. Back in his script
:doctor days, he did an extensive script revision of Waterworld, but
:another writer, who had made a smaller contribution in the right place got
:the credit. The writer told Whedon "If you'd have been in my place, you'd
:have done the same".
Actually, I believe that happened on "Speed", where
every line of dialogue was Joss's, but he got no credit.
If I were he, I wouldn't *want* credit on "Waterworld".
--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." -Wash, 'Serenity'
Elisi
> Lilah is the one setting things in motion, giving her a rare spotlight
> apart from the other lawyers.
I love Lilah. And I love the fact that the main bad guys are human
(well mostly, when speaking of W&H).
> And our main cast is wallowing in that kind of darkness too. I was a
> little captivated by the sequence of events in which Wesley brings up
> Bethany's father to her face, his matter-of-fact explanation
> afterward ("statistically speaking, the father was the best
> guess."), and his understanding that it's time for him to leave now
> that he's achieved the desired effect. Yeah, one of our heroes will
> intentionally trigger traumatic flashbacks in molested kids if it'll
> help figure things out. That kind of Watcher cold-bloodedness should
> be interesting to watch in the future - Wesley's always had it, but
> now he's being written as an actual person rather than pure comic
> relief. That got me thinking about how this is different from Angel,
> who himself is known for being a callous bastard at times... I feel
> like once Angel has mentally classified someone as "good" or
> "needing" he's always kind, to the point of naiveté, which is
> where Wesley picks up the slack. And then rounding out the team is
> Cordelia; when Angel's in a bad mood, she's theoretically the nice
> one (what a difference a few years can make!), but she picks up on the
> more human things that the supernatural-focused types might miss
> ("She'll provide a connection to the world. She's got a very
> humanizing influence." - Doyle). And then if she thinks something,
> she says it, tact be damned. So I think I'm liking that kind of
> complementation among the core trio.
I love The Fang Gang (I think that's the most common name for the AI
members) - especially Wesley! He has one of the most fascinating
stories of any TV character. In my opinion anyway. :)
I remember liking this episode, but I had completely forgotten it until
I began reading. I feel like re-watching now! So, um , no real thoughts
this time I'm afraid...
Opus the Penguin
> It's also the only episode he directs the whole damned season. So
> of course that's the one that's messed up on my DVD. <grumble>
>
> (For those who don't already know, my DVD is severely scratched on
> this episode, so I could only watch fragments of it - and rely on
> the transcript for the rest.)
Was it scratched when you opened the box, or did you accidentally hurt
it?
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
One Bit Shy
news:Xns97DD9ED2CD4A7op...@127.0.0.1...
> One Bit Shy (O...@nomail.sorry) wrote:
>
>> It's also the only episode he directs the whole damned season. So
>> of course that's the one that's messed up on my DVD. <grumble>
>>
>> (For those who don't already know, my DVD is severely scratched on
>> this episode, so I could only watch fragments of it - and rely on
>> the transcript for the rest.)
>
> Was it scratched when you opened the box, or did you accidentally hurt
> it?
Neither exactly. It's used. It's also the only DVD of any kind that I have
a problem with.
OBS
Daniel Damouth
news:1149874360....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Ah, good. I'm not the only one who thinks highly of "Untouched."
> I thought I might have hung myself out on a limb with my rating.
"Untouched" is easily one of the best. After I'm much older and
grayer, I'll still remember scene with the windows blowing out.
-Dan Damouth
Apteryx
news:1149873259.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And a vampire with one. That's the point. Its not inconsistency I'm
complaining about. I regard consistency as a Good Thing, but I'd rather have
inconsistency than consistently bad. What they have done with Bethany (and
with the Fall to Pieces guy, although now we know they are going with this
idea, and it wasn't just a one-off mistake) is to make demons redundant.
There is no point of distinction between them and humans. Every demon
previously seen on the show could have been a differently-empowered human.
They could have saved a lot on prosthetics and the time of the actor and
make-up artists in applying them, as well as sparing the embarassment of
many viewers to be found watching a programme with demons in it.
Probably a part of my irritation derives from my general objections to the
use of magic. Firstly that although much of the point of drama is to see how
the characters overcome threats and problems the writers have set for them,
my interest evaporates if the solution is simply magic, and secondly out of
respect for the 13th to 17th century alchemists who believed in magic but
were in fact laying the foundations for chemistry and physics, I prefer
magic to obey the laws of physics that they helped establish; hence no
telekinesis, thanks (with the usual exception if it's funny).
But mainly its about ME being unfair to demons, making them redundant.
--
Apteryx
Mel
George W Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:15:26 +1200, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> :Bethany is an obstacle to me. I like my demons demonic, and my humans human.
> :Traditionally (and for a while in the Buffyverse) demons were evil and had
> :magical powers. Humans were only evil by choice, and not so magical. We've
> :seen some demons who aren't necessarily evil. Well OK, that's mostly done
> :for laughs, and that's always a good excuse. But now we have a human who can
> :move 2 ton dumpsters by the power of her mind. So... what exactly is the
> :difference between humans and demons now?
>
> We've also seen a human who can see without eyes,
> and a human whose eyes can "rocket from the sockets!".
> Angel's been pushing the distinction for a while now.
In Buffy we had a girl who turned herself invisible (OOMOOS) with no
magical powers whatever. Blame that one on the hellmouth.
Mel
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season Two, Episode 4: "Untouched"
>(or "Not touching you! Can't get mad!")
>Writer: Meredyth Smith
>Director: Joss Whedon
>
<SNIP>
>
>
>So...
>
>One-sentence summary: Iffy stuff early, but turns into a taut little
>story.
>
>AOQ rating: Good
>
>[Season Two so far:
>1) "Judgment" - Weak
>2) "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - Decent
>3) "First Impressions" - Good
>4) "Untouched" - Good]
Another Good(+) for me. Better on the rewatching.
By the way, nice and cute little twist on David Banner/The Hulk "You
wouldn't like me when I'm happy."
Moved things along. A tad confusing regarding Darla getting physical
proximity to Angel - not much security at the old hotel I guess.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Stephen Tempest
>And a vampire with one. That's the point. Its not inconsistency I'm
>complaining about. I regard consistency as a Good Thing, but I'd rather have
>inconsistency than consistently bad. What they have done with Bethany (and
>with the Fall to Pieces guy, although now we know they are going with this
>idea, and it wasn't just a one-off mistake) is to make demons redundant.
>There is no point of distinction between them and humans. Every demon
>previously seen on the show could have been a differently-empowered human.
>They could have saved a lot on prosthetics and the time of the actor and
>make-up artists in applying them, as well as sparing the embarassment of
>many viewers to be found watching a programme with demons in it.
From my perspective, I'm really pleased that the shows are going down
this route - I see it as them developing greater maturity and depth.
Yes, life would be simple if all demons were evil and no humans had
supernatural powers, if - "the good guys are stalwart and true; the
bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black
hats." Maybe some people do see the world in such black and white
terms... but the rest of us see the message that it's not who you are,
or even what you're capable of, but what you actually _do_ with your
abilities that counts. Regardless of the colour of your skin (white,
black, green...) or the number of your tentacles.
>Probably a part of my irritation derives from my general objections to the
>use of magic. Firstly that although much of the point of drama is to see how
>the characters overcome threats and problems the writers have set for them,
>my interest evaporates if the solution is simply magic, and secondly out of
>respect for the 13th to 17th century alchemists who believed in magic but
>were in fact laying the foundations for chemistry and physics, I prefer
>magic to obey the laws of physics that they helped establish; hence no
>telekinesis, thanks (with the usual exception if it's funny).
Huh. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of magic pretty much
_is_ "powers that break the laws of physics as we know them." (Which
doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be *internally* consistent)
Stephen
Apteryx
news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>
>>And a vampire with one. That's the point. Its not inconsistency I'm
>>complaining about. I regard consistency as a Good Thing, but I'd rather
>>have
>>inconsistency than consistently bad. What they have done with Bethany (and
>>with the Fall to Pieces guy, although now we know they are going with this
>>idea, and it wasn't just a one-off mistake) is to make demons redundant.
>>There is no point of distinction between them and humans. Every demon
>>previously seen on the show could have been a differently-empowered human.
>>They could have saved a lot on prosthetics and the time of the actor and
>>make-up artists in applying them, as well as sparing the embarassment of
>>many viewers to be found watching a programme with demons in it.
>
> From my perspective, I'm really pleased that the shows are going down
> this route - I see it as them developing greater maturity and depth.
>
> Yes, life would be simple if all demons were evil and no humans had
> supernatural powers, if - "the good guys are stalwart and true; the
> bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black
> hats." Maybe some people do see the world in such black and white
> terms... but the rest of us see the message that it's not who you are,
> or even what you're capable of, but what you actually _do_ with your
> abilities that counts. Regardless of the colour of your skin (white,
> black, green...) or the number of your tentacles.
If I meet anyone who thinks they never should have shown demons who weren't
evil, I'll pass on your message to them.
You can subvert any one or more of your original distinctions between humans
and demons, and achieve a blurring of that distinction. But if you subvert
every last one, you no longer have a distinction to blur. Demons become
human (which would mean Angel already has his Shanshu). The only thing left
is that sooner or later one of the characters will tell us that this or that
doubtful case is human or a demon. But how do they know, and what difference
does it make? Mostly of course, they are going by the appearance, which as
you rightly say, shouldn't matter. And in fact it doesn't matter, because we
know from the very first non vampiric Buffyverse demon (in The Puppet Show)
that some demons can appear in human guise, and we know from Fall to Pieces
that some humans can alter their appearance. So what now is the difference
between humans and demons? And if there is none, what now is Angel's goal?
>>Probably a part of my irritation derives from my general objections to the
>>use of magic. Firstly that although much of the point of drama is to see
>>how
>>the characters overcome threats and problems the writers have set for
>>them,
>>my interest evaporates if the solution is simply magic, and secondly out
>>of
>>respect for the 13th to 17th century alchemists who believed in magic but
>>were in fact laying the foundations for chemistry and physics, I prefer
>>magic to obey the laws of physics that they helped establish; hence no
>>telekinesis, thanks (with the usual exception if it's funny).
>
> Huh. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of magic pretty much
> _is_ "powers that break the laws of physics as we know them." (Which
> doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be *internally* consistent)
I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no laws
of physics.
--
Apteryx
Don Sample
wrote:
> "Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
> > Huh. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of magic pretty much
> > _is_ "powers that break the laws of physics as we know them." (Which
> > doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be *internally* consistent)
>
> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no laws
> of physics.
The concept of "soul" as it exists in the Buffyverse is pretty much a
violation of the current laws of physics.
Horace LaBadie
> So what now is the difference
> between humans and demons?
What's the difference between chimps and human beings?
Similar does not mean same.
> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no laws
> of physics.
And the scientific definition of soul would be, what?
HWL
Apteryx
news:dsample-BE07AC...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <e6ed8c$lmr$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
>
>> > Huh. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of magic pretty much
>> > _is_ "powers that break the laws of physics as we know them." (Which
>> > doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be *internally* consistent)
>>
>> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
>> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no
>> laws
>> of physics.
>
> The concept of "soul" as it exists in the Buffyverse is pretty much a
> violation of the current laws of physics.
What scientific laws does it breach? Obviously it is not empirically
verified, but nothing in the Buffyverse is. Not verified merely means not
proven to be true. Being contrary to a well established law of physics means
a thing is proven to be false (and proven to be logically impossible,
without a modification to the law).
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
news:hwlabadiejr-56C4...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <e6ed8c$lmr$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> So what now is the difference
>> between humans and demons?
>
> What's the difference between chimps and human beings?
Chimps arms are longer than their legs, humans the reverse
Chimps feet are essentially the same as their hands, designed for grasping.
Human feet are quite different, designed for locomotion.
The articulation of a chimps skull to its spine, spine to its pelvis, pelvis
to its thighs, are designed to accomodate both upright locomotion
(brachiation) in the trees, and quadrupedal locomotion on the ground. The
equivalent human articulations are designed exclusively for upright, bipedal
locomotion.
The human brain is on average about 3X larger than a chimp's. This is
testable only with dead speciments, but in the living creatures manifests in
the part of the skull containing the brain being much larger in humans.
Humans have a range of modifications and greater nerve connections to parts
of their upper respiratory tract to allow them to produce a much greater
range of sounds from air expelled from their lungs, allowing them the
facility of speech. Chimps lack those modifications and connections and
consequently lack that facility.
These tests allow anyone to distinguish a human from a chimp. What are the
equivalent tests that allow us to distinguish humans from demons at this
stage in the Buffyverse?
>> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
>> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no
>> laws
>> of physics.
>
> And the scientific definition of soul would be, what?
Not really the point, but if you want one, a rough definition, not intended
to be complete, it that the Buffyverse "soul" is the source of the
conscience, the motivation to sometimes choose the good over what we
immediately want, and to feel guilt if we don't.
Now, to return to the point, what laws of physics of does Willow's spell
breach, using that definition of "soul", or another of your choosing?
--
Apteryx
BTR1701
wrote:
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-BE07AC...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <e6ed8c$lmr$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> > Huh. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of magic pretty much
> >> > _is_ "powers that break the laws of physics as we know them." (Which
> >> > doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be *internally* consistent)
> >>
> >> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
> >> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no
> >> laws
> >> of physics.
> >
> > The concept of "soul" as it exists in the Buffyverse is pretty much a
> > violation of the current laws of physics.
>
> What scientific laws does it breach?
Well, it seems to be a gas but displays none of the properties of a
typical gas-- in fact, it seems to be a cohesive self-guiding gas, able
to move about at will with no discernible means of locomotion and no
explanation about why it remains condensed and doesn't expand and
diffuse into its environment.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <e6fkaj$ft4$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> > news:dsample-BE07AC...@news.giganews.com...
> > > In article <e6ed8c$lmr$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >> news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >> > Huh. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of magic pretty much
> > >> > _is_ "powers that break the laws of physics as we know them." (Which
> > >> > doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be *internally* consistent)
> > >>
> > >> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
> > >> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no
> > >> laws
> > >> of physics.
> > >
> > > The concept of "soul" as it exists in the Buffyverse is pretty much a
> > > violation of the current laws of physics.
> >
> > What scientific laws does it breach?
>
> Well, it seems to be a gas but displays none of the properties of a
> typical gas-- in fact, it seems to be a cohesive self-guiding gas, able
then it probably not a gas
it might be jumping jack flash though
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
One Bit Shy
news:btr1702-6F1C2F...@news.giganews.com...
Are you saying that losing a soul is like a case of indigestion?
OBS
KenM47
>"Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
>> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>>
> So what now is the difference
>between humans and demons? And if there is none, what now is Angel's goal?
>
>
Well said.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Horace LaBadie
wrote:
> "Horace LaBadie" <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote in message
> news:hwlabadiejr-56C4...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <e6ed8c$lmr$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So what now is the difference
> >> between humans and demons?
> >
> > What's the difference between chimps and human beings?
>
> Chimps arms are longer than their legs, humans the reverse
> Chimps feet are essentially the same as their hands, designed for grasping.
> Human feet are quite different, designed for locomotion.
> The articulation of a chimps skull to its spine, spine to its pelvis, pelvis
> to its thighs, are designed to accomodate both upright locomotion
> (brachiation) in the trees, and quadrupedal locomotion on the ground. The
> equivalent human articulations are designed exclusively for upright, bipedal
> locomotion.
> The human brain is on average about 3X larger than a chimp's. This is
> testable only with dead speciments, but in the living creatures manifests in
> the part of the skull containing the brain being much larger in humans.
> Humans have a range of modifications and greater nerve connections to parts
> of their upper respiratory tract to allow them to produce a much greater
> range of sounds from air expelled from their lungs, allowing them the
> facility of speech. Chimps lack those modifications and connections and
> consequently lack that facility.
And yet humans and chimps have a common ancestor, almost identical DNA,
and recent studies have suggested that long after chimp and human
ancestral lines separated, there was interbreeding. But they are
different.
> These tests allow anyone to distinguish a human from a chimp. What are the
> equivalent tests that allow us to distinguish humans from demons at this
> stage in the Buffyverse?
Apparently you haven't been looking at the demons, say Anya vs. Anyanka,
for example. Notice any physical differences? Any abilities that the
demon possesses that the human does not? Rira gur fhcrepunetrq Jvyybj
pnaabg gryrcbeg.
How many humans are big snakes? It's been long established that demons
owned the Earth long before humans evolved. Humans and pure demons have
no common ancestry. Mixed demons do share some common traits with
humans. So what?
> >> I can't believe you mean that. Surely you would accept Willow's spell to
> >> restore Angel's soul as magic by any definition. And yet it breaks no
> >> laws
> >> of physics.
> >
> > And the scientific definition of soul would be, what?
>
> Not really the point, but if you want one, a rough definition, not intended
> to be complete, it that the Buffyverse "soul" is the source of the
> conscience, the motivation to sometimes choose the good over what we
> immediately want, and to feel guilt if we don't.
Not science. Metaphysics.
> Now, to return to the point, what laws of physics of does Willow's spell
> breach, using that definition of "soul", or another of your choosing?
A soul is beyond any scientific reference. You don't see Prof. Walsh
talking about souls. Any operation that Willow performs upon it is
outside scientific law.
HWL
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> owned the Earth long before humans evolved. Humans and pure demons have
> no common ancestry. Mixed demons do share some common traits with
> humans. So what?
ive wondered if thats a reference to dinosaurs and early mammal megafauna
Apteryx
> In article <e6fke4$jhb$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> >> So what now is the difference
>> >> between humans and demons?
>> These tests allow anyone to distinguish a human from a chimp. What are
>> the
>> equivalent tests that allow us to distinguish humans from demons at this
>> stage in the Buffyverse?
>
> Apparently you haven't been looking at the demons, say Anya vs. Anyanka,
> for example. Notice any physical differences?
Not sure where you are going with the this, arguing from one example. You
seem the be suggesting that a difference between humans and is that demons
are uglier (sorry Anyanka). Yet vampire Darla didn't look too bad to me. In
fact appearance is an inadequate test for distinguishing between humand and
demons, as all vampires and several other demons (including Anyanka) can
change their appearance to appear human, and some humans can change their
appearance to appear decidely inhuman. Even it worked as a distinguishing
test, what does that imply for Angel's quest to be human? That he wants to
be prettier?
>Any abilities that the
> demon possesses that the human does not? Rira gur fhcrepunetrq Jvyybj
> pnaabg gryrcbeg.
Humans don't possess inate magical abilities? Well that's what I thought.
But now there's Bethany. Which is what started this sub-thread...
> How many humans are big snakes?
I've known one or two.
> It's been long established that demons
> owned the Earth long before humans evolved. Humans and pure demons have
> no common ancestry. Mixed demons do share some common traits with
> humans. So what?
So you are saying that humans and demons are simply different species whose
evolution produced convergent features. That's reasonable given what we are
told about their history, but I'm not sure it is true. We have seen demons
who can apparently only breed with humans (eg, in Expecting) and if that is
how they continue their line then clearly they are producing fertile
offspring, pretty much the definition of "same species", at least as far as
those particular types of demon are concerned. And even if it is true that
most demons are a different species, if they are sentient and their
behaviour has converged to be the same as ours, why not call them human,
even though we would exclude them from the scientific classification Homo
Sapiens? Is humanity merely a matter of being classified within a particular
species? And what would that mean for Angel's Shanshu? That he wants to
belong to a different species, for some unexplained, arbitrary reasons?
Would it be OK if he became a chimpanzee?
>> Now, to return to the point, what laws of physics of does Willow's spell
>> breach, using that definition of "soul", or another of your choosing?
>
>
> A soul is beyond any scientific reference. You don't see Prof. Walsh
> talking about souls. Any operation that Willow performs upon it is
> outside scientific law.
Well exactly. So I take it you now agree with me that Willow's spell does
not contradict any law of physics, since those laws do not deal with the
movements of souls.
--
Apteryx
Stephen Tempest
>Well exactly. So I take it you now agree with me that Willow's spell does
>not contradict any law of physics, since those laws do not deal with the
>movements of souls.
If a soul is completely intangible, how does it affect its
surroundings? How can Willow move it, if it can't be touched, is not
influenced by gravity, is immune to electromagnetic forces?
How can Willow make a solid glass orb suddenly fill swith swirling
pink gas, then cause Angel's eyes (a mile away) to glow pink, and then
make him recover the memories and conscience he's been without for the
last few months, all in accordance with the laws of physics?
Stephen
Stephen Tempest
>> So what now is the difference
>>between humans and demons? And if there is none, what now is Angel's goal?
>>
>>
>
>Well said.
>
What's "well said" about asking a question and not attempting to
answer it, when the answer is given clearly enough on the show?
Angel's goal is to fight evil and make the world a better place. At
present, he's also hoping that this fight will bring him redemption
for the evil he did as Angelus.
"Evil" and "demonic" are two separate (but mostly overlapping)
categories. We've seen that right from the very first episode of the
show, where Angel and Doyle (demons) are on the side of good and
Lindsey Macdonald (a human) is on the side of evil. Angel doesn't
fight demons, he fights evil.
As for the difference between humans ands demons, I'll remind you that
the first time we saw a human with supernatural powers in the
Buffyverse was - well, it was Buffy herself. But apart from her, it
would be Catherine Madison way back in Episode 1.03 of BtVS. In other
words, this so-called 'confusion' has always been there.
Personally, the working definition I'd use is that humans originate in
this plane of reality, demons are from other dimensions (although some
of them have lived here for aeons, and even interbred with humans).
Stephen
Michael Ikeda
news:e6gdpr$7td$1...@nntp.aioe.org:
> "Horace LaBadie" <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote in
> message
> news:hwlabadiejr-FC3A...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.superne
> ws.net...
>
>> It's been long established that demons
>> owned the Earth long before humans evolved. Humans and pure
>> demons have no common ancestry. Mixed demons do share some
>> common traits with humans. So what?
>
> So you are saying that humans and demons are simply different
> species whose evolution produced convergent features. That's
> reasonable given what we are told about their history, but I'm
> not sure it is true. We have seen demons who can apparently only
> breed with humans (eg, in Expecting) and if that is how they
> continue their line then clearly they are producing fertile
> offspring, pretty much the definition of "same species", at
> least as far as those particular types of demon are concerned.
> And even if it is true that most demons are a different species,
> if they are sentient and their behaviour has converged to be the
> same as ours, why not call them human, even though we would
> exclude them from the scientific classification Homo Sapiens? Is
> humanity merely a matter of being classified within a particular
> species? And what would that mean for Angel's Shanshu? That he
> wants to belong to a different species, for some unexplained,
> arbitrary reasons? Would it be OK if he became a chimpanzee?
>
I think the problem is that the term "demon" is used in the
Whedonverse for very different types of creatures.
Some of them basically ARE different types of intelligent species.
Some seem to be almost like supernatural mechanisms: do a specific
ritual and something specific happens. Some are more like
"traditional" demons: supernatural evil creatures preying on
humans. And, of course, there are the shadowy Old Ones. The "true
demons" that the Master worshipped and the Mayor wished to become.
If you look at all of the creatures classified as demons there may
not be anything really important that distinguishes the entire
group from humans, simply because there is such a wide variety of
demons. There are, however, very important differences between
humans and certain specific types of demons. In particular,
between humans and the type of demon that gives rise to vampires.
What vampires seem to resemble in practice are twisted versions of
humans. The demon works off of the basic human personality and
twists it towards violence and evil. It's a parasite that alters
the personality of its victim. Angel's soul acts as a check on the
demon but doesn't cure the basic problem, doesn't free him from the
effects of the demon. The Shanshu IS freedom from the demon.
Freedom from the need to keep the demon constantly under control.
And, more importantly, something Angel sees as a sign of
redemption.
--
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
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Stephen Tempest <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
my body emits unseen rays that can cause some objects to glow
until the discovery of radioactive isotopes
that i have mine own (hopefully minute) background radiation
would not have been understood by physics just over a century ago
physics is not a finished art
and some of what is now unexplained may be explained in the future
theres is also the possibility the physics is inherently incomplete
and it will not be able to explain all phenomena
that would seen within its realm
Stephen Tempest
<mair_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>my body emits unseen rays that can cause some objects to glow
>until the discovery of radioactive isotopes
>that i have mine own (hopefully minute) background radiation
>would not have been understood by physics just over a century ago
>
>physics is not a finished art
>and some of what is now unexplained may be explained in the future
>
>theres is also the possibility the physics is inherently incomplete
>and it will not be able to explain all phenomena
>that would seen within its realm
Sure... which means that some things people in the Buffyverse think of
as 'magic' may in fact turn out to be physical phenomena... just as
people 500 years ago thought that chewing willowbark to cure a
headache was magic instead of biochemistry.
But there's a difference betwen "things currently unexplained" and
"things which have been proven beyond all doubt to be impossible"...
Stephen
Horace LaBadie
wrote:
SNIP
>
> So you are saying that humans and demons are simply different species whose
> evolution produced convergent features. That's reasonable given what we are
> told about their history, but I'm not sure it is true. We have seen demons
> who can apparently only breed with humans (eg, in Expecting) and if that is
> how they continue their line then clearly they are producing fertile
> offspring, pretty much the definition of "same species", at least as far as
> those particular types of demon are concerned. And even if it is true that
> most demons are a different species, if they are sentient and their
> behaviour has converged to be the same as ours, why not call them human,
> even though we would exclude them from the scientific classification Homo
> Sapiens? Is humanity merely a matter of being classified within a particular
> species?
Yes. Other species would be humanoid, if they had human-like
characteristics but were from a different family (or planet or
dimension). If from the same family as ourselves, they are hominids.
Humanity is an exclusive club.
> And what would that mean for Angel's Shanshu? That he wants to
> belong to a different species, for some unexplained, arbitrary reasons?
> Would it be OK if he became a chimpanzee?
When Angel reverts to mortal status, then he's a human being. The
demonic aspects go away, and the residue is human.
> >> Now, to return to the point, what laws of physics of does Willow's spell
> >> breach, using that definition of "soul", or another of your choosing?
> >
> >
> > A soul is beyond any scientific reference. You don't see Prof. Walsh
> > talking about souls. Any operation that Willow performs upon it is
> > outside scientific law.
>
> Well exactly. So I take it you now agree with me that Willow's spell does
> not contradict any law of physics, since those laws do not deal with the
> movements of souls.
Willow's spell is anti-science, in that it deals with something that
science cannot examine and test. Science requires that everything must
be explained without resorting to such impossible-to-examine causes as
spells. That's one of the paradoxes of Willow, that she starts out as
science-gal and ends up as witch. Either the world is magical or it is
scientific. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Buffyverse is magical.
Everything in that universe violates scientific law.
HWL
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Stephen Tempest <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >my body emits unseen rays that can cause some objects to glow
> >until the discovery of radioactive isotopes
> >that i have mine own (hopefully minute) background radiation
> >would not have been understood by physics just over a century ago
> >
> >physics is not a finished art
> >and some of what is now unexplained may be explained in the future
> >
> >theres is also the possibility the physics is inherently incomplete
> >and it will not be able to explain all phenomena
> >that would seen within its realm
>
> Sure... which means that some things people in the Buffyverse think of
> as 'magic' may in fact turn out to be physical phenomena... just as
> people 500 years ago thought that chewing willowbark to cure a
> headache was magic instead of biochemistry.
serq jnf gelvat gb svg gur jbeyq bs cbegnyf naq zntvp vagb culfvpf
gur clyrna obbxf jrer tvoorevfu gb bguref
ohg fur fnvq gurl jrer sbezhynf
vagrerfgvat gb frr jung jbhyqri unccrarq vs fur unqag orra naabuvyngrq
Apteryx
>> belong to a different species, for some unexplained, arbitrary reasons?
>> Would it be OK if he became a chimpanzee?
>
> When Angel reverts to mortal status, then he's a human being. The
> demonic aspects go away, and the residue is human.
Why would Angel want that, if there is no difference between humans and
demons other than different ancestry?
>> >> Now, to return to the point, what laws of physics of does Willow's
>> >> spell
>> >> breach, using that definition of "soul", or another of your choosing?
>> >
>> >
>> > A soul is beyond any scientific reference. You don't see Prof. Walsh
>> > talking about souls. Any operation that Willow performs upon it is
>> > outside scientific law.
>>
>> Well exactly. So I take it you now agree with me that Willow's spell does
>> not contradict any law of physics, since those laws do not deal with the
>> movements of souls.
>
> Willow's spell is anti-science, in that it deals with something that
> science cannot examine and test. Science requires that everything must
> be explained without resorting to such impossible-to-examine causes as
> spells. That's one of the paradoxes of Willow, that she starts out as
> science-gal and ends up as witch. Either the world is magical or it is
> scientific. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Buffyverse is magical.
> Everything in that universe violates scientific law.
So it should be easy for you to name just one law that Willow's spell
breaches, no?
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>
>>Well exactly. So I take it you now agree with me that Willow's spell does
>>not contradict any law of physics, since those laws do not deal with the
>>movements of souls.
>
> If a soul is completely intangible, how does it affect its
> surroundings? How can Willow move it, if it can't be touched, is not
> influenced by gravity, is immune to electromagnetic forces?
Duh - by magic. A soul is mystical, operates by mystical means, and is
manipulated by mystical means. A Whedon soul appears to not even be the same
kind of thing as the souls spoken of in the Christian and other religions.
It is a creation of Joss Whedon, and follows only the laws he lays down for
it.
> How can Willow make a solid glass orb suddenly fill swith swirling
> pink gas, then cause Angel's eyes (a mile away) to glow pink, and then
> make him recover the memories and conscience he's been without for the
> last few months, all in accordance with the laws of physics?
I don't require everything that happens on the show to have a scientific
explanation. It's a show about vampires. I am irritated (a little, not a
lot) when something is shown that is not merely unexplained, but impossible,
because it breaks long established and universally accepted (for
dumpster-sized objects) laws of physics. Generally it is Newton's Laws of
Motion or the Laws of Thermodynamics that the show breaches - I don't see
much opportunity for a Whedon show to go breaking Curie's Law (and I
probably wouldn't notice if it did).
And now, for that question I keep asking, and no one wants to answer:
What law do you think Willow's spell to restore Angel's soul breaches?
I'm quite open minded about this. If anyone can demonstrate that Willow's
spell breaks any accepted law of physics, I am perfectly willing to be as
irritated about that in future as I am about Bethany moving the dumpster (as
I say, a little, not a lot). But I don't see much chance of that. I'm
racking my brains to think of any scientific law that has anything to say on
the subject of the movement of vampire's souls, and I'm drawing a blank.
--
Apteryx
DysgraphicProgrammer
George W Harris wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:53:47 -0700, William George Ferguson
> <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> :However, he was meticulous about seeing that the original writer got
> :credit, even when he would do an extensive rewrite. Back in his script
> :doctor days, he did an extensive script revision of Waterworld, but
> :another writer, who had made a smaller contribution in the right place got
> :the credit. The writer told Whedon "If you'd have been in my place, you'd
> :have done the same".
>
> Actually, I believe that happened on "Speed", where
> every line of dialogue was Joss's, but he got no credit.
Hmm, that might explain why I liked that movie, despite its obviously
stupid premise.
> If I were he, I wouldn't *want* credit on "Waterworld".
"Waterworld" on the other hand, was a crime against humanity, and I
want 2 hours of my life back. I sincerely hope that Joss had nothing to
do with it.
Don Sample
"DysgraphicProgrammer" <Matthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George W Harris wrote:
> > If I were he, I wouldn't *want* credit on "Waterworld".
> "Waterworld" on the other hand, was a crime against humanity, and I
> want 2 hours of my life back. I sincerely hope that Joss had nothing to
> do with it.
Depends on what you mean by nothing. Joss Whedon worked for 7 weeks on
Waterworld, and they used nothing he wrote.
One Bit Shy
news:e6ifae$b4e$1...@nntp.aioe.org...
I'm not persuaded of your premise. The assorted spell or mind power induced
movings of physical objects we've seen in the series seem to me to mainly
adhere to the laws of physics. Flung objects fall to earth by the influence
of gravity. Mass and inertia have normal effects. You would expect a
rapidly moving dumpster to crush people, but be stopped by the wall. What
law of physics is being broken? Does the floating pencil defy gravity?
Well, stick a fire cracker under a cup and watch the cup defy gravity. All
the magic is doing is applying an unseen force - like an invisible hand
flinging the dumpster. But once the force is applied, the object obeys the
laws of physics - as it would with any other comparable application of
force.
I would think that the vampire's re-animation of flesh with regenerative
power and no decay - while somehow remaining dead - challenges a whole lot
more physical laws than the dumpster does.
I think your question of what's the point of a demon/human distinction if
you can't distinguish them is an interesting one. But your concern about
the powers of magic doesn't hit me the same way at all. I don't know what
all is going to happen in Angel down the road, but from what I've seen of
both series thus far, they largely stick to pretty standard mythologies of
magical, religious and psychic powers. Archetypes really - which seems a
pretty conservative approach for that facet. The principal checks on magic
becoming overly dominant are the classic ones of difficulty to control,
inherent negative consequences, and the tendency to be consumed by it.
Which are potent checks.
OBS
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> I'm not persuaded of your premise. The assorted spell or mind power
> induced movings of physical objects we've seen in the series seem to
> me to mainly adhere to the laws of physics. Flung objects fall to
> earth by the influence of gravity. Mass and inertia have normal
> effects. You would expect a rapidly moving dumpster to crush people,
> but be stopped by the wall. What law of physics is being broken?
How was it flung in the first place? Newton's third law applies to
telekinetically flinging dumpsters around too. Where was the equal and
opposite reaction to the action of tossing the dumpster?
One Bit Shy
> In article <128pkbu...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> I'm not persuaded of your premise. The assorted spell or mind power
>> induced movings of physical objects we've seen in the series seem to
>> me to mainly adhere to the laws of physics. Flung objects fall to
>> earth by the influence of gravity. Mass and inertia have normal
>> effects. You would expect a rapidly moving dumpster to crush people,
>> but be stopped by the wall. What law of physics is being broken?
>
> How was it flung in the first place? Newton's third law applies to
> telekinetically flinging dumpsters around too. Where was the equal and
> opposite reaction to the action of tossing the dumpster?
Since such things are presented as magical (or of an equivalently unknown
source) we don't know the mechanics. That would be speculative - and could
vary widely. Having said that, let me suggest one possibility that could
fit Telekinesis. The invisible hand is a common metaphorical description,
but might also describe a visualization process of the one with mental
powers that gets manifested in reality. The hand alone would have no
strength for lack of leverage - perhaps a limitation in visualization that
could explain why so few have the ability. But a more complete
visualization of a construct with the necessary leverage - perhaps even the
equivalent of his/her figure standing there with feet braced, applying all
the power that the magical energy provides, would do the trick. It wouldn't
have to be a human form - though that might be easier to visualize. The key
would be to mentally feel the resistance of the mass being manipulated and
to find the necessary outlet for that equal and opposite reaction in order
to overcome the resistance. Such as bracing against another wall and
shoving off from it. A different imagination might create something like a
jet and send a mighty wind off the opposite direction.
Or to put it another simpler way. Why couldn't a telekinetic action have an
equal and opposite reaction? What is there about the concept that woud
prohibit it?
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> On 8 Jun 2006 22:02:53 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> wrote:
> >For those keeping track, I believe this is the first episode Joss has
> >directed for which he doesn't also have a writing credit of some
> >kind.
>
> As Zeares and others have pointed out, lack of official credit didn't mean
> lack of writing. Virtually all Buffy scripts and most of the Angel
> scripts, especially in the first two seasons, have Whedon's fingerprints
> all over them, whether he has a writing credit or not. He made his living
> between the Buffy movie and the Buffy series punching up other people's
> scripts. He did that a lot on all three of his own series.
>
> However, he was meticulous about seeing that the original writer got
> credit, even when he would do an extensive rewrite.
Episodes like this make me wish he had tim to this more often. Did
writers tend to appreciate it? The credit is nice, but were they all
cool with the occassions where everything they wrote was taken out of
the epiosde?
> >This episode gets into a kind of darkness that Buffyverse shows don't
> >often do, at least not so explicitly. You've got talk of sexual
> >abusive parents,
>
> 'parents', plural. So you did pick up on why Wesley figured it out so
> quickly (to quote Cordy on subject, "There's not enough 'yuck' in hte
> wolrd...")
Huh. Interesting thought. Is there any incidcation that Wesley's dad
had any of the world's yuck, though? I don't remember whether the
episode in which that came up (IGYUMS) made a definitive case for even
verbal abuse, let alone sexual.
> >And then rounding out the team is
> >Cordelia; when Angel's in a bad mood, she's theoretically the nice
> >one (what a difference a few years can make!), but she picks up on the
> >more human things that the supernatural-focused types might miss
> >("She'll provide a connection to the world. She's got a very
> >humanizing influence." - Doyle). And then if she thinks something,
> >she says it, tact be damned. So I think I'm liking that kind of
> >complementation among the core trio.
>
> [looks at AoQ's Buffy season 1 reviews, looks at the above paragraph]
> hehehehe
What a difference a few years can make.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <128pkbu...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
> > I'm not persuaded of your premise. The assorted spell or mind power
> > induced movings of physical objects we've seen in the series seem to
> > me to mainly adhere to the laws of physics. Flung objects fall to
> > earth by the influence of gravity. Mass and inertia have normal
> > effects. You would expect a rapidly moving dumpster to crush people,
> > but be stopped by the wall. What law of physics is being broken?
>
> How was it flung in the first place? Newton's third law applies to
> telekinetically flinging dumpsters around too. Where was the equal and
> opposite reaction to the action of tossing the dumpster?
you can move a dumpster by increasing the air pressure
between the dumpster and opposite wall
and or decreasing pressure behind the dumpster
the wind has moved dumpsters
just because you personally dont see something
doesnt mean it doesnt exist
what would be more interesting to figure out the energy flow
if magic can also get more organized energy out than organized energy in
it has overturned thermodynamics
can radically alter the future of the universe
Don Sample
But there was no sign that any of those things happened, and how did
Bethany learn to do all that bracing while tossing things around? She
was never shown tossing anything the size of a dumpster before.
>
> Or to put it another simpler way. Why couldn't a telekinetic action have an
> equal and opposite reaction? What is there about the concept that woud
> prohibit it?
It could, but none has ever been shown.
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-F1C47...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> In article <dsample-0E81EF...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <128pkbu...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not persuaded of your premise. The assorted spell or mind power
> > > induced movings of physical objects we've seen in the series seem to
> > > me to mainly adhere to the laws of physics. Flung objects fall to
> > > earth by the influence of gravity. Mass and inertia have normal
> > > effects. You would expect a rapidly moving dumpster to crush people,
> > > but be stopped by the wall. What law of physics is being broken?
> >
> > How was it flung in the first place? Newton's third law applies to
> > telekinetically flinging dumpsters around too. Where was the equal and
> > opposite reaction to the action of tossing the dumpster?
>
> you can move a dumpster by increasing the air pressure
> between the dumpster and opposite wall
> and or decreasing pressure behind the dumpster
>
> the wind has moved dumpsters
>
> just because you personally dont see something
> doesnt mean it doesnt exist
>
But that would have created a bunch of other effects, that would be
visible. There was no sudden wind blowing in that alley. The dumpster
just moved.
Horace LaBadie
wrote:
SNIP
> Why would Angel want that, if there is no difference between humans and
> demons other than different ancestry?
Why would Angel want a normal life? To go out in the sunshine? Be with
Buffy? I suppose he might want to aspire to the desires of Prince
Charles, but that's a bit of a stretch.
You are the only person insisting that there is no difference between
humans and demons. Ancestry is merely one. That you refuse to
acknowledge them is a problem you have constructed for yourself.
SNIP
> So it should be easy for you to name just one law that Willow's spell
> breaches, no?
All of them. That's the point. BtVS takes place in a universe in which
Science as we know it does not exist. It's a Magical universe where
anything is possible within the constraints laid down by its Creator.
HWL
One Bit Shy
We hadn't seen her do anything before. It's the first thing. Do you mean
the flashback to her childhood? Not exactly a lot to go on.
How does one learn to brace when tossing things naturally? (Or any other
physical act that must adhere to the same rules.) You learn by doing it and
develop a kind of instinctual body knowledge of how to set yourself to
achieve the desired result. Which commonly is done with little to no
thought. Why wouldn't it be the same with telekinesis? As presented, this
is some kind of natural ability of Bethany's - not something learned through
study. So I would expect her to "learn" how in a fashion akin to learning
how to crawl and walk and so on. In her case it seems to be complicated by
some sort of abusive history repressing her conscous control. (I'm a bit
fuzzy on that because I couldn't see a lot of the episode.) But I don't
think that relegating it to a subconscious act negates instinctually
applying the proper mechanics.
>> Or to put it another simpler way. Why couldn't a telekinetic action have
>> an
>> equal and opposite reaction? What is there about the concept that woud
>> prohibit it?
>
> It could, but none has ever been shown.
Because, normally, all that's visible is the object of the act. That
dumpster moved - I don't think it was CGI - but we couldn't see how. For
purposes of the story, we imagine mind powers. For purposes of filming it
was rigged - not visible to us. (I'm guessing it was pulled rather than
pushed. Which might be a more sensible telekinetic approach too.) Either
way, the equal and opposite reaction is not readily visible. Perhaps the
telekinetic force attaches itself to the wall, reaches for the dumpster, and
then pulls hard. What's to see besides the dumpster moving?
OBS
Stephen Tempest
>Huh. Interesting thought. Is there any incidcation that Wesley's dad
>had any of the world's yuck, though? I don't remember whether the
>episode in which that came up (IGYUMS) made a definitive case for even
>verbal abuse, let alone sexual.
RYAN: 'Cause nothing you do is right, nothing's gonna make him proud
of you.
WESLEY: Skimming the surface of my mind. Very good. But a mere parlor
trick. Here's one for you -- how many crosses am I holding up?
Omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei!
RYAN: All those hours locked under the stairs and you still weren't
good enough. Not good enough for Daddy,
It sounds more like emotional abuse than sexual, but I think it's
pretty definite. The demon isn't just making things up, it's reading
Wesley's childhood memories. Which, as someone around here remakred,
sound rather like those of Harry Potter...
Stephen
Michael Ikeda
news:e6ie8n$nuo$1...@nntp.aioe.org:
> "Horace LaBadie" <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote in
> message
> news:hwlabadiejr-C631...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.superne
> ws.net...
>> In article <e6gdpr$7td$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx"
>> <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> SNIP
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> And what would that mean for Angel's Shanshu? That he wants to
>>> belong to a different species, for some unexplained, arbitrary
>>> reasons? Would it be OK if he became a chimpanzee?
>>
>> When Angel reverts to mortal status, then he's a human being.
>> The demonic aspects go away, and the residue is human.
>
> Why would Angel want that, if there is no difference between
> humans and demons other than different ancestry?
>
Because while there may be many similarities between humans and SOME
demons, humans and vampires are very different.
(snipped)
Apteryx
news:128r4ge...@news.supernews.com...
>> Bethany learn to do all that bracing while tossing things around? She
>> was never shown tossing anything the size of a dumpster before.
>
> We hadn't seen her do anything before. It's the first thing. Do you mean
> the flashback to her childhood? Not exactly a lot to go on.
>
> How does one learn to brace when tossing things naturally? (Or any other
> physical act that must adhere to the same rules.) You learn by doing it
> and develop a kind of instinctual body knowledge of how to set yourself to
> achieve the desired result. Which commonly is done with little to no
> thought. Why wouldn't it be the same with telekinesis? As presented,
> this is some kind of natural ability of Bethany's - not something learned
> through study. So I would expect her to "learn" how in a fashion akin to
> learning how to crawl and walk and so on. In her case it seems to be
> complicated by some sort of abusive history repressing her conscous
> control. (I'm a bit fuzzy on that because I couldn't see a lot of the
> episode.) But I don't think that relegating it to a subconscious act
> negates instinctually applying the proper mechanics.
No one weighing what a human weighs could possible learn to brace themselves
against a force sufficient to hurl a 2 ton dumpster across an alley at some
speed. It would necessarily have hurled her much further and much faster
than the much heavier dumpster (or crushed her against a wall).
As an aside from my personal experience, I don't think people can easily
imagine the application of forces much greater than the greatest they have
ever experienced. I know I can't. In my teens and early 20's I used to
frequently drive without wearing a seat belt. At that time, the greatest
force my body had ever been subjected to had been rugby tackles, when both
me at the other players were running at full tilt in more or less opposite
directions. I knew intellectually the forces in a car crash were much
greater than that, but in my imagination I just took the forces in those
tackles, and added a bit. My "plan" for if I was in a car accident was to
brace myself with my arms against the steering wheel :)
Then I had an accident, on a motorbike rather than a car, in a head on
collision with a bus at a combined impact speed of just 50-80 km/hr. I can
still vividly remember my first point of impact against the bus, with my
shoulder, even though that was just a glancing blow, and no bones in my
shoulder were broken. Then my head hit, fortunately in a helmet, and still a
glancing blow, but enough to knock me out. So I didn't directly experience
the main full frontal impact made by my leg, which broke and partly crushed
both bones in my lower leg. Even though I know that the impact on my
shoulder (that I do remember) must have been very much less than that on my
leg (since the much more fragile bones around the shoulder were not broken),
it is now the greatest force that I can imagine impacting on me (and of
course much greater than any rugby tackle). I now always wear a seat belt in
a car.
And yet the force on that dumpster (and hence reacting back on Bethany) must
have been very much greater than even the main frontal impact that broke my
leg. That impact only threw me a few feet back up the road, and I don't
weigh two tons.
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
> In article <e6ie8n$nuo$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> Why would Angel want that, if there is no difference between humans and
>> demons other than different ancestry?
>
> Why would Angel want a normal life? To go out in the sunshine? Be with
> Buffy? I suppose he might want to aspire to the desires of Prince
> Charles, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Those are pretty thin reasons to provide motivation for 5 seasons. The best
of them is to be with Buffy, and he now knows she has moved on, but he still
wants to be human. If he just wanted to go out in the sunshine, ur pbhyq
unir fgnlrq va Clyrn
> You are the only person insisting that there is no difference between
> humans and demons. Ancestry is merely one. That you refuse to
> acknowledge them is a problem you have constructed for yourself.
I asked for differences between humans and demons and you suggested ancestry
(you also suggested appearance, but I already noted that that would make
Angel's desire to be human very shallow). You can suggest others if you
want. Of course back in the day when when all demons were evil, the answer
was simple - he wanted the good life (in Socrates's sense of the term rather
than the modern one).
There is a possible solution, but at this stage it is certainly spoilery and
probably too far in the future to be worth dicussing much yet. Yngr va
frnfba 5, Natry nccrnef gb nterr gung vg vf ab ybatre vzcbegnag gb uvz gb
orpbzr uhzna (ng yrnfg abg nf vzcbegnag nf svtugvat rivy sbe vgf bja fnxr),
jura ur fvtaf njnl uvf funafh. Ohg vg'n n cvgl vg gnxrf uvz fb ybat gb yrnea
gung. Vs ur unq ernyvfrq abj gung gur qvssrerapr orgjrra orvat uhzna naq
orvat qrzba vf zhpu yrff vzcbegnag gur qvssrerapr orvat orvat tbbq naq orvat
rivy, jr zvtug nyy unir orra fcnerq gur neqhbhf gnfx bs jngpuvat frnfbaf 3
naq 4.
>> So it should be easy for you to name just one law that Willow's spell
>> breaches, no?
>
> All of them. That's the point. BtVS takes place in a universe in which
> Science as we know it does not exist. It's a Magical universe where
> anything is possible within the constraints laid down by its Creator.
Thanks for participating, but there is probably no need for you to
participate any further on this issue (the human/demon distinction and its
effect on Angels's shansu is more important anyway). You still appear to
think that my reference to breaking the laws of physics are an extravagant
metaphor for "unrealistic", but in fact I'm simply being literal. And
regarding your assertion that Willow's spell breaks "all" laws, I think I
can say, with a degree of confidence, that nothing we see of Willow's spell
contradicts Curie's Law on the relationship of magnetism to temperature.
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
news:htmdnTQjuZI4dBDZ...@rcn.net...
>> humans and demons other than different ancestry?
>>
>
> Because while there may be many similarities between humans and SOME
> demons, humans and vampires are very different.
Are you saying that vampires are always evil (baring unique exceptions like
having a human soul)? That could be.
But would it mean that a satisfictory redemption for Angel would be to be
possessed by a better kind of demon than the one that makes him a vampire?
Obviously it would have be a stronger one than the one that tried and failed
to take possession in Dark Ages, unless Willow could come up with a spell to
help a weaker demon win that fight.
However if there are still some species of demon that are always
irredemeably evil (baring those odd exceptions) and others, that like
humans, are good or bad by choice, it does suggest that the difficulty may
be simply one of terminlology. We really need a different name than demon
for those species of non-evil Evil Things. "Elves" perhaps, leaving the name
"demon" for those species that are all evil Evil Things. Then we would be
back where we know demons (as now defined) are always evil.
Of course if there are some species that are always evil, it does tend to
reverse the effect of the moral ambiguity created by showing some so-called
demons that are not evil. It makes it a bit pointless to have gone that way
in the first place.
--
Apteryx
Horace LaBadie
wrote:
>
> Thanks for participating, but there is probably no need for you to
> participate any further on this issue (the human/demon distinction and its
> effect on Angels's shansu is more important anyway). You still appear to
> think that my reference to breaking the laws of physics are an extravagant
> metaphor for "unrealistic", but in fact I'm simply being literal. And
> regarding your assertion that Willow's spell breaks "all" laws, I think I
> can say, with a degree of confidence, that nothing we see of Willow's spell
> contradicts Curie's Law on the relationship of magnetism to temperature.
>
It's an arbitrary assumption by Joss that things will AGREE with
scientific laws UNTIL they don't. That does not mean that they do not
violate scientific law. In fact, it means that they do, because they are
arbitrary.
Your dismissive condescension is noted.
HWL
Michael Ikeda
news:e6l572$dbu$1...@nntp.aioe.org:
> "Michael Ikeda" <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:htmdnTQjuZI4dBDZ...@rcn.net...
>> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
>> news:e6ie8n$nuo$1...@nntp.aioe.org:
>>
>>>
>>> Why would Angel want that, if there is no difference between
>>> humans and demons other than different ancestry?
>>>
>>
>> Because while there may be many similarities between humans and
>> SOME demons, humans and vampires are very different.
>
> Are you saying that vampires are always evil (baring unique
> exceptions like having a human soul)? That could be.
>
> But would it mean that a satisfictory redemption for Angel would
> be to be possessed by a better kind of demon than the one that
> makes him a vampire?
In some sense. Assuming there IS any such thing as a non-evil
demon that possesses human bodies. As far as I know, we haven't
seen any examples of one.
Thematically, however, Angel started as a human and was possessed
by an evil type of demon. So the natural course of redemption and
the one that feels right to Angel is for him to become human again.
> However if there are still some species of demon that are always
> irredemeably evil (baring those odd exceptions) and others, that
> like humans, are good or bad by choice, it does suggest that the
> difficulty may be simply one of terminlology. We really need a
> different name than demon for those species of non-evil Evil
> Things. "Elves" perhaps, leaving the name "demon" for those
> species that are all evil Evil Things. Then we would be back
> where we know demons (as now defined) are always evil.
>
> Of course if there are some species that are always evil, it
> does tend to reverse the effect of the moral ambiguity created
> by showing some so-called demons that are not evil. It makes it
> a bit pointless to have gone that way in the first place.
>
The whole point of going that way is to show that the situation IS
more complicated that "humans good, demons bad." And that (with
some exceptions) there isn't an easy test to tell the difference
between not-evil evil things and evil evil things. In order to
tell the difference, you need to learn a lot about what (and often
who) you're dealing with.
Stephen Tempest
>"Michael Ikeda" <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:htmdnTQjuZI4dBDZ...@rcn.net...
>> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
>> news:e6ie8n$nuo$1...@nntp.aioe.org:
>>
>>>
>>> Why would Angel want that, if there is no difference between
>>> humans and demons other than different ancestry?
>>>
>>
>> Because while there may be many similarities between humans and SOME
>> demons, humans and vampires are very different.
>
>Are you saying that vampires are always evil (baring unique exceptions like
>having a human soul)? That could be.
>
>But would it mean that a satisfictory redemption for Angel would be to be
>possessed by a better kind of demon than the one that makes him a vampire?
IMO, Angel doesn't want to become human because humans are superior in
some way to demons.
He wants to become human because almost all the people around him that
he cares about are human, and the world he lives in has been built for
humans (and heck, he was a human himself once). While we're now
seeing demons in various shades of moral grey, it's still clear that
demons have to live in the fringes of society. Caritas - as an
undercover club - is the closest they get to normality.
Stephen
Lord Usher
_adnZ5nArrypBLZn...@rcn.net:
>> However if there are still some species of demon that are always
>> irredemeably evil (baring those odd exceptions) and others, that
>> like humans, are good or bad by choice, it does suggest that the
>> difficulty may be simply one of terminlology. We really need a
>> different name than demon for those species of non-evil Evil
>> Things. "Elves" perhaps, leaving the name "demon" for those
>> species that are all evil Evil Things. Then we would be back
>> where we know demons (as now defined) are always evil.
>>
>> Of course if there are some species that are always evil, it
>> does tend to reverse the effect of the moral ambiguity created
>> by showing some so-called demons that are not evil. It makes it
>> a bit pointless to have gone that way in the first place.
>
> The whole point of going that way is to show that the situation IS
> more complicated that "humans good, demons bad." And that (with
> some exceptions) there isn't an easy test to tell the difference
> between not-evil evil things and evil evil things. In order to
> tell the difference, you need to learn a lot about what (and often
> who) you're dealing with.
Couldn't they have achieved the same end by simply introducing, say,
creatures whom the experts aren't sure are demons or not, or creatures who
are mistaken for demons even though they're something else entirely? That
would serve an identical thematic purpose without muddying up the
mythological distinction unnecessarily.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Lord Usher
> One scene I did see was Bethany trying to seduce Angel in bed. That
> was creepy on a couple of levels. On the one hand you really see here
> how dead inside (as you put it) she is, and the implication of abuse
> that she has endured. So she's sitting there reaching for feeling in
> one way, while walling herself off from it in another, asking to be
> taken advantage of in a context where doing so would be utterly
> obscene. That's bad enough. But then they overlay the image of Darla
> on her and just generally make Bethany oddly fetching and desirable at
> the same time - just egging Angel (and the viewers) on into desireing
> her in spite of the obscenity. Yeee. That gave me the shivers.
It's a damn good scene, and a damn disturbing one, and not just for what
it reveals about Bethany. It offers a fascinating glimpse into Our
Hero's psyche as well -- and even in the midst of a self-contained
Vision of the Week episode, it moves Angel's story ahead in important
ways.
The scene is basically the first challenge to the temporary peace that
Angel reached at the end of "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been." There
he decided that he wasn't going to give up on people, no matter how
frail or flawed they may be. He decided they could still be saved, that
*he* could still be saved.
But it's a fragile resolution, and Bethany is the one who uncovers its
flaws:
"What, you think they'd notice or care I'm not there? Would you?"
The awful thing is, Bethany's at least partly right. Deep down a part of
Angel does want her gone; he wants to be asleep, enjoying those wicked
dreams with Darla. And when he tries to deny it, to insist that "I don't
think everyone's as bad as you'd have them be," Bethany only probes
deeper:
"Oh, right. You love the people. Love them so much you got a hundred
rooms to be all alone in."
Her words are a direct echo of the Thesulac demon's mockery in AYNOHYEB:
"God, I love people. Don't you?" Bethany's comments reawaken the
anxieties the Thesulac represented, even as they call into question the
methods Angel used to escape those anxieties.
In AYNOHYEB, Angel took up residence in the Hyperion because it
symbolized what he wanted to believe about humanity -- that something
that was once filled with evil could be purified, could become a force
for good. But Bethany points out that it's an *empty* symbol, an excuse
for him to hide from humanity rather than embrace it.
"Who's Darla?"
"Good night, Bethany."
And so he ends the scene still hiding -- from other people, from what he
fears about them and himself -- but robbed of the comforting conviction
that helped him to deny it.
(Harmony) Watcher
"Michael Ikeda" <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:LfqdneDZJ8IenxHZ...@rcn.net...
> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
> news:e6gdpr$7td$1...@nntp.aioe.org:> > news:hwlabadiejr-FC3A...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.superne
> > ws.net...
>
> >
> >> It's been long established that demons
> >> owned the Earth long before humans evolved. Humans and pure
> >> demons have no common ancestry. Mixed demons do share some
> >> common traits with humans. So what?
> >
> > So you are saying that humans and demons are simply different
> > species whose evolution produced convergent features. That's
> > reasonable given what we are told about their history, but I'm
> > not sure it is true. We have seen demons who can apparently only
> > breed with humans (eg, in Expecting) and if that is how they
> > continue their line then clearly they are producing fertile
> > offspring, pretty much the definition of "same species", at
> > least as far as those particular types of demon are concerned.
> > And even if it is true that most demons are a different species,
> > if they are sentient and their behaviour has converged to be the
> > same as ours, why not call them human, even though we would
> > exclude them from the scientific classification Homo Sapiens? Is
> > humanity merely a matter of being classified within a particular
> > wants to belong to a different species, for some unexplained,
> > arbitrary reasons? Would it be OK if he became a chimpanzee?
> >
>
> Whedonverse for very different types of creatures.
>
> Some of them basically ARE different types of intelligent species.
> Some seem to be almost like supernatural mechanisms: do a specific
> ritual and something specific happens. Some are more like
> "traditional" demons: supernatural evil creatures preying on
> humans. And, of course, there are the shadowy Old Ones. The "true
> demons" that the Master worshipped and the Mayor wished to become.
>
> If you look at all of the creatures classified as demons there may
> not be anything really important that distinguishes the entire
> group from humans, simply because there is such a wide variety of
> demons. There are, however, very important differences between
> humans and certain specific types of demons. In particular,
> between humans and the type of demon that gives rise to vampires.
>
> What vampires seem to resemble in practice are twisted versions of
> humans. The demon works off of the basic human personality and
> twists it towards violence and evil. It's a parasite that alters
> the personality of its victim. Angel's soul acts as a check on the
> demon but doesn't cure the basic problem, doesn't free him from the
> effects of the demon. The Shanshu IS freedom from the demon.
> Freedom from the need to keep the demon constantly under control.
> And, more importantly, something Angel sees as a sign of
> redemption.
>
>
I agree with most of what you said.
--
|>Harmony Watcher<|
(Harmony) Watcher
view as something that the writers also held at the beginning of BtVS. When
later they discovered that the writers had started showing them scenes that
contradicted that view, instead of accepting the "aha, we were naively
misled" moments, they blamed the writers for spinning out unforgivable
"retcons".
<rest snipped>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"Lord Usher" <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97E252967D...@216.40.28.72...
assumed that those were sensible distinctions in the first place, and also
those viewers who would still like to hang on to those assumptions as soon
as they were contradicted by facts on screen. Whether the muddying was
necessary or unnecessary is a matter of subjective opinion. For me, I have
no idea where people got the impression that the writers told them to take
"humans good, demons bad" as an article of faith rather than CoW's stodgy
indoctrination.
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
> > "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
> >
> >>And a vampire with one. That's the point. Its not inconsistency I'm
> >>complaining about. I regard consistency as a Good Thing, but I'd rather
> >>have
> >>inconsistency than consistently bad. What they have done with Bethany
(and
> >>with the Fall to Pieces guy, although now we know they are going with
this
> >>idea, and it wasn't just a one-off mistake) is to make demons redundant.
> >>There is no point of distinction between them and humans. Every demon
> >>previously seen on the show could have been a differently-empowered
human.
> >>They could have saved a lot on prosthetics and the time of the actor and
> >>make-up artists in applying them, as well as sparing the embarassment of
> >>many viewers to be found watching a programme with demons in it.
> >
> > From my perspective, I'm really pleased that the shows are going down
> > this route - I see it as them developing greater maturity and depth.
> >
> > Yes, life would be simple if all demons were evil and no humans had
> > supernatural powers, if - "the good guys are stalwart and true; the
> > bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black
> > hats." Maybe some people do see the world in such black and white
> > terms... but the rest of us see the message that it's not who you are,
> > or even what you're capable of, but what you actually _do_ with your
> > abilities that counts. Regardless of the colour of your skin (white,
> > black, green...) or the number of your tentacles.
>
> If I meet anyone who thinks they never should have shown demons who
weren't
> evil, I'll pass on your message to them.
>
> You can subvert any one or more of your original distinctions between
humans
> and demons, and achieve a blurring of that distinction. But if you subvert
> every last one, you no longer have a distinction to blur. Demons become
> human (which would mean Angel already has his Shanshu). The only thing
left
> is that sooner or later one of the characters will tell us that this or
that
> doubtful case is human or a demon. But how do they know, and what
difference
> does it make? Mostly of course, they are going by the appearance, which as
> you rightly say, shouldn't matter. And in fact it doesn't matter, because
we
> know from the very first non vampiric Buffyverse demon (in The Puppet
Show)
> that some demons can appear in human guise, and we know from Fall to
Pieces
> that some humans can alter their appearance. So what now is the difference
> between humans and demons? And if there is none, what now is Angel's goal?
>
>
My answer to one of your questions will be 100% spoilery, but here goes
rot13: Ng gur raq bs NgF, bar haqrefgnaqf gung Natry unq pbzcyrgryl ybfg uvf
frafr bs qverpgvba, checbfr naq, jbefg bs nyy, ubcr. Ohg ur qvfpbirerq vg va
n fybj naq cnvashy jnl, ybfvat rirelguvat (rkprcg cbffvoyl Pbaare) nybat gur
jnl. Unir lbh abg jngpurq gur frevrf svanyr?
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"Stephen Tempest" <ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c53l82tpnig1pnceu...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Yes, life would be simple if all demons were evil and no humans had
> supernatural powers, if - "the good guys are stalwart and true; the
> bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black
> hats." Maybe some people do see the world in such black and white
> terms... but the rest of us see the message that it's not who you are,
> or even what you're capable of, but what you actually _do_ with your
> abilities that counts. Regardless of the colour of your skin (white,
> black, green...) or the number of your tentacles.
>
>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
news:EoqdnRXw1McOiBfZ...@uci.net...
>
>
> George W Harris wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:15:26 +1200, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> > :Bethany is an obstacle to me. I like my demons demonic, and my humans
human.
> > :Traditionally (and for a while in the Buffyverse) demons were evil and
had
> > :magical powers. Humans were only evil by choice, and not so magical.
We've
> > :seen some demons who aren't necessarily evil. Well OK, that's mostly
done
> > :for laughs, and that's always a good excuse. But now we have a human
who can
> > :move 2 ton dumpsters by the power of her mind. So... what exactly is
the
> > :difference between humans and demons now?
> >
> > We've also seen a human who can see without eyes,
> > and a human whose eyes can "rocket from the sockets!".
> > Angel's been pushing the distinction for a while now.
>
>
> In Buffy we had a girl who turned herself invisible (OOMOOS) with no
> magical powers whatever. Blame that one on the hellmouth.
>
>
It is possible that Cassey did have "magical" genes in her--or "special" if
you will--genes that were susceptible to hellmouthy power to become
activated. Afterall, it is not likely that all shy girls in Sunnydale High
turned invisible. That would suggest that perhaps all humans possess dormant
mystical powers that could be turned on under the right conditions.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
George W Harris
<nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
:> In Buffy we had a girl who turned herself invisible (OOMOOS) with no
:> magical powers whatever. Blame that one on the hellmouth.
:>
:>
:It is possible that Cassey did have "magical" genes in her--or "special" if
:you will--genes that were susceptible to hellmouthy power to become
:activated.
Marcy. Pnffvr jnf gur frrerff (yvxr Pnffnaqen)
sebz frnfba frira.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
One Bit Shy
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in
> news:128j9r7...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> One scene I did see was Bethany trying to seduce Angel in bed. That
>> was creepy on a couple of levels. On the one hand you really see here
>> how dead inside (as you put it) she is, and the implication of abuse
>> that she has endured. So she's sitting there reaching for feeling in
>> one way, while walling herself off from it in another, asking to be
>> taken advantage of in a context where doing so would be utterly
>> obscene. That's bad enough. But then they overlay the image of Darla
>> on her and just generally make Bethany oddly fetching and desirable at
>> the same time - just egging Angel (and the viewers) on into desireing
>> her in spite of the obscenity. Yeee. That gave me the shivers.
>
> It's a damn good scene, and a damn disturbing one, and not just for what
> it reveals about Bethany. It offers a fascinating glimpse into Our
> Hero's psyche as well -- and even in the midst of a self-contained
> Vision of the Week episode, it moves Angel's story ahead in important
> ways.
Heh. I hadn't heard "Vision of the Week" before. Appropriate phrase.
I hope it was clear that I was quite impressed with the scene - even though
I found it creepy.
> The scene is basically the first challenge to the temporary peace that
> Angel reached at the end of "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been." There
> he decided that he wasn't going to give up on people, no matter how
> frail or flawed they may be. He decided they could still be saved, that
> *he* could still be saved.
I think he's had that philosophy for some time now. It's pretty seeringly
presented in the Faith episodes and I think can be seen developing at least
as far back as S3 BtVS. So I don't think this was a new decision of his.
But I would agree that it's a usefull reminder and illustration of it. And
a special opportunity in how it ties back to his own history - the best kind
of redemption.
> But it's a fragile resolution, and Bethany is the one who uncovers its
> flaws:
>
> "What, you think they'd notice or care I'm not there? Would you?"
>
> The awful thing is, Bethany's at least partly right. Deep down a part of
> Angel does want her gone; he wants to be asleep, enjoying those wicked
> dreams with Darla. And when he tries to deny it, to insist that "I don't
> think everyone's as bad as you'd have them be," Bethany only probes
> deeper:
>
> "Oh, right. You love the people. Love them so much you got a hundred
> rooms to be all alone in."
>
> Her words are a direct echo of the Thesulac demon's mockery in AYNOHYEB:
> "God, I love people. Don't you?" Bethany's comments reawaken the
> anxieties the Thesulac represented, even as they call into question the
> methods Angel used to escape those anxieties.
>
> In AYNOHYEB, Angel took up residence in the Hyperion because it
> symbolized what he wanted to believe about humanity -- that something
> that was once filled with evil could be purified, could become a force
> for good. But Bethany points out that it's an *empty* symbol, an excuse
> for him to hide from humanity rather than embrace it.
Thank you. I had been struggling to rationalize why he needed such an
extravagent location. That's a worthy explanation. Including how his
hiding in its emptiness reveals Angel's inner contradictions to his more
noble desires.
OBS
Lord Usher
>> The scene is basically the first challenge to the temporary peace
>> that Angel reached at the end of "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been."
>> There he decided that he wasn't going to give up on people, no matter
>> how frail or flawed they may be. He decided they could still be
>> saved, that *he* could still be saved.
>
> I think he's had that philosophy for some time now. It's pretty
> seeringly presented in the Faith episodes and I think can be seen
> developing at least as far back as S3 BtVS. So I don't think this was
> a new decision of his.
No, but the resurgence of the contrary anxiety is new, brought on by his
rediscovery of the Hyperion -- and, one assumes, his new interest in the
human condition as he realizes he may one day become human again.
(If "Judgment" had been a better episode, it could've tied the discovery of
the Hyperion more elegantly into Angel's interior story, instead just
throwing it out there and forgetting about it five seconds later so Our
Hero can discuss the bullshit fantasy plot of the week. But them's the
breaks.)
(Harmony) Watcher
"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:gvtv829m4s8g4p9bo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:46:43 GMT, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"
> <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>
> :> In Buffy we had a girl who turned herself invisible (OOMOOS) with no
> :> magical powers whatever. Blame that one on the hellmouth.
> :>
> :>
> :It is possible that Cassey did have "magical" genes in her--or "special"
if
> :you will--genes that were susceptible to hellmouthy power to become
> :activated.
>
> Marcy. Pnffvr jnf gur frrerff (yvxr Pnffnaqen)
> sebz frnfba frira.
>
SG-1. Been reading one too many of Don's fiction. :)
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Arbitrar Of Quality
"Judgment" had me seriously questioning what the writers were thinking.
Now I'm thinking it only existed because "Are You Now" wouldn't have
really worked as the premiere, but that's the one that seemingly sets
the agenda for the early part of season. So, we need to let the core
cast have some screen time and show them needing an office, introduce
the Host and the Hyperion, add Faith and Darla and the LMs... shit,
that's only ten minutes of episode? Well, throw in some knights or
something. (Well, I'd argue that AYNOHYEB could easily have had ten
minutes snipped to make room for some of that stuff, but...)
-AOQ
Apteryx
I'd say that was an interpretation consistent with the evidence. But it does
cheapen Angel somewhat from Vampire with a Quest to Vampire who wants to fit
in.
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
"(Harmony) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in message
news:PyRjg.23426$iF6.10621@pd7tw2no...
I think, like AoQ and A Nother's Firefly DVDs, there must be two different
editions of the AtS :)
Pyrneyl ol gur raq Natry unf ybfg ubcr va uvf crefbany shgher, naq va gur
(hayvxryl) rirag gung ur frrf gur pbasyvpg ur unf vavgvngrq nf Entabenx
engure guna Nezntrqqba, lbh pbhyq fnl gung ur unf ybfg ubcr va nalbar'f
shgher. Ohg uvf checbfr naq qverpgvba unir arire orra pyrnere. Ur svtugf
rivy, gubhtu gur urniraf znl snyy.
Naq gung hyvgzngryl frrzf gb or gur nafjre. Sbe zbfg bs gur frevrf, ur unf
jnagrq gb or uhzna orpnhfr ur qbrf frr uvf qrzba frys nf rivy (naq evtugyl
fb, sebz rirelguvat jr unir frra bs vg). Ng gur raq, ur unf qrpvqrq vg vf
zber vzcbegnag gb svtug rivy gb gur hgzbfg bs uvf novyvgl, jurgure be abg ur
orarsvgf sebz gung, guna gb npuvrir gung tbny sbe uvzfrys. Naq gurer vf abg
n ybg bs terl va gur rivy ur snprf ng gur raq.
--
Apteryx
(Harmony) Watcher
gebhoyr pbagnvavat? Gung'f whfg vafnavgl ba gur fnzr fpnyr nf Natryhf.
Natryhf jnf phpxbbre guna Qeh va OgIF Frnfba 2. Va F5 NgF, Natry ybfg nyy
ubcr gb xrrc ba svtugvat gur tbbq svtug qnl va naq qnl bhg, fb ur whfg tnir
hc naq jrag phpxbb naq jnagrq gb raq vg nyy--vs gur jbeyq tbrf gb fuerqf ng
gur raq, gung'f svar gbb. Guerr jbeqf: ur jrag ahgf. Vs gung'f abg ybfvat
uvf "qverpgvba" va svtugvat rivy, V qba'g xabj jung vf.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:1290ape...@news.supernews.com...
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Apteryx
I think this can be discussed further when AoQ reaches that point. For the
moment, I am sticking with my different set of DVDs theory :)
But at this stage (AtS 2) I think Angel wants to be human because he
recognises that however many stages of grey you have between perfect good
and pure evil, the demon within him is as close to pure evil as makes no
difference. He can't be truly happy without releasing that demon. And he
wants to be both happy and good. So he has to become human and be rid of
that demon.
--
Apteryx
One Bit Shy
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149829373....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> ANGEL
>> Season Two, Episode 4: "Untouched"
> (For those who don't already know, my DVD is severely scratched on this
> episode, so I could only watch fragments of it - and rely on the
> transcript for the rest.)
Few will read this and fewer will care, but I'm in a good mood because I
finally got to watch this episode in full. (I'm trying out Netflix.) It's
a good episode and wonderful to see without it freezing up in my DVD player.
And I finally get to rate it as - Good.
;-) OBS
William George Ferguson
Angel: Do you know how much it hurts to have a piece of iron rebar rammed
through you?
Cordelia: Actually... Yes I do. The benefits of a Sunnydale education.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Marc Espie
Nice to see you're still around. ;-)
Oh, the memories.
David Milligan
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
synopsis of the episode thanks to Buffyworld.com . . . .
Cordelia's visions lead Angel to a girl with telekinesis powers who
has just killed some would-be rapists with her power. They soon realize that
the girl, Bethany, is a runaway. She's running from her sexually abusive
father. She's currently staying with Lilah, who hopes to turn the girl into
an assassin.
Angel enters the girl's life just in time, for as Cordy coins,
Bethany had a choice in killing those would-be rapists. The girl's on the
edge. Meanwhile, Darla progresses her dreams by showing Angel some of the
evil times they had together. But, Bethany is messing with Angel's
sleep-time so Lilah is asked to get her out of there. Lilah decides to send
Bethany's father their way.
When he shows up, Bethany is left with the decision to kill or not.
She flings him out a hotel window- but stops him before he hits the ground.
Angel's empowering of Bethany allows her to go out and get her own life. As
Angel and Bethany get her things from Lilah's, Angel smirks and says to
Lilah, "looks like you're gonna have to find someone else's brain to play
with." To which Lilah replies, "Yeah, we have someone in mind."
--
David E.
http://daviderl31.blogspot.com/
http://daviderl.com/CharismaCarpenter.html
Arbitrar Of Quality
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
For what it's worth, I care. A little.
-AOQ
~ speaking of being one of the few who expressed interest, FYI I attended
and wrote about B-fest again this past January:
http://serbanj.livejournal.com/8981.html ~
One Bit Shy
I'd be worried about you if you cared a lot.
Hey, AOQ. Nice to see you drive by. And thanks for the link. Fun to read
as usual. This time I hadn't seen any of those flicks. (Excepting Plan 9)
But I've heard of about half. In my circle, "Skidoo" is a kind of an object
of worship. I haven't had the opportunity to see it myself, but I've sure
been told enough of its wondrous qualities.
The "Cool As Ice" opening credits that you linked to is actually pretty
damned good I think. And you didn't mention that Naomi Campbell is in it.
I gather it's all downhill after that though.
Take care good sir.
OBS