Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

AOQ Review 2-11: "Ted"

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 9:15:17 PM2/14/06
to
A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
threads.


BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 11: "Ted"
(or "Daddy's gonna tell you what you need to know. This is the
Slayert Report!")
Writers: David Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
Director: Bruce Seth Green

Wow. This is the episode I've been waiting for all half-season.

As the unimaginative title suggests, this episode is about someone
named Ted. Joyce's new boyfriend, in fact. Naturally, Buffy hates
him on sight, before it becomes clear that he deserves it. As she
basically admits, she'd have a hard time forgiving just about anyone
in this position for the crime of not being her dad. In that sense the
conflict is realistic, non-fantasy stuff, and the show neatly deals
with that issue by addressing it up front, with all the principals
being (understandably) convinced that what Buffy's going through is
normal. The scene with Angel is especially well-played, as is the
cathartic vampire-killing scene with Giles.

And then Ted starts getting sinister. I love the way it's gradually
built up - at first he seems fundamentally decent, then maybe a
little overbearingly annoying, but reasonable. Then comes the
mini-golf scene, where he's ranting in an over-the-top manner about
enforcing the rules in his household in a cartoonish manner -
what's happening? All doesn't become clear once Ted gets in
Buffy's face and threatens to hit her, but one thing does become
clear: this is deliciously creepy.

Although the audience doesn't quite know at this point why no one
else can pick up on the increasingly less subtle signs in front of
them, it's obvious that Buffy not eating the food is the best thing
she can do at this point. There's a slow (but not boring or
anything) build to one of the best scenes in the series so far, when
Buffy returns home to find Ted in her room. Unlike most of the
cartoony demons she fights, Ted is powered by pure assholitude and the
full blessing of the "adult world," the world in which minors have
no legal rights and can be drugged or institutionalized into
submission. So, Buff finally stands up to him, and he's the one who
steps all the way over the line by backhanding her across the face.
"I was _so_ hoping you'd do that." And I was so hoping that
she'd react exactly that way. Buffy kicks some ass... and kills him.
Ho-lee shit. This is about as intense as this show has ever gotten.

The episode continues to distinguish itself in the aftermath. The
obvious route would be to downplay Buffy's moral issues by continuing
to play the world-against-her card. Instead, she doesn't get
arrested immediately, and her friends automatically assume that she was
in the right. That way our hero gets to actually face her guilt, and
this intense show keeps on giving... for long enough to give us a
little more pathos, anyway.

It's a shame that the episode does finally break down a little bit
towards the end. The whole idea of making Ted a robot is more cop-out
than I needed. It'd be easy to fly into a rage about creating
something this memorable and then declaring that it doesn't count,
but this is, after all, a supernatural action show. Still, I wish
they'd gone with Ted as just a guy and his tranquilizers. It could
still have a distinctly fantasy central theme: if you're a superhero,
when is it your responsibility to hold back against someone who's
seriously trying to hurt you? Ah, well.

Even then the episode doesn't turn off the creepy. Ted has a great
cover story with the whole "miracle" thing... it seems for a second
like nothing will stop him from worming his way into people's lives.
Joyce is someone I've gotten to like, as a sarcasm-spewing single mom
(and occasional action hero) trying to do what she can with her life.
So it hurts (in a good way) to see her dependent, wrapped around the
finger of a guy who wants her to turn her mind off. Let Daddy make
everything better. Brrr.

"Ted" is a good examplar of what William was talking about with how
audiences will be forgiving of flaws when they're entertained enough.
In addition to my problem with the ending, I also think it's silly
to let Ted be such an unrealistically ("realism," yeah, I know)
brilliant roboticist given the technological era in which he originally
lived. And I have no idea why he suddenly went after flesh-and-blood
women instead of more duplicates of his wife. And I don't
particularly care, because the overwhelming awesomeness of the first
half pretty much numbed my ability to be critical of the episode.

There's also subplotty stuff with Rupert and Jenny resolving their
differences, and Giles trying to hold down the fort while Buffy's
away. Not much to say about it, but it's pretty good. I'd have
held off on the reconciliation for another few episodes, but I guess
that's why I'm not the mind behind _Firefly_. Most of this part is
quite predictable (especially when Giles gets shot), but it still gets
its share of smiles (especially him being saved by the power of tweed
and finding a way to use the crossbow bolt anyway).

"Until Buffy regains her equilibrium, there is no Slayer." Um, if
you can handle the long-distance bills, I believe you do in fact have
an emergency back-up Slayer. Based on that line, I'm doubting
we'll ever hear from Kendra again. Too bad.

It's a good episode for Giles quotables.
"Vampires are creeps." "Yes. That's why one slays them."
Heh.
"I believe the subtext here is rapidly becoming, uh, text." Heh
again.
"Are you all right? Oh, uh, stupid question." Ibid.
"...you helped raise that demon that killed that guy that time."
"Yes. Do let's bring that up as often as possible." Heh several
times over.

Non-verbal acting moment of the week: Hannigan positively glows when
Xander's telling Willow how great she is (cookie talking or no).
Well played. (But seriously, get over him, Wil. Like he said once, he
has the _worst_ taste in women.)


So...

One-sentence summary: Has enough raw quality that even the weak ending
can't hurt it much.

AOQ rating: Excellent

[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
3) "School Hard" - Decent
4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
6) "Halloween" - Good
7) "Lie To Me" - Good
8) "The Dark Age" - Good
9) "What's My Line (Part One)" - Good
10) "What's My Line (Part Two)" - Good
11) "Ted" - Excellent]

kenm47

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 9:58:32 PM2/14/06
to
Interesting.

My rec is I hated this eoisode when it first aired. Stunt casting, real
life after school special issues about accepting a stranger dating a
divorced parent when you clearly have feelings toward the parent you're
not living with, the parent being wooed unwilling to believe you when
you've been threatened by the stranger, etc.

I remember liking the reconciliation with Jenny, Xander/Cordy's
"fight," that Buffy's spider sense really was tinging in the eartly
goings when she sensed something wrong about Ted, AND that Xander was
sure Buffy had to be right and that Ted must be some kind of monster.
(BTW on the board at Ted's office he's listed as "Ted B" which, IIRC is
how Ted Bundy was also often referenced IRL).

I seem to recall a LOT of other people in later discussions said they
hated it too and hated Ritter in particular.

After repeated viewings, I think the episode was brilliant and can
accept it as excellent. I do not have a problem with Ted being a robot
and think it would have been very much of a problem if Buffy in anger
caused the death of a non-evil (in the Buffyverse sense of evil) human.
The show gave us plenty of time to think about that too including the
issue raised by Cordy of special rules for heroes, even fascist heroes.

We already saw Buffy cause the death of the human zookeeper, but that
was clearly an accident in self-defense and defense of others. A human
Ted would be something else entirely.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Mel

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:04:46 PM2/14/06
to


I totally agree on the creepy part. My second time through watching this
season on dvd, I had to wait until I was in the right frame of mind to
watch this episode. Probably took a good week of downtime before I was
ready for it. I get how the evil robot thing can be viewed as a cop-out,
but it still resonates because of the fact that there are non-robot men
in the real world who are just like him. I had kind of a shudder when I
just rewatched it again this week (so I'd be ready for your review!) and
saw "Ted B." up on the board at Ted's office. I immediately thought of
Ted Bundy.

I've never done ratings for tv shows. I'm pretty much of the "like
it/don't like it" camp. I liked this one, but it's too creepy for me to
say I really like or would go out of my to watch. There's a Season 1
episode of "Angel" I feel the same way about. If/when you get that far,
you'll probably be able to tell which one it is.


Mel

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:17:41 PM2/14/06
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> writes:

> lived. And I have no idea why he suddenly went after flesh-and-blood
> women instead of more duplicates of his wife.

I thought the "duplicates" of his wife were flesh and blood women,
i.e. that Joyce was just the latest in the string. Hence the multiple
marriages over the decades.

I've always kind of liked this episode, even though I know that many
don't. But I like Lie to Me and What's My Line a lot more.

--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

jil...@hotmail.com

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:31:29 PM2/14/06
to

Steve Schaffner wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> writes:
>
> > lived. And I have no idea why he suddenly went after flesh-and-blood
> > women instead of more duplicates of his wife.
>
> I thought the "duplicates" of his wife were flesh and blood women,
> i.e. that Joyce was just the latest in the string. Hence the multiple
> marriages over the decades.

You are correct. Arbiter kind of missed that part.

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:32:12 PM2/14/06
to
In article <1139969717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 11: "Ted"
> (or "Daddy's gonna tell you what you need to know. This is the
> Slayert Report!")
> Writers: David Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
> Wow. This is the episode I've been waiting for all half-season.

[ Snip ]

> One-sentence summary: Has enough raw quality that even the weak ending
> can't hurt it much.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent


Yay! Someone who agrees with me about 'Ted'!

I'm afraid you're going to find yourself in a very small minority. Lots
of people have 'Ted' listed as there "Worst Buffy Episode Ever!" They
just can't get over the copout in the last quarter.

I do agree that it would have been even better if they had kept Ted
human, and made his apparent death a side effect of him self-medicating,
in addition to drugging everyone else in sight.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

EGK

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:41:06 PM2/14/06
to

I always wondered if part of the dislike for Ted had to do with people's
perceptions of Ritter as a campy sitcom actor from Three's Company. I
always thought this episode was great.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)

Matthias Wolf

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:53:10 PM2/14/06
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

>Wow. This is the episode I've been waiting for all half-season.

Yep, it is a brilliant one.

>The episode continues to distinguish itself in the aftermath. The
>obvious route would be to downplay Buffy's moral issues by continuing
>to play the world-against-her card. Instead, she doesn't get
>arrested immediately, and her friends automatically assume that she was
>in the right. That way our hero gets to actually face her guilt, and
>this intense show keeps on giving... for long enough to give us a
>little more pathos, anyway.
>
>It's a shame that the episode does finally break down a little bit
>towards the end. The whole idea of making Ted a robot is more cop-out
>than I needed.

I don't think it is a cop-out. Given how serious the killing of an
(assumedly human) Ted was handled, it would have required a lot of
episodes, maybe the rest of the season, to deal with all the
consequences and repercussions properly. It would have overshadowed
everything else that has been developed so far. If you think they did
something wrong by making Ted a robot, the only alternative left would
have been to not do this intense episode at all.

> In addition to my problem with the ending, I also think it's silly
>to let Ted be such an unrealistically ("realism," yeah, I know)
>brilliant roboticist given the technological era in which he originally
>lived.

Actually, the 50's are quite a good choice, because serious AI
research really started back then.
<http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/AI/TIMELINE/timeline.html>

> And I have no idea why he suddenly went after flesh-and-blood
>women instead of more duplicates of his wife.

He always went after flesh-and blood woman who closely resembled his
wife. The bodies in his closet weren't robots.

>AOQ rating: Excellent

*big grin*

--
Matthias Wolf

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:02:29 PM2/14/06
to
In article <3k85v19f3qi77cmb0...@4ax.com>,
EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:32:12 -0500, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <1139969717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> One-sentence summary: Has enough raw quality that even the weak ending
> >> can't hurt it much.
> >>
> >> AOQ rating: Excellent
> >
> >
> >Yay! Someone who agrees with me about 'Ted'!
> >
> >I'm afraid you're going to find yourself in a very small minority. Lots
> >of people have 'Ted' listed as there "Worst Buffy Episode Ever!" They
> >just can't get over the copout in the last quarter.
> >
> >I do agree that it would have been even better if they had kept Ted
> >human, and made his apparent death a side effect of him self-medicating,
> >in addition to drugging everyone else in sight.
>
> I always wondered if part of the dislike for Ted had to do with people's
> perceptions of Ritter as a campy sitcom actor from Three's Company. I
> always thought this episode was great.

Well, one of the reasons I liked "Ted" was that I got to see Jack
Tripper die...twice.

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:38:37 PM2/14/06
to
In article <lp55v19cg6a835fmi...@4ax.com>,
Matthias Wolf <maw...@gmx.net> wrote:

> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Wow. This is the episode I've been waiting for all half-season.
>
> Yep, it is a brilliant one.
>
> >The episode continues to distinguish itself in the aftermath. The
> >obvious route would be to downplay Buffy's moral issues by continuing
> >to play the world-against-her card. Instead, she doesn't get
> >arrested immediately, and her friends automatically assume that she was
> >in the right. That way our hero gets to actually face her guilt, and
> >this intense show keeps on giving... for long enough to give us a
> >little more pathos, anyway.
> >
> >It's a shame that the episode does finally break down a little bit
> >towards the end. The whole idea of making Ted a robot is more cop-out
> >than I needed.
>
> I don't think it is a cop-out. Given how serious the killing of an
> (assumedly human) Ted was handled, it would have required a lot of
> episodes, maybe the rest of the season, to deal with all the
> consequences and repercussions properly. It would have overshadowed
> everything else that has been developed so far. If you think they did
> something wrong by making Ted a robot, the only alternative left would
> have been to not do this intense episode at all.

No. They could have kept Ted human, and had him not really die.

Time for my annual "How I would have ended 'Ted'" post.

Leave it pretty much unchanged up to the end of Act III, but move Buffy
discovering her nailed shut window to in front of Jenny and Giles in the
park. No discovery of Ted in her room. She just flops onto her bed to
mope. Then the Giles and Jenny in the park scene, cutting to commercial
when the vampire appears.

Act IV:
Giles and Jenny fight the vamp is intercut with Willow, Xander and Cordy
finding Ted's love nest, and his previous wives, instead of Buffy's
fight with Ted.

Cut to Joyce packing stuff, Ted shows up, scene goes pretty much as
written, changing Ted's robotic rewinds to some other sort of psychotic
type behaviour. Ends the same way, with Ted knocking Joyce out.

Buffy is roused from her funk by the sound of Joyce's head bouncing off
the wall; she comes down to investigate, and finds Ted carrying her mom
toward the door.

Fight ensues, but this time Buffy is more controlled. She isn't trying
to hurt Ted (much). She just wants to get him the hell away from her
mother. It ends with her tossing him out the front door, where he lands
at the feet of the police, who have been told about what's in Ted's
basement by the Scoobies, and have heard from the hospital that their
former victim, and now serial killer suspect, has gotten up and walked
out.

In the final denouement we learn that Ted was also self-medicating with
various drugs, which was what made him appear to be dead for a moment.

Apteryx

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:59:12 PM2/14/06
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139969717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 11: "Ted"
> (or "Daddy's gonna tell you what you need to know. This is the
> Slayert Report!")
> Writers: David Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Bruce Seth Green
>
> Wow. This is the episode I've been waiting for all half-season.

Wow indeed. I had thought I was the world's biggest fan of Ted, in as much
as I think its not all that bad (76th best BtVS episode for me, 16th best in
Season 2). But it seems the world is actually full of Ted fans

To me, the fact that this episode is a bit of a tease makes it good, but
limits how good it can be. It shows us Buffy's reaction to (apparently)
killing a human being. I think it was necessary to the series as a whole
that it should turn out that Buffy hadn't killed a human, but I agree with
you that it diminishes this episode in its own right that that turns out to
be the case. Don Sample's suggested re-write might well have been a way
marrying those two requirements to better effect than the episode actually
managed.


--
Apteryx


Matthias Wolf

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 12:06:11 AM2/15/06
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

>In article <lp55v19cg6a835fmi...@4ax.com>,
> Matthias Wolf <maw...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It's a shame that the episode does finally break down a little bit
>> >towards the end. The whole idea of making Ted a robot is more cop-out
>> >than I needed.
>>
>> I don't think it is a cop-out. Given how serious the killing of an
>> (assumedly human) Ted was handled, it would have required a lot of
>> episodes, maybe the rest of the season, to deal with all the
>> consequences and repercussions properly. It would have overshadowed
>> everything else that has been developed so far. If you think they did
>> something wrong by making Ted a robot, the only alternative left would
>> have been to not do this intense episode at all.
>
>No. They could have kept Ted human, and had him not really die.

Which by AoQ, and probably others, would still be considered a
cop-out.

>Time for my annual "How I would have ended 'Ted'" post.

[... snip alternate Ted ending ...]

Let's just say, I prefer the robot version ;-)

--
Matthias Wolf

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 12:25:33 AM2/15/06
to

Don Sample wrote:

Nice. Some people might complain that there's not enough supernatural,
and that it's therefore not really a BTVS concept... but I'm fine with
doing a mostly-human story once or twice a year. What's great is that
even though we still think Buffy killed someone and then it turns out
to "not count," that complaint is muted since she gets a chance to
handle it again the right way, as befits a responsible superhero.

I'd probably have given your version a "SUPERLATIVE."

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 12:26:21 AM2/15/06
to
Steve Schaffner wrote:

> I thought the "duplicates" of his wife were flesh and blood women,
> i.e. that Joyce was just the latest in the string. Hence the multiple
> marriages over the decades.

I stand corrected. Now I like the episode even more.

-AOQ

William George Ferguson

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 12:31:57 AM2/15/06
to
On 14 Feb 2006 18:15:17 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
wrote:

>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review


>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Two, Episode 11: "Ted"
>(or "Daddy's gonna tell you what you need to know. This is the
>Slayert Report!")
>Writers: David Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
>Director: Bruce Seth Green

By the way, in case you weren't aware, frequent Buffy director Bruce Seth
Green and actor Seth Green are no relation. They knew of each other,
because of the name coincidence, but had never met until BSG directed SG
on Buffy.

>Wow. This is the episode I've been waiting for all half-season.

>"Ted" is a good examplar of what William was talking about with how


>audiences will be forgiving of flaws when they're entertained enough.

It's interesting that you bring that up, because personally, I couldn't
get by it. I'm one of those people referred to in other responses at
rating this "Worst. Buffy. Episode. Ever." I had to immediately go on the
internet to tell everyone how bad it was :)

You've identified the reason well enough, Buffy's 'Get Out Of
Responsibility Free' card in the last 14 minutes really soured me, even
though the first 28 minutes was a strong contender for best episode ever.

Not there weren't good parts (there's always good parts in even the worst
Buffy).

Being a devout Whedonista, I'll blame Greenwalt for the last 14 minutes :)

> In addition to my problem with the ending, I also think it's silly
>to let Ted be such an unrealistically ("realism," yeah, I know)
>brilliant roboticist given the technological era in which he originally
>lived. And I have no idea why he suddenly went after flesh-and-blood
>women instead of more duplicates of his wife. And I don't
>particularly care, because the overwhelming awesomeness of the first
>half pretty much numbed my ability to be critical of the episode.
>
>There's also subplotty stuff with Rupert and Jenny resolving their
>differences, and Giles trying to hold down the fort while Buffy's
>away.

I held back on commentin in your review of the Dark Age, but, just like
WSWB and Buffy, I did like that it took time for Jenny to get past what
had happened to her. In the Buffyverse, actions have consequences
(unless, of course you're Buffy beating your mother's boyfriend to death)

>Not much to say about it, but it's pretty good. I'd have
>held off on the reconciliation for another few episodes, but I guess
>that's why I'm not the mind behind _Firefly_. Most of this part is
>quite predictable (especially when Giles gets shot), but it still gets
>its share of smiles (especially him being saved by the power of tweed
>and finding a way to use the crossbow bolt anyway).
>
>"Until Buffy regains her equilibrium, there is no Slayer." Um, if
>you can handle the long-distance bills, I believe you do in fact have
>an emergency back-up Slayer. Based on that line, I'm doubting
>we'll ever hear from Kendra again. Too bad.
>
>It's a good episode for Giles quotables.
>"Vampires are creeps." "Yes. That's why one slays them."
>Heh.
>"I believe the subtext here is rapidly becoming, uh, text." Heh
>again.

That one is way up on my 'talking in Buffy quotes' list.

>"Are you all right? Oh, uh, stupid question." Ibid.
>"...you helped raise that demon that killed that guy that time."
>"Yes. Do let's bring that up as often as possible." Heh several
>times over.

See, this is the true value of Cordy :)

>Non-verbal acting moment of the week: Hannigan positively glows when
>Xander's telling Willow how great she is (cookie talking or no).
>Well played. (But seriously, get over him, Wil. Like he said once, he
>has the _worst_ taste in women.)

One thing I've learned about Hannigan, she needs a strong director (or
producer looking over the director's shoulder). In real life she is a
Robin William/Jim Carrey level rubberfaced comedian (or comedienne if
you're old-fashioned). When acting with restraint, she is one of the best
at non-verbal acting that I've ever seen.

>
>So...
>
>One-sentence summary: Has enough raw quality that even the weak ending
>can't hurt it much.
>
>AOQ rating: Excellent

Well, we're about as far apart as we can be here. I understand where
you're coming from, I just couldn't get past the last 14 minutes, myself.

Next up, we delve into the religious background of one of the scoobies (or
not).


--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little

Jeff Jacoby

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 12:52:57 AM2/15/06
to
On 14 Feb 2006 18:15:17 -0800, Arbitrar <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> "...you helped raise that demon that killed that guy that time."
> "Yes. Do let's bring that up as often as possible." Heh several
> times over.

<slaps hand to forehead>

I've watched "Ted" at least 3-4 times, and only now do
I get the double entendre!

I guess that's my DOH! moment of the month. :)


Jeff

Mike Zeares

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 1:46:48 AM2/15/06
to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Nice. Some people might complain that there's not enough supernatural,
> and that it's therefore not really a BTVS concept... but I'm fine with
> doing a mostly-human story once or twice a year. What's great is that
> even though we still think Buffy killed someone and then it turns out
> to "not count," that complaint is muted since she gets a chance to
> handle it again the right way, as befits a responsible superhero.
>
> I'd probably have given your version a "SUPERLATIVE."

I probably would have too. I've always rated this ep an "excellent"
for about the first 3 acts and a "weak" for the last. I can remember
barely breathing during the scenes after Buffy "killed" Ted; in the
police station, that horrible silent ride home, the scene in the
kitchen. Incredibly powerful. All ruined by "oh, he's a robot."

I pretty much agree with the people who say that it would have been too
much for the show to deal with if Buffy had really killed a human at
this point. So I do like Don's version. I think, if it had gone that
way, we'd still have had the scare when we thought Buffy had killed a
guy, with a sense of relief at the end that she really hadn't. This
wouldn't have diminished the scare, though. The message was that she
needed to be careful with her powers. This would still be true even if
a human Ted had survived. I feel that this theme was muted with Ted
turning out to be a robot. It made it feel like all the intense
emotion from earlier in the ep was for nothing. That was my knee-jerk
response at the time.

I've always felt that this ep was a case of the show getting hamstrung
by its own formula.

-- Mike Zeares

Paul Hyett

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 1:40:14 AM2/15/06
to
In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer on Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Arbitrar Of Quality wrote
:

>
>One-sentence summary: Has enough raw quality that even the weak ending
>can't hurt it much.
>
>AOQ rating: Excellent

IMO this episode sucks - I skip it completely now.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

hopelessly devoted

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 2:27:26 AM2/15/06
to
I soooo want to play but unfortunately, I can't. S2 (along with S6) I
still don't have.

I will say that this particular ep was one of the first that truely
capitivated me for several reasons.

1 - because it started out so believable with the wacko boyfriend plot.
2 - because, for the first time (at least as far as I know) John Ritter
got to be "bad".
3 - It showed real consequences in a real world, which until Ted, it
had failed to do.

>>It's a shame that the episode does finally break down a little bit
>>towards the end. The whole idea of making Ted a robot is more cop-out
>>than I needed.

Interesting. But then again, with a show that has dealt with Vampires,
Witches, Frankenstein Quarterbacks, Inca Mummy Girls, Worm Men,
etc.......you kind of knew there had to be a twist. I think I actually
had this one figured out before his circuit started to blow.

On the subject of cop-out, IMO, it was. But sometimes it's good to
cop-out. It may not be the #1 Rule, but sometimes you have to. Znxrf
nyy gur gvzrf gung gurl qba'g pbc-bhg rira zber cbjreshy naq unhagvat.

I can't comment on much of the rest of the ep, I would have to dig out
the videos and right now, that's more than I can chew. I do have some
of my favs from S2 and S6 at hand, unfortunately, Ted was not in the
stack.

One of the beautiful things about the Buffyverse is that it will always
have something for everyone. As much as I loved Ted, brilliant and
"creepy, it's not my cup of tea.

7

Will play again soon.

Enjoy!

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 5:50:02 AM2/15/06
to
In article <dsample-025116...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

And where does Buffy's hubris fit into this?
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend

Shuggie

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 6:43:23 AM2/15/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> "I believe the subtext here is rapidly becoming, uh, text." Heh
> again.

An absolute gift for the internet fan. A quote that can be endlessly
re-used when commenting on other episodes.

> AOQ rating: Excellent

I see I gave it a 3.5. I didn't mark it down because of the ending I
just never got that into it. I did like the scenes where Buffy thinks
she's killed him.

A word about John Ritter. We never got Three's Company over here, or if
we did I missed it. (We did of course have Man About the House) So I
knew John mostly from a few movies. I was watching Ted again last night
and thinking that people talk a lot about actors having an 'everyman'
quality, but I think he really did. He manages to make you like him in
the early scenes and then dials up the creepy convincingly later on. I
think he's great in this episode.

--
Shuggie

blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/shuggie/

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 7:43:58 AM2/15/06
to
On 15.02.2006 05:38, Don Sample wrote:

> Time for my annual "How I would have ended 'Ted'" post.
>

>[snippety]

Yeah, that would totally have ruined it. Nothing left of the really best
stuff: Buffy wanting to tell she killed the man, while the others
wanting to cover it up. Buffy totally destroyed by her own guilt.

BTW, as that Ted-maker lived in Sunnydale, I bet he spiced up the robot
with some magic. That should explain how he made it so good.

I find Ted on 102. place in my top 144, but it certainly deserves to be
lifted much higher.

--
Espen

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 7:48:38 AM2/15/06
to
Well Don, at least he's not dead, just psychotic and arrested. BUT how
does a mere human survive that earlier fight, fall, and lack of pulse?

And who nailed Buffy's window shut? In the show she seemed to think it
was Joyce, but I always thought it was Ted who is in the room with her.


Besides, it always looked to me like the simple sash lock was engaged,
and Buffy never unlocks it.

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 7:54:22 AM2/15/06
to

"Double entendre"? Please explain.

Thx,

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 8:03:52 AM2/15/06
to
"The message was that she needed to be careful with her powers. "

While there's that, I thought the bigger message was Buffy's need to
separate her Slayer existence from her "normal" existence, while at the
same time her need to be more careful and suspicious and gather info
when her Slayer sense tells her something seemingly normal is somehow
"wrong."

ROT13

OGJ, V oryvrir gung Grq ernqvat Ohssl'f qvnel, naq gura gnyxvat nobhg
zragny vafgvghgvbaf:

"Grq: Be jung? (fgnaqf hc naq fgrcf gbjneq ure) Lbh'yy fynl zr? V'z
erny. V'z abg fbzr tboyva lbh znqr hc va lbhe yvggyr qvnel.
Cflpuvngevfgf unir n jbeq sbe fbzrguvat yvxr guvf: qryhfvbany. Fb, sebz

abj ba, lbh'yy qb jung V fnl, jura V fnl, be V fubj guvf (ubyqf hc ure
qvnel) gb lbhe zbgure, naq lbh'yy fcraq lbhe orfg qngvat lrnef oruvaq
gur jnyy bs n zragny vafgvghgvba. Lbhe zbgure naq V ner tbvat gb or
unccl. Lbh'er abg tbvat gb fgnaq va gur jnl. Fyrrc gvtug!"

vf shegure "cebbs" bs gur sbbyvfu Abezny Ntnva ergpba (nygub' gurer ner
gubfr gung unir fhttrfgrq gb zr gung gung jnf ernyyl n erfhyg bs gur
Qnja-irefr pbyyvqvat jvgu gur Ohssl-irefr).

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 8:07:05 AM2/15/06
to
"And where does Buffy's hubris fit into this?"

I've lost you here. What do you mean by that? Her early feeling
something is wrong with Ted? That turned out to be right.

Ken (Brooklyn)

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 8:53:57 AM2/15/06
to
In article <1140008825.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"I was _so_ hoping you would do that".

Pure hubris.

Nemesis followed shortly after.

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 9:02:05 AM2/15/06
to
In article <1140008632.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<fvtu>

Gurer vf ab rivqrapr jungfbrire gung Wblpr unq rkcynvarq nal bs Ohssl'f
onpxfgbel naq - vaqrrq - guvf fprar fhttrfgf gur bccbfvgr. Rnfl rabhtu
gb vzntvar n fprar jvgu Grq gryyvat Wblpr naq Wblpr fnlvat "Bu Tbq, abg
ntnva. Jurer'f Qe Uuuhsssheeehuf ahzore?".

Naq erzrzore, V fcrnx nf fbzrbar jub ivrjf gur ergpba nf pyhzfl naq
haarprffnel (nafq nf sbe gur jubyr "Qnja pnhfrq vg guvat....).

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 9:28:34 AM2/15/06
to

Zl guvaxvat vf ur'f ernq gur qvnel. Zvtug unir orra n zragvba. Nyfb va
uvf pbzzragf gb Ohssl, vs gurer unq orra fhpu n Abezny Ntnva rirag bar
jbhyq rkcrpg n gjvgpu, fbzrguvat, va erpbtavgvba, vs abg n ireony
"Arire Ntnva!" ba ure cneg whfg gura.

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 9:42:11 AM2/15/06
to
"Pure hubris."

I don't think that is the right word. Hubris is: "Overbearing pride or
presumption; arrogance"

That was anger, loss of control, vengeance, retribution. It was also a
misuse of her Slayer abilities, although she seemed surprised at Ted's
ability to absorb her first blow (our first real clue that Ted was not
what he seemed - ordinary human).

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 10:02:41 AM2/15/06
to

I always liked that she resisted hitting him first.

I touched on this earlier, I thought, as to Buffy's needs to separate
her Slayer self from her normal self.

Have you considered how you would have felt if this was an after school
special and this was a "normal" girl? I'm still not sure "hubris"
(Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance) is the right word for it.
Anger, vengeance, retribution perhaps?

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 10:09:12 AM2/15/06
to
Sorry v.d. for two similar replies. Thought the Internet monster had
eaten this one.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Scythe Matters

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 10:27:47 AM2/15/06
to
kenm47 wrote:

> I don't think that is the right word. Hubris is: "Overbearing pride or
> presumption; arrogance"

Another definition: exaggerated pride or self-confidence.

Another: The Greek term hubris is difficult to translate directly into
English. It is a negative term implying both arrogant, excessive
self-pride or self-confidence, and also a hamartia (see above), a lack
of some important perception or insight due to pride in one's abilities.

Another: This shortcoming or defect in the Greek tragic hero leads him
to ignore the warnings of the gods and to transgress their laws and
commands. Eventually hubris brings about downfall and nemesis, as in the
case of Creon in Sophocles's Antigone and Clytemnestra in Aeschylus's
Oresteia trilogy.

Ahother: there is an awareness in Greek heroic literature that the brave
hero with a healthy self-esteem may over-reach his position in thinking
too highly and too solely of himself


I think it is the right word, though it's admittedly an extreme
characterization. "I was so hoping you'd do that" coupled with the look
on her face...what she feels here is a lack of control. When Ted hits
her, she's gleeful because it allows her to reassert control in the only
way that she knows: violence. (Bs pbhefr, guvf vfa'g gur ynfg gvzr gung
gur fubj jvyy rknzvar jung vg zrnaf gb hfr ivbyrapr nf n zrnaf bs
pbagebyyvat bar'f hapbagebyynoyr yvsr.) Remember just a few episodes ago:

Buffy: I wasn't gonna use violence. I don't always use violence. (looks
up at Xander) Do I?

Xander: The important thing is *you* believe that.

She _knows_ she's going to win the fight. She always does, and as I
wrote a few episodes ago (in regard to Buffy's increasing sense of
purpose, which is in conflict with what "Lie to Me" proposes as "growing
up"), she _knows_ she always does, because violence works for her (and
to the greater good) 100% of the time. What she doesn't contemplate, of
course, is what happens -- or appears to happen -- when he dies at her
hands. That's not something Buffy ever considered; she had a problem,
and she solved it the way she solves all her other problems. Vg'f
vagrerfgvat gung va gur shgher, ure fbyhgvba gb ceboyrzf jvyy or ehaavat
njnl/nibvqnapr engure guna ivbyrapr. Vg nqqf n ynlre bs fngvfsnpgvba gb
"Pubfra" gung fur qbrf, ng ybat ynfg, svaq n guveq fbyhgvba...gur
aba-vagreany bar.

Were she not completely convinced of both her skill and her
justification for violence, she'd have been less confident in the
outcome of her solution. That's hubris. And: fur'f bar fgrc fubeg bs
jung unccraf jura gur arkg Fynlre pbzrf nybat naq npgf orsber guvaxvat.

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 10:40:36 AM2/15/06
to
In article <1140014531.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Scythe Matters has answered this more comprehensively that I could.

I think the episode (intentionally or otherwise) provides an interesting
meta-commentary on what happens in the next two episodes (nf jryy, bs
pbhefr, nf gur arkg frnfba), jurer gur fheeraqre gb frys (ragveryl
haqrefgnaqnoyr, abg va nal erfcrpg 'jebat') unf gehyl greevoyr
pbafrdhraprf.

(somewhat reluctant rot-13 there, since I think AoQ will have seen the
eps by now)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 10:53:25 AM2/15/06
to
OK Scythe, you sold me that "hubris" could be the right word. As to
your comments about future matters, no comment to avoid any further
less pleasant disputes in these threads, ROT13 or not.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Sam

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 11:25:21 AM2/15/06
to

With that in mind, watch the bit where they investigate Ted's apartment
again.

You know the bit where they open a door and get all horrified and
disgusted? That's because they've just found the rotting corpses of
Ted's last few wives. Which is what managed to make Ted the robot
creepy enough for me to forgive the fact that he turned out to be a
robot at all.

--Sam

Mike Zeares

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 11:34:15 AM2/15/06
to

Shuggie wrote:

[re: John Ritter]

. He manages to make you like him in
> the early scenes and then dials up the creepy convincingly later on. I
> think he's great in this episode.

I totally agree. He was perfect for this episode. Ritter was a fine
actor who went way before his time, and is very much missed.

His son Jason is a good actor too. He inherited his dad's double-take.

-- Mike Zeares

Sam

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 11:38:32 AM2/15/06
to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Nice. Some people might complain that there's not enough supernatural,
> and that it's therefore not really a BTVS concept... but I'm fine with
> doing a mostly-human story once or twice a year. What's great is that
> even though we still think Buffy killed someone and then it turns out
> to "not count," that complaint is muted since she gets a chance to
> handle it again the right way, as befits a responsible superhero.
>
> I'd probably have given your version a "SUPERLATIVE."
>
> -AOQ

SPOILERS HERE, but not for "Buffy" -- don't read if you don't want to
be spoiled for last night's "Supernatural"

.
.
.

Interestingly, the WB's current monster hunting show, "Supernatural,"
just did something like this last night, and it worked really well.
Basically, they come into a town where people have been mysteriously
vanishing for decades, expecting to find some sort of supernatural
creature making people vanish.

To their great surprise, it turns out to be regular people. (Well, ok,
not *regular* people. But not at all paranormal.) It worked extremely
well, actually -- in a way, it was even scarier. There's a bit where
one of the heroes points out that usually monsters have various
supernatural laws and rules that they have to follow. There's order to
it. People are just crazy.

It would have been nice if "Ted" had stuck with the mundanity. Or if
"The X-Files" had discovered, just once, that there was nothing strange
going on after all.

--Sam

Jeff Jacoby

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 3:00:49 PM2/15/06
to

Giles' response could refer to the incident, or to Cordelia's
use of the word "that".

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.


Jeff

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 3:13:21 PM2/15/06
to
In article <l64o-1rj5-7E107...@mercury.nildram.net>,
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:

In the second fight, she limits herself to bruising Ted, when she now
has a real reason to rip his arms off and beat him to death with them,
showing that she has learned to use restraint when dealing with the
merely human.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 3:17:20 PM2/15/06
to
In article <dsv7ja$lvl$1...@readme.uio.no>,
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:

> On 15.02.2006 05:38, Don Sample wrote:
>
> > Time for my annual "How I would have ended 'Ted'" post.
> >
> >[snippety]
>
> Yeah, that would totally have ruined it. Nothing left of the really best
> stuff: Buffy wanting to tell she killed the man, while the others
> wanting to cover it up. Buffy totally destroyed by her own guilt.

No. All that is still there. It only changes from the "Ted's a robot"
reveal on.

And there was never really any "Buffy wanting to tell she killed the
man, while the others wanting to cover it up." Joyce starts to tell the
cops that Ted fell, and Buffy jumps right in to say that she did it.

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 3:20:35 PM2/15/06
to
In article <1140007718.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Well Don, at least he's not dead, just psychotic and arrested. BUT how
> does a mere human survive that earlier fight, fall, and lack of pulse?

The stunt man survived the fall (over the entire course of the series, a
lot of people survived falls down those stairs.) The drugs Ted was
taking suppressed his vital signs to the point where Joyce and the
paramedics just thought he was dead.

Stephen Tempest

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 3:23:42 PM2/15/06
to
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> writes:

>One thing I've learned about Hannigan, she needs a strong director (or
>producer looking over the director's shoulder). In real life she is a
>Robin William/Jim Carrey level rubberfaced comedian (or comedienne if
>you're old-fashioned). When acting with restraint, she is one of the best
>at non-verbal acting that I've ever seen.

I'll add one thing to this: normally, I'm utterly useless at
lip-reading. But even I can often tell what Alyson's saying with the
sound turned off (be, nf va 'Uhfu', aba-rkvfgnag), she's just that
expressive...

Stephen

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 4:20:58 PM2/15/06
to
In article <1139969717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 11: "Ted"
> (or "Daddy's gonna tell you what you need to know. This is the
> Slayert Report!")
> Writers: David Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Bruce Seth Green

On a "Behind the Scenes" note, I believe that 'Ted' marks the debut of
the "downstairs of Buffy's house" set. Prior to 'Ted', they filmed all
the downstairs in Buffy's house scenes on location in the same house
that they used for the exterior shots.

If you recall the scene in WML where Xander goes upstairs to check if
Buffy's there, the stairs have a curve in them at the top. Those were
the real stairs, in the real house. In 'Ted' when he gets kicked down
them, you see that the curve has been replaced by a landing.

Carlos Moreno

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 4:20:50 PM2/15/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

> And then Ted starts getting sinister. I love the way it's gradually
> built up [...]

I don't know... I must confess that my view of this episode has
improved over time -- after the first or first two times that I
watched the episode, I had it ranked as "unbelievably bad" but
then, at some point I watched it and found some good stuff hidden
in it.

But what you say above is precisely what I found poor in the
episode -- I found the whole thing so excessively cliche; I've
seen that exact same thing soooooo many times in sooooo many
bad movies.

Soooo convenient how the others watching/listening or not
watching/listening is so perfectly synchronized with the
moments where Ted switches between being a perfect, reasonable
individual that everyone likes and being the most absolutely
biggest pig that he really is... *Ugh*, really could not stand
that.

It truly shocks me that you rate this episode as "excellent"
when you've given such poor grades to the others (almost all
of them have had a "Good" grade -- which is arguably ok, but
I find it inconsistent with an "Excellent" for Ted). Oh well...

Carlos
--

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 4:38:36 PM2/15/06
to
"In the second fight, she limits herself to bruising Ted, when she now
has a real reason to rip his arms off and beat him to death with them,
showing that she has learned to use restraint when dealing with the
merely human. "

Come on! She Babe Ruth grand slams him with the cast iron pan/pot
whatever - twice!

LOL

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 4:39:49 PM2/15/06
to

Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1140007718.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Well Don, at least he's not dead, just psychotic and arrested. BUT how
> > does a mere human survive that earlier fight, fall, and lack of pulse?
>
> The stunt man survived the fall (over the entire course of the series, a
> lot of people survived falls down those stairs.) The drugs Ted was
> taking suppressed his vital signs to the point where Joyce and the
> paramedics just thought he was dead.
>
> --

Just say "MAGIC!"

Ken (Brooklyn)

kenm47

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 4:49:00 PM2/15/06
to

OK. I'll blame Google Groups for confusing me. You weren't referring to
the actual episode, but to your rewrite?

Comment withdrawn.

Ken (Brooklyn)

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 5:07:55 PM2/15/06
to
Carlos Moreno wrote:

> But what you say above is precisely what I found poor in the
> episode -- I found the whole thing so excessively cliche; I've
> seen that exact same thing soooooo many times in sooooo many
> bad movies.
>
> Soooo convenient how the others watching/listening or not
> watching/listening is so perfectly synchronized with the
> moments where Ted switches between being a perfect, reasonable
> individual that everyone likes and being the most absolutely
> biggest pig that he really is... *Ugh*, really could not stand
> that.

It's an overused device, sure, but I find that it's a good one (the
hero is somehow the only one who sees the obvious, leaving her truly
alone, and all that). The thing in this episode is, though, that Buffy
and company are fully aware that she'd hate Ted even if he weren't all
evil and stuff. The early scenes show Ted behaving perfectly
reasonably, and Buffy being irrational and childish. Then Ted starts
to get a bit overbearing and douchebaggy, but certainly nothing that
suggests evil. But then at the golf course he starts making a big deal
over nothing, and then he has that little chat with Buffy alone...

You can see her thinking "Did I just imagine that? No, that was real,
but how is no one else noticing this? This is scary. He's good, and
he's got some kind of power over everyone..." Creepy stuff. And then
it all builds up to Buffy's glee and finally being justified (in her
mind) in the chance to beat the living shit out of him... Scythe
Matters did a pretty good ramble on how this episode really challenges
her view of the world.

Actually, the mini-golf scene contains the one and only use of the
perfectly-synchronized mood change in the whole episode.

-AOQ

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 6:49:11 PM2/15/06
to
In article <dsample-F51D8D...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

That doesn't really answer the question. The episode is not about her
Slayerness and what she has learned about it, it is is about how a hot
chick with superpowers who happens to be a child of a broken home deals
with issues: like a child of a broken home, with superpowers.

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 6:52:53 PM2/15/06
to
In article <fa37v1l4befusncvf...@4ax.com>,
Stephen Tempest <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Hehe. I shpxva' love ebg-13.

George W Harris

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 8:02:26 PM2/15/06
to
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:00:49 -0600, Jeff Jacoby
<jjaco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ya think?
:
:
:Jeff
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

Carlos Moreno

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 10:39:40 PM2/15/06
to
Don Sample wrote:

> On a "Behind the Scenes" note, I believe that 'Ted' marks the debut of
> the "downstairs of Buffy's house" set. Prior to 'Ted', they filmed all
> the downstairs in Buffy's house scenes on location in the same house
> that they used for the exterior shots.
>
> If you recall the scene in WML where Xander goes upstairs to check if
> Buffy's there, the stairs have a curve in them at the top. Those were
> the real stairs, in the real house. In 'Ted' when he gets kicked down
> them, you see that the curve has been replaced by a landing.

Show off!!! ;-)

Carlos
--

Don Sample

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 12:33:35 AM2/16/06
to
In article <0v08v1lu787dqi5p8...@4ax.com>,
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Silly boy. Showing off is when we trot out our ASCII floor plans of Casa
> Summers (Don has the definitive second floor, but I think I'm the only one
> who has assayed the basement).

Oh, now I've got to post them...

First floor:


+------=======---+
| F | |
| | |
+--======--+--+ +---+----+-----+ |
| | | |
| | | |
+------=======------+ +--+ | | - =
| | | +--+ | / \ =
| | | Kitchen | | | \ / =
| + + | | | - =
| | | | |
| +--+ +-----+
| Stairs down | O |
| + + to basement | |
| +----+-+ +-++ vv ++-+ +------+-----+
| | | | vv | |
| | | | vv | |
| | | | | |
| Living | | |--------| |
+-+ Room | | |--------| Dining |
| | | | |--------| Room |
| |Fire | | |--------| |
| |Place | | |--------| |
+-+ +----+ |---^^---| |
| | |---^^---| |
| + +---^^---+ |
| Stairs up to |
| second floor |
= |
= Foyer |
= + + |
| | | |
+----==============----+-----==-+ +-==-----+-----===========-----+

= - Windows
F - Fridge
O - Oven


Second Floor:

Back Yard

+------=====-----+
| |
| |
+---------=======-----------+--------========--------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | Joyce's room |
= | |
= | |
= | |
= + |
| =
| . =
| . =
| +..... =
| | . |
+------------------+ +-+--+-+ +------------------+ |
| | + | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | .....+ | | | | | |
+------------------+-----------+ +---------+-----++ ++
| | | +--+ | |. |
| Buffy's room | | +--+ +-----+. |
= | | () . |
= | | =
= .....+ + =
= =
|+------------+ Bathroom =
|| | |
|| | +---+ +..... |
|| | | | | +-----------+
|| | | C | | | ( ) |
|| | | l | +-----------+-+-----------+
|+------------+ | o | | Bathtub |
| | s | | |
| | e | +-----------+
| | t | |
| | | |
+--------=======--=======--+---+---======---+

Front Yard


===== - Windows

..... - Door open position

William George Ferguson

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 1:44:28 AM2/16/06
to
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:33:35 -0500, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net>
wrote:

And, of course, the basement, to Don's scale


+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
- |
_window |
| |-----|
| |-----|
} _ _ _+-----|
+ | | | | |
+coal chute |_|_|_|_____|
+ |
| |
|----| |-+ |
| | |
|furnace | |
+-------------------------------------------+

Every time we've seen the basement (Only once for AOQ) the stairs go down
from between the kitchen and pantry toward the front of the house. From
the basement view, we see the stairs come down along a wall to a small
landing, and then left down into the basement. Since the door at the top
is slightly over half way between the left wall of the house (facing
toward the back of the house, and the right wall, while the steps are
against the right wall of the basement, the basement clearly doesn't run
the full width of the house. However there is a small transom window (at
external ground level and a coal chute along the left wall, so it must be
contiguous with the left wall above. There are no windows along the rear
wall, and there isn't as much room between the stairs and the back wall as
there is above. The basement is mostly under the living room.


--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little

arnold kim

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 11:19:11 AM2/16/06
to

"Shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rngbc3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de...

> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> "I believe the subtext here is rapidly becoming, uh, text." Heh
>> again.
>
> An absolute gift for the internet fan. A quote that can be endlessly
> re-used when commenting on other episodes.
>
>> AOQ rating: Excellent
>
> I see I gave it a 3.5. I didn't mark it down because of the ending I
> just never got that into it. I did like the scenes where Buffy thinks
> she's killed him.
>
> A word about John Ritter. We never got Three's Company over here, or if
> we did I missed it. (We did of course have Man About the House) So I
> knew John mostly from a few movies. I was watching Ted again last night
> and thinking that people talk a lot about actors having an 'everyman'
> quality, but I think he really did. He manages to make you like him in

> the early scenes and then dials up the creepy convincingly later on. I
> think he's great in this episode.

Plus I'm amazed about how he did that robotic "twitch" so perfectly.
Underrated actor, IMO.

Arnold Kim


Daniel Damouth

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 12:40:14 PM2/16/06
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in
news:dsample-848ABB...@news.giganews.com:

Seems to me the stove is missing. Possible due to the limitations of
ASCII at this scale. Also it looks like there might be space to mark
the microwave. I think it was at least as prominent as the oven in
the show.

-Dan Damouth

drifter

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 5:11:23 PM2/16/06
to

And where's the "chompers?"

Oh, wait, that was Galaxy Quest.

--

Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."


One Bit Shy

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 11:13:59 PM2/16/06
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139969717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.

<snip>

> AOQ rating: Excellent

This is a fun thread to read through. A lot of interesting thoughts...

Good review. I'm a little surprised at how high the rating is, but I guess
the episode really engaged you. I've got no issue with what you wrote, but
I do have a couple things to say about Ted. (Actually a ton, but I'll try
to keep it to half a ton.)

I've always struggled some with this show. Not because of the robot end,
but because of the human beginning. Ted's character, the situation being
set up, how Ted goes about it - it's really creepy to me. (Human creepy.)
Something I personally find uncomfortably disturbing.

Joyce is the big victim in this piece and is being set up to have her life
destroyed in a controlling relationship with an evil man who plays on her
loneliness with deceit and, presumably, drugs. And threatens to sunder her
relationship with her daughter in the process. Oh, and she'll probably be
killed by him too and have her body stuffed in a closet with all the others.

My reaction to that makes it impossible for me to truly enjoy the first part
of the story. I'm not sure why I react that badly to it - far darker things
will occur in this series - but I do. So be it. For me, the revelation of
robot Ted was a tremendous relief. Not because it freed Buffy from the
burden of killing human Ted, but because the creepy Ted could no longer be a
threat and mother and daughter will have a chance to move on again.

I have other issues with the start, but really it's mostly my own problem.
And I confess that I do admire the deftness with which much of it was
crafted. The conversation with Angel where he speaks real words of wisdom,
yet still gets it all wrong. As if he was delivering Ted's lines and
helping make his scheme come true. And Willow's squeal of delight over her
computer upgrade - startling, a little out of character, and a whole lot
obviously manipulative - yet, endearing in spite of it. When I just watched
the episode I was thinking how adorable Willow looked in the early scenes.
(Buffy looked pretty fetching with Angel too... but I digress.) Willow's
reaction feels true in spite of how obviously manipulated she was. So she
seduces the audience into accepting the reality of Ted's seduction. That's
pretty good TV making I think.

Enough of that. Let me jump to the robot Ted issue. Some people appear to
consider the robot choice as a cop out - a kind of get out of jail free card
for Buffy. I absolutely do not agree.

Yes, Buffy is and should be taken aback by the consequences of abusing her
natural power through hubris, arrogance, or whatever term you prefer. But
what would have happened if Buffy had acted "responsibly" when he confronted
her in her room? Might that path have led to Joyce's body added to the pile
in Ted's closet? Buffy can't know the answer, but surely she must wonder.
The issue is not as clear cut as it first seemed when Ted's body was taken
away.

That's what the robot choice brings - a layer of moral ambiguity that didn't
exist before.

There's a moment soon after Ted's seeming death when Xander, acting kind of
dopey for the moment, asks Buffy what kind of monster Ted was - assuming
that Buffy could never slay a human. He comes off kind of badly then, but
that turns out to have been a pretty important scene - the mirror of the
earlier scene with Angel. Angel spoke wisely - and was shown to be dead
wrong. Xander spoke foolishly - and was shown to be dead right.

The lesson about the arrogance of power is still there for Buffy to ponder.
But by introducing the robot solution, the lesson is shown to be far from
easy to apply. Yes, there is responsibility in power. But how do you
really know when to apply it? In this case her instincts - contrary to
available wisdom - were shown to be right from the start. So is that the
answer? Rely on her instincts, her feelings? Or was she just lucky that
day?

To me, that's a classic Buffy conundrum and why robot Ted is a good choice.

Besides. I don't buy into the idea that carrying on the human drama of
dealing with his death would have been particularly good drama. It puts a
lot of hair rending and tears into my imagination and risks turning the show
into a very heavy handed morality play with a pat message straight out of
the after school specials somebody else was already reminded of.

It's also a hope killing approach - something difficult to recover from.
Especially in a one off story like this. Life is certainly filled with its
share of bad things. But part of the reason for persevering is that most of
those bad things could have been worse, and we find hope in the fortunes
that prevent that worst. The robot solution oddly represents that fortune.
This is Sunnydale, after all, where one's problems manifest as literal
monsters. Monsters one can slay.

To me that's extremely fitting to the whole Buffyverse premise and theme.


And, finally, speaking of moral ambiguity, I point to this exchange with
Willow near the end:


Willow: The sad part is the real Ted must've been a genius. There were
design features in that robot that pre-date...

Buffy: (interrupts) Willow, tell me you didn't keep any parts.

Willow: Not any big ones.

Buffy: Oh, Will, you're supposed to use your powers for good!

Willow: I just wanna learn stuff.

Cordelia: Like how to build your own serial killer?

Willow frowns.


Willow's words and expressions tell me that it's pretty clear that Willow
did indeed keep parts and has no intention of listening to Buffy's
admonition - she just won't talk about it anymore.

I'm just saying...

Cheers,
OBS


mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 12:10:20 AM2/17/06
to
> Enough of that. Let me jump to the robot Ted issue. Some people appear to
> consider the robot choice as a cop out - a kind of get out of jail free card
> for Buffy. I absolutely do not agree.

i robot you joyce

arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him

drifter

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 5:46:54 AM2/17/06
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:

/some snippage occurs/

> AOQ rating: Excellent

The oddest thing about reading the replys to this thread is
how much better "Ted" seems to have gotten since it was aired.
Most of the replies seem to state how good the episode was,
while I recall that when it aired, it was almost universaly hated.
I liked it the first time I saw it (Ritter did an awsome job, I
thought) but then again,
V nyfb yvxr "Orre Onq" juvpu hfhnyyl fpberf cerggl ybj ba gur
Orfg bs Ohssl yvfg. (Ubj pna lbh abg yvxr Pnir Ohssl?)
--

Kel
"I reject your reality, naq fhofgvghgr zl bja."


vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 6:05:05 AM2/17/06
to
In article <vQhJf.325$vx6...@fe04.lga>, "drifter" <ne...@home.net>
wrote:

> V nyfb yvxr "Orre Onq" juvpu hfhnyyl fpberf cerggl ybj ba gur
> Orfg bs Ohssl yvfg. (Ubj pna lbh abg yvxr Pnir Ohssl?

Me too. Cyhf Cnexre orvat ba gur erpvrivat raq bs gur Jengu bs Jvyybj.

John Briggs

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 6:12:27 AM2/17/06
to
One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> Willow's words and expressions tell me that it's pretty clear that
> Willow did indeed keep parts and has no intention of listening to
> Buffy's admonition - she just won't talk about it anymore.

Fb Jvyybj pbhyq unir tbar rvgure jnl? Fur pbhyq unir orpbzr Jneera?
--
John Briggs


Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 7:04:02 AM2/17/06
to
And with that subject change, I take away the rot13, I'll just adds some
spoilerspace for the fast but unspoiled reader:

t

h

i

s


i

s


a

b

o

u

t

l

a

t

e

r

.

.

.


On 17.02.2006 11:46, drifter wrote:
,
> I also like "Beer Bad" which usually scores pretty low on the
> Best of Buffy list. (How can you not like Cave Buffy?)

They should know better than to make the Cave Slayer unhappy . :-D

I have always loved Beer Bad.

Regarding season two, and my own low score on many season two episodes:
i liked the ones so many hated, from the start. But they ended up with
low grades on my top144 list due to the way I compiled my list: first i
rated each season, then I just tried to merge the seasons. I think I
ended up mearging in many S2 episodes to low. The season in itself just
have so many great epioses. I think I only dislike Bad Eggs and Go Fish,
with Dark Age as a borderline case...

BTW let's stop telling AoQ he is in the best season. Let him find out
this sad fact by himself..

--
Espen


Noe er Feil[tm]

Stephen Tempest

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 9:30:53 AM2/17/06
to
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes:

Jryy, fur jnf gur bar jub ercnverq naq ercebtenzzrq gur Ohsslobg.
Znlor cneg bs vgf bcrengvat flfgrz jnf onfrq ba Grq i 2.0 ?

More generally, it's a good indication that despite her air of cute
and sweet innocence, Willow's character isn't exactly flawless - right
there alongside her love of hacking into other people's secure
computer systems...

Stephen

Stephen Tempest

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 9:36:01 AM2/17/06
to
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> writes:

That scene actually struck a big chord with me first time I watched
it.

Here's Buffy acting all Neanderthal, and it looks like the scene is
being played for broad comedy... then you suddenly realise that a
Slayer running on id and ego alone, with no civilised restraints on
her behaviour, is actually incredibly dangerous. And just as this was
dawning on me, the same thought evidently hit Xander...

I wonder if there was deliberate foreshadowing of 'Restless' going on?
:)

Stephen

John Briggs

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 1:19:24 PM2/17/06
to

Creuncf fur jnf bevtvanyyl vagraqrq gb unir ohvyg gur Ohsslobg?
--
John Briggs


William George Ferguson

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 1:52:16 PM2/17/06
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:12:27 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>One Bit Shy wrote:
>>
>> Willow's words and expressions tell me that it's pretty clear that
>> Willow did indeed keep parts and has no intention of listening to
>> Buffy's admonition - she just won't talk about it anymore.

It was established early that, despite her stammering, self-effacing,
outward manner, Willow is extremely strong-willed, even stubborn,
governed by her own desire and limited only by her own moral code, and
the immediate threat of force majeaure, that is, she ignores advice she
doesn't like, and yields to authority only when authority has a big
enough club and is in immediate position to use it. We've known that
about her since we learned that she had 'accidentally' decrypted the city
government online records before she had ever met Buffy.

This can lead to go results that are good (she can provide a map of
Sunnydale's undercround access tunnels and sewer system) and bad
(Moloch).

>Fb Jvyybj pbhyq unir tbar rvgure jnl? Fur pbhyq unir orpbzr Jneera?

Vafgrnq bs evccvat Jneera gb furqf naq oybbqlvat hc gur sberfg qbvat vg,
gura tbvat nsgre Naqerj naq Wbanguna naq evccvat gur fhaalqnyr cbyvpr
ohvyqvat ncneg gb trg ng gurz, fhpxvat Enpx qel, xvpxvat rirel fdhner
vapu bs Ohssl'f nff, chggvat n frevbhf, arne-sngny orng-qbja ba Tvyrf,
naq gelvat gb qrfgebl gur jbeyq?

In talking about a future storyline that some people said came out of
nowhere, I always say that the roots of the storyline go back to at least
season 2, this is the 'at least season 2' point.

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 3:15:53 PM2/17/06
to

Exactly. It only "came out of nowhere" if they weren't paying attention.

--
Rowan Hawthorn

"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"

Scythe Matters

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 3:08:51 PM2/17/06
to

Vg svgf gur trareny gurzr gung Jvyybj graqf gb npdhver xabjyrqtr & cbjre
(naq rkrepvfr gurz) jvgubhg ertneq sbe gurve pbafrdhraprf.

One Bit Shy

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 8:35:20 PM2/17/06
to
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vciJf.30958$Fy4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

Qrcraqf ba ubj lbh ybbx ng vg V fhccbfr.

Ab, orpnhfr Jneera vf sne gbb penff.

Lrf, fur fbeg bs qvq ol gnxvat bire uvf ebobg, hfvat ure cbjre gb pbageby
ure tveysevraq, naq yngre bar hccvat uvz ol fubjvat uvz jung n erny zheqre
vf yvxr.

Ohg ybbxvat ng lbhe dhrfgvba zber qverpgyl, V fhccbfr fur pbhyq unir tbar
gur ebobgvpf ebhgr, ohg gur zntvpf raqrq hc vagevthvat ure zber. Fgvyy, fur
zhfg unir rkcyberq vg fbzr zber gb unir orra fb nqrcg jvgu gur Ohsslobg
yngre ba.

V jnfa'g guvaxvat gung fcrpvsvpnyyl jura V vapyhqrq gur dhbgr, gubhtu. V
whfg jnagrq gb qrzbafgengr ubj zbeny nzovthvgl cynlf na vzcbegnag ebyr va
Grq, va gur punenpgref, & gur fubj va trareny.

Bu, bar zber cbffvoyr nafre. Ab. Jvyybj pbhyq arire or Jneera. Ure
cbfgher vf gbb tbbq.

OBS


George W Harris

unread,
Feb 18, 2006, 3:15:44 AM2/18/06
to
On 15 Feb 2006 08:38:32 -0800, "Sam" <hyperevol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

:It would have been nice if "Ted" had stuck with the mundanity. Or if
:"The X-Files" had discovered, just once, that there was nothing strange
:going on after all.

There was the episode with the necrophiliac.
:
:--Sam

vague disclaimer

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 12:42:07 PM2/19/06
to
In article <dt4e0d$6qf$1...@readme.uio.no>,
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:

I won't tell him it's the best, because that would be a falsehood.

alphakitten

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 12:54:46 PM2/19/06
to

Amen.


~Angel

KenM47

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 12:56:15 PM2/19/06
to
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:

I just want to note that I don't think I ever had a more extreme
turnaround than with Beer Bad. My rec is hating it when it aired. When
I did get around to re-watching it in sequence, I loved it and have
ever since.

Ken (Brooklyn)

KenM47

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 1:02:07 PM2/19/06
to
alphakitten <alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:


My rec is that when polls were conducted, a sizeable group of posters
here were split b/t 2 and 3. Yes other seasons were not forgotten, but
the sine curve was up there with 2 and 3. IIRC, I've personally always
gone with 2.

Ken (Brooklyn)

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 1:15:30 PM2/19/06
to

I have noticed that in this particular newsgroup the earlier seasons
tend to be favored much higher than the later ones. However, in most of
the other boards, blogs, etc... the later seasons tend to be favored
more so than the earlier ones. I wonder why?

(please note that by groups, I am referring to general Btvs groups and
not the Spike centric ones.)

My personal season ratings go S5, S6, S3, S2, S4, S7 and S1.

I will say that S5 and S6 volley back and forth for personal favorite
season.

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 3:32:10 PM2/19/06
to
On 19.02.2006 19:15, MBangel10 (Melissa) wrote:


>>>>>
>>>>> t
>>>>>
>>>>> h
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>>>
>>>>> s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>>>
>>>>> s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>> b
>>>>>
>>>>> o
>>>>>
>>>>> u
>>>>>
>>>>> t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>> t
>>>>>
>>>>> e
>>>>>
>>>>> r
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>

> I have noticed that in this particular newsgroup the earlier seasons

> tend to be favored much higher than the later ones. However, in most of
> the other boards, blogs, etc... the later seasons tend to be favored
> more so than the earlier ones. I wonder why?
>
> (please note that by groups, I am referring to general Btvs groups and
> not the Spike centric ones.)
>
> My personal season ratings go S5, S6, S3, S2, S4, S7 and S1.
>
> I will say that S5 and S6 volley back and forth for personal favorite
> season.

The reason why is this: now, the ones who really loved season two and
three, has seen the series som many times, it will - even this series -
fade about away.

So the ones who loved season six and seven has had their love faded
less, as it is fewer years since this aired.

--
Espen

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 3:41:44 PM2/19/06
to

That makes sense. The ones who either quit watching the show pre-season
5 (or so) or loved the earlier seasons much more have most likely moved
on by now.

The late season fans are still alive and kicking in the fandom. Luckily,
with all the fanfiction still coming out, it's going to be quite awhile
before it fades away. I'm hoping with the new line of comic books JW is
planning and such... it will add some new life to the fandom and it will
continue on.

I've yet to find a new fandom that has captured my attention as much as
this one. Heck, this is the *only* one I've ever been a part of. :)

KenM47

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 3:55:45 PM2/19/06
to
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:


Me too. And I detest 6 and 7 almost in their entireties (and Angel
pretty much everything after whatever that other dimension was called
where Lorne came from - blocking! Oh yeah, Pylea).

Ken (Brooklyn)

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 4:09:20 PM2/19/06
to

I've not followed in this newsgroup faithfully over the years and I'm
sure it's been argued to death, but why? I thought S6 and S7 had some of
the best episodes of the entire series, and I enjoyed the story lines in
them.

I suppose I'm a bit of a redemptionist, so I got a particular enjoyment
out of the later seasons. I know not everyone else is but still, there
was some great stuff in them.

KenM47

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 4:34:49 PM2/19/06
to
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:


This discussion usually gets lots of folks angry,
so, I'll keep it to the short version:

Every character we cared about for 5 seasons didn't so much as "grow
up" as become totally unlikable. From Willow's drug/magic/power
addiction, to Giles abandonment of his charge and his duties, to
Xander's cruddy abandonment of Anya at the altar, to Buffy's endless
wallowing.

The plots were poor. The good natured humor was gone. Continuity was
thrown to the winds in favor of titillation. The fans were also
betrayed by the manner of presentation of and retcon contained within
Normal Again.

What had been extraordinary became common. Less than common.

I have not rewatched S6 or S7 except a couple of episodes like Normal
Again to try to recall why I so thoroughly disliked them.

I'm of the school the story was complete at The Gift. If it had to go
on, then The Gift was the wrong ending. The Key, not Buffy should have
closed that portal.

Lots more, and this has already gotten longer than I intended. I do
not mean to be rude, but this has been gone over many, many times here
and only leads to bad feelings from the detestors and the defenders.

Ken (Brooklyn)

MBangel10 (Melissa)

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 4:45:12 PM2/19/06
to

Wow. You feel strongly about this. I can understand why people would
argue over it, so I won't. However, I look at pretty much everything you
stated as the direct opposite. I thought some of the best stories came
out of the later seasons and as someone else who has watched from the
beginning, I felt the continuity was spot on. Matter of fact, I simply
cannot imagine the show being any different and continue to hold my
interest as it still does.

Obviously, I have problems with certain aspects throughout seasons but
all in all, from S1 thru S7 - Buffy was the best darn show on TV. Period.

Mel

unread,
Feb 19, 2006, 6:04:35 PM2/19/06
to

MBangel10 (Melissa) wrote:


I don't normally rate stuff, but when I think about what I like best,
season by season, it usally comes out:

S5, S6, S2, S3, S7, S4, S1

I put S2 ahead of S3 simply because I really didn't like Faith at all,
ever, and S7 overall ahead of S4, though there are some S4 episodes that
are favorites. S1 is last simply because it's only half a season. Still
liked them all though, which is why I bought the dvds!


Mel


alphakitten

unread,
Feb 20, 2006, 2:53:41 AM2/20/06
to

Same here, entirely.

Matter of fact, I simply
> cannot imagine the show being any different and continue to hold my
> interest as it still does.
>
> Obviously, I have problems with certain aspects throughout seasons but
> all in all, from S1 thru S7 - Buffy was the best darn show on TV. Period.
>

Again, I humbly agree.

~Angel

alphakitten

unread,
Feb 20, 2006, 3:24:25 AM2/20/06
to

Mine goes;


S7 - yes, I know I'm in the minority but I love the pants off it. I have
a lot of the same problems with the SIT arc that most other people do,
but overall I find it the most thrilling, visceral season and IMO, it
boasts the most great eps and the fewest bad ones of any other year.


S5 - I always puzzle over people who complain about S6 and S7 being too
depressing. S5 is by far the bleakest and most painful season. Luckily,
I'm quite fond of bleak and painful.

S6 - Speaking of bleak and painful! Not a fan of either crack whore or
darth Willow but aside from that (and the mid season slump), I adore S6.
The Trio, the good bad and ugly of Spuffy, the stronger Tara and the
musical, my favorite ep of any television show ever.

S3 - On one hand, it's remarkably consistent in high ep quality, which
was a welcome change from the first two seasons. On the other, I can't
think of a single S3 ep which I find *quite* as great as the best eps of
S2 - S7. But I heart Faith and the Mayor, so it ranks higher than S2 &
S4 for me.

S4 - Restless. Who You Are. Superstar. Pangs. Hush. Those are the
reasons I'm placing this above S2. The initiative arc is a mess, Mr Bits
sucked and I loathe Riley. But I love the show for daring to change and
grow when it was necessary - so few do. And again...Restless. Who You
Are. Superstar. Pangs. Hush.

S2 - Hits and misses all over the place but the hits are extraordinary
and the misses are mostly pretty good too.


S1 - Again with the hits and misses, but fewer hits and the misses kind
of suck. But I love it anyway. Did I mention how much I *love* this show? :)

~Angel

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 20, 2006, 6:28:53 AM2/20/06
to
On 20.02.2006 00:04, Mel wrote:

>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> u
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e
>>>>>>
>>>>>> r
>>>>>>

> I put S2 ahead of S3 simply because I really didn't like Faith at all,
> ever,

Wow. You didn't like _Faith_?

Wow. So, there are really all kinds of people in this world...

You didn't like _Faith_?

--
Espen

hopelessly devoted

unread,
Feb 20, 2006, 6:35:46 AM2/20/06
to

I would also have to second that. Wow!!!!!!!

Eric Hunter

unread,
Feb 20, 2006, 7:22:13 AM2/20/06
to

>>>>> merge the seasons. I think I ended up merging in many S2


>>>>> episodes to low. The season in itself just have so many great

>>>>> episodes. I think I only dislike Bad Eggs and Go Fish, with Dark


>>>>> Age as a borderline case...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW let's stop telling AoQ he is in the best season. Let him find
>>>>> out this sad fact by himself..
>>>>
>>>> I won't tell him it's the best, because that would be a falsehood.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amen.
>>

>> My rec is that when polls were conducted, a sizeable group of posters
>> here were split b/t 2 and 3. Yes other seasons were not forgotten,
>> but the sine curve was up there with 2 and 3. IIRC, I've personally
>> always gone with 2.
>>

> I have noticed that in this particular newsgroup the earlier seasons
> tend to be favored much higher than the later ones. However, in most
> of the other boards, blogs, etc... the later seasons tend to be
> favored more so than the earlier ones. I wonder why?

There is a small, but very vocal sub-group here who feel
that the show declined after S3, S4, or S5. Part of the
difference comes from the fact that this group was
created in '97 when BtVS was first shown, while web-
boards tended to develop later, so late season fans are
more likely to be there. I don't think this group as a
whole favors the early seasons; most of us appreciate
the entire run and the changes and growth that the
characters experienced, but we're not as strident in
expressing our opinion as the "UPN-Buffy sucked",
and the "Everything after high-school sucked" sub-
groups are.

Eric.
--

Mel

unread,
Feb 20, 2006, 11:39:54 PM2/20/06
to

Espen Schjønberg wrote:


She's just the type of person that I really can't stand. Oh yeah, and
she went psycho evil for, imo, no good reason.

Maybe when AOQ gets to that part of S3, someone can explain just exactly
what Faith's motivation was to side with the mayor. I can understand
wanting to buck the system, and early Wesley would make just about
anyone want to stake themselves, but why turn on the only friend she
had? Made no sense to me. Hence, my dislike grew.

Her best moment was kicking the crap out of Connor. Of course, he
actually deserved it.


Mel

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 12:14:28 AM2/21/06
to

I left all that spoiler space in just to say: I agree with everything
you just said. Now, I'd have sorely missed the story that Faith brought
with her, but, no, I don't like *her*. Although I began to think a
little better of her during Season 7.

Mel

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 1:35:52 AM2/21/06
to

Rowan Hawthorn wrote:

Yes, I agree the story was good. It showed yet another "road not taken"
for Buffy, a road we also saw a bit of in "The Wish." Very good contrast
in characters between the two of them.


Mel

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:06:11 AM2/21/06
to
On 21.02.2006 05:39, Mel wrote:
>
>
> Espen Schjønberg wrote:
>
>> On 20.02.2006 00:04, Mel wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> o
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> u
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> r
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>> I put S2 ahead of S3 simply because I really didn't like Faith at
>>> all, ever,
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow. You didn't like _Faith_?
>>
>> Wow. So, there are really all kinds of people in this world...
>>
>> You didn't like _Faith_?
>>
>
>
> She's just the type of person that I really can't stand. Oh yeah, and
> she went psycho evil for, imo, no good reason.

No-one trusted her, hence, she trusted nobody. It was really logical!

If Buff had just told her about Angel! and possibly even before she told
anybody else. that would have been treating her the way Faith - as a
part of the chosen two - deserved. Also, it would have been the easyest
person to start with - Faith did not have any grudge to Angel.

At least, if Buffy had been more honest at the end of Revelations. Buffy
claims at this point to have been honest - but should instead had been
immediately apologetic. It should have been obvious for her she made
Faith choise who to trust, and Faith was just unlucky. Buffy could have
controlled this situation if she had treaten Faith the way she deserved.
After this, Faith never trusts Buffy. And she _had_ a reason not to:
Buffy had not trusted and treated Faith badly for no reason.

> Her best moment was kicking the crap out of Connor. Of course, he
> actually deserved it.

Connor. So, you all hated him? I never realized _why_ they wanted to
have him in the show. But he and Faith was nice together.

--
Espen

alphakitten

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:19:36 AM2/21/06
to

Buffy did not make Faith do anything. While it's true that she was let
down, I blame Giles for that, not Buffy. Faith was not her responsibility.

From her arrival to Bad Girls, Giles was supposed to be her watcher but
he never took the slightest interest in her. We never saw him training
one on one with her and he made no effort to find her more appropriate
living arrangements. He just left a clearly troubled teenage girl alone
in a seedy motel. Great form, Ripper.

However, this does not excuse her either. Faith went over to the dark
side on her own. She made the choice. Let down and mistreated or not,
she is ultimatley responsible for her own actions.

~Angel

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:38:34 AM2/21/06
to

This is the great conclusion she reaches, because she really turns out
to have much more than the fraction of a soul the self-rightous gang
places her on.

She is dererted by both Buffy and Giles. of course, you can say Giles'
is worst, but if there are any sisters in this series - it should have
been Buffy and Faith.

If Buffy fight "on the side of love", the good side, they should really
have shown this to Faith. what they show, is that the "good" guys are
nothing more than selfish bastards.

i really think Faiths turning to the Mayor- who so turned out to love
her! was really really motivated.

And we discussed motivation here, not if Faith was guilty as charged.

--
Espen


Noe er Feil[tm]

alphakitten

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 9:44:31 AM2/21/06
to

Buffy is not obligated to like or trust Faith just because they're both
slayers.


~Angel

hopelessly devoted

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:54:09 PM2/21/06
to

Sorry, but Giles was never Faith's watcher. Each slayer has his/her
own watcher. Faith's watcher was killed, replaced, crazy, killed.....
The real inconsistency comes when Wesley is responsible for 2 instead
of one.

If blame is to be given, we should go even one more and blame all of
them for not taking more of an interest, as well as the Watcher's
Council. However, I believe that to be the whole point. In
retrospect, if someone, anyone had shown a passing interest............

Ultimately, someone did.

hopelessly devoted

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:56:26 PM2/21/06
to

Sorry. Meant to say
Each watcher has his/her own slayer.

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 3:15:41 PM2/21/06
to
On 21.02.2006 20:56, hopelessly devoted wrote:

> hopelessly devoted wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>b
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>o
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>u
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>t
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>t
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>r

>
>

> Sorry. Meant to say
> Each watcher has his/her own slayer.

Giles is given the job of Faith.

It's in the show. In Faith, Hope and trick.

And he really doesn't care about her. I am with the poster who blames
Giles: Giles so don't care about Faith, it is really sad.

The CW really does a crappy job here anyway, they should have sent
someone instantly, Giles should only be allowed to be her watcher for
the time to take a plane across the atlantic. That is, so short no-one
notices he doesn't do his job at all...

alphakitten

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 3:13:22 PM2/21/06
to

hopelessly devoted wrote:>
> Sorry, but Giles was never Faith's watcher. Each slayer has his/her
> own watcher. Faith's watcher was killed, replaced, crazy, killed.....


Yes, he was - he was instructed to act as her watcher, he says so in
FH&T. Excluding the couple of days when Ms Post was pretending to be her
watcher, Faith was Giles' charge until Wesley arrived.


~Angel

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages