AOQ Review 7-14: "First Date"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
(or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
motherfuckin' restaurant!")
Writer: Jane Espenson
Director: David Grossman
And sure enough, we finally get rid of the chip after last week's
non-suspense and leave Spike able to attack people ("then what the
hell did you tackle me for, you berk? What's that supposed to do?").
Giles, the tacklee, still doesn't explain exactly how the occasion
to talk about his near death never came up before. Did that exist
solely for the purpose of a silly C-story? Lame.
The conversation in Buffy's room afterwards is the episode's most
interesting scene for me, ending with an unhappy Watcher kinda
deferring in the "I'm not convinced but what can I do?" he does
so often in the later years. There's a sense of how important it is
to Buffy to let Spike have the chance to be a man. Giles does put his
finger on one point worth making, at least, and the exasperation on the
first sentence of it is nice. "It doesn't matter if you're not
physical with each other anymore. There's a connection. You rely on
him, he relies on you." And as always with B/S stuff, whether
that's affecting her judgment is left as a matter of opinion. You
have to love their loaded and unresolved exchange at the end of the
episode... or do if you're like me and enjoy the doubles moping
event.
It's the designated time to finally find out what the story with
Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
year. The ambiguous date has the potential for creepy implications,
although it's defused some by Woodside's endearing delivery on
lines like "I'm certainly not saying 'come to dinner if you enjoy
having a job.' You know, I may have to make up a document saying I
didn't just say that and have you sign it." Buffy really goes for
the older men, all throughout the series. I'm sure those who write
books on the metaphorical implications of the show have lots to say
about that. As I'd suspected, he's a vampire fighter too, revealed
after the expected vamp attack (I do like how the show makes us - and
Buffy - assume that he set her up. Figured he was trying to get a
sense of how good she was or something). Making him a vigilante
working solo has some promise, though, since he represents an unChosen
drawn into the world of vampires and Slayers in a way not usually seen
outside the main cast. The casual stake-twirling afterwards reminded
me of a Samuel L. Jackson character - very rarely a bad thing. The
moment he mentioned that his mother was a Slayer, I knew it was Afro
Slayer from "Fool For Love;" I don't know whether or not this was
meant to be an obvious conclusion for the viewer.
Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
congregating, is all right for what it is. There's a certain charm
in the initial flirting with Lissa ("in conclusion, rope can be
useful in various ways"). Beyond that, this episode tries for a
slightly unusual kind of joke. There are a few flippant comments about
Xander's history as a demon magnet. A few times he actually treats
this date turning out to be a demon as a real possibility, in a
half-serious manner. The expectation is firmly set in stone for any
viewer to pick up on... and then his date shockingly turns out to be an
evil demon. Anyway, this part is okay, and calls back to the early
years by having him be the damsel in distress one more time. I'm not
sure how much to read into his continuing to hold himself responsible
for canceling the wedding with regard to his lack of a successful
relationship in the year since. Anya's, shall we say, conflicted
feelings are used to good effect. When is the show going to put them
back together? Just screw and make up already.
Besides being back on the Chaka Kahn kick, the First is also up to
something else involving Andrew and good-sounding platitudes about how
everyone else gets a chance at forgiveness, why not him? The First is
being Jonathan Levinson, so Danny Strong can bring out a side of his
personality that's not so relentlessly whiny. I did think there was
a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure,
so the hopeless transparent-ness of his attempt to pump the Big Bad for
information comes as something of a relief. And the subsequent
defiance achieves the strange task of being empowering for the
character at the same time as it makes him look ridiculous. Going
through a girl's underwear drawer without permission is of course not
nice and evil, though.
Dawn and Andrew are definitely warming to each other, as had been clear
would happen.
Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
I'm not sure I like. This follows up on my problem last week with
treating the Scoobies as the bumbling idiots who're lost without
Buffy and hopelessly outmatched by the big supernatural world. I think
the sense of the disorganized group of kids and young people not
knowing what to do could theoretically be worth developing, but don't
see what the excess dumb accomplishes. No, didn't like it much in S4
either. Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
impatient with their antics, and his final speech could almost be a
message that to the viewer that it's time to shift the show into high
gear again - no more comedy episodes. Well, we'll see.
Wood's reaction upon finally getting to meet the First is to
dramatically walk through it. Guy likes the gestures. I think the
cryptically loaded delivery on "thank you" is good.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed anyway moment(s):
- Bidet of evil
- "I'll go get Buffy," after about the third time
This review seems more devoid of actual content than usual. In case
anyone hadn't guessed, I really don't have anything of note to say
about this episode.
Lissa's actor, Ashanti (another one-word name) is apparently a
popular singer or model or something. EVS. Pop culture.
So...
One-sentence summary: Diverting enough.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Seven so far:
1) "Lessons" - Good
2) "Beneath You" - Decent
3) "Same Time, Same Place" - Excellent
4) "Help" - Good
5) "Selfless" - SUPERLATIVE
6) "Him" - Bad
7) "Conversations With Dead People" - Good
8) "Sleeper" - Decent
9) "Never Leave Me" - Good
10) "Bring On The Night" - Decent
11) "Showtime" - Good
12) "Potential" - Good
13) "The Killer In Me" - Weak
14) "First Date" - Decent]
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
>
> It's the designated time to finally find out what the story with
> Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
> year. The ambiguous date has the potential for creepy implications,
> although it's defused some by Woodside's endearing delivery on
> lines like "I'm certainly not saying 'come to dinner if you enjoy
> having a job.' You know, I may have to make up a document saying I
> didn't just say that and have you sign it." Buffy really goes for
> the older men, all throughout the series. I'm sure those who write
> books on the metaphorical implications of the show have lots to say
> about that. As I'd suspected, he's a vampire fighter too, revealed
> after the expected vamp attack (I do like how the show makes us - and
> Buffy - assume that he set her up. Figured he was trying to get a
> sense of how good she was or something). Making him a vigilante
> working solo has some promise, though, since he represents an unChosen
> drawn into the world of vampires and Slayers in a way not usually seen
> outside the main cast. The casual stake-twirling afterwards reminded
> me of a Samuel L. Jackson character - very rarely a bad thing. The
> moment he mentioned that his mother was a Slayer, I knew it was Afro
> Slayer from "Fool For Love;" I don't know whether or not this was
> meant to be an obvious conclusion for the viewer.
Since pretty much everyone figured it out, I think it was meant to be
that obvious.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
stev...@earthlink.net
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
One strange scene for me in this episode is when Wood is driving Buffy
and Spike to the school. Spike is sitting in the centre of the back
seat, and Wood seems to look into the rear-view mirror, but he never
reacts to not seeing Spike behind him.
Rincewind
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
Welcome back, Arbitrar.
I hate this episode for a lot of reasons, but I don't have time to go into
all the details so I will just mention the most annoying bits.
> The conversation in Buffy's room afterwards is the episode's most
> interesting scene for me, ending with an unhappy Watcher kinda
> deferring in the "I'm not convinced but what can I do?" he does
> so often in the later years.
First problem: FOUR episodes ago Buffy saw the principal doing something
suspicious and NOW she decides to mention it?
> There's a sense of how important it is
> to Buffy to let Spike have the chance to be a man.
BUFFY: We can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
Mark those words.
Buffy doesn't often happen to make basic statements of principle, so this
must be important.
It's good to see that after all that she has been through she still believes
in this fundamental moral principle, which is basically the same principle
that led her to give her life at the end of season 5 rather than kill Dawn
to save the world.
I trust the writers will not forget it in later episodes...
> Giles does put his
> finger on one point worth making, at least, and the exasperation on the
> first sentence of it is nice. "It doesn't matter if you're not
> physical with each other anymore. There's a connection. You rely on
> him, he relies on you."
Why is this a point worth making?
Isn't this what life is all about: people relying on each other, having
feelings for each other, helping each other in moments of need?
Wasn't this the whole point of the series: Buffy is different than other
slayers because she is not just a heartless killing machine but a complete
human being with feelings and friends and a human approach to the whole
slayer business. Now suddenly Giles expects her to be like Kendra?
> Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
> congregating, is all right for what it is. There's a certain charm
> in the initial flirting with Lissa ("in conclusion, rope can be
> useful in various ways"). Beyond that, this episode tries for a
> slightly unusual kind of joke. There are a few flippant comments about
> Xander's history as a demon magnet. A few times he actually treats
> this date turning out to be a demon as a real possibility, in a
> half-serious manner. The expectation is firmly set in stone for any
> viewer to pick up on... and then his date shockingly turns out to be an
> evil demon. Anyway, this part is okay, and calls back to the early
> years by having him be the damsel in distress one more time.
I'm going to quote a few lines from Ace's recap for Television Without Pity:
"Suddenly Willow gets a text message. It's from Xander, and it's in code,
but Willow can't remember if it's the code for "I just got lucky -- don't
call me for a while" or "My date's a demon who's trying to kill me." Wolf,
one of our brilliantly funny posters, postulated that Xander's ambiguous
message must have been I M FCKED. More importantly, how did Xander send this
message? With his penis?
This episode hangs together like it's made of nothing more than wet string
and chewing gum.
In response to the numerous queries about exactly how Xander managed to
message Willow despite being bound to a giant wheel, Jane Espenson, the
writer for this episode, commented that there was probably a point after
Ashanti had revealed her evil intentions but before Xander was tied up that
he became conscious in Ashanti's car and managed to message Willow.
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. Y'know, when the plot goes from C to X, the
viewers actually need to see a few of the letters in between.
I find the comment by Jane very telling, for two reasons: (1) even the
writers have been reduced to fanwanking, and (2) the surprise expressed by
Jane that the viewers thought this was a plot hole means that there is
NOBODY looking at these scripts to make sure that they even make sense."
> Anya's, shall we say, conflicted
> feelings are used to good effect.
Best line of the episode:
ANYA: My feelings are changeable but intense.
> Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
> impatient with their antics,
So, Xander had a very traumatic experience which involved a sword stuck in
his guts and the expectation to die tonight, and when he finally gets home
to his friends he doesn't have the right to release the tension with a few
jokes...
Oh yeah, Giles' characterization is getting better and better: this is
really a believable behaviour for him.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Diverting enough.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
This is one of the worst episodes of the season for me: Weak.
Rincewind.
--
Lines you'll never hear on Buffy:
SPIKE: Yeah Buffy. I'm over you. Seems the love was a side-effect of the
chip. Later.
Don Sample
"Rincewind" <rincewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In response to the numerous queries about exactly how Xander managed to
> message Willow despite being bound to a giant wheel, Jane Espenson, the
> writer for this episode, commented that there was probably a point after
> Ashanti had revealed her evil intentions but before Xander was tied up that
> he became conscious in Ashanti's car and managed to message Willow.
> Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. Y'know, when the plot goes from C to X, the
> viewers actually need to see a few of the letters in between.
> I find the comment by Jane very telling, for two reasons: (1) even the
> writers have been reduced to fanwanking, and (2) the surprise expressed by
> Jane that the viewers thought this was a plot hole means that there is
> NOBODY looking at these scripts to make sure that they even make sense."
Or, he sent the "I'm getting lucky, don't bother me" message, using his
hands, when he still thought he was going to get lucky.
Elisi
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
This is one of my favourite ever episodes - but since I do not have the
time right now to reply properly to your post, instead I'll post what I
wrote after re-waching 'Never Kill A Boy On The First Date' recently.
You'll be surprised I hope:
I shall now try to let you in on what my brain was doing as I watched
'Never Kill a Boy on the First Date' (and all subsequent stuff
too!). Because I am sad and obsessed and Jane Espenson *so* did it on
purpose! (Most of it anyway.)
There are so many parallels as to be freaky, but even more interesting
is where the episodes *don't* match up - where the stories of the
seasons are so very different, and also showing how far the characters
have come from where they started. And how some have gone, but those
having filled their place are remarkably similar...
Both episodes start in a cemetery. In 'Never Kill a Boy on the First
Date' (henceforth called 'Never Kill' because that name is just
too long), Giles is correcting Buffy's slaying technique - in
'First Date' he is telling the potential Slayers how he defeated a
Bringer. In both cases he will later retract his statements (Buffy is
doing very well in her Slaying - he only knew the Bringer was there
because of its squeaking shoes). But that doesn't mean that the
situations are the same...
In both episodes a date is at the centre of the story. In 'Never
Kill' Buffy is practically throwing herself at Owen - trying to
appear well-read to impress him, although everyone makes fun of this.
In 'First Date' we have a very similar scenario where Buffy is
hoping that maybe she has impressed Wood with her counselling, and yet
again people do not take her seriously.
Now about the boys... in both eps Willow and Buffy have nice long chats
about the guys.
Here's Willow's (very impressed) assessment of Owen: "Wow! He
hardly talks to anyone. He's solitary, mysterious... He can brood for
forty minutes straight, I've clocked him."
Sound familiar? He's also tall and handsome of course - and he has a
pulse! Not that Buffy knows that Angel's a vampire at this point of
course, but Owen is essentially a more accessible Angel.
And here's (a part of) Buffy's thoughts on Wood: "He's
good-looking, and he's-he's solid, he's smart, he's normal. So, not
the wicked energy, which is nice 'cause I don't want to only be
attracted to wicked energy. Or what if he is wicked, in which case, is
that why I'm attracted to him?"
Robin, it turns out, has a fair bit of 'wicked energy' (=
'Spike-like'). Handsome, smart, good fighter, has a thing for
Slayers... of course there's also the bonus of the heartbeat!
So, like Owen is to Angel, Wood is to Spike. A slightly watered-down
version that is a lot easier to manage - or so it seems. But in both
cases Buffy will not take the safe option - she will follow her heart
to the difficult man (as far as we can see so far anyway).
Giles is not very understanding in either ep. This is very
understandable, but it's intersting to see just how much Buffy has
changed in the intervening years. In S1 her date was pretty much the
most important thing in the world. In S7 she's cautious and worried,
hardly daring to think it'll end well. (Poor Buffy)
In 'Never Kill':
Buffy: But... Cute guy! Teenager! Post-pubescent fantasies!
Giles: Those will just have to be put on hold! The dark forces are
aligning against us, and we have a chance to beat them back. Tonight we
go into battle!
In 'First Date':
Willow: Actually, Buffy's investigating Principal Wood. It's not a
date.
Giles: Really.
Willow: Might be a date.
Giles: For God's sake! How can anyone think about their social life? We
are about to fight the original primal evil. These girls are in mortal
danger. Didn't you see the flashcards? This isn't right.
Now concerning those forces of darkness, in both cases there's a
false lead. In 'First Date' First!Jonathan talks to Andrew and it
seems like Andrew is going along with the plan he's been given. But
in the end he comes down firmly on the side of good.
In 'Never Kill' we have a bus full of people, one of whom is likely
to become The Anointed One. Giles reckons it's the (half-crazy)
_Andrew_ Borba, who's wanted for double murder... but, although
he's been sired, he turns out not to be the one.
Now the dates themselves... there's obviously a great difference
between Owen and Buffy dancing at The Bronze and Wood taking her to a
cosy French restaurant, but this just reflects how much older she is.
During Owen and Buffy's talk, he says something very significant:
Owen: You! One minute you're right there. I've got you figured. The
next, it's like you're two people.
And right there we have Buffy's eternal conundrum - the Slayer and
the girl, and can she be both? (There is a whole essay in that, which
I'm not going to attempt to write, but I found it interesting that
Owen picked up on it.)
Now both dates get interrupted, because someone is in danger - and in
both cases it's Buffy's vampire who 'crashes'. And not only
that, but it happens just as Owen/Wood are getting Buffy something
delicious to eat:
Owen: Do you want something to eat?
Buffy: Sure. Just make it something fattening.
Buffy: Oh, my God! Mmm. Oh, my God. That might be the best thing I've
ever had in my mouth.
Wood: Isn't it good? They soak the pears in brandy. Here, you need a
bite with sauce.
In both cases, Buffy's 'warning system' has failed - in 'Never
Kill' Giles (who's stuck in the Sunnydale Funeral Home surrounded
by vampires) doesn't know how to get through to her beeper and in
'First Date' she's left her phone behind. (As Xander is being
used to open the seal on the Hellmouth.)
When Buffy's dates meet their 'counterparts' there's a fair bit
of veiled hostility, but yet again the answers are the same:
Owen: Hey! So. Where do you know Buffy from?
Angel: Work.
Wood: So, how do you two know each other?
Buffy (answering too fast): He works with me. Uh, you know, in the
struggle against evil.
And so we have the fights and the bad guys get killed, but the mood is
a lot more sombre in S7, even if in some ways the success was greater.
In S1 Buffy has to stop seeing Owen who has got a taste for danger. As
Xander puts it:
"No, see, what you need is a guy who already knows your deepest,
darkest secrets and still says, 'Hey! I like that girl!' Someone
like..."
And we all fill in 'Angel'.
In S7 the date reveals that Wood is an ally and a fighter. But he's
not the one that Buffy needs:
Spike: You've got another demon fighter now.
Buffy: That's not why I need you here.
Spike: Is that right? Why's that then?
Buffy: 'Cause I'm not ready for you to not be here.
A lot of people remark how harsh Giles is in S7. Comparing these two
episodes does a good job of showing why. At the end of 'Never Kill'
they think they've succeeded in killing The Anointed One (because
Giles had the relevant information in his books), and Giles shares with
Buffy the story of when he was told he was destined to be a Watcher. It
is a sweet and touching scene, and I love it to pieces. In S7 they have
no success in trying to defeat The First - there are no books that can
help, and the Watcher's Council has been destroyed. No wonder he
lashes out.
Of course the final scene of both episodes are very important. In
'Never Kill' it is revealed that Buffy did not kill The Anointed
One (The MAster: "And in this time will come the Anointed. And the
Slayer will not know him. She will not stop him, and he will lead her
into hell."). And in 'First Date' Wood (the new fighter) has a
very interesting meeting with The First Evil. Will he lead Buffy to
hell? Or are the parallels just getting ridiculous?
Ken from Chicago
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-B96712...@news.giganews.com...
Not everyone reacts well to someone defying the law of (electromagnetic)
physics.
-- Ken from Chicago
Malsperanza
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
>
> And sure enough, we finally get rid of the chip after last week's
> non-suspense
Meant to respond to this last week. I don't think the show expected
this question to be suspenseful (because, well, doh), and that's why
they jump past the actual moment when Buffy makes the decision and cut
straight to the chase: Heeeeere's Spikey! And the Scoobies' continuing
anxiety about his chiplessness. The reason the previous episode closed
on the putative suspensefulness of Buffy's Choice is precisely that: to
emphasize that the decision to dechip Spike is Buffy's to make, and she
will bear the burden of any future lapses on his part. It means that
for the next few episodes at least, until Spike has well and truly
proven that he won't relapse, he is her protege (literally), and her
reputation with the Scoobies and the Potentials depends on his good
behavior. Which sets up an interesting dynamic. Not suspenseful, but
intriguing.
snips
> It's the designated time to finally find out what the story with
> Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
> year. The ambiguous date has the potential for creepy implications,
> although it's defused some by Woodside's endearing delivery on
> lines like "I'm certainly not saying 'come to dinner if you enjoy
> having a job.' You know, I may have to make up a document saying I
> didn't just say that and have you sign it." Buffy really goes for
> the older men, all throughout the series.
On and off. She's 22 now, right? And Undead!Spike is more or less stuck
at about 25. Parker was her age; Riley a few years older. She's never
shown any sexual interest in Giles. Her romantic interest in Wood
actually strikes me as a little anomalous for her: He's (potentially)
an amalgam of Riley (civilian freelance demon hunter) and Giles
(talented older man). Her interest in him is a way of acknowledging
some hitherto unacknowledged tension in her father/daughter
relationship with Giles.
Also, Wood is now set up as The Other Grown-up: either Giles's rival or
his fellow adult. The continuing bumbling/character assassination of
the Scoobies, while irritating, is intended to make them look still (or
again) like teenagers. The show remains undecided about their maturity.
Xander in particular wobbles between being old enough to marry, rent a
classy apartment, run a business, and being a doofus kid who still
thinks with his hormones.
snip
> outside the main cast. The casual stake-twirling afterwards reminded
> me of a Samuel L. Jackson character - very rarely a bad thing.
Mmmm. Jackson.
> The
> moment he mentioned that his mother was a Slayer, I knew it was Afro
> Slayer from "Fool For Love;" I don't know whether or not this was
> meant to be an obvious conclusion for the viewer.
>
> Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
> congregating, is all right for what it is.
I have never understood the point of this Xander plot, other than as
B-story filler. Where does it get us? Why does Xander fall yet again
for a bad dating decision? Plus, I thought the torture scene
particularly gross and unpleasant to watch. If Demon!Lissa is working
at the behest of the First, what's the purpose here? Just more stalking
of Scoobies? Can someone explain this to me? Anyone? Bueller?
> Besides being back on the Chaka Kahn kick, the First is also up to
> something else involving Andrew and good-sounding platitudes about how
> everyone else gets a chance at forgiveness, why not him? The First is
> being Jonathan Levinson, so Danny Strong can bring out a side of his
> personality that's not so relentlessly whiny. I did think there was
> a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure,
> so the hopeless transparent-ness of his attempt to pump the Big Bad for
> information comes as something of a relief. And the subsequent
> defiance achieves the strange task of being empowering for the
> character at the same time as it makes him look ridiculous. Going
> through a girl's underwear drawer without permission is of course not
> nice and evil, though.
The Andrew plot worked better for me. It seems to be going somewhere,
and since Andrew's still a work-in-progress character, I'm intrigued.
With Xander, I just feel that he's been put into Rescue Me mode once
too often.
> Dawn and Andrew are definitely warming to each other, as had been clear
> would happen.
>
> Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
> catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
> I'm not sure I like. This follows up on my problem last week with
> treating the Scoobies as the bumbling idiots who're lost without
> Buffy and hopelessly outmatched by the big supernatural world. I think
> the sense of the disorganized group of kids and young people not
> knowing what to do could theoretically be worth developing, but don't
> see what the excess dumb accomplishes.
Mainly I think it divides the Pro-Buffy crew into 3 separate groups,
which are not in good sync: The Scoobies, the Potentials, and the
Grown-ups (Wood and Giles).
>
> Wood's reaction upon finally getting to meet the First is to
> dramatically walk through it. Guy likes the gestures. I think the
> cryptically loaded delivery on "thank you" is good.
I do love that moment. I like the way the actor handles both believing
the First's information (and presumably being influenced by it, to some
degree) *and* remaining contemptuous of the First. That little bathroom
scene made me sit up and notice Wood.
~Mal
Malsperanza
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1159943249.9...@c28g2000cwb.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 Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> > (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> > motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > Director: David Grossman
>
> One strange scene for me in this episode is when Wood is driving Buffy
> and Spike to the school. Spike is sitting in the centre of the back
> seat, and Wood seems to look into the rear-view mirror, but he never
> reacts to not seeing Spike behind him.
>
I liked that scene, perhaps because it *was* so strange. It's not clear
if Wood actually sees that he can't see Spike, but he's certainly
suspicious of something. Spike is sort of hunched down, and seems to be
trying to avoid the mirror angle. But more than anything else, the
scene looked like Dad driving teenage daughter and teenage daughter's
Very Worrisome Biker Date to a movie. There was something really funny
underlying all the weird tenseness.
~Mal
Malsperanza
Rincewind wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> > (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> > motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > Director: David Grossman
>
> Welcome back, Arbitrar.
>
> I hate this episode for a lot of reasons, but I don't have time to go into
> all the details so I will just mention the most annoying bits.
>
> > The conversation in Buffy's room afterwards is the episode's most
> > interesting scene for me, ending with an unhappy Watcher kinda
> > deferring in the "I'm not convinced but what can I do?" he does
> > so often in the later years.
>
> First problem: FOUR episodes ago Buffy saw the principal doing something
> suspicious and NOW she decides to mention it?
>
> > There's a sense of how important it is
> > to Buffy to let Spike have the chance to be a man.
>
> BUFFY: We can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
King Arthur to Merlin: Might *doesn't* make right! I get it now!
> Mark those words.
> Buffy doesn't often happen to make basic statements of principle, so this
> must be important.
> It's good to see that after all that she has been through she still believes
> in this fundamental moral principle, which is basically the same principle
> that led her to give her life at the end of season 5 rather than kill Dawn
> to save the world.
> I trust the writers will not forget it in later episodes...
>
> > Giles does put his
> > finger on one point worth making, at least, and the exasperation on the
> > first sentence of it is nice. "It doesn't matter if you're not
> > physical with each other anymore. There's a connection. You rely on
> > him, he relies on you."
>
> Why is this a point worth making?
Giles is once again cast as the Really Obvious Exposition Fairy. I
don't know why the writers didn't trust viewers to grasp this point
without the PowerPoint presentation.
> I'm going to quote a few lines from Ace's recap for Television Without Pity:
>
> "Suddenly Willow gets a text message. It's from Xander, and it's in code,
> but Willow can't remember if it's the code for "I just got lucky -- don't
> call me for a while" or "My date's a demon who's trying to kill me." Wolf,
> one of our brilliantly funny posters, postulated that Xander's ambiguous
> message must have been I M FCKED.
Hee.
~Mal
Malsperanza
That's plausible. But why did Willow and Xander have this code in the
first place? Was Willow particularly prone to bother Xander when he was
mackin on some girl? And conversely, did they ever make use of the
signal-for-help idea? Was this just the writers wanting to make use of
that nifty new thang the youngsters are all into, the Instant Message?
~Mal
Malsperanza
Elisi wrote:
snipping to get to this:
> Buffy: Oh, my God! Mmm. Oh, my God. That might be the best thing I've
> ever had in my mouth.
> Wood: Isn't it good? They soak the pears in brandy. Here, you need a
> bite with sauce.
What is it with this show and brandied pears? Or are we meant to
suspect a connection between Wood and Drusilla?
>From What's My Line:
Drusilla: The lamb is caught in the blackberry patch. My mummy ate
lemons, raw. She said she loved the way they made her mouth tingle.
Little Anne. Her favorite was custard... brandied pears.
Angel: Dru...
Drusilla: Shhh! And pomegranates. They used to make her face and
fingers all red. Remember? Hmm? Little fingers. Little hands. Do you?
Angel: If I could...
Drusilla: Bite your tongue! They used to eat cake, and eggs, and honey.
Until you came and ripped their throats out.
My favorite Drusilla moment.
~Mal
lili...@gmail.com
Remember Xander's dating history?
This is a guy who's every single date ever turned out to be a demon
(eventually)
Rira Pbeqryvn raqrq hc orvat unys-qrzba.
Knowing his (bad) luck with women, I'd be surprised if they didn't have
some system to make sure if they had to come to the rescue or not*eg*
Lore
vague disclaimer
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In S7 the date reveals that Wood is an ally and a fighter. But he's
> not the one that Buffy needs:
>
> Spike: You've got another demon fighter now.
> Buffy: That's not why I need you here.
> Spike: Is that right? Why's that then?
> Buffy: 'Cause I'm not ready for you to not be here.
Except of course in the original version:
BUFFY
That's not why I need you here.
SPIKE
That right? Why's that then?
BUFFY
Because I'm not ready for you not to
be here.
Spike looks at her, trying to read that.
SPIKE
And the principal? How's he fit in?
BUFFY
He's a guy on our side. I can't turn
away from that. Something tells me
I'm gonna need lots of help.
I the original she's still trying to marshal forces and the big picture
is still an issue. In the "I know, let's do a little freestyle
pandering" version, it's all about Spike.
That'll end well.
--
What does not kill me makes me stronger. Unless it leaves me as a quadriplegic.
vague disclaimer
> Thanks for clearing that up. Y'know, when the plot goes from C to X, the
> viewers actually need to see a few of the letters in between.
> I find the comment by Jane very telling, for two reasons: (1) even the
> writers have been reduced to fanwanking, and (2) the surprise expressed by
> Jane that the viewers thought this was a plot hole means that there is
> NOBODY looking at these scripts to make sure that they even make sense."
Or, in the alternative, they have differing priorities to you.
Elisi
> Why is this a point worth making?
> Isn't this what life is all about: people relying on each other, having
> feelings for each other, helping each other in moments of need?
> Wasn't this the whole point of the series: Buffy is different than other
> slayers because she is not just a heartless killing machine but a complete
> human being with feelings and friends and a human approach to the whole
> slayer business.
Why of course. But Giles isn't speaking for the show. He's speaking for
himself.
> Now suddenly Giles expects her to be like Kendra?
No - but I think he wishes she were. Remember when he was fired?
"You have a father's love for a child - and that is useless for the
cause."
Giles doesn't think love is a bad thing, and he admires Buffy heart,
but he also knows how dangerous personal attatchments can be. Because
of her love for Angel, Buffy couldn't kill him, and Jenny was killed
and the world nearly went to hell. Because of her love for Dawn, Buffy
was willing to let the be destroyed - and we saw a HUGE conflict then:
GILES: (quietly) If the ritual starts, then every living creature in
this and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable
torment and death ... (looks up at Buffy) including Dawn.
BUFFY: Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her.
GILES: (quietly) You'll fail. You'll die. We all will.
That is Giles' fear here - that Buffy's emotions are clouding her
judgment. His job is not to keep her alive - his job is to save the
world at any cost. But he knows that it is not up to him - it all falls
to Buffy. He needs her to be as ruthless as possible, to see the big
picture, to be prepared to do anything. And he's not sure she's up to
it.
Scythe Matters
> The conversation in Buffy's room afterwards is the episode's most
> interesting scene for me, ending with an unhappy Watcher kinda
> deferring in the "I'm not convinced but what can I do?" he does
> so often in the later years.
Not just the later years. There from the beginning.
> It's the designated time to finally find out what the story with
> Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
> year. The ambiguous date has the potential for creepy implications,
> although it's defused some by Woodside's endearing delivery on
> lines like "I'm certainly not saying 'come to dinner if you enjoy
> having a job.' You know, I may have to make up a document saying I
> didn't just say that and have you sign it."
I really, really like this entire sequence. I'd even go so far as to say
that I think Gellar and Woodside have a really intriguing chemistry. At
the time, I really found myself hoping that the series might explore
that relationship a little bit, though of course the end of the episode
sorta suggests that it's likely doomed in spite of themselves. But I
guess we'll see.
> Buffy really goes for
> the older men, all throughout the series. I'm sure those who write
> books on the metaphorical implications of the show have lots to say
> about that.
Books aren't necessary; it's rather simple. Father-figures &
abandonment, of course. (Though seeing Spike as a father figure requires
some stretching... ;-) )
> The
> moment he mentioned that his mother was a Slayer, I knew it was Afro
> Slayer from "Fool For Love;" I don't know whether or not this was
> meant to be an obvious conclusion for the viewer.
I think it would be hard to reach any other conclusion if one has any
idea at all of the general time period of that Slayer's life. What's
interesting to me is that this is (at least mostly) an on-the-spot
improvisation and (at least mostly) not part of the pre-planned seasonal
arc, since the character was not created for any specific race or
gender. It's interesting in that it's so loaded with potential, but it's
also interesting in that it appears to introduce a rather major notion
out of the blue. Again, it sometimes appears that the writers are
throwing ideas at the viewers, to see what sticks.
> I'm not
> sure how much to read into his continuing to hold himself responsible
> for canceling the wedding with regard to his lack of a successful
> relationship in the year since.
It seems like there's some development, though:
("Never Leave Me")
XANDER
Well, there was this one guy—there was this one guy, he, uh, he hurt her
real bad, so she paid him back. She killed him, but she did it real
slow. See first she stopped his heart, then she replaced it with
darkness, then she made him live his life like that. But he still had to
go do his job and see his friends and wake up in the morning and go to
bed at night, but he had to do it all empty. Without anything to look
forward to. Ever.
("First Date")
XANDER
Well, it's on her mind a lot right now because our anniversary's coming
up—I mean, it would have been our anniversary. And maybe I shouldn't be
allowed to forget it. I did—it was a bad thing, and it hurt her real bad.
That's a lessening of the guilt. Not much, but some. And an interesting
contrast to Anya, who's moved from actively wishing for Xander's death
to jealousy and conflicted emotions.
> I did think there was
> a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure
Like a shiitake.
> Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
> catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
> I'm not sure I like. This follows up on my problem last week with
> treating the Scoobies as the bumbling idiots who're lost without
> Buffy and hopelessly outmatched by the big supernatural world. I think
> the sense of the disorganized group of kids and young people not
> knowing what to do could theoretically be worth developing, but don't
> see what the excess dumb accomplishes.
Well, they lack information. They need some. Or at least, so it would
seem. And information-gathering is what the Scoobies who aren't Buffy
do, and have always done. So I don't mind that at all. Andrew can't pull
it off, but I don't think any of the others would have done better.
The problem is, I think, that the First is still not a physical threat.
It can be scary and angry and make Willow's spells go awry, but it still
needs outside agents. Should the gang fear a mass Bringer attack...or
worse, an übervamp attack? Sure, absolutely...though so far they've only
been used to kill Potentials and to kidnap Spike. There's a legit fear
that they might go after Andrew again, given that they've done it
already and given that he's provided potentially important information.
(Might there be more?) But what is there to actually fear about the
First? Nothing. They've shown a lot more courage in the past, but in an
attempt to prop up the First's fear factor, they have to act in a
vaguely silly fashion. As with last week, when they talked fearfully of
confronting Giles/First, but the only actual danger was a gang of
Bringers (or übervamps, or whatever) attacking the potentials.
And with Buffy (and/or Spike), they can still only actually fight the
agents. "One vampire at a time" is, ultimately, a losing strategy here,
despite Buffy's stress of that notion in "Showtime." Her physical power
is not enough if the First can throw enough troops at her. The Scoobies
team problem solving skills are not enough. It doesn't appear that
Willow's super-magic is going to be available as a solution. There's no
more Council resources to rely upon. So in that sense,
information-gathering is as good a strategy as any...that is, of the
strategies they've previously employed.
> Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
> impatient with their antics, and his final speech could almost be a
> message that to the viewer that it's time to shift the show into high
> gear again - no more comedy episodes.
I think it's obviously that (though there's at least one more comedy
episode coming...of a sort).
His anger isn't *that* uncharacteristic, though. He's still very unhappy
about the chip thing. He has shown similar reactions in the past when
he's thought really bad choices have been made by our younger
characters. And there's another thing:
GILES
This proves my point. This time is crucial. We should be circling the
wagons instead of doing things like going out on dates when—when gunplay
is imminent.
This, too, is an old strategy. And there's still no evidence that it's
going to be effective. The First could launch another attack on the
Summers household at any time, and then what? (In fact, it's a little
surprising it hasn't. Lissa failed to raise another übervamp, but
certainly attempts could have been made before, and could be made in the
future...and unless Buffy starts camping on the Bidet of Evil, there's
not much she can do to prevent it.)
> - Bidet of evil
I absolutely adore the dialogue in that scene. However, I think it's a
little flat as played. And this is the point where something that had
been bothering me about the entire season sorta coalesced: Hannigan's
delivery of almost everything, save for her brief returns to badness and
a few moments in "The Killer in Me," has been muted and somewhat
depressed. Which is understandable, in character, but it eventually does
start to drag everything down a little bit. And this scene in particular
seems to lack the spark it should have, which I also partially attribute
to what we now understand was some serious tension between the two
actresses. In seasons 2-3, when they were BFF, this scene would have
shone. Now, it's still good, but it sorta just sits there.
> - "I'll go get Buffy," after about the third time
The lengths they're attempting to separate Spike from Buffy's potential
date are indeed impressive. More proof that no matter how muted their
verbal worries might be in comparison to previous seasons, they still
don't trust him *or* them.
> Lissa's actor, Ashanti (another one-word name) is apparently a
> popular singer or model or something.
She's an attractive woman, but she really can't act. (And, of course:
black, so obviously doomed. ;-) )
Other thoughts:
I enjoyed the early-season Giles-type speech ("wary watchfulness," etc.)
being undercut by his later, true explanation. It puts all the earlier
high-minded teaching into a different perspective.
BUFFY
You think I'm losing sight of the big picture, but I'm not. When Spike
had that chip, it was like having him in a muzzle. It was wrong. You
can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
An interesting perspective, especially given who she's talking to. Does
she know what Giles did to Ben? Because that was beating evil by doing
evil, and rather clearly so.
PRINCIPAL WOOD
Um, what're you doing tonight?
BUFFY
Preparing for tomorrow's counseling sessions.
PRINCIPAL WOOD
No, really.
BUFFY
Watching a reality show about a millionaire.
Given Giles' later ranting, it's interesting that this was her plan.
(If, of course, she's telling the truth...which, given her Slayerhood,
she might not be.)
Wood and the knife: so it wasn't a vampire he was killing. Plus, it was
daytime. He's after more than vampires, then.
It's funny to see both Willow and Wood acknowledge (with their laughter)
something we've talked about here: Buffy's not exactly the world's best
counselor.
JONATHAN/FIRST
She can't see me, and I'm gonna keep talking until you hear what I have
to say, so listen up, OK?
This reinforces a point I've made before: the "get out of here" threats
that our gang keep making against the First...what good are they? Why
should it ever leave? Why not just follow them around day and night,
working its talky evil? (Aside from the fact that it would be awfully
dull to watch, I mean...)
ANYA
It also says I sometimes get blood on my shoulder. Or it might be pizza.
Continuity porn!
DAWN
Nothing? No records or certificates? College transcripts?
AMANDA
Looks like the only stuff in the system about Principal Robin Wood is
super-recent. Like, since he moved to Sunnydale.
WILLOW
I've Googled 'til I just can't Google no more. He's not in there.
KENNEDY
Well, that's suspicious.
Given what Willow's been able to find via computer searches, this seems
extremely odd. And unlikely. And definitely suspicious.
PRINCIPAL WOOD
The restaurant's right there. (gestures to the door)
Oh, yeah. A restaurant in a Sunnydale alley. *Great* idea. Lot of
no-shows, I bet.
JONATHAN/FIRST
Jonathan suffered. He was your friend, and he trusted you, and now he
spends eternity in pain because of what you did.
...a direct contradiction of what it said earlier. Which leads me to
wonder if the usual Buffyverse thing, where evil creatures often speak
the important truths, doesn't apply to the First. Maybe because they're
only "partially evil," while the First is 100% the real thing?
PRINCIPAL WOOD
Ten minutes. (Principal Wood watches the rear view mirror suspiciously)
So, how do you two know each other?
[...]
PRINCIPAL WOOD
He's a vampire.
But that's silly. He would have known that instantly by looking in the
rear-view mirror.
Spike's fighting hasn't really been up to snuff lately, has it? Lissa
kicks him around pretty good.
> AOQ rating: Decent
I give it a high good. The humor is humorous, the character movement is
solid almost across the board, tensions are both resolved and ignited,
and it points the way to some obvious conflict in the future.
I also just realized that I'm not going to be around to comment on your
last few reviews. Bummer, though maybe not for you. ;-)
One Bit Shy
news:1159982208.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
>> congregating, is all right for what it is.
>
> I have never understood the point of this Xander plot, other than as
> B-story filler. Where does it get us? Why does Xander fall yet again
> for a bad dating decision?
I think the intent is to show Xander trying to move past Anya - somewhat
succeeding mentally (especially the coffee house scene) - somewhat failing
because it's another demon - and somewhat muddled because Anya is confronted
with realizing that she really isn't ready to move past Xander.
Not that I don't have some issues with how X/A have been handled since
Selfless, but I'll let that drop for now. The point being that Xander's
date is mostly about X/A.
>> Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
>> catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
>> I'm not sure I like. This follows up on my problem last week with
>> treating the Scoobies as the bumbling idiots who're lost without
>> Buffy and hopelessly outmatched by the big supernatural world. I think
>> the sense of the disorganized group of kids and young people not
>> knowing what to do could theoretically be worth developing, but don't
>> see what the excess dumb accomplishes.
>
> Mainly I think it divides the Pro-Buffy crew into 3 separate groups,
> which are not in good sync: The Scoobies, the Potentials, and the
> Grown-ups (Wood and Giles).
Um, which group does Spike belong to? Perhaps it should be 4 separate
groups and growing. (Where will Andrew fall?)
OBS
Elisi
You know I'm not sure I agree with that. The canon ending leaves things
up in the air - it's obvious that Buffy can use Wood as a fighter -
Spike comments on it. But she's also attracted to him (Wood). What does
Buffy want? In the ending you quote, it leaves Spike very much as
Buffy's love interest and Wood as just a guy who can help. On the show
it's a lot more enigmatic - Buffy hasn't got an answer. And after the
last scene, neither does Wood.
One Bit Shy
news:l64o-1rj5-A2518...@europe.isp.giganews.com...
Are you suggesting that the dropped line alters the meaning of, "Because I'm
not ready for you not to be here."? If so, how?
OBS
Scythe Matters
> "Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159982208.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>Mainly I think it divides the Pro-Buffy crew into 3 separate groups,
>>which are not in good sync: The Scoobies, the Potentials, and the
>>Grown-ups (Wood and Giles).
>
> Um, which group does Spike belong to? Perhaps it should be 4 separate
> groups and growing. (Where will Andrew fall?)
And Buffy's in the middle of them, being pulled in a lot of different,
frequently contradictory directions. One thing they've done very
consistently this season is ramp up the internal Scooby tension, and
that's coming closer to a climax here.
Malsperanza
Scythe Matters wrote:
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> > "Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1159982208.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>Mainly I think it divides the Pro-Buffy crew into 3 separate groups,
> >>which are not in good sync: The Scoobies, the Potentials, and the
> >>Grown-ups (Wood and Giles).
> >
> > Um, which group does Spike belong to? Perhaps it should be 4 separate
> > groups and growing. (Where will Andrew fall?)
Good question. Spike seems to be outside of all groups, which is
perhaps one of the points. In s6 he wanted to be considered one of the
Scoobies, and they told him no. He no longer seems very interested in
the Scoobies. Perhaps in s7 he isn't just one of Buffy's supporters
anymore, but something else.
As for Andrew, it still remains to be seen if he can be counted as one
of the Pro-Buffy crew or not.
> And Buffy's in the middle of them, being pulled in a lot of different,
> frequently contradictory directions. One thing they've done very
> consistently this season is ramp up the internal Scooby tension, and
> that's coming closer to a climax here.
I keep hopin' for a Scoobies vs. Potentials Smackdown.
~Mal
Elisi
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
>
> And sure enough, we finally get rid of the chip after last week's
> non-suspense and leave Spike able to attack people ("then what the
> hell did you tackle me for, you berk? What's that supposed to do?").
> Giles, the tacklee, still doesn't explain exactly how the occasion
> to talk about his near death never came up before. Did that exist
> solely for the purpose of a silly C-story? Lame.
Why should he have told it? He's never been the type to talk very
much (he never explained about what his youth was like before 'The
Dark Age' f.ex.). And also the whole thing was probably very
traumatic. Actually I think that having The Council blown up has had a
far deeper impact on him than he lets on. This, I think, was part of
the point of this part of his story - he's very remote, on the
outside of things.
But I love the scene for what it sets up - Buffy and Spike's awkward
tandem explaining about the fact that they (Buffy) chose to remove the
chip. It is the most wonderful shout-out to their scene in 'Becoming
II' when they lie in tandem to Joyce. Buffy is even wearing an
identical hat!
In case anyone out there wonders, this is the sort of thing that makes
people love Spuffy. There's 4 1/2 years between the two scenes, and
their relationship has gone from seething hatred to a connection so
obvious that Giles' picks up on it instantly - and yet there's
exactly the same vibe between them.
> The conversation in Buffy's room afterwards is the episode's most
> interesting scene for me, ending with an unhappy Watcher kinda
> deferring in the "I'm not convinced but what can I do?" he does
> so often in the later years. There's a sense of how important it is
> to Buffy to let Spike have the chance to be a man. Giles does put his
> finger on one point worth making, at least, and the exasperation on the
> first sentence of it is nice. "It doesn't matter if you're not
> physical with each other anymore. There's a connection. You rely on
> him, he relies on you." And as always with B/S stuff, whether
> that's affecting her judgment is left as a matter of opinion. \
I've commented on this in detail on rincewind's post, so I won't
bother repeating myself. But you can almost hear the word 'Angel'
echo all around them...
> You
> have to love their loaded and unresolved exchange at the end of the
> episode... or do if you're like me and enjoy the doubles moping
> event.
:) Things used to be so simple, didn't they? Buffy loved Angel and
Angel loved Buffy. Nice and easy. Although of course that didn't stop
him from walking away...
> It's the designated time to finally find out what the story with
> Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
> year.
Apparently at the beginning they weren't sure if he was going to
turn out evil or good, so just told him to be very, very charming.
Which of course he was! And the wonderful thing is that now we know who
he is - we _still_ don't know if he's going to turn out good or
bad. Well he's obviously a good guy, but...
> Buffy really goes for
> the older men, all throughout the series. I'm sure those who write
> books on the metaphorical implications of the show have lots to say
> about that.
I love the talk beforehand, esp the whole 'wicked energy' - because
you can literally see Buffy perk up as she finds out who Wood is. Me
thinks there is a great deal of attraction to 'wicked energy'. OK,
so Wod isn't evil but he's a demon fighter and the son of a Slayer!
Re. the whole 'older men' thing, then I think it's probably a lot
to do with being old beyond her years - look at how shortlived her
relationship with Scott Hope is f.ex.
> The
> moment he mentioned that his mother was a Slayer, I knew it was Afro
> Slayer from "Fool For Love;" I don't know whether or not this was
> meant to be an obvious conclusion for the viewer.
I think so. Otherwise what would be the point?
> Anyway, this part is okay, and calls back to the early
> years by having him be the damsel in distress one more time. I'm not
> sure how much to read into his continuing to hold himself responsible
> for canceling the wedding with regard to his lack of a successful
> relationship in the year since.
I think a lot of it is to do with examining where Xander is at. He's
trying to move on - and Lissa is obviously attracted - but I'm not
sure he's there mentally yet. Going on a date and continually talking
about your ex? Not very good.
> Anya's, shall we say, conflicted
> feelings are used to good effect. When is the show going to put them
> back together? Just screw and make up already.
Bwah! But seriously - considering how much X/A are a mirror of B/S in
this episode, do you think this is the route for B/S also?
> Besides being back on the Chaka Kahn kick, the First is also up to
> something else involving Andrew and good-sounding platitudes about how
> everyone else gets a chance at forgiveness, why not him? The First is
> being Jonathan Levinson, so Danny Strong can bring out a side of his
> personality that's not so relentlessly whiny. I did think there was
> a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure,
> so the hopeless transparent-ness of his attempt to pump the Big Bad for
> information comes as something of a relief. And the subsequent
> defiance achieves the strange task of being empowering for the
> character at the same time as it makes him look ridiculous. Going
> through a girl's underwear drawer without permission is of course not
> nice and evil, though.
I love Andrew.
> Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
> catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
> I'm not sure I like.
Well they're trying to think 'outside the box'. At least it's
pro-active, and it shows what side Andrew is on. It also shows just how
utterly out of their depth they all are. They have so little to go on,
that they'll try anything.
> Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
> impatient with their antics, and his final speech could almost be a
> message that to the viewer that it's time to shift the show into high
> gear again - no more comedy episodes. Well, we'll see.
Remember that the thing his whole life was built on has vanished, and
all his colleagues have been killed. Like say Buffy trying to fight on
after all the Scoobies have died - that's his situation.
> Wood's reaction upon finally getting to meet the First is to
> dramatically walk through it. Guy likes the gestures. I think the
> cryptically loaded delivery on "thank you" is good.
Oh I love that. He's so sure he's a good guy - so now what?
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed anyway moment(s):
> - Bidet of evil
Never stops being funny.
> - "I'll go get Buffy," after about the third time
Bless him. He really tries to act casual around Buffy (and she around
him), but it doesn't help. Every little Spuffy shipper always lets
out a happy sigh when she rushes to his side first.
> AOQ rating: Decent
Easily Excellent for me. There is no bad in this ep. - the Xander
scenes are a bit long, but I don't mind all that much.
John Briggs
>
> On and off. She's 22 now, right? And Undead!Spike is more or less
> stuck at about 25. Parker was her age; Riley a few years older. She's
> never shown any sexual interest in Giles. Her romantic interest in
> Wood actually strikes me as a little anomalous for her: He's
> (potentially) an amalgam of Riley (civilian freelance demon hunter)
> and Giles (talented older man). Her interest in him is a way of
> acknowledging some hitherto unacknowledged tension in her
> father/daughter relationship with Giles.
Wood is supposed to be 30 - it's not a huge age difference.
--
John Briggs
One Bit Shy
news:9rOdnVMK27j_kLnY...@rcn.net...
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> - Bidet of evil
>
> I absolutely adore the dialogue in that scene. However, I think it's a
> little flat as played. And this is the point where something that had been
> bothering me about the entire season sorta coalesced: Hannigan's delivery
> of almost everything, save for her brief returns to badness and a few
> moments in "The Killer in Me," has been muted and somewhat depressed.
> Which is understandable, in character, but it eventually does start to
> drag everything down a little bit. And this scene in particular seems to
> lack the spark it should have, which I also partially attribute to what we
> now understand was some serious tension between the two actresses. In
> seasons 2-3, when they were BFF, this scene would have shone. Now, it's
> still good, but it sorta just sits there.
This scene doesn't bring it out for me - I like how it works. And I
wouldn't know if background stuff was affecting performance. Be that as it
may, one of the strongest initial impressions I had of S7 was a season of AH
seeming a little off. Even a little disinterested.
The impression hasn't been as strong this run through. I don't know if that
means I'm seeing more in her or if the shows are so familiar now that I
don't have the same expectations. Either way, the character doesn't seem to
have moved anywhere terribly notable since the start of the season, even
with two episodes devoted to her. Neither in a personal sense nor in a
story driving sense. Certainly not at the level the previous 6 seasons had
made me accustomed to. (Though her biggest S5 impact did come a bit late in
the season.)
> I also just realized that I'm not going to be around to comment on your
> last few reviews. Bummer, though maybe not for you. ;-)
Bummer indeed. Whatever it is, I hope it's good.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
> > I'm not sure I like.
>
> Well they're trying to think 'outside the box'. At least it's
> pro-active, and it shows what side Andrew is on. It also shows just how
> utterly out of their depth they all are. They have so little to go on,
> that they'll try anything.
it strongly suggests fe is not in anyway physically manifested
if fe was making pressure waves in the air so that people could hear it
(if fe falls over in the woods and theres nobody to hear does it make a sound)
then they could record it
if fe is instead a purely mental presence
if its apparent visible form and its apparent voice talking to them
are rather only in their minds like a hallucination
thats one of things andrew asks fe
if its made up of the impulses of everyone
and if everyone fell asleep would it disappear
within the series telepathy is possible
perhaps all humans are telepaths at some level
and fe is a meme-like parasite that commutes among human minds
> Oh I love that. He's so sure he's a good guy - so now what?
the black guy always dies first?
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
Scythe Matters
> The impression hasn't been as strong this run through. I don't know if that
> means I'm seeing more in her or if the shows are so familiar now that I
> don't have the same expectations.
Sbe zr, vg'f xabjvat gur bhgpbzr gung znxrf vg n yvggyr orggre. At this
point during the first run, though, her performance was seriously
bringing down scenes...and not in a serving-the-plot season six
depressed Buffy way. Here, though, it seems like Hannigan is holding
Gellar at emotional arm's length through the entire scene...at least, it
does to me...and that makes it not work as well as it should.
> Either way, the character doesn't seem to
> have moved anywhere terribly notable since the start of the season, even
> with two episodes devoted to her. Neither in a personal sense nor in a
> story driving sense. Certainly not at the level the previous 6 seasons had
> made me accustomed to. (Though her biggest S5 impact did come a bit late in
> the season.)
Neither her nor Xander, really. They've both made tentative forays into
a new relationship, or at least a date. That's about it.
> Bummer indeed. Whatever it is, I hope it's good.
I could tell you, but you'd just be jealous. ;-) Yeah, it's good.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure
>
> Like a shiitake.
like a chantrelle
> BUFFY
> You think I'm losing sight of the big picture, but I'm not. When Spike
> had that chip, it was like having him in a muzzle. It was wrong. You
> can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
>
> An interesting perspective, especially given who she's talking to. Does
> she know what Giles did to Ben? Because that was beating evil by doing
> evil, and rather clearly so.
at the time giles pointed out that he had to do it because buffy was a hero
> This reinforces a point I've made before: the "get out of here" threats
> that our gang keep making against the First...what good are they? Why
> should it ever leave? Why not just follow them around day and night,
> working its talky evil? (Aside from the fact that it would be awfully
> dull to watch, I mean...)
that he doesnt stick around and does seem to go away when buffy tells him too
is perhaps indicative of its limitations
Ari
> I the original she's still trying to marshal forces and the big picture
> is still an issue. In the "I know, let's do a little freestyle
> pandering" version, it's all about Spike.
>
> That'll end well.
> --
Ok, no offense, but what's it to you? They're a popular pairing, the
actors work well together, I don't see what the big deal is if the
writers wanted to continue to wring some mileage from that. I think
it'd be stupid not to go with what works and force another dud pairing
on the audience instead. Buffy is the lead character, Joss wants us to
be invested in her relationships which is why he was not pleased when
no one gave a shit about her and Riley.
Scythe Matters
>>>I did think there was
>>>a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure
>>
>>Like a shiitake.
>
>
> like a chantrelle
No, chanterelles have their own flavor. It's shiitakes that pick up the
flavor of whatever they're accompanying. Despite Chanterelle/Lily/Anne's
imitation of a shiitake.
vague disclaimer
"Ari" <girlwhoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> vague disclaimer wrote:
> > I the original she's still trying to marshal forces and the big picture
> > is still an issue. In the "I know, let's do a little freestyle
> > pandering" version, it's all about Spike.
> >
> > That'll end well.
> > --
>
> Ok, no offense, but what's it to you?
Approximately the same as it is to you.
> They're a popular pairing, the
> actors work well together, I don't see what the big deal is if the
> writers wanted to continue to wring some mileage from that. I think
> it'd be stupid not to go with what works and force another dud pairing
> on the audience instead. Buffy is the lead character, Joss wants us to
> be invested in her relationships which is why he was not pleased when
> no one gave a shit about her and Riley.
My problem isn't - and never has been - with the pairing, but solely
with the way some scenes are written and/ or directed. With Gellar and
Marsters to deliver, there is always a better alternative than slushy
give-them-what-they-want, not-what-they-need. The show usually avoids
this assiduously.
There's a fantastic co-dependency story developing and it is a shame
that some of it is written like second rate romantic fiction.
Apteryx
news:1159943249.9...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
>
> Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
> although it's defused some by Woodside's endearing delivery on
> lines like "I'm certainly not saying 'come to dinner if you enjoy
> having a job.' You know, I may have to make up a document saying I
> didn't just say that and have you sign it."
I also liked Willow's "Well, you'll have to dress for the ambiguity"
> sense of how good she was or something). Making him a vigilante
> working solo has some promise, though, since he represents an unChosen
> drawn into the world of vampires and Slayers in a way not usually seen
> outside the main cast.
Except for the other black guy on the other show - but he became main cast.
>
> Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
> congregating, is all right for what it is. There's a certain charm
> in the initial flirting with Lissa ("in conclusion, rope can be
> useful in various ways"). Beyond that, this episode tries for a
> slightly unusual kind of joke. There are a few flippant comments about
> Xander's history as a demon magnet. A few times he actually treats
> this date turning out to be a demon as a real possibility, in a
> half-serious manner. The expectation is firmly set in stone for any
> viewer to pick up on... and then his date shockingly turns out to be an
> evil demon. Anyway, this part is okay, and calls back to the early
> years by having him be the damsel in distress one more time.
Al good fun
> relationship in the year since. Anya's, shall we say, conflicted
> feelings are used to good effect.
Anya has been conflicted since the start of this - say late season 6 when
she said something to the effect of "I care very much whether Xander lives
or dies - I'm just not sure which one I want"
> Dawn and Andrew are definitely warming to each other, as had been clear
> would happen.
You seem to be wanting to pair everyone off. Who're you gonna find for
Giles?
> Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
> catch their enemy on tape.
Oh, a connection :)
> This review seems more devoid of actual content than usual. In case
> anyone hadn't guessed, I really don't have anything of note to say
> about this episode.
Another thing we can agree on. It was sort of OK I guess.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Diverting enough.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Decent for me too. Entertaining enough, but silly at times, and some ominous
(for the show) pointers. Its my 116th favourite BtVS episode, 14th best in
season 7
--
Apteryx
vague disclaimer
Nope. It alters the weight attached to it. I'd be quite interested to
know if there were takes done with the lines included and whether SMG's
delivery was any less arch.
Scythe Matters
> Ok, no offense, but what's it to you? They're a popular pairing, the
> actors work well together, I don't see what the big deal is if the
> writers wanted to continue to wring some mileage from that.
Because quality writing does not pander. Quality writing makes the
audience want more of (or, in some cases, anything other than) what it's
offering. Pandering simply takes off its clothes, lies on its back and
submits to the audience. Pandering is prostitution.
Clairel
--I don't know if I'd quite say "Excellent," but I liked First Date a
lot. The moment you mentioned a few lines up, when Buffy rushes to the
side of the injured Spike while Wood is untying Xander from the ropes,
was a great moment. I love the way Buffy gazes at Spike so earnestly
and concernedly, and just can't tear her gaze away from him. The fact
that AOQ didn't even bother to mention this important moment (and gave
the episode only a "Decent") shows the difference between my taste and
his, I guess.
I was also very fond of the brown pullover Spike was wearing in this
episode. I love him in brown. I remember in a poll once, I voted the
brown pullover as my very favorite Spikewear ever.
Such are the things that, for all right-thinking people, make an
episode "Good-to-Excellent."
AOQ, I hope you are reading this and readjusting your attitude
accordingly!
Clairel
vague disclaimer
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
The might have been aiming for enigmatic (and that *is* usually what
they shoot for when trimming a scene), but it just didn't work for me.
I don't know if you watch Veronica Mars, but having just seen the S3
premiere, I suspect the LoVe shippers are about to get an interesting
lesson in 'be careful what you wish for'. Logan and Veronica are a *lot*
more interesting in conflict.
Back when I watched this, I kinda felt the same about how this was
delivered: the sense of something interesting being missed to keep the
noisiest group of fans happy.
(Not really spoilers, but probably more opinion that AoQ needs about
what is to come, so):
Bs pbhefr, jurer gurl gnxr vg vf greevsvp, ohg gurer ner unys n qbmra be
fb fprarf (abg nyy vaibyivat Ohssl) gung fgvpx bhg yvxr n fber guhzo.
Ryfrguernq V fnvq 'onq ebznagvp svpgvba' naq vg fgvyy svgf. Guvf - naq
gur bguref - ner whfg cynva pyhaxl.
And this is a mega-spoiler:
Naq whfg jura V jnf guvaxvat Wbff jnf ernyyl tbvat gb fubj ur whfg
qvqa'g pner nal zber, ur chyyf "Ab lbh qba'g, ohg gunaxf sbe fnlvat vg"
bhg bs gur ont.
vague disclaimer
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember that the thing his whole life was built on has vanished, and
> all his colleagues have been killed. Like say Buffy trying to fight on
> after all the Scoobies have died - that's his situation.
Exactly!
(I once described S7 as television for those who actually have an
attention span).
> > Wood's reaction upon finally getting to meet the First is to
> > dramatically walk through it. Guy likes the gestures. I think the
> > cryptically loaded delivery on "thank you" is good.
>
> Oh I love that. He's so sure he's a good guy - so now what?
>
> > This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed anyway moment(s):
> > - Bidet of evil
>
> Never stops being funny.
>
> > - "I'll go get Buffy," after about the third time
>
> Bless him. He really tries to act casual around Buffy (and she around
> him), but it doesn't help. Every little Spuffy shipper always lets
> out a happy sigh when she rushes to his side first.
...and everybody else grasps the implications. ;=)
*Grabs Elisi's chain*
*yanks*
*runs*
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-1A303...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Oh I love that. He's so sure he's a good guy - so now what?
>
> the black guy always dies first?
You know, it has never really occurred to me (and I don't why it did
right now) just how subversive Rona's line in Potential was. Surely,
it's the cute blonde chick who is the first one offed and *what if* she
turned out to be....
It's almost as if they are taking a sly poke at the show's mythos to see
what happens.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I enjoyed the early-season Giles-type speech ("wary watchfulness," etc.)
> being undercut by his later, true explanation. It puts all the earlier
> high-minded teaching into a different perspective.
Hmmm, must remember that scene when re-watching.
> BUFFY
> You think I'm losing sight of the big picture, but I'm not. When Spike
> had that chip, it was like having him in a muzzle. It was wrong. You
> can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
>
> An interesting perspective, especially given who she's talking to. Does
> she know what Giles did to Ben? Because that was beating evil by doing
> evil, and rather clearly so.
Nothing evil about it, from my POV. Ben has shown that he's a danger
to the world as long as he's Glorified, and his actions in the later
part of S5 prove that he's not an innocent or a good person.
> I also just realized that I'm not going to be around to comment on your
> last few reviews. Bummer, though maybe not for you. ;-)
You'll be missed.
-AOQ
~no, really~
Michael Ikeda
news:1159994385.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these
>> review threads.
>>
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
>> (or "I have had it with these motherfuckin' vamps in this
>> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
>> Writer: Jane Espenson
>> Director: David Grossman
>>
> I love the talk beforehand, esp the whole 'wicked energy' -
Then there's "Why does everybody in this house think I'm still in
love with Spike?"
>
>> Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
>> impatient with their antics, and his final speech could almost
>> be a message that to the viewer that it's time to shift the
>> show into high gear again - no more comedy episodes. Well,
>> we'll see.
>
> Remember that the thing his whole life was built on has
> vanished, and all his colleagues have been killed. Like say
> Buffy trying to fight on after all the Scoobies have died -
> that's his situation.
>
Which, as I've mentioned before, is one of the major reasons he's
reminiscent of Season 1 Giles. He suddenly IS the Watcher's Council.
--
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
One Bit Shy
news:1159943249.9...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
Buffy: Wear hoops, they'll catch on something, rip your lobe off, lobes
flying everywhere.
It's been interesting watching some people speak of Buffy being torn
multiple directions, and some of her bad judgment, and most everybody about
this year's version of isolation from her friends. None of which I care to
dispute exactly. It's just that the Buffy I've seen thus far this season
strikes me as the happiest and most stable since S4.
It's the other guys that are messed up. A bunch of Potentials filling up
the house that are essentially fleeing for their lives. A really grumpy,
almost panicking Giles. A Willow that doesn't want to be powerful. A
flighty, more sarcastic than ever Anya still obsessing about Xander. A
perpetual trauma case in Spike.
Add in the regular intrusion of ghostly impersonations of dead friends by
The First - and an overcrowded house with just one bathroom, and, well, I
think The Slayer has taken everything remarkably in stride. I think the
most extreme she's gotten thus far is to be focused when she believed she
needed to go after Anya, weary when she didn't sleep in Bring On The Night,
and determined in Show Time. (Love spells don't count.)
Instead she wisecracks (I'm amused at the image of ear lobes flying about)
and goes on a date while pretty calmly working each problem individually.
I'm not promising that she's working the problems successfully, or that her
state of mind will last. But I thought it worth pointing out. This isn't
the Buffy of S6 - or S5 for that matter. To my mind, she's been the most
grown up of anyone around her this season. Maybe that's part of what makes
Wood interesting to her.
> And sure enough, we finally get rid of the chip after last week's
> non-suspense and leave Spike able to attack people ("then what the
> hell did you tackle me for, you berk? What's that supposed to do?").
I'm with you on the lack of suspense. I hear the argument that the
pseudo-cliffhanger is a means to emphasize that it's Buffy's choice. But to
my mind, it clouds that by introducing the situational element of doubt.
And with all the time consumed last episode in the old Initiative haunts
with it too dark to see anything, I think they could have afforded the time
to emphasize the decision another way.
Be that as it may, that's not this episode's fault. Here we have a very
nice direct conflict created between Buffy and Giles and, potentially,
everyone. By being Buffy's choice, she's openly declared faith in Spike in
a far more serious fashion than before, and effectively taken on
responsibility for what Spike does. At the same time, in a moment that I
haven't seen people emphasize for some reason, The First has revealed to
Andrew that it definitely does have something in mind yet for Spike.
Another face off between them over Spike. But with the stakes raised,
Buffy's reputation on the line, and her judgment called into question where
everybody around her can see.
> Giles, the tacklee, still doesn't explain exactly how the occasion
> to talk about his near death never came up before. Did that exist
> solely for the purpose of a silly C-story? Lame.
I don't know that Giles would naturally be inclined to bring up his personal
brush with death, but either way, I think the greater issue is simply
dragging out the resolution to the Sleeper cliffhanger.
Again, that's not this episode's fault. I quite a bit like what they do
here to close that chapter. I know it's been a while since the Bringer
swung his axe, but the physical depiction of Giles blocking it this episode
is surprisingly effective - largely justifying what seemed an impossible
situation then. And well supported by Giles later explaining that he heard
the Bringer's shoes squeak. And just in case that seems far fetched to you,
way back in the beginning of Sleeper, they actually set up the notion of
Giles being able to sense the Bringer's attack by showing Robson effectively
blocking at the last second the initial attack upon him.
It's a shame that this careful construction had to be interrupted by 5
episodes, but it's still there and deserves a little nod.
> The conversation in Buffy's room afterwards is the episode's most
> interesting scene for me, ending with an unhappy Watcher kinda
> deferring in the "I'm not convinced but what can I do?" he does
> so often in the later years.
I think he's pretty much always done that, but he seems grumpier about it
now - and more determined. As in less inclined to roll over. (Although
that cropped up back in The Gift too.)
> There's a sense of how important it is
> to Buffy to let Spike have the chance to be a man. Giles does put his
> finger on one point worth making, at least, and the exasperation on the
> first sentence of it is nice. "It doesn't matter if you're not
> physical with each other anymore. There's a connection. You rely on
> him, he relies on you." And as always with B/S stuff, whether
> that's affecting her judgment is left as a matter of opinion.
I think the opinion Giles has is pretty clearly on the side of bad Buffy
judgment. Giles respected Angel - even in spite of what Angelus did to him.
(They studied the same ancient tomes after all.) But he never cottoned to
Spike. Probably would just as soon have seen him staked ages ago. I think
he only tolerated him as much as he did for Buffy's sake.
This is an interesting moment in a couple ways I think. Aside from his
genuine concern over the quality of Buffy's judgment and the risk that Spike
represents, I think there's another issue of simply being heard by Buffy.
One might suspect that deep down - maybe beyond Giles own awareness - the
real problem is that Giles is jealous of Buffy's attention and feels that
he's losing it because of Spike.
If Giles really isn't getting the attention he should have or want, it's not
really because of Spike. He pretty much blew that when he walked out in S6,
and his influence largely died sometime late in S5 anyway. But I can see
him latching onto the Spike thing as representative of his loss of
influence.
Failure to listen to Giles is more than a Buffy issue too. It's one of the
important elements of the episode over all. His pompous bragging about his
"wary watchfulness" is more than a funny line. He's regaling the Potentials
about training and such in a fashion guaranteed to make them stop listening.
(So, did any Potential gain any insight from their spirit guide quest last
episode? No mention of that is there?) He's producing graphic flash cards
that sends one Potential into hiding and annoys all of the Scoobies.
And, in straight metaphor, we introduce this episode a Potential that
literally doesn't speak his language - though it doesn't stop Giles from
pretending to understand and communicate. That's not an accident.
So in recognizing the risk to reputation that Buffy takes in de-chipping
Spike, it may be useful to remember that Giles status among the group is in
jeopardy too.
> You
> have to love their loaded and unresolved exchange at the end of the
> episode... or do if you're like me and enjoy the doubles moping
> event.
I like it a great deal, though I don't think the characters were too
thrilled.
> As I'd suspected, he's a vampire fighter too, revealed
> after the expected vamp attack (I do like how the show makes us - and
> Buffy - assume that he set her up. Figured he was trying to get a
> sense of how good she was or something). Making him a vigilante
> working solo has some promise, though, since he represents an unChosen
> drawn into the world of vampires and Slayers in a way not usually seen
> outside the main cast. The casual stake-twirling afterwards reminded
> me of a Samuel L. Jackson character - very rarely a bad thing.
I really like that fight. It's simple and not overly flashy, but feels more
physically real than many. Not all the fights this year are good - the
later fight with the demon is kind of pedestrian - but mostly they've been
solid with fresh elements. The best part of the assumed set up for me was
the reveal of the truth when the fight was shown not to be over. Aside from
revealing the truth, it adds a fresh pacing element to the fight. Wood's
fighting style is also different and interesting. You noted his flair. (I
like the flourish with his free hand when he stakes.) He also holds the
stake differently - thrusting underhand - and is left handed to boot. Very
nice detail in the staging. (It's a generally well staged episode. I don't
know if that's the direction or what, but deserves some credit.)
> Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
> congregating, is all right for what it is. There's a certain charm
> in the initial flirting with Lissa ("in conclusion, rope can be
> useful in various ways"). Beyond that, this episode tries for a
> slightly unusual kind of joke. There are a few flippant comments about
> Xander's history as a demon magnet. A few times he actually treats
> this date turning out to be a demon as a real possibility, in a
> half-serious manner. The expectation is firmly set in stone for any
> viewer to pick up on... and then his date shockingly turns out to be an
> evil demon. Anyway, this part is okay, and calls back to the early
> years by having him be the damsel in distress one more time.
People have pointed out a couple of continuity issues this episode. How did
Xander place his phone call? Why didn't Wood recognize Spike was a vampire
when he looked in the rearview mirror? Another one is how did Spike know
about Willow's locater spell that places Xander in the high school? We saw
Spike leave to get Buffy before Willow did any kind of spell.
A little annoying, but as my only real criticism of the episode, not too
bad.
> I'm not
> sure how much to read into his continuing to hold himself responsible
> for canceling the wedding with regard to his lack of a successful
> relationship in the year since. Anya's, shall we say, conflicted
> feelings are used to good effect. When is the show going to put them
> back together? Just screw and make up already.
Well, as I see the date, it's Xander making a pretty good effort to move
past Anya. It's offered as a parallel to Buffy's date and her opportunity
to move past Spike. It also loosely parallels last episode when Willow
moves past Tara as a product of her own rather adventerous date. Indeed, if
Xander's date hadn't turned into a demon again, I think he would have a new
orgasm buddy and Anya would be history. A rebound chick for sure - hence
all the Anya talk at the coffee shop - but the tone of that conversation
sure felt to me like he was ready to move on.
Anya, on the other hand, suddenly isn't ready. I would suggest that it's
the old rejection thing rearing its head one more time. I'm not sure that
it's desire for Xander as much as it is hating that he could go out with
somebody else.
On the other hand, screwing and making up sounds good too. Perhaps your
idea is best.
The Buffy date is curious its own way, mainly because there seemed to be
some really good chemistry between them. She really dug how he was a
Slayer's son and a bad-ass fighter. (Part of what made her light up at his
having a Slayer as Mom may have been the notion that it might be possible
for a Slayer to have a personal life after all. On the other hand, that
Slayer is as dead as the rest, and as young. Perhaps upon reflection, it
wasn't as thrilling news as it first seemed.) Yet, in spite of the good
vibes between them, Buffy in the end pointedly tells Spike to stay - that
she isn't ready for him to go. And not because he's a good fighter.
(Which, incidentally, he doesn't seem to be these days.) It's a wonderfully
ambiguous moment, but not necessarily just the thought of romance making
Buffy hesitate. My suspicion is that part of that ambiguity is Buffy
herself struggling to understand what exactly it is that she needs from
Spike. Turning to Wood, however, seems unlikely now.
> Besides being back on the Chaka Kahn kick, the First is also up to
> something else involving Andrew and good-sounding platitudes about how
> everyone else gets a chance at forgiveness, why not him? The First is
> being Jonathan Levinson, so Danny Strong can bring out a side of his
> personality that's not so relentlessly whiny. I did think there was
> a chance that Andrew would let himself be influenced by peer pressure,
> so the hopeless transparent-ness of his attempt to pump the Big Bad for
> information comes as something of a relief. And the subsequent
> defiance achieves the strange task of being empowering for the
> character at the same time as it makes him look ridiculous. Going
> through a girl's underwear drawer without permission is of course not
> nice and evil, though.
Andrew is simply outstanding this episode - especially in the first
encounter with Jonathan. On first viewing of the season I had a lot of
reservations about Andrew becoming a major character. I had previously
thought of him as the weakest element of The Trio. (Now I don't think of
him so much as weak, as simply never the driving force in that group.) But
this episode is when I was finally convinced that he was a good, even
inspired choice. And a good actor. It's an odd character, but very well
realized. You can really see his mind and emotions churning.
The content of their encounter is pretty potent too. (I love the image of
Jonathan putting his hands to his chest and then showing them covered with
blood.) Andrew really hung in there with him. (Dawn was right.) For all
of the First's bwa-ha-ha to the Scoobies, the reality is that it lost that
encounter by losing Andrew. (Ended up making damn sure Andrew was lost by
getting so pissed at him.) Lost the opportunity to off the remaining
Potentials in the house. As creepy as The First's dead ghost act has been,
it's not exactly doing a bang up job of winning converts to his cause. All
it has left now on that front is Spike's mysterious trigger.
> Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
> catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
> I'm not sure I like. This follows up on my problem last week with
> treating the Scoobies as the bumbling idiots who're lost without
> Buffy and hopelessly outmatched by the big supernatural world. I think
> the sense of the disorganized group of kids and young people not
> knowing what to do could theoretically be worth developing, but don't
> see what the excess dumb accomplishes. No, didn't like it much in S4
> either.
OK. There may be some of that intent here. I'm not sure. But I don't get
what's so dumb about their attempt. The wire, after all, is secondary - a
bonus to add in. The more serious element is simply using the opportunity
to attempt to play The First. And while they didn't get all that they hoped
for, I wouldn't call it a failure. We got direct confirmation of The
First's intentions - kill the Potentials to end the Slayer line - and direct
confirmation that he still had something special in mind for Spike. That's
hardly the key to defeating it, but it's still actionable intelligence.
> Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
> impatient with their antics, and his final speech could almost be a
> message that to the viewer that it's time to shift the show into high
> gear again - no more comedy episodes. Well, we'll see.
A few people have mentioned the probable emotional stress of having his
Watcher colleagues killed. And that he likely thinks that the whole of the
Watcher legacy now rests solely on him. Aside from affecting his mood, I
think this goes strongly to the content of his attitude too. Buffy and the
Scoobies know what's happened to the Watchers and Potentials, but they never
really felt all that connected to a greater organization. Nor does the
Summer house feel like the Alamo to them. They've always worked alone here.
Hell, with all the Potentials about, they may feel stronger than ever. But
Giles does have that connection, and a resulting greater feeling for the
magnitude of what The First is doing than anybody at the Summers home is
able to. And he is accutely aware of a world wide organization reduced to
this one chaotic household. I think that alone explains why he would think
in terms of circling the wagons. He's desperate in a way the others aren't
yet.
> Wood's reaction upon finally getting to meet the First is to
> dramatically walk through it. Guy likes the gestures. I think the
> cryptically loaded delivery on "thank you" is good.
Damn, that's a good scene. And finally a serious revelation about
something - which we haven't gotten a whole lot of for a while.
Also, finally something done with Wood after keeping him mysterious and in
the background through most of the season. I really like his character this
episode, which is something to be enthused about, though I'm nervous about
introducing something like this so late in the series.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Diverting enough.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
After a not so thrilling spell, we finally get a well constructed episode
with good character moments, story and staging. I think it plays very well
and deserves a high rating for that. But aside from a couple moments - like
the reveal about Wood's background - it's not a terribly important story.
In a lot of ways it marks time. So I'll keep the rating at Good, which is
high enough.
OBS
One Bit Shy
I guess I'm struggling to imagine the play of it diminishing the weight. To
me, with the line included, it pretty much directly removes Wood from the
picture - effectively telling Spike that yes, that means she's choosing
Spike. With no answer, everything is left more ambiguous - in particular,
allowing more room for a less romantic construal.
<shrug> Either way, it still plays to dreams of Spuffy I suppose. I'm not
so sure that it's wrong for the natural story, though. Their history and
current circumstances ought to make Buffy struggle to figure out what her
true feelings for Spike are.
OBS
BTR1701
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> In article <kULUg.11456$pp1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> "Rincewind" <rincewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for clearing that up. Y'know, when the plot goes from C to X, the
> > viewers actually need to see a few of the letters in between.
> > I find the comment by Jane very telling, for two reasons: (1) even the
> > writers have been reduced to fanwanking, and (2) the surprise expressed by
> > Jane that the viewers thought this was a plot hole means that there is
> > NOBODY looking at these scripts to make sure that they even make sense."
>
> Or, in the alternative, they have differing priorities to you.
Sure, if their priorities lie in some other direction than telling a
coherent story.
Scythe Matters
> Scythe Matters wrote:
>>An interesting perspective, especially given who she's talking to. Does
>>she know what Giles did to Ben? Because that was beating evil by doing
>>evil, and rather clearly so.
> Nothing evil about it, from my POV. Ben has shown that he's a danger
> to the world as long as he's Glorified, and his actions in the later
> part of S5 prove that he's not an innocent or a good person.
No, he's certainly not innocent, but he's no more guilty (ignoring a
relative comparison of the magnitude of their actual and potential
crimes, which is obviously something that's normal for this show) than
Jonathan or Andrew, and Giles didn't suffocate them. They were less of a
danger (at the time, though later events could have proved otherwise,
were Jonathan not anemic), but a similar justification could have been
used to stop them *or* Warren. In fact, after Warren *was* killed, there
appears to have been a general recognition (excepting Dawn) of the
wrongness of it. Certainly Willow thinks that way now. Was Warren more
of a danger than Ben? Willow would probably agree with Buffy right now.
I don't know that Giles -- or, for that matter, Wesley -- would agree
with her. Angel almost certainly wouldn't, given recent (to you) events.
Evil or not, Giles killed Ben, and in rather cold blood. For good and
justifiable reasons, probably. But now Buffy's drawing a bright line,
which is not where the show's been going for the past few seasons. The
standard set by her statement doesn't permit that killing. I tend to
agree with it regarding Spike in his current incarnation, which means
that I agree with the removal of the chip, but it's not as inherently
clear as she thinks it is. I don't object to the show's changing views
on this sort of thing, but I do make note of the fact that it's a
simpler, more slogany version of the show's perspective on killing
humans, that it's a reversal of recently-established philosophies, and
that it might be significant that Buffy is saying this particular thing
to Giles.
> ~no, really~
Lies, lies. ;-)
peachy ashie passion
You don't think telling Spike she's choosing him vs. leaving it
ambiguous counts as altering the weight??
How can you argue that?
Scythe Matters
> It's been interesting watching some people speak of Buffy being torn
> multiple directions, and some of her bad judgment, and most everybody about
> this year's version of isolation from her friends. None of which I care to
> dispute exactly. It's just that the Buffy I've seen thus far this season
> strikes me as the happiest and most stable since S4.
(snip)
A good explanation, and I agree with you. The isolation, though: that's
apparently deliberate based on where the actress was. Joss was fairly
explicit that he was tying Gellar's isolation into the Buffy arc. Yet if
that's true, it's probably also true that the rest of it is onscreen
here: she's settled down, domestically, and seems to have her offscreen
life generally together. That shows in her character as well.
> and an overcrowded house with just one bathroom
You would think Xander could have done something about this by now.
> To my mind, she's been the most
> grown up of anyone around her this season. Maybe that's part of what makes
> Wood interesting to her.
In a way, Wood is Riley, but *actually* mature. Riley seemed mature to
frosh Buffy, but the incomprehensible world of the Slayer eventually
defeated him. Wood can handle it, or at least it appears that he can.
The thing that threw Riley shouldn't throw Wood. And yet...even before
he allegedly discovers that Spike is a vampire (though you know that I
feel he should have known in the car), there's tension and testosterony
badness when another man enters the picture. Just like Riley, and in
fact a direct parallel to the Riley/Angel scenes. It's an interesting thing.
> Another face off between them over Spike. But with the stakes raised,
> Buffy's reputation on the line, and her judgment called into question where
> everybody around her can see.
And why isn't Spike chained to the wall? If he thinks he's so dangerous,
why is he roaming about even when Buffy's not around? Bad continuity.
> I think he's pretty much always done that, but he seems grumpier about it
> now - and more determined. As in less inclined to roll over. (Although
> that cropped up back in The Gift too.)
Yes. It's important to remember that Giles was, in a sense, "chosen" as
well.
> If Giles really isn't getting the attention he should have or want, it's not
> really because of Spike. He pretty much blew that when he walked out in S6,
> and his influence largely died sometime late in S5 anyway. But I can see
> him latching onto the Spike thing as representative of his loss of
> influence.
There's also the issue of Willow. She was his right-hand girl, there was
incredible hostility last season...and then he was the one who (at least
from his perspective) saved and healed her. But he comes back to
Sunnydale, and Buffy's not in a place to receive similar Dumbledore-ish
help. Yet Buffy was his charge, while Willow was not (until it was
almost too late). That, too, has to feel like a failure of some kind.
> Failure to listen to Giles is more than a Buffy issue too. It's one of the
> important elements of the episode over all. His pompous bragging about his
> "wary watchfulness" is more than a funny line. He's regaling the Potentials
> about training and such in a fashion guaranteed to make them stop listening.
> (So, did any Potential gain any insight from their spirit guide quest last
> episode? No mention of that is there?) He's producing graphic flash cards
> that sends one Potential into hiding and annoys all of the Scoobies.
>
> And, in straight metaphor, we introduce this episode a Potential that
> literally doesn't speak his language - though it doesn't stop Giles from
> pretending to understand and communicate. That's not an accident.
Absolutely not. It ties into what others have said: Giles *is* the
Council now. Everything that they were, everything that they
embodied...he's the last of it. (Yes, Wesley, but he's been kicked to
the curb.) There's something incredibly symbolic about that, especially
given Buffy's reaction to it. What it all means and where the show will
take it -- if anywhere -- remains to be seen.
> So in recognizing the risk to reputation that Buffy takes in de-chipping
> Spike, it may be useful to remember that Giles status among the group is in
> jeopardy too.
And again with the intra-group tension. Buffy's judgement regarding
Spike is questionable on multiple levels. Spike is not safe while the
trigger exists. Andrew can't be trusted, though it seems he's moving
towards something. Dawn still has that "Buffy won't choose you" thing in
the back of her mind. Willow can't be relied upon. Anya and Xander are
sort of drifting, directionless. The potentials can't be controlled. And
Giles seems openly hostile to a lot of what the rest are doing. There's
a *lot* of bad mojo here.
> Another one is how did Spike know
> about Willow's locater spell that places Xander in the high school? We saw
> Spike leave to get Buffy before Willow did any kind of spell.
Spike brought Buffy's mobile with him? Hey, I can fanwank too.
> The Buffy date is curious its own way, mainly because there seemed to be
> some really good chemistry between them.
I think there's been good chemistry since "Lessons," though obviously
this ramps it up a bit. I really regret how quickly the episode
dispenses with the chemistry once Spike arrives, because I think there
was potential for meaty character goodness here.
> But
> this episode is when I was finally convinced that he was a good, even
> inspired choice. And a good actor.
I've said it before: Lenk takes a very difficult and potentially
disastrous role and does wonders with it.
> As creepy as The First's dead ghost act has been,
> it's not exactly doing a bang up job of winning converts to his cause. All
> it has left now on that front is Spike's mysterious trigger.
This is why I think the Giles/First thing is a missed opportunity.
Actually kill Giles. Have him show up as we've seen. Then hold the
revelation until much later (which obviously requires doing less to call
attention to it in earlier episodes), and it's potentially much more
devastating to everyone.
But then again, it's probably better than I'm not the writer. ;-)
> I really like his character this
> episode, which is something to be enthused about, though I'm nervous about
> introducing something like this so late in the series.
They seem to be doing that a lot, lately.
One Bit Shy
news:wN%Ug.7316$pS3.4953@trnddc01...
I'm not arguing that. I said it wouldn't *diminish* the weight of the
line - which is what I thought vague disclaimer was suggesting in bringing
it up - but rather increase it. At least in the sense of making it more S/B
shipper friendly.
OBS
One Bit Shy
> The isolation, though: that's apparently deliberate based on where the
> actress was. Joss was fairly explicit that he was tying Gellar's isolation
> into the Buffy arc. Yet if that's true, it's probably also true that the
> rest of it is onscreen here: she's settled down, domestically, and seems
> to have her offscreen life generally together. That shows in her character
> as well.
Gee, I just can't seem to get rid of you. <g>
I know nothing at all about the offscreen connection. Normally I don't pay
a lot of attention to offscreen implications. (I really don't care a hoot
about the Kennedy as a gay peace offering thing. What issues I have with
Kennedy are on screen.) But that's quite a thing for Joss to say. What the
heck is that about?
OBS
Scythe Matters
> Gee, I just can't seem to get rid of you. <g>
Well, I'm not gone yet. I'll be leaving...let's see...probably about the
time AoQ gets to "Dirty Girls." Personally, if I can't be around for the
end, I'd rather be gone before "Lies My Parents Told Me," because I
predict nothing but badness in that thread.
> I know nothing at all about the offscreen connection. Normally I don't pay
> a lot of attention to offscreen implications. (I really don't care a hoot
> about the Kennedy as a gay peace offering thing. What issues I have with
> Kennedy are on screen.) But that's quite a thing for Joss to say. What the
> heck is that about?
I don't really have experience with Joss doing this sort of this, but I
do with other writers. J. Michael Straczynski used to incorporate his
actors' real lives into their character arcs all the time. Aaron Sorkin
twists this a bit, often having a character be the opposite of whatever
the actor is. As to why Joss would do this...well, it does fit into the
arc, but I will make an unfounded guess that it was more of a thing
where he felt that the isolation (and tension) couldn't be completely
hidden onscreen, so why not use it?
hayes62
True but I'm still puzzling over how deleting the line that made it
absolutely unambiguous that the thing with Wood was about business not
romance is pandering to shippers rather than snatching away the
confimation they would have loved to hear. The point that Buffy needs
demon fighters had already been covered both in being explicitly
pointed out by Spike and in the very serious turn Buffy's mood took in
response to Giles's outburst. She obviously takes it extremely
seriously.
hayes62
It's possible but Gellar isn't the only person whose leading role has
likely isolated her from her colleagues over the years. People complain
about Joss abandoning BtVS for hia new shiny toy but I've always
thought that in the exploration of leadership and its tolls on the
leader this season is drawing directly from his experience in a quite
self-revealing way.
Scythe Matters
> True but I'm still puzzling over how deleting the line that made it
> absolutely unambiguous that the thing with Wood was about business not
> romance is pandering to shippers rather than snatching away the
> confimation they would have loved to hear.
Well, on that point I'd have to let vd speak. I'm not entirely on board
with it; I do think the line would have changed the scene, but I don't
place the same importance on it that vd does.
Scythe Matters
> It's possible
Not that Joss always tells the truth, but it's more than "possible"
here; it's what he claimed they did.
BTR1701
Scythe Matters <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> > It's been interesting watching some people speak of Buffy being torn
> > multiple directions, and some of her bad judgment, and most everybody about
> > this year's version of isolation from her friends. None of which I care to
> > dispute exactly. It's just that the Buffy I've seen thus far this season
> > strikes me as the happiest and most stable since S4.
>
> (snip)
>
> A good explanation, and I agree with you. The isolation, though: that's
> apparently deliberate based on where the actress was. Joss was fairly
> explicit that he was tying Gellar's isolation into the Buffy arc.
How exactly was Gellar isolated?
hayes62
You'd have to show me the quote because I don't remember anything quite
so definitive. I do remeber him talking about how the development of
all the the charactewrs was influenced by the actors personalities,
Giles and Willow as well as Buffy from the beginning. But in any case I
think it's more a matter of whether Joss always tells the whole truth
rather than whether he lies, a story can have more than one source of
inspiration.
Malsperanza
It's the "in cold blood" part that is worrisome. Giles kills Ben so
that he can kill Glory while Ben's body has control of her life--or at
any rate, he kills Ben just in case there might still be a Glory in
there. He doesn't just tie Ben up, because if Glory is still in there,
that wouldn't work. So Ben is really collateral, a bystander caught in
the crossfire.
It's interesting that we don't know if Buffy or anyone else knows what
Giles did. He did it very quietly in the middle of a lot of chaos, and
seems never to have mentioned it, which sort of implies that he is not
entirely comfortable with his own actions.
In any case, as filmed, the event is presented as not being completely,
unambiguously, OK. Giles, the human being, does the expedient thing.
Buffy, the hero, never does the practical expedient thing; she always
does the right thing, even at the risk of destroying the world.
~Mal
Malsperanza
What is that red thing on the back of his shoulder, visible as he
leaves the Summers house? At first I thought it was a wound, but then
it looked like some sort of decoration.
~Mal
Jeff Jacoby
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> Scythe Matters wrote:
>
>>>An interesting perspective, especially given who she's talking to. Does
>>>she know what Giles did to Ben? Because that was beating evil by doing
>>>evil, and rather clearly so.
>
>> Nothing evil about it, from my POV. Ben has shown that he's a danger
>> to the world as long as he's Glorified, and his actions in the later
>> part of S5 prove that he's not an innocent or a good person.
>
> No, he's certainly not innocent, but he's no more guilty (ignoring a
> relative comparison of the magnitude of their actual and potential
> crimes, which is obviously something that's normal for this show)
It's hard to ignore killing one or two people versus killing 5 or
6 billion. Yeah, maybe it's only a matter of degree, but
sometimes degree really does matter (see Buffy's take on that
below).
> than
> Jonathan or Andrew, and Giles didn't suffocate them.
Who did Jonathan kill?
> They were less of a
> danger (at the time, though later events could have proved otherwise,
> were Jonathan not anemic), but a similar justification could have been
> used to stop them *or* Warren.
I don't think Giles is that stupid. 'Ben *is* Glory' is more
than just a gag line and Giles knows that. Glory will maim and
kill everything in its path with no more thought than blinking an
eye. Giles knows that too; it's not guesswork or speculation on
his part, as it would be if he tried to predict what Jonathan or
Andrew (both fully human, btw) might do.
> In fact, after Warren *was* killed, there
> appears to have been a general recognition (excepting Dawn) of the
> wrongness of it. Certainly Willow thinks that way now. Was Warren more
> of a danger than Ben? Willow would probably agree with Buffy right now.
> I don't know that Giles -- or, for that matter, Wesley -- would agree
> with her. Angel almost certainly wouldn't, given recent (to you) events.
>
> Evil or not, Giles killed Ben, and in rather cold blood. For good and
> justifiable reasons, probably. But now Buffy's drawing a bright line,
> which is not where the show's been going for the past few seasons. The
> standard set by her statement doesn't permit that killing. I tend to
> agree with it regarding Spike in his current incarnation, which means
> that I agree with the removal of the chip, but it's not as inherently
> clear as she thinks it is.
It's interesting that Buffy once reprimanded Riley for seeing the
world in black and white, implying he needs to see the
complicated grey inbetween. She even said outright there are
different degrees of evil. And though her current statement is a
laudable, lofty sounding and high-minded sound-bite, it now
allows her to make vast over-simplifications of situations that
can be very complicated.
> I don't object to the show's changing views
> on this sort of thing, but I do make note of the fact that it's a
> simpler, more slogany version of the show's perspective on killing
> humans, that it's a reversal of recently-established philosophies, and
> that it might be significant that Buffy is saying this particular thing
> to Giles.
I don't object to the show, through other characters and
situations, making the case for other views. However, I object
to this change in Buffy. If anything I would have expected
events since S4 to only reaffirm her original notion that things
are almost never as simple as you would like them to be.
Jeff
Clairel
--There was much speculation on that back in the day, but nobody came
to any definite conclusion. Even the better visibility on the DVDs,
once they were released, didn't help. It looked like a blood splash,
but since there was no reason for Spike to be wounded at that time, I'm
guessing decoration.
Anyway, I liked the plain brown front view. The red patch or splash on
the back wasn't why I liked the looks of that outfit.
Clairel
Elisi
> Back when I watched this, I kinda felt the same about how this was
> delivered: the sense of something interesting being missed to keep the
> noisiest group of fans happy.
What sort of interesting? Sorry, but I don't follow you. Apparently any
sort of S/B scene is pandering - but how else are you going to develop
a relationship? Were the B/A scenes pandering? Or how about
Buffy/Riley? Or Anya/Xander or Willow/Oz or Willow/Tara? You seem to
have this odd belief that B/S only happened because of fan pressure and
the pairing isn't an actual pairing but just something inserted
awkwardly. The fact that Spike and Buffy have the longest history of
any couple on the show, had a connection way back at the start
("I'd rather be fighting you anyway!" "Mutual."), a cracking
on-screen chemistry and (at this point) a background history both
damaging and yet uplifting as well as HUGE unresolved issues, means
that it would be madness *not* to see where it goes. BtVS as a show has
always been character-driven, and in no relationship is this more true
than B/S. The action comes _from them_, not outside influences
(although you can't take them away, obviously).
And - because this might have escaped you - Spuffy fans (mostly) live
off scraps. Oh I know we had S/B all over the place in S6, but
soulless!Spike and depressed!Buffy was never going to have a happy
ending, that much was obvious. Now they're slooooowly moving in the
right direction, but this episode (one of the Spuffiest in the season)
has Spike declaring that he 'no longer dreams of a crypt for two',
Buffy going on a date _with someone else_ and obviously trying to move
on, and the final statement ("I'm not ready for you to not be
here.") heavily implies that some day she might be ready. Compared to
say... the B/A stuff of S3 ("Are you still my girl?" "Always.") I
quite simply can't understand where you see pandering. If Buffy had
gone on a date with _Spike_ and _he_ had been feeding her brandied
pears - oh yes. But what we get? Nothing like it.
(Nyfb jr arire rira trg n fvatyr xvff va gur ragver frnfba. V'z abg
bar bs gubfr jub vf cnegvphyneyl ovggre nobhg gung, ohg V whfg sryg vg
arrqrq cbvagvat bhg. Pbzcner jvgu F3 ntnva naq zl tbbqarff ohg Ohssl
naq Natry jrer nyy bire rnpu nsgre whfg n srj rcvfbqrf! Nyfb O & F
arire tb ba n qngr (hayrff lbh pbhag 'Yvsr Frevny') be qvq nal fbeg
bs pbhcyr-l guvat gung fnl Ohssl naq Evyrl qvq nyy gur gvzr (rkprcg sbe
'Fbzrguvat Oyhr' bs pbhefr). Jr jbhyq unir yvxrq nyy gung n terng
qrny, ohg tbg ubg frk naq pnhgvbhf sevraqfuvc jvgu fybjyl tebjvat ybir
vafgrnq. Ohg jr jrera'g cnaqrerq gb - abg va gur jnl lbh frrz gb or
vzcylvat.)
See what you call 'pandering to fans', or 'yanking the chain',
is quite simply the writers developing the relationship, fraction by
fraction. They are telling a story, and a darn good one IMHO. You are
free to dislike it, but I'm getting very fed up of the whole
'Spuffy is ludicrous and only happened because of fan girl
pressure'. Heck *I* stopped watching the show for a whole _year_
because 'Becoming' was so over the top angsty. Doomed romance just
isn't my cup of tea, although I (now) appreciate the story for its
own sake. But it is incredibly straightforward and I don't find it
terribly exciting (they love each other but can't be together, it's
all very tragic. The end.) B/S _isn't_ straightforward at all and
that's why I love it.
Naq nf jr xabj, jurarire gurl tvir hf n pehzo gurl znxr fher gb gnxr vg
njnl ntnva - jr tb fgenvtug sebz gur fjrrgarff cbegenlrq urer gb gur
ireony ynfuvat bs 'Trg Vg Qbar'.
I honestly can't see where you come from. Hate it all you want, but
this was a story that Joss wanted to tell. That's it. He also wanted
to hook Willow up with Kennedy, and that was certainly not done because
the fans wanted it...
Sorry if I sound snippy, but I'm just tired of having one of the
richest and most interesting (love) stories to grace the small screen
written off as 'pandering'. If it is, then so is pretty much every
other ship.
lili...@gmail.com
vague disclaimer schreef:
Juvpu vf cebonoyl gur jbefg cbffvoyr guvat ur pbhyq unir qbar
pbafvqrevat ubj onq ur znqr Ohssl ybbx ol univat ure qronfr urefrys ol
xvyyvat Natry. Ubarfgyl, gung zbzrag znqr zr qrfcvfr ure naq guvax bs
ure nf n fyhg sbe gur svefg gvzr rire va jngpuvat gur frevrf.
Gung O/N cnaqrevat xvff vf cebonoyl gur zbfg qvfthfgvat fprar va gur
ragver frevrf nf sne nf V'z pbaprearq, fvapr abg bayl vf vg ubeevoyl
bbp sbe obgu Ohssl naq Natry, vg znxrf gur obgu bs gurz ybbx yvxr fphz.
Lore
lili...@gmail.com
lili...@gmail.com schreef:
znxr gung xvffvat Natry...
uzzz, serhqvna glcb, zvtug unir orra zl evfvat ovyr ntnvafg Natry gur
zbzrag ur fubjrq hc va RbQ gnyxvat..*rt*
Lore
William George Ferguson
>A few people have mentioned the probable emotional stress of having his
>Watcher colleagues killed. And that he likely thinks that the whole of the
>Watcher legacy now rests solely on him. Aside from affecting his mood, I
>think this goes strongly to the content of his attitude too. Buffy and the
>Scoobies know what's happened to the Watchers and Potentials, but they never
>really felt all that connected to a greater organization. Nor does the
>Summer house feel like the Alamo to them. They've always worked alone here.
>Hell, with all the Potentials about, they may feel stronger than ever. But
>Giles does have that connection, and a resulting greater feeling for the
>magnitude of what The First is doing than anybody at the Summers home is
>able to. And he is accutely aware of a world wide organization reduced to
>this one chaotic household. I think that alone explains why he would think
>in terms of circling the wagons. He's desperate in a way the others aren't
>yet.
It should be pointed out that Giles is aware that other Watchers have
survived. The whole Robson thing establishes that, if nothing else.
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
hayes62
Jeff Jacoby wrote:
> I don't think Giles is that stupid. 'Ben *is* Glory' is more
> than just a gag line and Giles knows that. Glory will maim and
> kill everything in its path with no more thought than blinking an
> eye. Giles knows that too; it's not guesswork or speculation on
> his part, as it would be if he tried to predict what Jonathan or
> Andrew (both fully human, btw) might do.
GENERAL: It's not just your life. Unimaginable legions will perish,
including everyone here. You can stop this. You can save *all* their
lives, by ending one. The little girl. The Key. Destroy it, and the
will of the Beast will be broken, she will fade, a distant memory.
Giles never heard that exchange but it suggests that Glory in Ben
wouldn't necessarily have posed so much of a threat. Similarly at the
beginning of The Gift Giles seems to suggesting that they kill Dawn
pre-emptively. The clear alternative to the false dichotomy of "every
living creature" or "just one little girl" had already been presented
namely stopping Glory before the ritual but Giles's instinct was to
assume that was futile. Maybe the difference between him and Buffy
isn't ethics but that she's prepared to hope.
> > In fact, after Warren *was* killed, there
> > appears to have been a general recognition (excepting Dawn) of the
> > wrongness of it. Certainly Willow thinks that way now. Was Warren more
> > of a danger than Ben? Willow would probably agree with Buffy right now.
> > I don't know that Giles -- or, for that matter, Wesley -- would agree
> > with her. Angel almost certainly wouldn't, given recent (to you) events.
I'm not sure Willow does think that she told Kennedy she killed him for
a reason. I think she feels guilty about trying to end the world and
attacking all her friends. Possibly Andrew and Jonathan as well but not
Warren.
> > Evil or not, Giles killed Ben, and in rather cold blood. For good and
> > justifiable reasons, probably. But now Buffy's drawing a bright line,
> > which is not where the show's been going for the past few seasons. The
> > standard set by her statement doesn't permit that killing. I tend to
> > agree with it regarding Spike in his current incarnation, which means
> > that I agree with the removal of the chip, but it's not as inherently
> > clear as she thinks it is.
>
> It's interesting that Buffy once reprimanded Riley for seeing the
> world in black and white, implying he needs to see the
> complicated grey inbetween. She even said outright there are
> different degrees of evil. And though her current statement is a
> laudable, lofty sounding and high-minded sound-bite, it now
> allows her to make vast over-simplifications of situations that
> can be very complicated.
>
It sounded as though she was speaking from experience not from the
pulpit when she says "I know that." Giles's utilitarianism is also an
oversimplification because it assumes that the doer's judgement will
remain unaffected by evil done in the name of good.
~H
One Bit Shy
news:ldjai217ivd35ski3...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:00:46 -0400, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>
>>A few people have mentioned the probable emotional stress of having his
>>Watcher colleagues killed. And that he likely thinks that the whole of
>>the
>>Watcher legacy now rests solely on him. Aside from affecting his mood, I
>>think this goes strongly to the content of his attitude too. Buffy and
>>the
>>Scoobies know what's happened to the Watchers and Potentials, but they
>>never
>>really felt all that connected to a greater organization. Nor does the
>>Summer house feel like the Alamo to them. They've always worked alone
>>here.
>>Hell, with all the Potentials about, they may feel stronger than ever.
>>But
>>Giles does have that connection, and a resulting greater feeling for the
>>magnitude of what The First is doing than anybody at the Summers home is
>>able to. And he is accutely aware of a world wide organization reduced to
>>this one chaotic household. I think that alone explains why he would
>>think
>>in terms of circling the wagons. He's desperate in a way the others
>>aren't
>>yet.
>
> It should be pointed out that Giles is aware that other Watchers have
> survived. The whole Robson thing establishes that, if nothing else.
Yeah, but not in a coherent fashion. This isn't really gone into, nor do I
think it needs to be. It's probably sufficient to extrapolate that
re-connecting the remaining Watchers would be extremely difficult at the
moment and create an inviting target for The First - their current isolation
being their best defense. Whatever the reason, it's Giles alone that's at
the Hellmouth, the center of FE activity, and with the pitiful remnants of
the Watchers library. So he's going to feel it's all on his shoulders.
OBS
Scythe Matters
> It's hard to ignore killing one or two people versus killing 5 or
> 6 billion. Yeah, maybe it's only a matter of degree, but
> sometimes degree really does matter (see Buffy's take on that
> below).
I don't really want to go back to an argument about Ben's guilt or
innocence, since that ground has been well-trodden and the analogy is
certainly not perfect. But:
BUFFY
You think I'm losing sight of the big picture, but I'm not. [...] You
can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
Why did Giles kill Ben, if not from an understanding of "the big
picture?" He judged that Ben's death was worth it, though he certainly
knew that it was an "evil" act by the definition Buffy's using in the
referenced quote. My only real point was that this has not been a
consistent view on the show, or even from Buffy...as your Buffy/Riley
exchange shows, and which I think you agree with.
Ben's direct responsibility for deaths was greater than Warren's,
Willow's and Andrew's, but far less than (for example) Spike's. I don't
think Buffy's or Giles' motivations for wanting some of those people
dead, some of them in prison, and some of them being coddled chez
Summers on the path to reform are at all murky, but I do think the
*justifications* they're using are muddled. Sometimes, Giles is all
about forgiveness, and other times he's Ripper. Buffy's a proponent of
grey areas, and then she's dogmatic. It's schizophrenic. I don't at all
mind -- in fact, I embrace -- competing philosophies, but let's at least
have some coherence or meaning to them. Buffy's quote can easily be
interpreted as merely self-serving, given the context and the history.
> I don't think Giles is that stupid. 'Ben *is* Glory' is more
> than just a gag line and Giles knows that. Glory will maim and
> kill everything in its path with no more thought than blinking an
> eye. Giles knows that too; it's not guesswork or speculation on
> his part, as it would be if he tried to predict what Jonathan or
> Andrew (both fully human, btw) might do.
Sure. But here, Giles is warning against Spike for what he might (and,
granted, is likely to once the trigger is, uh, triggered) do. Naq jr
xabj gung, riraghnyyl, ur nterrf gb gel naq xvyy uvz nf n erfhyg. Ur'f
pregnvayl rkcerffrq fvzvyne jneavatf nobhg, fnl, Natry...naq lrg, ur
qvqa'g xvyy onpx-sebz-uryy Natry. (V'z rapelcgvat guvf orpnhfr V qba'g
xabj gung vg'f lrg pyrne gb NbD gung Tvyrf jnagf Fcvxr qrnq.) Tvira
Naqerj'f erprag uvfgbel, ur zvtug rira or crefhnqrq gb znxr gur fnzr
nethzrag nobhg uvz...abg qrngu, arprffnevyl, ohg gbb qnatrebhf gb or
gehfgrq, yrsg serr, be ersbezrq. Viewed historically, his response to
de-chipped Spike is just as anomalous as Buffy's bright-line rule.
> It's interesting that Buffy once reprimanded Riley for seeing the
> world in black and white, implying he needs to see the
> complicated grey inbetween. She even said outright there are
> different degrees of evil.
Very true. Though I think Riley might have penetrated to the truth of
what's going on here:
RILEY: Still... I was in a totally black and white space, people versus
monsters, and it ain't like that... especially when it comes to love.
Scythe Matters
> You'd have to show me the quote because I don't remember anything quite
> so definitive.
I wouldn't have any idea where to begin to look. Sorry.
Scythe Matters
> How exactly was Gellar isolated?
You'd have to ask Joss. I wasn't there.
Jeff Jacoby
>
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
>> I don't think Giles is that stupid. 'Ben *is* Glory' is more
>> than just a gag line and Giles knows that. Glory will maim and
>> kill everything in its path with no more thought than blinking an
>> eye. Giles knows that too; it's not guesswork or speculation on
>> his part, as it would be if he tried to predict what Jonathan or
>> Andrew (both fully human, btw) might do.
>
> GENERAL: It's not just your life. Unimaginable legions will perish,
> including everyone here. You can stop this. You can save *all* their
> lives, by ending one. The little girl. The Key. Destroy it, and the
> will of the Beast will be broken, she will fade, a distant memory.
>
> Giles never heard that exchange but it suggests that Glory in Ben
> wouldn't necessarily have posed so much of a threat.
It's certainly suggestive. But the general, and all his
knights, were fanatics. They saw one solution to the
exclusion of all others and I wouldn't trust much of what
they had to say.
> Similarly at the
> beginning of The Gift Giles seems to suggesting that they kill Dawn
> pre-emptively. The clear alternative to the false dichotomy of "every
> living creature" or "just one little girl" had already been presented
> namely stopping Glory before the ritual but Giles's instinct was to
> assume that was futile.
Maybe this is fanwanking, but I prefer to think of him as
considering *all* the possibilities, especially the unpleasant
ones Buffy won't. He would be remiss in his duties not to
consider every possibility he could and make Buffy aware of them.
(And yes, he's fallible and might not know all the possibilities.)
> Maybe the difference between him and Buffy
> isn't ethics but that she's prepared to hope.
I hope the next earthquake won't knock over my ouse. But I buy
the insurance anyway.
I'm happy she's able to take the high road in that respect. She
can afford to do that because Giles' position allows her to (And
great heros who are stars of their own show can get away with it.
On the otherhand, I think it might have made Buffy a more
interesting hero if she on occasion made significant unheroic
choices.)
[snip]
>> > Evil or not, Giles killed Ben, and in rather cold blood. For good and
>> > justifiable reasons, probably. But now Buffy's drawing a bright line,
>> > which is not where the show's been going for the past few seasons. The
>> > standard set by her statement doesn't permit that killing. I tend to
>> > agree with it regarding Spike in his current incarnation, which means
>> > that I agree with the removal of the chip, but it's not as inherently
>> > clear as she thinks it is.
>>
>> It's interesting that Buffy once reprimanded Riley for seeing the
>> world in black and white, implying he needs to see the
>> complicated grey inbetween. She even said outright there are
>> different degrees of evil. And though her current statement is a
>> laudable, lofty sounding and high-minded sound-bite, it now
>> allows her to make vast over-simplifications of situations that
>> can be very complicated.
>>
> It sounded as though she was speaking from experience not from the
> pulpit when she says "I know that." Giles's utilitarianism is also an
> oversimplification because it assumes that the doer's judgement will
> remain unaffected by evil done in the name of good.
Giles was speaking to one very, very specific situation, one of
the complicated grey areas. What he was suggesting was not evil:
BUFFY: Nothing's changed, Giles. Spike had a chip before,
remember? When the First had him kill and sire all
those people.
GILES: We have no idea if his chip was working then. A new
chip might restrain him should the First attempt to
activate him again.
BUFFY: Spike has a soul now. That's what's gonna stop him
from hurting people.
A startlingly stupid and dangerous suppostion on her part when
she herself just admitted he was killing people despite his
soul. And she still doesn't know how the trigger works so there's
no way she can know he won't do it again. A working chip was
a reasonable precaution, nothing evil about it and no negative
effect on Giles' judgement.
Jeff
Jeff Jacoby
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
>> It's hard to ignore killing one or two people versus killing 5 or
>> 6 billion. Yeah, maybe it's only a matter of degree, but
>> sometimes degree really does matter (see Buffy's take on that
>> below).
>
> I don't really want to go back to an argument about Ben's guilt or
> innocence, since that ground has been well-trodden and the analogy is
> certainly not perfect. But:
Agreed. But...
> BUFFY
> You think I'm losing sight of the big picture, but I'm not. [...] You
> can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
>
> Why did Giles kill Ben, if not from an understanding of "the big
> picture?" He judged that Ben's death was worth it, though he certainly
> knew that it was an "evil" act by the definition Buffy's using in the
> referenced quote.
Would he? Buffy is uttering a simple platitude, basically
paraphrasing 'the ends don't justify the means'. She's not
actually defining which acts are evil, so it's hard--or
impossible, even--to take her statement and apply it to all the
things that have occured on the show (except for this issue of a
chipped-and-souled-Spike, to which she making is a clear
linkage).
Is it evil to kill in self-defense? A lot of people would
immediatly say "no". That could easily be Giles' thinking
regarding Ben.
> My only real point was that this has not been a
> consistent view on the show, or even from Buffy...as your Buffy/Riley
> exchange shows, and which I think you agree with.
>
> Ben's direct responsibility for deaths was greater than Warren's,
> Willow's and Andrew's, but far less than (for example) Spike's. I don't
> think Buffy's or Giles' motivations for wanting some of those people
> dead, some of them in prison, and some of them being coddled chez
> Summers on the path to reform are at all murky, but I do think the
> *justifications* they're using are muddled. Sometimes, Giles is all
> about forgiveness, and other times he's Ripper.
I'm not going to review seven years worth of Giles' actions and
justifications. But it might be interesting to see how they
match up with reasonable expections of imminent death and danger
(e.g. Ben/Glory), and also with his pragmatic understanding of
which ones he can do something about.
> Buffy's a proponent of
> grey areas, and then she's dogmatic. It's schizophrenic. I don't at all
> mind -- in fact, I embrace -- competing philosophies, but let's at least
> have some coherence or meaning to them. Buffy's quote can easily be
> interpreted as merely self-serving, given the context and the history.
As I said, I don't mind the show providing different competing
views. I do mind when a character (or more accurately, how the
character is written) is schizophrenic. Long term changes are
understandable, as from S4 to S7, but people tend to become more
aware of complications, not less.
Naq fcrnxvat bs Ohssl'f fpuvmbcueravn, guvf vf gur crefba jub jvyy fnl,
va whfg n srj rcvfbqrf sebz abj:
"Lbh gel nalguvat ntnva, ur'yy xvyy lbh. Zber vzcbegnagyl, V'yy
yrg uvz. V unir n zvffvba gb jva guvf jne, gb fnir gur jbeyq. V
qba'g unir gvzr sbe iraqrggnf. Gur zvffvba vf jung znggref."
Be, va zl ernq bs vg: 'gur raqf qb whfgvsl gur zrnaf'.
>> I don't think Giles is that stupid. 'Ben *is* Glory' is more
>> than just a gag line and Giles knows that. Glory will maim and
>> kill everything in its path with no more thought than blinking an
>> eye. Giles knows that too; it's not guesswork or speculation on
>> his part, as it would be if he tried to predict what Jonathan or
>> Andrew (both fully human, btw) might do.
>
> Sure. But here, Giles is warning against Spike for what he might (and,
> granted, is likely to once the trigger is, uh, triggered) do. Naq jr
> xabj gung, riraghnyyl, ur nterrf gb gel naq xvyy uvz nf n erfhyg. Ur'f
> pregnvayl rkcerffrq fvzvyne jneavatf nobhg, fnl, Natry...naq lrg, ur
> qvqa'g xvyy onpx-sebz-uryy Natry. (V'z rapelcgvat guvf orpnhfr V qba'g
> xabj gung vg'f lrg pyrne gb NbD gung Tvyrf jnagf Fcvxr qrnq.) Tvira
Partly that can be explained by Giles having known who Angel
was: a helpful, able and reliable fighter on the side of the
good guys. That works if Giles is convinced Angel, and not
Angelus, is back.
> Naqerj'f erprag uvfgbel, ur zvtug rira or crefhnqrq gb znxr gur fnzr
> nethzrag nobhg uvz...abg qrngu, arprffnevyl, ohg gbb qnatrebhf gb or
> gehfgrq, yrsg serr, be ersbezrq.
Gehr. Ohg Naqerj vf n avaal. Ng uvf zbfg qnatrebhf ur jbhyqa'g
cbfr zhpu bs n guerng gb nal bs Fpbbovrf be cbgragvnyf.
> Viewed historically, his response to
> de-chipped Spike is just as anomalous as Buffy's bright-line rule.
He doesn't know this souled Spike the way he knew Angel (and we
all agree a soul doesn't necessarily stop someone from doing
evil). Additionally, a triggered Spike could pretty much wipe
out everyone until Buffy arives. I think Giles' reaction is
reasonable and not historically anomalous.
>> It's interesting that Buffy once reprimanded Riley for seeing the
>> world in black and white, implying he needs to see the
>> complicated grey inbetween. She even said outright there are
>> different degrees of evil.
>
> Very true. Though I think Riley might have penetrated to the truth of
> what's going on here:
>
> RILEY: Still... I was in a totally black and white space, people versus
> monsters, and it ain't like that... especially when it comes to love.
Buffy loves Spike?
Jeff
hayes62
Jeff Jacoby wrote:
> > Similarly at the
> > beginning of The Gift Giles seems to suggesting that they kill Dawn
> > pre-emptively. The clear alternative to the false dichotomy of "every
> > living creature" or "just one little girl" had already been presented
> > namely stopping Glory before the ritual but Giles's instinct was to
> > assume that was futile.
>
> Maybe this is fanwanking, but I prefer to think of him as
> considering *all* the possibilities, especially the unpleasant
> ones Buffy won't. He would be remiss in his duties not to
> consider every possibility he could and make Buffy aware of them.
> (And yes, he's fallible and might not know all the possibilities.)
And in the end it's Buffy who thinks of *all* the possibilities and
figures out a way around the prophecy.
> > Maybe the difference between him and Buffy
> > isn't ethics but that she's prepared to hope.
>
> I hope the next earthquake won't knock over my house. But I buy
> the insurance anyway.
Which doesn't generally require you to sacrifice your firstborn.
There's a reason despair is considered a mortal sin. Arguably Giles's
position is that he doesn't care enough about Dawn's death to work for
a solution that avoids that necessity.
I was talking about killing Ben in the first instance. And Giles's
argument that the chip might not have been working has as little
evidence to support it as Buffy's assumption that Spike having a soul
might allow him to overcome the trigger. In fact she saw the chip
'working' before they realised he was killing (in BY and in Help) and
she also saw him snap out of the triggered state when he tried to bite
her and immediately after being pulled off Andrew in NLM. So it's not
completely foolhardy of her to trust him, especially if he's not left
alone with the potentials, or stupid to be concerned that ordering a
new chip would be a betrayal of her professed belief in him (and that
belief sustained him through the First's best efforts at torture) and
expose him to quite unecessary searing pain should they be attacked by
human agents of the First or whenever the new chip's battery life were
exceeded.
Elisi
> As I said, I don't mind the show providing different competing
> views. I do mind when a character (or more accurately, how the
> character is written) is schizophrenic. Long term changes are
> understandable, as from S4 to S7, but people tend to become more
> aware of complications, not less.
BUFFY: Vampire by vampire. It's the only way I know how.
(Help)
BUFFY: It is always different! It's always complicated. And at some
point, someone has to draw the line, and that is always going to be me.
You get down on me for cutting myself off, but in the end the slayer is
always cut off. There's no mystical guidebook. No all-knowing council.
Human rules don't apply. There's only me. I am the law.
XANDER: There has to be another way.
BUFFY: Then please find it.
(Selfless)
Buffy judges on a case-by-case basis. And if at all possible she gives
people a second chance: Spike, Anya, Willow, Andrew. And we see that in
the case of Andrew f.ex. her faith pays off - he, not Spike, was the
danger in this episode. If he had turned to evil again he could have
killed any number of girls. Should Buffy have killed _him_,
pre-emptively?
> He doesn't know this souled Spike the way he knew Angel (and we
> all agree a soul doesn't necessarily stop someone from doing
> evil). Additionally, a triggered Spike could pretty much wipe
> out everyone until Buffy arives. I think Giles' reaction is
> reasonable and not historically anomalous.
But we saw that the trigger bypassed the chip completely. There is no
reason to suggest that the chip would restrain Spike when triggered.
One Bit Shy
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
>> It's hard to ignore killing one or two people versus killing 5 or
>> 6 billion. Yeah, maybe it's only a matter of degree, but
>> sometimes degree really does matter (see Buffy's take on that
>> below).
>
> I don't really want to go back to an argument about Ben's guilt or
> innocence, since that ground has been well-trodden and the analogy is
> certainly not perfect. But:
>
> BUFFY
> You think I'm losing sight of the big picture, but I'm not. [...] You
> can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that.
>
> Why did Giles kill Ben, if not from an understanding of "the big picture?"
> He judged that Ben's death was worth it, though he certainly knew that it
> was an "evil" act by the definition Buffy's using in the referenced quote.
> My only real point was that this has not been a consistent view on the
> show, or even from Buffy...as your Buffy/Riley exchange shows, and which I
> think you agree with.
Yeah, but note that she said that to Riley to disabuse him of the notion
that anything demonic should automatically be killed. The shades of gray
she's seeing are the reasons to show mercy and let people redeem themselves.
That wasn't full blown moral relativism. She wasn't rationalizing acting
badly.
> Ben's direct responsibility for deaths was greater than Warren's, Willow's
> and Andrew's, but far less than (for example) Spike's. I don't think
> Buffy's or Giles' motivations for wanting some of those people dead, some
> of them in prison, and some of them being coddled chez Summers on the path
> to reform are at all murky, but I do think the *justifications* they're
> using are muddled. Sometimes, Giles is all about forgiveness, and other
> times he's Ripper. Buffy's a proponent of grey areas, and then she's
> dogmatic. It's schizophrenic. I don't at all mind -- in fact, I embrace --
> competing philosophies, but let's at least have some coherence or meaning
> to them. Buffy's quote can easily be interpreted as merely self-serving,
> given the context and the history.
In a sense it is self serving because it's a philosophy that usually shows
up when applied to the people she knows and cares about. But I think that's
at least as much a function of dealing with what she can see as it is
favoratism.
I don't really see the same contradiction you do. Her statement goes to the
same standards she's been trying to apply for years - responding to the
potential for redemption and rebelling against caving to that particular
form of expediency - both for the damage it does to others and the damage it
does to herself. Both link directly to her Angel experience. Killing him -
what she thinks of as the worst thing she ever did - and seeing the
potential for redemption within him - especially after his resurrection.
I don't think Buffy's idea of gray areas is quite what you're suggesting.
Rather I think it's her developed understanding that the black and white of
her calling and Watcher indoctrination is much less than it's made out to
be - a path that all too frequently drives her to the wrong place. An evil
one even. But her reaction to that isn't dispassionate thought. It's a
rebellion to hold onto her own set of absolute beliefs that are essential to
her, not because of their rational basis, but because they are the
foundation of her own humanity. She's convinced that letting go of that
will turn her into what she despises. It has been her solution to Willow's
connundrum of how to be the power.
>> I don't think Giles is that stupid. 'Ben *is* Glory' is more
>> than just a gag line and Giles knows that. Glory will maim and
>> kill everything in its path with no more thought than blinking an
>> eye. Giles knows that too; it's not guesswork or speculation on
>> his part, as it would be if he tried to predict what Jonathan or
>> Andrew (both fully human, btw) might do.
>
> Sure. But here, Giles is warning against Spike for what he might (and,
> granted, is likely to once the trigger is, uh, triggered) do. Naq jr xabj
> gung, riraghnyyl, ur nterrf gb gel naq xvyy uvz nf n erfhyg. Ur'f
> pregnvayl rkcerffrq fvzvyne jneavatf nobhg, fnl, Natry...naq lrg, ur
> qvqa'g xvyy onpx-sebz-uryy Natry. (V'z rapelcgvat guvf orpnhfr V qba'g
> xabj gung vg'f lrg pyrne gb NbD gung Tvyrf jnagf Fcvxr qrnq.) Tvira
> Naqerj'f erprag uvfgbel, ur zvtug rira or crefhnqrq gb znxr gur fnzr
> nethzrag nobhg uvz...abg qrngu, arprffnevyl, ohg gbb qnatrebhf gb or
> gehfgrq, yrsg serr, be ersbezrq. Viewed historically, his response to
> de-chipped Spike is just as anomalous as Buffy's bright-line rule.
Giles faces essentially the same conflict that Buffy does, but from the
other side of the fence. The black and white of the Watcher/Slayer
construct is the external influence for Buffy, while her own heart defines
her rebellion against it. Buffy is the external influence for Giles, while
his heart remains remains true to his Watcher upbringing. (Even though he
was contemptuous of what the Council became.) What made Giles different
from other Watchers was his decision to trust Buffy and defer to her in the
end rather than seek to force her to his bidding. (Though he'd certainly
try to persuade her.) I think that, in a way, Buffy awed Giles. Her heart
taking everyone to incredible places - like with Angel - and finding
solutions that aren't supposed to exist - ultimately expressed in The Gift.
I think he sensed that she was simply better than him.
But I don't think she ever truly convinced him, so he also knew that there
would be a time when he couldn't cave. They very nearly came to that point
over Dawn in The Gift. And then with Ben, I think we see the ultimate
expression of his own conflict as he speaks of the awe he has for Buffy,
while performing the opposing act he's convinced must be done.
The conflict between Buffy and Giles in First Date is essentially the same
one they've always had. When Buffy utters the line you quote, I think it
has less to do with absolutes than it is a reminder to herself and to Giles
who she is and what's at stake. Giles observation about her personal
connection to Spike is rational, but it also serves to undercut Buffy's
moral grounding. Buffy's response should at least in part be considered a
rebuke for that.
But now we have Giles in a state of mind of both certainty and urgency not
so inclined to defer to Buffy. Finally, at the end of the episode, Giles
gets himself heard in one of his finer bits of rage. What Buffy thinks of
that isn't clear. But that she is thinking about it is. (Which should be
remembered as background to her comments to Spike and thoughts about Wood.)
----
None of this is to say, incidentally, that Buffy isn't capable of the hard
decision. Killing Angel also established that. And even with her hatred of
the memory and the motivation it gives to find a better solution, she still
thinks she did the right thing. Nor does it imply that maintaining her
standards has ever been easy or that she never falls short.
OBS
Malsperanza
One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159943249.9...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
>
>
> flying everywhere.
>
> It's been interesting watching some people speak of Buffy being torn
> multiple directions, and some of her bad judgment, and most everybody about
> this year's version of isolation from her friends. None of which I care to
> dispute exactly. It's just that the Buffy I've seen thus far this season
> strikes me as the happiest and most stable since S4.
I'm not sure she looks so happy to me, but she is self-confident and
has stopped second-guessing herself (with one or two salient
exceptions).
> It's the other guys that are messed up. A bunch of Potentials filling up
> the house that are essentially fleeing for their lives. A really grumpy,
> almost panicking Giles. A Willow that doesn't want to be powerful. A
> flighty, more sarcastic than ever Anya still obsessing about Xander. A
> perpetual trauma case in Spike.
The combination of confident Buffy and fragmented everyone else is what
has now begun to distance her from the rest of the crew. She's
confiding in them less, she's less dependent on them (with the apparent
exception of Spike), and the result is that she reveals less and less
of her thinking to them--and consequently to us.
I think this is in keeping with the ongoing development of
Buffy-as-Hero. It's a late stage of the process: the Hero grows less
accessible; she crosses over into a mythic status--Thundergod, Wielder
of the Sekrit Fire, whatever--as she moves closer to confronting the
Really Big Bad. It's natural that she should feel a particular kinship
with the only other member of her team who has inhuman/mythic status:
the vamp.
But in some ways it makes her less attractive, or less friendly. And we
feel shut out in a way we're not used to. I don't think this is bad
writing on the part of the show (though in some upcoming episodes it
sure has that mushroomy taste), but it's a hard quality to convey. I
think the motive for this is to elevate Buffy to more mythic status,
rather than, say, to reflect a lack of harmony among cast members.
snip
> > As I'd suspected, he's a vampire fighter too, revealed
> > after the expected vamp attack (I do like how the show makes us - and
> > Buffy - assume that he set her up. Figured he was trying to get a
> > sense of how good she was or something). Making him a vigilante
> > working solo has some promise, though, since he represents an unChosen
> > drawn into the world of vampires and Slayers in a way not usually seen
> > outside the main cast. The casual stake-twirling afterwards reminded
> > me of a Samuel L. Jackson character - very rarely a bad thing.
>
> I really like that fight. It's simple and not overly flashy, but feels more
> physically real than many. Not all the fights this year are good - the
> later fight with the demon is kind of pedestrian - but mostly they've been
> solid with fresh elements. The best part of the assumed set up for me was
> the reveal of the truth when the fight was shown not to be over. Aside from
> revealing the truth, it adds a fresh pacing element to the fight. Wood's
> fighting style is also different and interesting. You noted his flair. (I
> like the flourish with his free hand when he stakes.) He also holds the
> stake differently - thrusting underhand - and is left handed to boot. Very
> nice detail in the staging. (It's a generally well staged episode. I don't
> know if that's the direction or what, but deserves some credit.)
Plus, DB Woodside has either studied martial arts or is a better mimic
than some of the other folks on the show. He does some nice classic
kung fu stances and punches and one excellent kick.
One more reason to like Principal Wood.
> The Buffy date is curious its own way, mainly because there seemed to be
> some really good chemistry between them. She really dug how he was a
> Slayer's son and a bad-ass fighter. (Part of what made her light up at his
> having a Slayer as Mom may have been the notion that it might be possible
> for a Slayer to have a personal life after all. On the other hand, that
> Slayer is as dead as the rest, and as young. Perhaps upon reflection, it
> wasn't as thrilling news as it first seemed.) Yet, in spite of the good
> vibes between them, Buffy in the end pointedly tells Spike to stay - that
> she isn't ready for him to go. And not because he's a good fighter.
> (Which, incidentally, he doesn't seem to be these days.) It's a wonderfully
> ambiguous moment, but not necessarily just the thought of romance making
> Buffy hesitate. My suspicion is that part of that ambiguity is Buffy
> herself struggling to understand what exactly it is that she needs from
> Spike. Turning to Wood, however, seems unlikely now.
I'm not so convinced. The obstacles to any relationship with Spike
remain overwhelming. Wood still seems to me to be in play. I think the
hesitation may come from Buffy putting 2 & 2 together and realizing
that the vampire who killed his mom might be Peroxide Boy.
snip
> Andrew is simply outstanding this episode - especially in the first
> encounter with Jonathan. On first viewing of the season I had a lot of
> reservations about Andrew becoming a major character. I had previously
> thought of him as the weakest element of The Trio. (Now I don't think of
> him so much as weak, as simply never the driving force in that group.)
He's the least cartoonish, which makes him more adaptable. He adds
leavening to the mix. Oddly, he seems to be the male buddy Xander's
been wanting, if only Xander would notice that; they have very similar
interests, don't they?
> > Both the First and Giles seem contemptuous of everyone's attempts to
> > catch their enemy on tape. It does seem pretty silly, in a way that
> > I'm not sure I like. This follows up on my problem last week with
> > treating the Scoobies as the bumbling idiots who're lost without
> > Buffy and hopelessly outmatched by the big supernatural world. I think
> > the sense of the disorganized group of kids and young people not
> > knowing what to do could theoretically be worth developing, but don't
> > see what the excess dumb accomplishes. No, didn't like it much in S4
> > either.
>
> OK. There may be some of that intent here. I'm not sure. But I don't get
> what's so dumb about their attempt. The wire, after all, is secondary - a
> bonus to add in. The more serious element is simply using the opportunity
> to attempt to play The First.
It's not the idea that's dumb, but the execution. They rely on Andrew
to do the questioning, and he's a blatant bumbler; and then they all
bumble around him. They are made to look foolish and kind of trivial.
At this point the Scoobies seem to be sort of guessing about what their
job is ... waiting for a cue from Buffy, who is not large with the
memos these days.
~Mal
One Bit Shy
news:1160086649....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>> The Buffy date is curious its own way, mainly because there seemed to be
>> some really good chemistry between them. She really dug how he was a
>> Slayer's son and a bad-ass fighter. (Part of what made her light up at
>> his
>> having a Slayer as Mom may have been the notion that it might be possible
>> for a Slayer to have a personal life after all. On the other hand, that
>> Slayer is as dead as the rest, and as young. Perhaps upon reflection, it
>> wasn't as thrilling news as it first seemed.) Yet, in spite of the good
>> vibes between them, Buffy in the end pointedly tells Spike to stay - that
>> she isn't ready for him to go. And not because he's a good fighter.
>> (Which, incidentally, he doesn't seem to be these days.) It's a
>> wonderfully
>> ambiguous moment, but not necessarily just the thought of romance making
>> Buffy hesitate. My suspicion is that part of that ambiguity is Buffy
>> herself struggling to understand what exactly it is that she needs from
>> Spike. Turning to Wood, however, seems unlikely now.
>
> I'm not so convinced. The obstacles to any relationship with Spike
> remain overwhelming. Wood still seems to me to be in play. I think the
> hesitation may come from Buffy putting 2 & 2 together and realizing
> that the vampire who killed his mom might be Peroxide Boy.
Possibly. But I think the big thing on her mind is what Giles said. And
one of the things that would do is get her to critically think through her
feelings about Spike. Not to a resolution perhaps (which the scene suggests
hasn't happened), but easily beyond just the romantic aspects. As for
Woods, she barely knows him. The easiest thing for her to do in response to
Giles is to drop the dating. And to focus on what he brings to the fight.
Besides, she really does need to decide what to do about Spike first.
>> OK. There may be some of that intent here. I'm not sure. But I don't
>> get
>> what's so dumb about their attempt. The wire, after all, is secondary -
>> a
>> bonus to add in. The more serious element is simply using the
>> opportunity
>> to attempt to play The First.
>
> It's not the idea that's dumb, but the execution. They rely on Andrew
> to do the questioning, and he's a blatant bumbler; and then they all
> bumble around him. They are made to look foolish and kind of trivial.
> At this point the Scoobies seem to be sort of guessing about what their
> job is ... waiting for a cue from Buffy, who is not large with the
> memos these days.
Hmph. Again, that may be the show's intent, but it still doesn't seem so
bumbling to me. No, Andrew isn't the best questioner, but he's the one The
First was coming to see. They didn't have the option of choosing somebody
else to do the questioning. They worked with what they had and got some
information out of The First with the effort. Who else has done that?
OBS
Jeff Jacoby
>
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
>> > Similarly at the
>> > beginning of The Gift Giles seems to suggesting that they kill Dawn
>> > pre-emptively. The clear alternative to the false dichotomy of "every
>> > living creature" or "just one little girl" had already been presented
>> > namely stopping Glory before the ritual but Giles's instinct was to
>> > assume that was futile.
>>
>> Maybe this is fanwanking, but I prefer to think of him as
>> considering *all* the possibilities, especially the unpleasant
>> ones Buffy won't. He would be remiss in his duties not to
>> consider every possibility he could and make Buffy aware of them.
>> (And yes, he's fallible and might not know all the possibilities.)
>
> And in the end it's Buffy who thinks of *all* the possibilities and
> figures out a way around the prophecy.
No she doesn't. She never considers that maybe Giles
is wrong when he says:
"'The blood flows, the gates will open. The gates will
close when it flows no more." When Dawn is dead."
Leaving aside poetic reasons, why does Dawn have to be dead?
She doesn't question Giles' conclusion at all.
Or, for example, she never considers using Willow to teleport
Dawn off the tower.
>> > Maybe the difference between him and Buffy
>> > isn't ethics but that she's prepared to hope.
>>
>> I hope the next earthquake won't knock over my house. But I buy
>> the insurance anyway.
>
> Which doesn't generally require you to sacrifice your firstborn.
My point being that it's not wrong or irresponsible or
even an indication of despair to consider unpleasant
possibilities.
> There's a reason despair is considered a mortal sin. Arguably Giles's
> position is that he doesn't care enough about Dawn's death to work for
> a solution that avoids that necessity.
I disagree. He keeps saying "if". He's hoping for a better
solution and he's actively working toward one:
"We have some ideas that could actually get Glory on the run."
and a little later, speaking alone with Buffy...
"We're still working on ideas."
He's not in despair, yet. However Buffy might be:
BUFFY: I don't have that any more. I don't understand. I don't
know how to live in this world, if these are the choices,
if everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point.
I just wish... I just wish my mom was here. The spirit
guide told me that Death is my gift. I guess that means a
slayer really is just a killer after all."
GILES: I think you're wrong about that.
BUFFY: Doesn't matter. If Dawn dies, I'm done with it. I'm
quitting.
It really sounds to me like Giles is the more hopeful of the two.
Lucky for her she got hit with a flash of incredibly infallible
intuition at just the right moment (or--given that she's the
hero of her own show--maybe luck had little to do with it).
[snip]
>> Giles was speaking to one very, very specific situation, one of
>> the complicated grey areas. What he was suggesting was not evil:
>>
>> BUFFY: Nothing's changed, Giles. Spike had a chip before,
>> remember? When the First had him kill and sire all
>> those people.
>>
>> GILES: We have no idea if his chip was working then. A new
>> chip might restrain him should the First attempt to
>> activate him again.
>>
>> BUFFY: Spike has a soul now. That's what's gonna stop him
>> from hurting people.
>>
>> A startlingly stupid and dangerous suppostion on her part when
>> she herself just admitted he was killing people despite his
>> soul. And she still doesn't know how the trigger works so there's
>> no way she can know he won't do it again. A working chip was
>> a reasonable precaution, nothing evil about it and no negative
>> effect on Giles' judgement.
>>
> I was talking about killing Ben in the first instance. And Giles's
> argument that the chip might not have been working has as little
> evidence to support it as Buffy's assumption that Spike having a soul
> might allow him to overcome the trigger.
She was told flat out the chip was not working right.
I'd say that's pretty good supporting evidence for
Giles' arguement.
Buffy's assumption is entirely invalidated by Sleeper.
She helped dig up the bodies souled-Spike left in the
basement.
> In fact she saw the chip
> 'working' before they realised he was killing (in BY and in Help)
Many episodes ago. Several before Sleeper. Who's to
say (least of all Buffy) how the chip behaves as it
degrades?
> and
> she also saw him snap out of the triggered state when he tried to bite
> her and immediately after being pulled off Andrew in NLM.
She still has no idea how the trigger works. Just
because he snapped out before biting her doesn't
mean it works that way all the time. At this point
they are completely in the dark about the trigger.
> So it's not
> completely foolhardy of her to trust him, especially if he's not left
> alone with the potentials,
He was fangs to neck of...Vi, I think it was. Buffy was too far
away and wouldn't have been able to stop him from ripping out her
throat if he triggered at that moment. I'd say that was pretty
damn foolish.
> or stupid to be concerned that ordering a
> new chip would be a betrayal of her professed belief in him (and that
Her mere belief in him won't stop the trigger. A new working
chip might or might not, but he soul for damned sure doesn't.
> belief sustained him through the First's best efforts at torture) and
> expose him to quite unecessary searing pain should they be attacked by
> human agents of the First or whenever the new chip's battery life were
> exceeded.
Human agents can be easily dealt with by the Scoobies and
potentials. It's reasonable to assume a new chip would last as
long as the old one (~3 years).
Jeff
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Buffy-as-Hero. It's a late stage of the process: the Hero grows less
buffy has gone through all her issues in previous years
now she knows what she is (the slayer)
and that it will probably kill her again fer sure this time within a few years
and whether she likes it she doesnt need to debate it anymore
if theres any isolation its waiting for the others to catch up
as to whether shes doing a good job getting chummy with potentials
that isnt her job nor is it to get them ready for a war
they were sent to her as the best protection the watchers could think of
her job is one girl alone in all the world who will fight the vampires
and forces of evil
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
Jeff Jacoby
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
>> As I said, I don't mind the show providing different competing
>> views. I do mind when a character (or more accurately, how the
>> character is written) is schizophrenic. Long term changes are
>> understandable, as from S4 to S7, but people tend to become more
>> aware of complications, not less.
>
> BUFFY: Vampire by vampire. It's the only way I know how.
> (Help)
>
> BUFFY: It is always different! It's always complicated. And at some
> point, someone has to draw the line, and that is always going to be me.
> You get down on me for cutting myself off, but in the end the slayer is
> always cut off. There's no mystical guidebook. No all-knowing council.
> Human rules don't apply. There's only me. I am the law.
> XANDER: There has to be another way.
> BUFFY: Then please find it.
> (Selfless)
>
> Buffy judges on a case-by-case basis. And if at all possible she gives
> people a second chance: Spike, Anya,
Anya? Uh, not really. Her thought process was:
Anya killed people. Anya's a demon. Me kill Anya.
She didn't even really give Xander a chance to find another
way (She arrived only a minute or two behind him, and didn't
even stop for a second to ask Xander if he'd found it).
> Willow, Andrew. And we see that in
> the case of Andrew f.ex. her faith pays off - he, not Spike, was the
> danger in this episode. If he had turned to evil again he could have
> killed any number of girls. Should Buffy have killed _him_,
> pre-emptively?
Andrew was both human, for which she has already
expressed her views about dealing with, and a
weakling. Granted, while under the influence of
The First he would pose a danger, but not nearly
the danger Spike does.
>> He doesn't know this souled Spike the way he knew Angel (and we
>> all agree a soul doesn't necessarily stop someone from doing
>> evil). Additionally, a triggered Spike could pretty much wipe
>> out everyone until Buffy arives. I think Giles' reaction is
>> reasonable and not historically anomalous.
>
> But we saw that the trigger bypassed the chip completely.
And also the soul Buffy was so sure would stop him from
killing.
We know for a fact the trigger was degrading. For
how long we don't know. Whether it degraded linearly
or non-linearly we don't know. But it's effectiveness
this entire season has to be called into question.
> There is no
> reason to suggest that the chip would restrain Spike when triggered.
Why not at least play it safe? If a new chip doesn't work
or is ineffective against The First's influence then you're
no worse off than before.
Jeff
Jeff
>
vague disclaimer
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> vague disclaimer wrote:
>
> > Back when I watched this, I kinda felt the same about how this was
> > delivered: the sense of something interesting being missed to keep the
> > noisiest group of fans happy.
>
> What sort of interesting? Sorry, but I don't follow you. Apparently any
> sort of S/B scene is pandering
Not it isn't - and I went out of my way to make that plain in the stuff
you snipped.
Zber vagrerfgvat va gur frafr bs gur fgbel gurl zber be yrff gryy - ohg
serr bs gur cynfgrerq-ba-jvgu-n-gebjry fragvzragnyvgl, juvpu qbrf obgu
punenpgref naq gur fgbel n qvffreivpr. Gur Uvtu Fpubby Ebznapr fubhyq
unir orra yrsg va uvtu fpubby. Jung vg yrq gb - gur terng bhgpuhpx -
qrfreirq zber vzntvangvir frg hc.
> Hate it all you want,
And you know I don't hate it. It's just an off-key note in a season that
I don't think gets the credit it deserves.
--
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
> Season Seven, Episode 14: "First Date"
> motherfuckin' restaurant!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: David Grossman
.
> It's the designated time to finally find out what the story with
> Principal Wood is, after having him lurk around in the background all
> year.
Best part of the episode, for me. When it first aired I was really happy
because ME had come up with a backstory for Wood far, far better than any
of the possibilities that I had imagined.
About the mirror thing: I was pretty sure that Wood was trying to look at
Spike in the back seat, so he *must* have noticed the lack of reflection.
Maybe his later "He's a vampire" upon seeing Spike's game face was
intended as a confirmation, not a revelation? But it still seemed kind of
clumsy.
> Meanwhile, Xander's plot, around which everyone mentioned ends up
> congregating, is all right for what it is. There's a certain charm
> in the initial flirting with Lissa ("in conclusion, rope can be
> useful in various ways").
This whole plot was the weakest part of the episode, though it still had
its moments. The talk about Anya at the coffee shop was one more minor
example of an evil creature displaying a certain keen insight into, or at
least a less clouded view of, the Scoobies' personal problems than they
themselves can manage. But there are annoying plot holes. The text
message was one -- I wonder if in early drafts this was written for an
earlier part of the script, before Xander was tied up? And the bloody
sacrificial ritual itself was another. First Jonathan's whole (admittedly
anemic) blood supply wasn't enough, then a few pints from Spike opened the
seal, and now even less is required from Xander. It seems like opening
the seal is requiring less and less blood as time goes on. Or maybe
Xander really bled a lot, in which case they perhaps should have taken
him to the hospital....
> Besides being back on the Chaka Kahn kick, the First is also up to
> something else involving Andrew and good-sounding platitudes about how
> everyone else gets a chance at forgiveness, why not him?
The First really mis-played its cards here, in telling Andrew that he's
the only one Buffy makes seek redemption. Buffy is of course a little
inconsistent on this point, but in general her friends who have done evil
redeem themselves by fighting on Buffy's side. Trying to stir up Andrew's
resentment against Buffy, the First just manages to show him a way to get
on her good side.
The wire-wearing is an example of the Scoobies desperately flailing
around, trying to find anything they can use against the FE. Needless to
say, they aren't getting anywhere. It reminds me a bit of Willow's
attempts to use magic against Glory -- she didn't succeed until she
changed tracks completely, abandoned the physical attacks, and went for
the mind suck. It looks like a similarly drastic change in direction will
be required now. They aren't just going to find some overlooked clue that
will neatly solve the situation.
> either. Meanwhile, Rupert seems uncharacteristically angry and
> impatient with their antics, and his final speech could almost be a
> message that to the viewer that it's time to shift the show into high
> gear again - no more comedy episodes.
There's that, but his anger and impatience are also important in
themselves: Giles may be getting close to his breaking point. I wonder if
Buffy recongnizes it?
> Wood's reaction upon finally getting to meet the First is to
> dramatically walk through it. Guy likes the gestures. I think the
> cryptically loaded delivery on "thank you" is good.
That whole scene was great. I suspect the First has already appeared to
Wood before, for example leading him to Jonathan's body; but even so, his
self-control here is remarkable.
During the Lessons thread, I think several people commented on the
similarity of the principal's name to Robin Hood; but did anyone mention
that he's also named after the famous vampire-killing material?
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed anyway moment(s):
-Xander rushing to tell the girls about his date, only to get upstaged
-"You just seemed like a nice guy, that's all. And I wanted to get to know
you." "And kill me?" "Sure. Do the ropes hurt?" "Yes." "Good." Demons,
like vampires, have their own special approach to liking/loving someone.
-Andrew addressing the First as "The First" and "Jonathan-slash-The-First"
> AOQ rating: Decent
Agreed, overall. But the Wood parts were Good.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
vague disclaimer
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess I'm struggling to imagine the play of it diminishing the weight.
> >> To me, with the line included, it pretty much directly removes Wood from
> >> the picture - effectively telling Spike that yes, that means she's
> >> choosing Spike. With no answer, everything is left more ambiguous - in
> >> particular,
> >> allowing more room for a less romantic construal.
> >
> > You don't think telling Spike she's choosing him vs. leaving it
> > ambiguous counts as altering the weight??
> >
> > How can you argue that?
That begs the question that the version used was ambiguous.
> I'm not arguing that. I said it wouldn't *diminish* the weight of the
> line - which is what I thought vague disclaimer was suggesting in bringing
> it up - but rather increase it. At least in the sense of making it more S/B
> shipper friendly.
It isn't about "diminishing" the weight, but keeping it in the context
of what went before - ie Giles's outburst.
'Cos in *either* version, the line (as delivered) was about as far from
enigmatic and ambiguous as could be. But that's in the direction, not
the content.
vague disclaimer
"hayes62" <hay...@tesco.net> wrote:
> Scythe Matters wrote:
> > Ari wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, no offense, but what's it to you? They're a popular pairing, the
> > > actors work well together, I don't see what the big deal is if the
> > > writers wanted to continue to wring some mileage from that.
> >
> > Because quality writing does not pander. Quality writing makes the
> > audience want more of (or, in some cases, anything other than) what it's
> > offering. Pandering simply takes off its clothes, lies on its back and
> > submits to the audience. Pandering is prostitution.
>
> True but I'm still puzzling over how deleting the line that made it
> absolutely unambiguous that the thing with Wood was about business not
> romance is pandering to shippers rather than snatching away the
> confimation they would have loved to hear.
As I said elsewhere, that begs the question that the version used was
unambiguous. The only thing missing was soft focus.
vague disclaimer
Jeff Jacoby <jja...@not.real.com> wrote:
> He was fangs to neck of...Vi, I think it was. Buffy was too far
> away and wouldn't have been able to stop him from ripping out her
> throat if he triggered at that moment. I'd say that was pretty
> damn foolish.
And. Vi. Is. Not. To. be. Harmed.
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-3BCF7...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> that isnt her job nor is it to get them ready for a war
" 'Cause we just became an army. We just declared war."
You been watching your special edit again?
Her choice, her responsibility.
Don Sample
Jeff Jacoby <jja...@not.real.com> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006 14:58:11 -0700, Elisi <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Buffy judges on a case-by-case basis. And if at all possible she gives
> > people a second chance: Spike, Anya,
>
> Anya? Uh, not really. Her thought process was:
>
> Anya killed people. Anya's a demon. Me kill Anya.
>
> She didn't even really give Xander a chance to find another
> way (She arrived only a minute or two behind him, and didn't
> even stop for a second to ask Xander if he'd found it).
And rather than do anything that would kill Anya, she runs her through
with a sword: something that she knows *won't* kill Anya. That fight
was all about Buffy giving Anya the chance to find her way back to her
humanity.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Arbitrar Of Quality
> The text
> message was one -- I wonder if in early drafts this was written for an
> earlier part of the script, before Xander was tied up?
I think I just assumed he sent his "I'm getting lucky, don't contact me
tonight" signal, but the only way he got lucky is in the sense that
Willow forgot which signal was which. Wonder why the writer didn't
think of that.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:l64o-1rj5-C7E01...@europe.isp.giganews.com...
Oh, well you mentioned attention span or something like that elsewhere. It
does help to remember that what Giles said was on Buffy's mind right then.
But sometimes it's hard to remember what happened 30 seconds earlier. ;-)
OBS
BTR1701
Scythe Matters <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
Well, unless Gellar herself says she was isolated, I don't put much
stock in what anyone else says.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Elisi wrote:
> A lot of people remark how harsh Giles is in S7. Comparing these two
> episodes does a good job of showing why. At the end of 'Never Kill'
> they think they've succeeded in killing The Anointed One (because
> Giles had the relevant information in his books), and Giles shares with
> Buffy the story of when he was told he was destined to be a Watcher. It
> is a sweet and touching scene, and I love it to pieces. In S7 they have
> no success in trying to defeat The First - there are no books that can
> help, and the Watcher's Council has been destroyed. No wonder he
> lashes out.
To be honest, I'm not convinced by most of the post about how clearly
intentional the parallels are, but this part is helping me get a handle
on the portrayal of Giles in FD, so thanks.
> Of course the final scene of both episodes are very important. In
> 'Never Kill' it is revealed that Buffy did not kill The Anointed
> One (The MAster: "And in this time will come the Anointed. And the
> Slayer will not know him. She will not stop him, and he will lead her
> into hell."). And in 'First Date' Wood (the new fighter) has a
> very interesting meeting with The First Evil. Will he lead Buffy to
> hell? Or are the parallels just getting ridiculous?
[The Master] ... and the viewers themselves will HIDE! [/TM]
-AOQ
Jeff Jacoby
> In article <G7CdnRaAJ-_dCbjY...@comcast.com>,
> Jeff Jacoby <jja...@not.real.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Oct 2006 14:58:11 -0700, Elisi <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Buffy judges on a case-by-case basis. And if at all possible she gives
>> > people a second chance: Spike, Anya,
>>
>> Anya? Uh, not really. Her thought process was:
>>
>> Anya killed people. Anya's a demon. Me kill Anya.
>>
>> She didn't even really give Xander a chance to find another
>> way (She arrived only a minute or two behind him, and didn't
>> even stop for a second to ask Xander if he'd found it).
>
> And rather than do anything that would kill Anya, she runs her through
> with a sword: something that she knows *won't* kill Anya. That fight
> was all about Buffy giving Anya the chance to find her way back to her
> humanity.
Are you're saying somehow, in the heat of the fight, Buffy
was waiting for Anya to do something that exhibits her humanity?
Is she waiting for Anya, mid-sword swing, to turn herself back
to human? (though Anya wasn't the one who turned herself human in
the first place)? Or is she expecting Anya to say "Whoa, stop.
I'm sorry! I want to be human again!"? (With all the punching
and kicking and sword-play Buffy isn't giving her much of a
chance to do anything but fight.)
If Xander had not knocked her aside, or D'Hoffryn fortuitously
arrived when he did, neither of which Buffy could have planned
for, she would have killed Anya. Or are you saying Buffy was
going to pull that last sword thrust when she saw Anya giving
up, and that Xander's move was unnecessary?
Jeff
Don Sample
Jeff Jacoby <jja...@not.real.com> wrote:
Buffy was aiming to stab Anya again, this time pinning her to the floor,
rather than the wall. A repeat of the same non-lethal act that she had
made just a few minutes before.
I don't know if she had any idea what she was hoping would happen, but
she was clearly *not* trying to kill Anya.
Jeff Jacoby
Since she never got a chance to make the stab I don't
think it was as clear as you claim.
So if I have this straight, Buffy deliberately lied
to Xander when she said she was going to kill Anya?
Her plan was to find Anya and keep sticking the sword
in until Anya "found her way back"? Xander ran off
pretty fast--partly because Buffy asked him to find
another way--but it might have helped if Buffy had let
Willow in on the plan. It would have saved a lot of
complication.
Jeff
Elisi
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <1160070935.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > vague disclaimer wrote:
> >
> > > Back when I watched this, I kinda felt the same about how this was
> > > delivered: the sense of something interesting being missed to keep the
> > > noisiest group of fans happy.
> >
> > What sort of interesting? Sorry, but I don't follow you. Apparently any
> > sort of S/B scene is pandering
>
> Not it isn't - and I went out of my way to make that plain in the stuff
> you snipped.
>
> Zber vagrerfgvat va gur frafr bs gur fgbel gurl zber be yrff gryy - ohg
> serr bs gur cynfgrerq-ba-jvgu-n-gebjry fragvzragnyvgl, juvpu qbrf obgu
> punenpgref naq gur fgbel n qvffreivpr. Gur Uvtu Fpubby Ebznapr fubhyq
> unir orra yrsg va uvtu fpubby. Jung vg yrq gb - gur terng bhgpuhpx -
> qrfreirq zber vzntvangvir frg hc.
V fgvyy snvy gb frr lbhe cbvag. Ohssl chyyf onpx sebz rirelbar naq
gevrf gb orpbzr gur trareny fur guvaxf fur unf gb or, yrnqvat gb gur
puhpx-bhg (nyy gvrq va jvgu gur jnl Gur Svefg trgf haqre rirelbar'f
fxva bs pbhefr). Fcvxr vf gur _bayl_ bar fur yrgf va, urapr ur'f gur
bar jub'f noyr gb trg guebhtu gb ure nsgrejneqf naq tvir ure onpx fbzr
frys-oryvrs naq ubcr naq ghea gur fvghngvba nebhaq. Gnxr njnl gur Fcvxr
cneg bs gur rdhngvba naq lbh'ir tbg n ovt ubyr va gur fgbel.
Ken from Chicago
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:12ibaf3...@news.supernews.com...
The scene as shown on-air is a bit vague about meanings, leaves "wiggle"
room for a disclaimer, while the alternative is more specific. For TPTB
making the show in the face of Spuffy fans, a vague disclaimer is their
friend.
-- Ken from Chicago
hayes62
Jeff Jacoby wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006 14:26:40 -0700, hayes62 <hay...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Jacoby wrote:
> > And in the end it's Buffy who thinks of *all* the possibilities and
> > figures out a way around the prophecy.
>
> No she doesn't. She never considers that maybe Giles
> is wrong when he says:
>
> "'The blood flows, the gates will open. The gates will
> close when it flows no more." When Dawn is dead."
>
> Leaving aside poetic reasons, why does Dawn have to be dead?
> She doesn't question Giles' conclusion at all.
She doesn't question his translation, presumably Giles is familar
enough with the language to spot when words are being used literally
(the first sentence) and when metaphorically (the second sentence).
Plus given their experience of magic is it more likely to require a
life or a band-aid?
> Or, for example, she never considers using Willow to teleport
> Dawn off the tower.
>
For Willow and Tara to teleport Glory to an unknown destination, which
would have killed Dawn required both of in close proximity to the
teleportee with a bag of magic sand they'd prepared earlier. Not very
practical here.
Actually at that point they're both talking about Dawn as if she's a
lump of meat. The real false dichotomy breaker comes when Dawn shows
willing to sacrifice herself. Dawn the hero. I think that's a big part
of what makes Buffy figure out that they're of the same blood.
Three years is not very long as unlife sentences go. Both chip and soul
are in the might or might not work category. Spike's been having
blackouts since he got the soul wouldn't it be safer to suspect that
that's how long he's been killing? The bodies in the basement were
turned before Spike realised what he's been doing and that in itself
seemed to change the effectiveness of the trigger as on the two
occasions following it the effects were too temporary for him to kill
anyone. Giles's philosophy with respect to both Ben and Spike seems to
be one of pre-emptive emprisonment in effect punishing them for crimes
they might commit. Buffy's tendency is to give people the chance not
just not to screw up but to do real good. Maybe that's taking
liberallism to an extreme mabe not.
vague disclaimer
Which would be why the gear change was so clumsy...
> But sometimes it's hard to remember what happened 30 seconds earlier. ;-)
...which is rather my point.
Leaving the lines in would have necessitated a much less arch delivery
tied to what they were talking about - it may even have pointed to
something truly ambiguous like "I need you here". I don't see any other
interpretation of "I'm not ready...." than a squishy rom-fic one, with
or without the cut lines.
Ari
> My problem isn't - and never has been - with the pairing, but solely
> with the way some scenes are written and/ or directed. With Gellar and
> Marsters to deliver, there is always a better alternative than slushy
> give-them-what-they-want, not-what-they-need. The show usually avoids
> this assiduously.
>
> There's a fantastic co-dependency story developing and it is a shame
> that some of it is written like second rate romantic fiction.
whines// But, dude, sometimes it's nice for them to give us pathetic
whimpery shippers a bone from time to time. Take pity on us, please.
//whining mode off
I sort of understand what you mean though, my tolerance for schmoopy
romances is next to nil. I was actually afraid that's where the show
was headed with S/B in early S6, but since it went all pear shaped
instead, I don't equate them having their little moments as "second
rate romantic fiction." Since it's so hard to come by with them and
after everything they been through together, I kind of think the
relationship (and its fans) has earned every bordering-on-fanfic moment
they get. YMMV.