AOQ Review 4-6: "Wild At Heart"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
(or "You a dog, Oz!")
Writer: Marti Noxon
Director: David Grossman
For the record, this is the other episode I mentioned having once seen
a few minutes of (from the laundry room to Oz and Veruca's night in
the cage). I've been spoiled about a few things (way too many,
actually), but as far as watching the show itself, we're on totally
unexplored territory after this.
Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
Towards the end, Buffy proves that she's on her game by putting
together as complete a picture of the mysterious group for Giles as
possible based on what she knows. She's only seen them for a grand
total of about ten seconds, but she (at least sometimes) recognizes
significance when she sees it. They're really doing a good
slow-build with this.
Things center more around Oz, picking up where "Beer Bad" left off.
Willow and her person-blankie have a very sweet little scene in bed.
Outside the context of the series, it would stand well on its own, as a
good snapshot of a maturing relationship. But knowing the way this
show works (and knowing that the aforementioned cage scene was coming
sooner or later, as I've known ever since Oz became a werewolf),
it's practically a Chekhov's gun; Joss and Marti wouldn't be
showing us this if something bad weren't about to happen.
Notice how the show assumes we understand that Giles is a little
restless, has the characters pick up on it, and doesn't try to
belabor the point? Let's try to stay that way, shall we?
The early stages of the show are a bit slow, basically repeating a lot
of what we already know, such as that Oz and Veruca have some sort of
attraction. I do like Willow's brief bout of envy with Buffy
(personal language pet peeve: that's envy, not jealousy. Jealousy is
the way she is re: Oz in this episode). Soon enough Dr. Walsh is being
attacked (and yes, it does look kinda like a gorilla. Call it a lame
costume) and we do our fairly obvious reveal of who the second wolf is.
Blah blah wolf stuff.
And now it's time for the show to kick into high gear, with Veruca
giving a speech about the joys of the cageless lupine lifestyle (Mrs.
Quality pointed out that her dialogue is pretty Faith-like here), and
Oz faced with a dilemma. As in "Phases," this is the sort of
situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
The short interlude with Xander is welcome, and he gives Willow the
rather sensible advice that she and Oz need to talk things through,
especially given that she *is* feeling jealous regardless of her
self-image, and that he's likely to pick up on it. I firmly believe
that honesty is always the best policy in such situations. Everyone on
this show seems to be able to give advice about not keeping secrets or
holding back, but none of them seem able to follow it consistently for
themselves. On a stereotypical note, Willow joins the line of
fictional Jewish girls who're more willing to engage in sex than to
talk about it.
Inevitably, Oz pulls Veruca in to spend the night with him, possibly in
order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level. The
morning after, though, is a lot stronger. Green makes the most of his
rare chance to yell, and Hannigan is great with the tearful anger.
Willow's got a point about his chosen strategy for dealing with
Veruca, obviously, and she's also (in a realistic way) ready to jump
down his throat and make anything he says into the wrong thing. "I
know how it feels. I remember." "Oh. So what, this is payback?
I had this coming?... Because I thought that was behind us." I think
Oz lets her walk away too easily, though.
Buffy has short chats with both of the ex-lovers, giving Gellar a bit
of a chance to remind us why she's the star, despite being surrounded
by a solid cast. But, she gives us a line that you just know will come
back to haunt someone: "The main thing is put the blame where it
belongs." Not the best thing to say to Willow, who has, shall we
say, shown a tendency to not take perceived betrayal very well.
She's dangerous at times like this. Fortunately our girl's still
enough in command of things to back off on her spell at the last
minute, but it's a lot closer than one might like.
I noticed that Buffy and Willow's door appears to have some writing
on it extolling the virtues of chocolate.
Wankery challenge: Write as pretentious an analysis as possible
comparing and contrasting Oz killing to save his lover in WAH with
Beast!Angel doing so in "Beauty And The Beasts." Extra credit for
references to either of Jack London's dog books.
And that brings us to the ending, which involves Oz packing up and
leaving for the wilderness or whatever. "Don't I get any say in
this?" Willow wants to know. Apparently not. There's something
about this scene. It's not exactly unpredictable or original, and no
one says anything particularly profound or does anything that jumps
out. But it's played with a quiet sincerity (and reluctance to
address the issue on Willow's part) that got to me. BTVS has already
given us its fair share of breakup scenes (about three quarters of
which have been between Buffy and Angel). However, I find that this
one has that intangible whatever-it-is that makes it moving, in a way
that TV rarely manages. I still have a heart of stone and everything,
but this was just so sad. And I of course didn't pay attention to
the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
They're not "really stupid," but this episode has a bunch of
quotes I liked, so here's a short list:
- "All geminis to the raspberry hats." "Now you're faking."
"Am not... Just a little."
- "Oh, you moron. That dinette set should be mine."
- "I need a translator from the Y side of things."
- "Well, say the girl's been noticing -" "Wil, I've
deciphered your ingenious code."
- "Oz. Now might be a good time for your trademark stoicism."
Now, where do you go from here? Green is still one of the leads,
right? Do you do a quick retcon, or make this a slow long running
story, or just wait a few weeks and then hit us with the next big block
of plot? (Rhetorical.)
So...
One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
AOQ rating: Excellent
[Season Four so far:
1) "The Freshman" - Good
2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good
4) "Fear Itself" - Decent
5) "Beer Bad" - Weak
6) "Wild At Heart" - Excellent]
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> (or "You a dog, Oz!")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: David Grossman
First off, how weird is it that I just finished watching this episode,
turn it off, walk to my computer and voila! review.
>
> For the record, this is the other episode I mentioned having once seen
> a few minutes of (from the laundry room to Oz and Veruca's night in
> the cage). I've been spoiled about a few things (way too many,
> actually), but as far as watching the show itself, we're on totally
> unexplored territory after this.
>
> Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
> phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
They zapped Spike, those bastards! (In Kyle voice)
> He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
> Towards the end, Buffy proves that she's on her game by putting
> together as complete a picture of the mysterious group for Giles as
> possible based on what she knows. She's only seen them for a grand
> total of about ten seconds, but she (at least sometimes) recognizes
> significance when she sees it. They're really doing a good
> slow-build with this.
Plus, when a military guy runs into Buffy while carrying a gun well...
big red flag.
>
> Things center more around Oz, picking up where "Beer Bad" left off.
> Willow and her person-blankie have a very sweet little scene in bed.
> Outside the context of the series, it would stand well on its own, as a
> good snapshot of a maturing relationship. But knowing the way this
> show works (and knowing that the aforementioned cage scene was coming
> sooner or later, as I've known ever since Oz became a werewolf),
> it's practically a Chekhov's gun; Joss and Marti wouldn't be
> showing us this if something bad weren't about to happen.
>
> Notice how the show assumes we understand that Giles is a little
> restless, has the characters pick up on it, and doesn't try to
> belabor the point? Let's try to stay that way, shall we?
The awkwardness was amusing though.
>
<snip>
>
> The short interlude with Xander is welcome, and he gives Willow the
> rather sensible advice that she and Oz need to talk things through,
> especially given that she *is* feeling jealous regardless of her
> self-image, and that he's likely to pick up on it. I firmly believe
> that honesty is always the best policy in such situations. Everyone on
> this show seems to be able to give advice about not keeping secrets or
> holding back, but none of them seem able to follow it consistently for
> themselves. On a stereotypical note, Willow joins the line of
> fictional Jewish girls who're more willing to engage in sex than to
> talk about it.
There's a line?
You're right. The characters do tend to use the 'do as I say' method of
advice giving. That's what I like about them, they're so messed up
individually that often they tend to forget their own advice.
>
> Inevitably, Oz pulls Veruca in to spend the night with him, possibly in
> order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
> Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
> speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level. The
> morning after, though, is a lot stronger. Green makes the most of his
> rare chance to yell, and Hannigan is great with the tearful anger.
> Willow's got a point about his chosen strategy for dealing with
> Veruca, obviously, and she's also (in a realistic way) ready to jump
> down his throat and make anything he says into the wrong thing. "I
> know how it feels. I remember." "Oh. So what, this is payback?
> I had this coming?... Because I thought that was behind us." I think
> Oz lets her walk away too easily, though.
I've seen this episode quite a few times and that scene still kills me.
It's the Willow tears, they get to me every time.
>
> Buffy has short chats with both of the ex-lovers, giving Gellar a bit
> of a chance to remind us why she's the star, despite being surrounded
> by a solid cast. But, she gives us a line that you just know will come
> back to haunt someone: "The main thing is put the blame where it
> belongs." Not the best thing to say to Willow, who has, shall we
> say, shown a tendency to not take perceived betrayal very well.
> She's dangerous at times like this. Fortunately our girl's still
> enough in command of things to back off on her spell at the last
> minute, but it's a lot closer than one might like.
When something goes wrong, the first thing that seems to pop into
Willow's head is that magic will fix it. Not a good thing.
>
> I noticed that Buffy and Willow's door appears to have some writing
> on it extolling the virtues of chocolate.
>
> Wankery challenge: Write as pretentious an analysis as possible
> comparing and contrasting Oz killing to save his lover in WAH with
> Beast!Angel doing so in "Beauty And The Beasts." Extra credit for
> references to either of Jack London's dog books.
Well, I don't have time to do that and I'm not familiar with JL but I've
got to give WAH credit for being a much better episode that BATB.
>
> And that brings us to the ending, which involves Oz packing up and
> leaving for the wilderness or whatever. "Don't I get any say in
> this?" Willow wants to know. Apparently not. There's something
> about this scene. It's not exactly unpredictable or original, and no
> one says anything particularly profound or does anything that jumps
> out. But it's played with a quiet sincerity (and reluctance to
> address the issue on Willow's part) that got to me. BTVS has already
> given us its fair share of breakup scenes (about three quarters of
> which have been between Buffy and Angel). However, I find that this
> one has that intangible whatever-it-is that makes it moving, in a way
> that TV rarely manages. I still have a heart of stone and everything,
> but this was just so sad. And I of course didn't pay attention to
> the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
> about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
It's so true. They're relationship really did appear to be the one that
was the healthiest so, of course they have to screw it up!
>
> They're not "really stupid," but this episode has a bunch of
> quotes I liked, so here's a short list:
> - "All geminis to the raspberry hats." "Now you're faking."
> "Am not... Just a little."
> - "Oh, you moron. That dinette set should be mine."
> - "I need a translator from the Y side of things."
> - "Well, say the girl's been noticing -" "Wil, I've
> deciphered your ingenious code."
> - "Oz. Now might be a good time for your trademark stoicism."
>
> Now, where do you go from here? Green is still one of the leads,
> right? Do you do a quick retcon, or make this a slow long running
> story, or just wait a few weeks and then hit us with the next big block
> of plot? (Rhetorical.)
Hmmmm.... I guess you'll just have to wait and see, huh?
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
I would give it a good. The incredibly cheesy scene in the lab and the
*horrible* head tilts that Veruca does while speaking knock this one
down a couple of pegs for me.
Rowan Hawthorn
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> (or "You a dog, Oz!")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: David Grossman
>
> order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
> Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
> speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level. The
> morning after, though, is a lot stronger. Green makes the most of his
> rare chance to yell, and Hannigan is great with the tearful anger.
> Willow's got a point about his chosen strategy for dealing with
> Veruca, obviously, and she's also (in a realistic way) ready to jump
> down his throat and make anything he says into the wrong thing. "I
> know how it feels. I remember." "Oh. So what, this is payback?
> I had this coming?... Because I thought that was behind us." I think
> Oz lets her walk away too easily, though.
Unfortunately, that too plays into Oz's normally unflappable
character. At this point, he's *still* deluding hmself that
he can handle the problem on his own. Maybe this is why he
fit in with the other Scoobies: for a brainy guy, he can be
really stupid...
>
> Buffy has short chats with both of the ex-lovers, giving Gellar a bit
> of a chance to remind us why she's the star, despite being surrounded
> by a solid cast. But, she gives us a line that you just know will come
> back to haunt someone: "The main thing is put the blame where it
> belongs." Not the best thing to say to Willow, who has, shall we
> say, shown a tendency to not take perceived betrayal very well.
> She's dangerous at times like this. Fortunately our girl's still
> enough in command of things to back off on her spell at the last
> minute, but it's a lot closer than one might like.
And each time something in her life crashes, she's been
getting *closer* to doing something she's going to regret.
> And that brings us to the ending, which involves Oz packing up and
> leaving for the wilderness or whatever. "Don't I get any say in
> this?" Willow wants to know. Apparently not. There's something
> about this scene. It's not exactly unpredictable or original, and no
> one says anything particularly profound or does anything that jumps
> out. But it's played with a quiet sincerity (and reluctance to
> address the issue on Willow's part) that got to me. BTVS has already
> given us its fair share of breakup scenes (about three quarters of
> which have been between Buffy and Angel). However, I find that this
> one has that intangible whatever-it-is that makes it moving, in a way
> that TV rarely manages. I still have a heart of stone and everything,
> but this was just so sad. And I of course didn't pay attention to
> the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
> about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
Someone on this group once noted that watching Willow cry is
like watching someone kick a puppy. I think that's a good
analogy. Makes me want to just hold her 'til she feels
better, then go beat the living crap out of whoever caused it.
>
> They're not "really stupid," but this episode has a bunch of
> quotes I liked, so here's a short list:
> - "All geminis to the raspberry hats." "Now you're faking."
> "Am not... Just a little."
> - "Oh, you moron. That dinette set should be mine."
> - "I need a translator from the Y side of things."
> - "Well, say the girl's been noticing -" "Wil, I've
> deciphered your ingenious code."
> - "Oz. Now might be a good time for your trademark stoicism."
Willow: How come you didn’t tell me I look like a crazy
birthday cake in this shirt?
Buffy: I thought that was the point.
>
> One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
Okay, I guess I'll put away the belt. For now...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg,
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
One Bit Shy
news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> (or "You a dog, Oz!")
Heh-heh. Excellent.
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: David Grossman
>
> For the record, this is the other episode I mentioned having once seen
> a few minutes of (from the laundry room to Oz and Veruca's night in
> the cage). I've been spoiled about a few things (way too many,
> actually), but as far as watching the show itself, we're on totally
> unexplored territory after this.
Oh, well.
> Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
> phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
> He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
Poor Spike. A run of bad luck, what? (I'm not actually very fond of the
moment. Seems to push the buffoonish quality further than I care for.)
> Towards the end, Buffy proves that she's on her game by putting
> together as complete a picture of the mysterious group for Giles as
> possible based on what she knows. She's only seen them for a grand
> total of about ten seconds, but she (at least sometimes) recognizes
> significance when she sees it. They're really doing a good
> slow-build with this.
I like that scene because the way it starts it feels like it's about Oz and
Willow, but then switches and impresses as you describe it.
> And now it's time for the show to kick into high gear, with Veruca
> giving a speech about the joys of the cageless lupine lifestyle (Mrs.
> Quality pointed out that her dialogue is pretty Faith-like here), and
> Oz faced with a dilemma. As in "Phases," this is the sort of
> situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
> as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
> himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
> things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
Oz has a history of working things out on his own before approaching others.
This time things obviously moved too quickly for that.
Did you notice the dramatic change in clothing style by Willow? I don't
think we've seen her so conciously go for a look often before. The only
thing I can think of at the moment is when she tried to seduce Oz after
getting back together with him last year - and looked a tad silly. Mostly I
remember Willow being dressed by her mom - and by Buffy. This look is
pretty hot.
Also, the clothes themselves are a purple and green mix - along with the
orange hair - that's quite pleasing. She sticks with purple for two more
outfits and returns to green pants as well for the last one. Complementary
sets of colors that suit Willow.
> The short interlude with Xander is welcome, and he gives Willow the
> rather sensible advice that she and Oz need to talk things through,
> especially given that she *is* feeling jealous regardless of her
> self-image, and that he's likely to pick up on it. I firmly believe
> that honesty is always the best policy in such situations. Everyone on
> this show seems to be able to give advice about not keeping secrets or
> holding back, but none of them seem able to follow it consistently for
> themselves.
This is an oft repeated example of the characters offering genuine wisdom,
but turning out to be wrong in the situation. The scoobies serve up an
awful lot of good sounding bad advice. I sometimes wonder if their often
inept way of handling personal issues is founded on a history of just plain
bad luck.
> On a stereotypical note, Willow joins the line of
> fictional Jewish girls who're more willing to engage in sex than to
> talk about it.
Neal Simon once wrote a character (from Brighton Beach Memories maybe?) that
reversed it - always able to frankly talk about it, but unable to do it.
It's pretty funny.
> Inevitably, Oz pulls Veruca in to spend the night with him, possibly in
> order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
> Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
> speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level.
Veruca is my biggest problem with the episode - and the thing that keeps the
episode hovering on the border between good and excellent for me. I know I
don't like the songs. The acting I'm less certain of. It seems to get the
job done even though it's not outstanding - but something about her remains
off putting to me. Yet, I have the nagging sense that it's deliberate and
may be the reason it works over all. I don't know.
> The
> morning after, though, is a lot stronger. Green makes the most of his
> rare chance to yell,
Isn't that startling?
> and Hannigan is great with the tearful anger.
As I recall, Joss's commentary wryly describes it as Hannigan always going
for the comedy. He was totally in love with her acting.
> Willow's got a point about his chosen strategy for dealing with
> Veruca, obviously, and she's also (in a realistic way) ready to jump
> down his throat and make anything he says into the wrong thing. "I
> know how it feels. I remember." "Oh. So what, this is payback?
> I had this coming?... Because I thought that was behind us." I think
> Oz lets her walk away too easily, though.
I don't think he had a choice. He didn't know where his head was at and
couldn't handle Willow's insights.
> Buffy has short chats with both of the ex-lovers, giving Gellar a bit
> of a chance to remind us why she's the star, despite being surrounded
> by a solid cast. But, she gives us a line that you just know will come
> back to haunt someone: "The main thing is put the blame where it
> belongs." Not the best thing to say to Willow, who has, shall we
> say, shown a tendency to not take perceived betrayal very well.
> She's dangerous at times like this. Fortunately our girl's still
> enough in command of things to back off on her spell at the last
> minute, but it's a lot closer than one might like.
The look on her face when Buffy was talking to her was really scary.
> And that brings us to the ending, which involves Oz packing up and
> leaving for the wilderness or whatever. "Don't I get any say in
> this?" Willow wants to know. Apparently not. There's something
> about this scene. It's not exactly unpredictable or original, and no
> one says anything particularly profound or does anything that jumps
> out. But it's played with a quiet sincerity (and reluctance to
> address the issue on Willow's part) that got to me. BTVS has already
> given us its fair share of breakup scenes (about three quarters of
> which have been between Buffy and Angel). However, I find that this
> one has that intangible whatever-it-is that makes it moving, in a way
> that TV rarely manages. I still have a heart of stone and everything,
> but this was just so sad. And I of course didn't pay attention to
> the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
> about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
One of the saddest moments in the series.
> They're not "really stupid," but this episode has a bunch of
> quotes I liked, so here's a short list:
> - "All geminis to the raspberry hats." "Now you're faking."
> "Am not... Just a little."
> - "Oh, you moron. That dinette set should be mine."
> - "I need a translator from the Y side of things."
> - "Well, say the girl's been noticing -" "Wil, I've
> deciphered your ingenious code."
> - "Oz. Now might be a good time for your trademark stoicism."
>
> Now, where do you go from here? Green is still one of the leads,
> right? Do you do a quick retcon, or make this a slow long running
> story, or just wait a few weeks and then hit us with the next big block
> of plot? (Rhetorical.)
Oz decides to drive Route 66 to Chicago and has a series of meaningful
encounters with people of few words while the rest of the cast takes a break
and retools for S5.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A tad predictable,
Well - duh - you'd seen half the big stuff before.
> but quite powerful.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
I'll go with the Excellent this time because it's such a big deal with
several brilliant and heart breaking scenes. But it's borderline.
Oh - remember the foreshadowing in Fear Itself. Aside from Oz slashing at
Willow, there's Willow's echoing cry of don't leave me. Really blatant. I
mention that because of how it illuminates a bit the nature of what was done
there. It wasn't just looking at inner fears.
OBS
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> The short interlude with Xander is welcome, and he gives Willow the
> rather sensible advice that she and Oz need to talk things through,
> especially given that she *is* feeling jealous regardless of her
> self-image, and that he's likely to pick up on it.
And to show that Willow is really jealous, she's wearing the Green
Leather Pants of Jealousy.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Bill Reid
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> (or "You a dog, Oz!")
>
> order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
> Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
> speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level.
>
> Buffy has short chats with both of the ex-lovers, giving Gellar a bit
> of a chance to remind us why she's the star, despite being surrounded
> by a solid cast. But, she gives us a line that you just know will come
> back to haunt someone: "The main thing is put the blame where it
> belongs." Not the best thing to say to Willow, who has, shall we
> say, shown a tendency to not take perceived betrayal very well.
Ever notice how often Buffy says "I love you" to Willow, but Willow
never says it back?
>
> I noticed that Buffy and Willow's door appears to have some writing
> on it extolling the virtues of chocolate.
>
Another character is revealed to have a similar poster about "Balls"
in a future episode...characterization by artwork 101.
> Wankery challenge: Write as pretentious an analysis as possible
> comparing and contrasting Oz killing to save his lover in WAH with
> Beast!Angel doing so in "Beauty And The Beasts." Extra credit for
> references to either of Jack London's dog books.
>
Too easy...I only do the pretentious "'Buffy' as existential drama"
thing...
> And that brings us to the ending, which involves Oz packing up and
> leaving for the wilderness or whatever. "Don't I get any say in
> this?" Willow wants to know. Apparently not. There's something
> about this scene. It's not exactly unpredictable or original, and no
> one says anything particularly profound or does anything that jumps
> out. But it's played with a quiet sincerity (and reluctance to
> address the issue on Willow's part) that got to me. BTVS has already
> given us its fair share of breakup scenes (about three quarters of
> which have been between Buffy and Angel).
And most of the death scenes have been Buffy's!
> However, I find that this
> one has that intangible whatever-it-is that makes it moving, in a way
> that TV rarely manages. I still have a heart of stone and everything,
> but this was just so sad.
Why don't you just blow your nose and stop blubbering, you big gay
cowboy?
> And I of course didn't pay attention to
> the music, so it very well may have helped as well.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
>
> [Season Four so far:
> 1) "The Freshman" - Good
> 2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
> 3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good
> 4) "Fear Itself" - Decent
> 5) "Beer Bad" - Weak
> 6) "Wild At Heart" - Excellent]
>
A Burnsian "Exxxx-cellent", hmmm? Well, as you might suspect, there
will be some type of follow-up episode at some unspoiled and unspecified
time in the future, but trust me, you won't be able to predict what
happens. However, if you thought this episode was "Excellent", you
might have to break out a "Superlative" for the follow-up, if you like it
much more than this one, like I did...
Thing is, as you note, I HATED the actress who played "Veruca"
so much, it kind of colored my entire perception of this episode. Her
blood may have been "boiling", but everytime I looked at her my
stomach was churning. Yuck!
I also hated the actress who played "Sunday" in the first episode of
the fourth season, but since I just think she's a lousy actress in EVERY
thing I've seen her in (including "Muholland Drive") and not actually
vomit-inducing, I didn't reduce my rating of that episode from "kinda
OK".
This one is much better, probably a "Good" overall, but I do
think you might like a certain upcoming episode even better...and
the music you will ignore is even better yet, absolutely brilliant
TV scoring...
---
William Ernest Reid
Apteryx
news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> (or "You a dog, Oz!")
>
> phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
> He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
A great set up, and enhanced by the fact that it isn't taken any further in
this episode. A misfiring Chekov's gun
>
> The early stages of the show are a bit slow, basically repeating a lot
> of what we already know, such as that Oz and Veruca have some sort of
> attraction. I do like Willow's brief bout of envy with Buffy
> (personal language pet peeve: that's envy, not jealousy. Jealousy is
> the way she is re: Oz in this episode). Soon enough Dr. Walsh is being
> attacked (and yes, it does look kinda like a gorilla. Call it a lame
> costume) and we do our fairly obvious reveal of who the second wolf is.
> Blah blah wolf stuff.
>
> And now it's time for the show to kick into high gear, with Veruca
> giving a speech about the joys of the cageless lupine lifestyle (Mrs.
> Quality pointed out that her dialogue is pretty Faith-like here), and
> Oz faced with a dilemma. As in "Phases," this is the sort of
> situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
> as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
> himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
> things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
It's not the fact that he tries to sort it out alone that produces the
trainwreck. His manner of dealing with it, asking Veruca to stop by just
before sunset so he can lock her up with him in his cage that his girlfriend
is going to be stopping by in the morning to let him out - well, it seems
his rationality was taking a break.
>
> Inevitably, Oz pulls Veruca in to spend the night with him, possibly in
> order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
> Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
> speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level. The
> morning after, though, is a lot stronger. Green makes the most of his
> rare chance to yell, and Hannigan is great with the tearful anger.
Great entrance by Willow, but I think it does downhill from there.
> Buffy has short chats with both of the ex-lovers, giving Gellar a bit
Buffy? Was she in this episode?
> And that brings us to the ending, which involves Oz packing up and
> leaving for the wilderness or whatever. "Don't I get any say in
> this?" Willow wants to know. Apparently not. There's something
> about this scene. It's not exactly unpredictable or original, and no
> one says anything particularly profound or does anything that jumps
> out. But it's played with a quiet sincerity (and reluctance to
> address the issue on Willow's part) that got to me.
It is moving, and one of AH's best non-comic moments.
>
> One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
>
> AOQ rating: Excellent
For a long time I rated this as the outright worst of the season and one of
the worst of the series. That was going too far, because there is really
only one thing wrong with it - that Oz's reasons for leaving (and it is Oz
who decides to leave) are not established by the episode. Maybe two things -
there's also far too little Buffy in this Buffy.
Oz says he's leaving because Veruca persuaded him that "the wolf" is always
in him, but in fact it was only in him on the usual nights (and just a
little bit in the days between them). The possibility of him attacking
Willow has always been there (so maybe it is the fact that they ever had a
relationship that is implausible). Normally if there is something I hate in
an episode, but plenty else to like, I can look past the stuff I hate to
enjoy what I like, but it has taken me while to do that here. Even now, I
can only rate it Decent. But at least it has made it into my Top 100 BtVS
episodes (at 99), and is 16th best in Season 4.
--
Apteryx
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
>(or "You a dog, Oz!")
>Writer: Marti Noxon
>Director: David Grossman
>
<SNIP>
>
>One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
>
>AOQ rating: Excellent
>
>[Season Four so far:
>1) "The Freshman" - Good
>2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
>3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good
>4) "Fear Itself" - Decent
>5) "Beer Bad" - Weak
>6) "Wild At Heart" - Excellent]
Works for me. Excellent, it is.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
> > as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
> > himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
> > things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
>
> Oz has a history of working things out on his own before approaching others.
> This time things obviously moved too quickly for that.
oz is having inappropriate lusty feelings for veruca
as she points out he couldve told buffy and arranged separate cages
but he chooses to let things go to the point
where they have to spend the night together
again
whether you want to go with the werewolf as a metaphor for sexuality
or the werewolf as a metaphor for lycanthropy
oz wants it wild at heart with veruca
and the warm fuzzy blanky person with willow
he uses the wolf as an excuse to have both
but that excuse doesnt fly
so he needs to control himself
and stop making excuses
> > the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
> > about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
>
> One of the saddest moments in the series.
ohssl ybbxf vagb gur pnzren naq fvatf
lbh pna fvat nybat gbb
> Oz decides to drive Route 66 to Chicago and has a series of meaningful
> encounters with people of few words while the rest of the cast takes a break
> and retools for S5.
he trades in the van for a motorcycle
and travels from one hick town to another
battking with inevitable corrupt sheriff
then came osbourne
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> (or "You a dog, Oz!")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: David Grossman
> Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
> phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
> He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
I loved this part. Spike continues just long enough for us to think it'll
be another In-the-Dark-style speech, then ZAP! Subversion of audience
expectations and subversion of dramatic conventions, all in one neat
package.
> Things center more around Oz, picking up where "Beer Bad" left off.
> Willow and her person-blankie have a very sweet little scene in bed.
Willow was so incredibly adorable in that scene. I was intensely,
painfully jealous of Oz.
> The early stages of the show are a bit slow, basically repeating a lot
> of what we already know, such as that Oz and Veruca have some sort of
> attraction.
We also get some new information, namely, that off-stage Veruca is a nasty
bitch. Before we even know she's an unreprentant werewolf, we see she's a
villain. Look at the way she mocks Willow: "Oh, are you an Elivs fan?"
"Good shirt." Evil.
> Inevitably, Oz pulls Veruca in to spend the night with him, possibly in
> order to prevent her from attempting to do any more "acting."
> Seriously, the actor's read on the "it's like blood boiling"
> speech sucks, and brings the whole scene down to her level.
For most of the episode I thought she was all right, but she did go rather
overboard in this scene.
> Willow's got a point about his chosen strategy for dealing with
> Veruca, obviously, and she's also (in a realistic way) ready to jump
> down his throat and make anything he says into the wrong thing. "I
> know how it feels. I remember." "Oh. So what, this is payback?
> I had this coming?... Because I thought that was behind us." I think
> Oz lets her walk away too easily, though.
IMO this is because, while most of him still wants Willow, part of him
*is* attracted to Veruca, and maybe tempted by her pro-wolfing lifestyle.
Thus part of him is willing to see Willow go, and the rest of him feels
too guilty about that part to face her again.
"Me too" to everyone about the breakup scene. Great heart-wrenching
stuff.
Other notes:
During the big fight scene, it looked like the lab was still getting
direct sun. I know it was supposed to be just a couple of minutes after
sunset, but still, it looked a little wrong.
Willow starts attending a Wicca group on campus.
When Oz is going to save Willow, he outruns the Slayer (even before she
collides with the commando).
Moose are mentioned for the first time.
Riley saves Willow's life, or at least saves her from months in an itchy
cast. What a nice boy. And when Prof. Walsh tells Buffy about being
attacked by wild dogs that looked like gorillas, he seems eager to change
the subject. Perhaps Riley was afraid Buffy would think his brilliant
professor was a little nuts?
> They're not "really stupid," but this episode has a bunch of
> quotes I liked, so here's a short list:
"Well, thank you, all. You've made me feel right at home." "Isn't home
that empty place you're trying to escape?"
"Wild monkey love or tender Sarah McLachlan love?"
Does anyone really still call female college students "coeds"?
Best ep of the season, at least so far.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
George W Harris
wrote:
:> Things center more around Oz, picking up where "Beer Bad" left off.
:> Willow and her person-blankie have a very sweet little scene in bed.
:
:Willow was so incredibly adorable in that scene. I was intensely,
:painfully jealous of Oz.
I'll preempt AOQ here: envious! You were envious of Oz!
You can be jealous of things you have, and envious of
things others have.
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Lord Usher
news:7ajg42dtb1pv4nve1...@4ax.com:
>>One-sentence summary: A tad predictable, but quite powerful.
>>
>>AOQ rating: Excellent
>>
>>[Season Four so far:
>>1) "The Freshman" - Good
>>2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
>>3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good
>>4) "Fear Itself" - Decent
>>5) "Beer Bad" - Weak
>>6) "Wild At Heart" - Excellent]
>
>
> Works for me. Excellent, it is.
AKA, "The reason Marti Noxon is not a hopeless cause." Aside from BB&B,
which was heavily rewritten, it's far and away her best work of the series
to this point -- and word is Joss didn't have to change a thing.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Kevin
Lord Usher wrote:
> AKA, "The reason Marti Noxon is not a hopeless cause." Aside from BB&B,
> which was heavily rewritten, it's far and away her best work of the series
> to this point -- and word is Joss didn't have to change a thing.
Consequences, except for a bit of dippy writing for Willow, was pretty
darn strong.
--Kevin
eli...@gmail.com
already know (such as Oz's worry about his wolfishness) - when the show
does this, it is _usually_ because that point is going to be addressed.
Not always, but it's worth taking note.
Also failure to communicate important stuff seems to be a major part of
the Scooby code...
And you've really worked out how Joss thinks:
drifter
Bill Reid wrote:
> ... if you thought this episode was
> "Excellent", you might have to break out a "Superlative" for the
> follow-up, if you like it much more than this one, like I did...
Well, now, you have just guaranteed that he's gonna give it a "Bad."
Have you not been following along?
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
KenM47
PS: Now we know what Willow really was talking about in Fear Itself
with the plaintive cries of "Oz, don't leave me."
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
Willow's head is that magic will fix it. Not a good thing. "
BUT, she rejects that solution before it gets too far.
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> > (or "You a dog, Oz!")
>
> > On a stereotypical note, Willow joins the line of
> > fictional Jewish girls who're more willing to engage in sex than to
> > talk about it.
>
> Neal Simon once wrote a character (from Brighton Beach Memories maybe?) that
> reversed it - always able to frankly talk about it, but unable to do it.
> It's pretty funny.
I don't get this "cliche." Any examples TV or movies?
<SNIP>
> I don't think he had a choice. He didn't know where his head was at and
> couldn't handle Willow's insights.
OK. I'm in the camp that says the wolf is taking over, on a pure
literal point of view. We've seen heightened "wolf" senses even in the
daylight. I fear that those who insisted Marti was going for the
metaphor, that all men are beasts and will eventually find a way to
cheat on their "love" may be the reality of the writing. I prefer to
just stay with the werewolf thing.
>
>
<SNIP>
> > I still have a heart of stone and everything,
> > but this was just so sad. And I of course didn't pay attention to
> > the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
> > about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
>
> One of the saddest moments in the series.
And while I find it deeply touching, it still doesn't bring out the
gasp and tearing up for me that "Close your eyes" and "Full of Grace"
does in Becoming 2. Or even the throat catch that "There is no spell"
causes in FH&T.
>
>
<SNIP>
>
> Oh - remember the foreshadowing in Fear Itself. Aside from Oz slashing at
> Willow, there's Willow's echoing cry of don't leave me. Really blatant. I
> mention that because of how it illuminates a bit the nature of what was done
> there. It wasn't just looking at inner fears.
>
> OBS
Oh! I mentioned this elsewhere. Didn't see I was "greeked" on it (IIRC
that's the expression).
No comment about Riley heroics? Professor Walsh cringing in fear?
Professor Walsh's poor visual skills? (Two big dogs?)
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> :Willow was so incredibly adorable in that scene. I was intensely,
> :painfully jealous of Oz.
>
> I'll preempt AOQ here: envious! You were envious of Oz!
>
> You can be jealous of things you have, and envious of
> things others have.
Heh. I would, in fact, have gotten nitpicky myself had the need
arisen.
Sadly, "jealous" is rapidly becoming one of those words that means one
thing in the vernacular and another to people who need to use it
analytically. Lots of sciency words are the same way (except without
being an unforgivable violation of the language, or course), "theory,"
anyone?
-AOQ
kenm47
Apteryx wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> > (or "You a dog, Oz!")
> >
<SNIP>
>
> Oz says he's leaving because Veruca persuaded him that "the wolf" is always
> in him, but in fact it was only in him on the usual nights (and just a
> little bit in the days between them). The possibility of him attacking
> Willow has always been there (so maybe it is the fact that they ever had a
> relationship that is implausible). Normally if there is something I hate in
> an episode, but plenty else to like, I can look past the stuff I hate to
> enjoy what I like, but it has taken me while to do that here. Even now, I
> can only rate it Decent. But at least it has made it into my Top 100 BtVS
> episodes (at 99), and is 16th best in Season 4.
>
> --
> Apteryx
I think Oz is realizing Veruca is right. The wolf is taking over even
in non full moon situations. This is also Oz's fear in Fear Itself.
As I noted earlier, his "wolf" senses are getting stronger and stronger
even in the daylight when he's not the wolf physically. Not unlike
Nicholson in "Wolf." Oz is losing himself in the wolf and does not know
what he can and what he cannot control. What keeps him from physically
harming Willow may be getting weaker. He can't take the chance. He
sacrifices his true love because of his love. Very sad.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
= > I think Oz lets her walk away too easily, though.
>
> Unfortunately, that too plays into Oz's normally unflappable
> character. At this point, he's *still* deluding hmself that
> he can handle the problem on his own. Maybe this is why he
> fit in with the other Scoobies: for a brainy guy, he can be
> really stupid...
Hmm. Interesting idea.
> Someone on this group once noted that watching Willow cry is
> like watching someone kick a puppy. I think that's a good
> analogy. Makes me want to just hold her 'til she feels
> better, then go beat the living crap out of whoever caused it.
> Okay, I guess I'll put away the belt. For now...
Marti wouldn't approve.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
thread, for the hundreds of people who I'm sure are still interested in
this topic.
-AOQ
kenm47
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > > Oz faced with a dilemma. As in "Phases," this is the sort of
> > > situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
> > > as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
> > > himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
> > > things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
> >
> > Oz has a history of working things out on his own before approaching others.
> > This time things obviously moved too quickly for that.
>
> oz is having inappropriate lusty feelings for veruca
> as she points out he couldve told buffy and arranged separate cages
> but he chooses to let things go to the point
> where they have to spend the night together
> again
I disagree Oz without wolf would never have succumbed to Veruca. It's
the wolf which he cannot control In this sense the story returns to the
classic werewolf tale. There are no happy ever after classic
werewolves. Either they're tragic and tormented looking for a cure (Lon
Chaney Jr.) or they die (too many to list, including American Werewolf
in London).
>
> whether you want to go with the werewolf as a metaphor for sexuality
> or the werewolf as a metaphor for lycanthropy
> oz wants it wild at heart with veruca
> and the warm fuzzy blanky person with willow
Oz-wolf wants Veruca. Oz wants Willow.
>
> he uses the wolf as an excuse to have both
> but that excuse doesnt fly
It IS the excuse. It is not AN excuse.
>
> so he needs to control himself
> and stop making excuses
See above. He needs to control what was done to him, what has changed
him from Oz. I don't think a metaphor is really needed. It's a werwolf
story. A much truer classic werewolf story than what we've seen of Oz
pre-"Fear Itself."
<SNIP>
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu 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 Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> > (or "You a dog, Oz!")
> > Writer: Marti Noxon
> > Director: David Grossman
>
>
<SNIP>
>
> Riley saves Willow's life, or at least saves her from months in an itchy
> cast. What a nice boy. And when Prof. Walsh tells Buffy about being
> attacked by wild dogs that looked like gorillas, he seems eager to change
> the subject. Perhaps Riley was afraid Buffy would think his brilliant
> professor was a little nuts?
>
>
Oh! Someone did notice. Odd scene then. Odd scene in retrospect.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
> > phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
> > He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
>
> Poor Spike. A run of bad luck, what? (I'm not actually very fond of the
> moment. Seems to push the buffoonish quality further than I care for.)
His last scene in "Into The Dark" bothered me much more on that level
than this one did.
> Did you notice the dramatic change in clothing style by Willow? I don't
> think we've seen her so conciously go for a look often before. The only
> thing I can think of at the moment is when she tried to seduce Oz after
> getting back together with him last year - and looked a tad silly. Mostly I
> remember Willow being dressed by her mom - and by Buffy. This look is
> pretty hot.
>
> Also, the clothes themselves are a purple and green mix - along with the
> orange hair - that's quite pleasing. She sticks with purple for two more
> outfits and returns to green pants as well for the last one. Complementary
> sets of colors that suit Willow.
The clothing choices are another thing that, like the music, don't
really register with me. Which is kinda too bad given how often the
show uses attire to reinforce its points. (Maybe I need to find my
inner Cordelia.) So please keep pointing out that stuff, ye fans.
> This is an oft repeated example of the characters offering genuine wisdom,
> but turning out to be wrong in the situation. The scoobies serve up an
> awful lot of good sounding bad advice. I sometimes wonder if their often
> inept way of handling personal issues is founded on a history of just plain
> bad luck.
But would you really classify it as bad advice? Obviously he's wrong
about there being nothing, but don't you think if Willow and Oz had sat
down to talk things through before the cage night, things might have
turned out differently/better? Remember how in "Phases," as others
pointed out when i criticized his behavior, Oz seemed like he kinda
wanted to ask for help but used the tone of the conversations around
him to justify not doing so?
> > and Hannigan is great with the tearful anger.
>
> As I recall, Joss's commentary wryly describes it as Hannigan always going
> for the comedy.
Heh.
> Oh - remember the foreshadowing in Fear Itself. Aside from Oz slashing at
> Willow, there's Willow's echoing cry of don't leave me. Really blatant. I
> mention that because of how it illuminates a bit the nature of what was done
> there. It wasn't just looking at inner fears.
And I'm sure it was meant as forshadowing too. But all I can say is
that I didn't think of FI at all while watching WAH. The latter wasn't
enhanced by the former at all; it stands just as well on its own (for
me).
-AOQ
Michael Ikeda
news:1145622951.3...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Bqq gura, creuncf, ohg va ergebfcrpg vg'f pyrne gung Jnyfu jnf whfg
znxvat hc n pbire fgbel.
--
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
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> :Willow was so incredibly adorable in that scene. I was intensely,
>> :painfully jealous of Oz.
>>
>> I'll preempt AOQ here: envious! You were envious of Oz!
>>
>> You can be jealous of things you have, and envious of
>> things others have.
>
> Heh. I would, in fact, have gotten nitpicky myself had the need
> arisen.
Oh, ermmm, yes, I meant to say envious.
If only I had just read a discussion on this exact topic, I might have
avoided this mistake. If only....
shuggie
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> And now it's time for the show to kick into high gear, with Veruca
> giving a speech about the joys of the cageless lupine lifestyle (Mrs.
> Quality pointed out that her dialogue is pretty Faith-like here),
Heh.
Here is my original post about Wild at Heart from Aug 19th 2001. It
happens to be my first ever post on a Buffy newsgroup.
---------------------------------------
I like "Wild at Heart" very much. I'm always a big fan of the more
emotional
episodes. I'd never particularly noticed that "Marti does angst well"
so
much as "BtVS does angst well".*
Wild at Heart is about sexual betrayal and it gives Alyson and Seth
room to
show some more colours than usual. Alyson is excellent as always, but I
must
also commend Seth for his performance which shows the emotional depth
of "a
tactiturn man".
I was also disappointed with Veruca. I watched the episode a few times
before I realised that she copies one of Faith's mannerisms. It's what
I
call the "bad girl head wobble" - cock your head forwards and look up
from
under your eyebrows then give little 'defiant' shakes of the head as
you say
something particularly rebellious. On Faith it works because it looks
natural, on Veruca it looks studied and mannered - someone spent a lot
of
time thinking about how to convery Bad Girl vibe.
One of the better S4 eps 8/10
------------------------------------
(*The poster I was responding to noted that "Marti does angst well")
kenm47
crowd, is responding to two things in addition to just not liking
anyone coming between Oz and Willow: her physical build (not the usual
skinny femme fatale - perhaps why she was given the "I like to eat"
line, also went with the voraciousness of the wolf in her)) and the way
she was directed at times. If the songs went on too long, that's hardly
her fault.
I think she did a fine job in that balance of appearing sexually
attractive to Oz, menacing scary to Willow, and ultimately dislikeable
so we can find some distance and we don't care all that much that OZ
ACTUALLY KILLS HER and EATS a bit too.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
>
> Now, where do you go from here? Green is still one of the leads,
> right? Do you do a quick retcon, or make this a slow long running
> story, or just wait a few weeks and then hit us with the next big
> block of plot? (Rhetorical.)
It might be rhetorical, but you are clearly fishing for spoilers!
The only way to answer this is to say look at the title credits for the next
episode. If Green is still there, he is still in the regular cast.
--
John Briggs
Don Sample
"shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was also disappointed with Veruca. I watched the episode a few
> times before I realised that she copies one of Faith's mannerisms.
> It's what I call the "bad girl head wobble" - cock your head forwards
> and look up from under your eyebrows then give little 'defiant'
> shakes of the head as you say something particularly rebellious. On
> Faith it works because it looks natural, on Veruca it looks studied
> and mannered - someone spent a lot of time thinking about how to
> convery Bad Girl vibe.
I found her head wobble to be more reminiscent of Eyghon!Jenny.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
William George Ferguson
>One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> > Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
>> > phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
>> > He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
>>
>> Poor Spike. A run of bad luck, what? (I'm not actually very fond of the
>> moment. Seems to push the buffoonish quality further than I care for.)
>
>His last scene in "Into The Dark" bothered me much more on that level
>than this one did.
>
>> Did you notice the dramatic change in clothing style by Willow? I don't
>> think we've seen her so conciously go for a look often before. The only
>> thing I can think of at the moment is when she tried to seduce Oz after
>> getting back together with him last year - and looked a tad silly. Mostly I
>> remember Willow being dressed by her mom - and by Buffy. This look is
>> pretty hot.
>>
>> Also, the clothes themselves are a purple and green mix - along with the
>> orange hair - that's quite pleasing. She sticks with purple for two more
>> outfits and returns to green pants as well for the last one. Complementary
>> sets of colors that suit Willow.
>
>The clothing choices are another thing that, like the music, don't
>really register with me. Which is kinda too bad given how often the
>show uses attire to reinforce its points. (Maybe I need to find my
>inner Cordelia.) So please keep pointing out that stuff, ye fans.
As Don points out, this is a new addition to the leather pants code. We
have seen Angel and Faith wear the Black Leather Pants of Evil, and Buffy
wear the Red Leather Pants of Moral Ambibuity (when she went after Faith in
Graduation Day), now Willow wears the Green Leather Pants of Jealousy.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
shuggie
kenm47 wrote:
> I tend to think the anti-Veruca crowd, actually the anti-Paige Moss
> crowd, is responding to two things in addition to just not liking
> anyone coming between Oz and Willow: her physical build (not the usual
> skinny femme fatale - perhaps why she was given the "I like to eat"
> line, also went with the voraciousness of the wolf in her)) and the way
> she was directed at times. If the songs went on too long, that's hardly
> her fault.
Almost all of that is completely false in my case.
I'm not anti-Paige Moss (having never seen her in anything else) and
I'm not even sure I want to say I'm anti-Veruca, just that Veruca is a
poorer version of something we've seen done better.
>From a drama point of view I was very happy to see someone come between
Oz and Willow and, back in the day, I was probably happy from a
Xander-Willow shipper pov too.
Ms Moss' physical build was fine. She's just the kind of non-skinny
woman that gives me naughty thoughts on occasion.
I have no strong feelings on the songs.
As for the direction - perhaps that was the reason her performance was
the way it was, perhaps not. She was ok, but she wasn't Eliza.
>
> I think she did a fine job in that balance of appearing sexually
> attractive to Oz,
She did do that adequately. There was just a feeling that it was a bit
too mannered.
>menacing scary to Willow, and ultimately dislikeable
> so we can find some distance and we don't care all that much that OZ
> ACTUALLY KILLS HER and EATS a bit too.
>
See the fact that she herself is a remorseless killer, and that Oz is
acting (initially anyway) in defence of Willow, kinda made that ok
regardless of her performance.
Plus I wrote that nearly 5 years ago. Having re-watched the ep several
times I now tend not to notice it so much, it's a minor blip in an
otherwise very entertaining ep.
Mike Zeares
William George Ferguson wrote:
>
> As Don points out, this is a new addition to the leather pants code. We
> have seen Angel and Faith wear the Black Leather Pants of Evil, and Buffy
> wear the Red Leather Pants of Moral Ambibuity (when she went after Faith in
> Graduation Day), now Willow wears the Green Leather Pants of Jealousy.
>
I always enjoy pointing out that the first person to wear black leather
pants on the show was... Buffy. In "Angel." Although I think those
were actually pleather. They had that stretchy, shiny look.
There's one board that dubbed the red pants the Red Leather Pants of
Righteous Anger, or something like that. I like our version better.
-- Mike Zeares
shuggie
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1145629360.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was also disappointed with Veruca. I watched the episode a few
> > times before I realised that she copies one of Faith's mannerisms.
> > It's what I call the "bad girl head wobble" - cock your head forwards
> > and look up from under your eyebrows then give little 'defiant'
> > shakes of the head as you say something particularly rebellious. On
> > Faith it works because it looks natural, on Veruca it looks studied
> > and mannered - someone spent a lot of time thinking about how to
> > convery Bad Girl vibe.
>
> I found her head wobble to be more reminiscent of Eyghon!Jenny.
>
I'd agree with that too. But still Faith is the one who gets away with
it, both the others look like it's a quick trick to make them look
"bad".
Arbitrar Of Quality
Agreed. "Consequences" still earns the Bill-And-Ted -esque distinction
of Most Excellent Noxon Episode Thus Far from me. WAH would be #2, and
the ever-popular DMP is #3. Her name has been attached to some of my
favorites of the series... and my two least favorites, as well as the
worst individual scene in the history of humankind. But that was all
back in S2, so we'll say that she was young and needed the money.
-AOQ
~insert lecture on the perils of attempting to break down a serialized
drama by credited writers, espeically a show with such a high Exective
Producer factor~
shuggie
I prefer the Red Leather Pants of Hypocrisy. I find no ambiguity in
Buffy's decision to go after Faith whatsoever - it was plain wrong. Not
only that it was the exact thing she criticised Faith for in
Consequences. It was a mixture of revenge and sacrificing Faith to save
Angel. As usual, I've said it better before:
"There is a moral difference between setting out to stop someone
dangerous, even accepting that it might require killing them - and
setting out to kill them.
Buffy set out to kill Faith. Her plan was to bring back Faith dead or
alive. If alive she fully expected Angel draining her would kill her.
...
Hers and her classmates lives were in no more or less
amount of danger than they had been before Angel was struck by the
arrow. The danger to them was from the Mayor's ascension not the
poison in Angel's body.
Before this Buffy was content to research and strategize with the
Scoobies. She didn't feel any particular need to hunt down Faith as
part of a plan for stopping the Mayor. She must have been aware that
she'd need to tackle Faith eventually.
...
Buffy sets out to kill Faith and she does it to save her boyfriend.
She is motivated by a mixture of love and grief for Angel and hatred
for Faith who is responsible for his condition.
Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
her own.
Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
punishment.
But here she's effectively become a vigilante. "
(from this thread: http://tinyurl.com/o5uv8)
When I first watch Graduation Day 1 I was genuinely shocked that Buffy
would do this and I was with Xander hoping we didn't "lose her" because
of it. It makes sense to me only because as Joyce aptly said "When it
comes to [Angel] she can't see straight".
V nyjnlf sbhaq vg bqq yngre gung crbcyr jub'q unq ab ceboyrz jvgu unq n
erny ceboyrz jvgu sbe r.t. ure gerngzrag bs Fcvxr naq ure sevraqf va
frnfbaf fvk naq frira. V jnf gur bccbfvgr. Gung fghss jnf, ng jbefg,
zbeny nzovthvgl sbe zr.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> OK. I'm in the camp that says the wolf is taking over, on a pure
> literal point of view. We've seen heightened "wolf" senses even in the
> daylight. I fear that those who insisted Marti was going for the
> metaphor, that all men are beasts and will eventually find a way to
> cheat on their "love" may be the reality of the writing. I prefer to
> just stay with the werewolf thing.
I think getting too wrapped up in metaphors here dulls the impact of
the story. This isn't a moving episode because of any
hack-philosophical comments about the Primordal Male that it may or may
not mak. It's sad because this thing is happening to *Oz* (and
Willow). Like a good horror monster, the Ozwolf doesnt just kill
people, but rips apart the lives of people we care about.
-AOQ
Don Sample
"shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Zeares wrote:
>
> > William George Ferguson wrote:
> > >
> > > As Don points out, this is a new addition to the leather pants code. We
> > > have seen Angel and Faith wear the Black Leather Pants of Evil, and Buffy
> > > wear the Red Leather Pants of Moral Ambibuity (when she went after Faith
> > > in
> > > Graduation Day), now Willow wears the Green Leather Pants of Jealousy.
> > >
> >
> > I always enjoy pointing out that the first person to wear black leather
> > pants on the show was... Buffy. In "Angel." Although I think those
> > were actually pleather. They had that stretchy, shiny look.
> >
> > There's one board that dubbed the red pants the Red Leather Pants of
> > Righteous Anger, or something like that. I like our version better.
> >
>
> I prefer the Red Leather Pants of Hypocrisy. I find no ambiguity in
> Buffy's decision to go after Faith whatsoever - it was plain wrong. Not
> only that it was the exact thing she criticised Faith for in
> Consequences. It was a mixture of revenge and sacrificing Faith to save
> Angel. As usual, I've said it better before:
>
> "There is a moral difference between setting out to stop someone
> dangerous, even accepting that it might require killing them - and
> setting out to kill them.
>
> Buffy set out to kill Faith. Her plan was to bring back Faith dead or
> alive. If alive she fully expected Angel draining her would kill her.
Faith was a willing participant in the Mayor's scheme to kill hundreds,
maybe thousands of people. Taking her out of the action before it
started was the sensible and smart thing to do.
That she had some blood that might help Angel was just a bonus issue.
> ...
>
> Hers and her classmates lives were in no more or less
> amount of danger than they had been before Angel was struck by the
> arrow. The danger to them was from the Mayor's ascension not the
> poison in Angel's body.
Without Angel fighting on their side, the expected casualties would be
much higher. After Buffy, he was the best fighter they had.
>
> Before this Buffy was content to research and strategize with the
> Scoobies. She didn't feel any particular need to hunt down Faith as
> part of a plan for stopping the Mayor. She must have been aware that
> she'd need to tackle Faith eventually.
That was just a case of Buffy being stupid.
>
> ...
>
> Buffy sets out to kill Faith and she does it to save her boyfriend.
> She is motivated by a mixture of love and grief for Angel and hatred
> for Faith who is responsible for his condition.
>
> Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
> her own.
But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
> Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
> that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
> punishment.
And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
shuggie
Don Sample wrote:
Which is all well and good but not what Buffy is doing. She doesn't
even start to think about it until Angel is in trouble. Excuse me until
Angel is in trouble and they've figured out they need the blood of a
Slayer.
>
> That she had some blood that might help Angel was just a bonus issue.
>
Nope it is *the whole point*.
Watch it again and show me the point where Buffy says "I need to take
Faith down as part of stopping the Mayor, and curing Angel is a bonus."
or anything that even vaguely sounds like that.
>
> > ...
> >
> > Hers and her classmates lives were in no more or less
> > amount of danger than they had been before Angel was struck by the
> > arrow. The danger to them was from the Mayor's ascension not the
> > poison in Angel's body.
>
> Without Angel fighting on their side, the expected casualties would be
> much higher. After Buffy, he was the best fighter they had.
>
True. But it's not what Buffy is thinking.
>
> >
> > Before this Buffy was content to research and strategize with the
> > Scoobies. She didn't feel any particular need to hunt down Faith as
> > part of a plan for stopping the Mayor. She must have been aware that
> > she'd need to tackle Faith eventually.
>
> That was just a case of Buffy being stupid.
>
Maybe so, but the point is it shows Buffy's state of mind that it's
only now she chooses to go after Faith.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Buffy sets out to kill Faith and she does it to save her boyfriend.
> > She is motivated by a mixture of love and grief for Angel and hatred
> > for Faith who is responsible for his condition.
> >
> > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
> > her own.
>
> But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
>
OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
right to decide who lives and dies.
>
> > Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
> > that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
> > punishment.
>
> And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
> opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
>
Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill her.
Any way you slice it, Buffy is setting out with Faith's death and
Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
Don Sample
"shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
>
> > In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
> > > her own.
> >
> > But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
> >
>
> OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
>
> My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
> souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
> bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
> standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
> this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
> what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
> right to decide who lives and dies.
Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
run out. Someone has to make the decision.
> > > Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
> > > that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
> > > punishment.
> >
> > And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
> > opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
> >
>
> Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill her.
Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's blood,
without killing her. And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
>
> Any way you slice it, Buffy is setting out with Faith's death and
> Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
> Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith had
to die.
Shuggie
> In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Sample wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
>> > > her own.
>> >
>> > But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
>> >
>>
>> OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
>>
>> My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
>> souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
>> bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
>> standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
>> this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
>> what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
>> right to decide who lives and dies.
>
> Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
> chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
> run out. Someone has to make the decision.
>
But it's not Buffy. Buffy doesn't get to be an executioner to souled
people. How have you missed this?
>> > > Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
>> > > that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
>> > > punishment.
>> >
>> > And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
>> > opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill her.
>
> Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's blood,
> without killing her. And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
> taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
>
Only demonstrably false because you've seen how it turns out. Buffy
hasn't. From what she says before she goes out, from how she acts when
she comes back without Faith, she believes that whoever Angel drains
will die.
>>
>> Any way you slice it, Buffy is setting out with Faith's death and
>> Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
>> Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
>
> Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith had
> to die.
>
Buffy thought it did.
--
Shuggie
my blog - http://shuggie.livejournal.com/
William George Ferguson
>In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Sample wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
>> > > her own.
>> >
>> > But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
>> >
>>
>> OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
>>
>> My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
>> souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
>> bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
>> standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
>> this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
>> what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
>> right to decide who lives and dies.
>
>Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
>chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
>run out. Someone has to make the decision.
You're on Willow's team here, right? "Oh, it's way too late."
>> > > Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
>> > > that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
>> > > punishment.
>> >
>> > And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
>> > opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
If she really just wanted to take Faith into custody, or even alive, she
would have picked up the tranq gun, at least in addition to if not in place
of the knife. C'mon, even Xander got it.
>Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith had
>to die.
No, of course not, but Buffy was really down with the 'Faith is going to
die' at that point. If she wanted to take Faith alive, not just have a big
throwdown with her using a lethal weapon, she could have taken the tranq
gun and darted her before she was even aware of it, instead of announcing
herself and deliberately taunting her iwth the knife.
Don Sample
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Don Sample wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
> >> > > her own.
> >> >
> >> > But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
> >>
> >> My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
> >> souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
> >> bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
> >> standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
> >> this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
> >> what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
> >> right to decide who lives and dies.
> >
> > Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
> > chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
> > run out. Someone has to make the decision.
> >
>
> But it's not Buffy. Buffy doesn't get to be an executioner to souled
> people. How have you missed this?
The souled/unsouled line is something that is completely artificial, and
created mostly by the fans. Buffy hasn't hesitated in killing souled
people before, when she's had to. She's the one on the scene. She's
the one who has to make the decision. There is no legitimate authority
to pass that decision off to.
> >> > > Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
> >> > > that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
> >> > > punishment.
> >> >
> >> > And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
> >> > opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill her.
> >
> > Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's blood,
> > without killing her. And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
> > taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
> >
>
> Only demonstrably false because you've seen how it turns out. Buffy
> hasn't. From what she says before she goes out, from how she acts when
> she comes back without Faith, she believes that whoever Angel drains
> will die.
And yet, later that same night she's telling Angel that he can cure
himself without killing her. Where did this new information come from?
> >> Any way you slice it, Buffy is setting out with Faith's death and
> >> Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
> >> Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
> >
> > Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith had
> > to die.
> >
>
> Buffy thought it did.
No she didn't. She was okay with the idea that it *might* kill Faith.
That doesn't mean that she thought that Faith had to die.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Shuggie wrote:
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Don Sample wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
> >> > > her own.
> >> >
> >> > But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
I assume Joss wanted it to be morally ambiguous.
> > Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
> > chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
> > run out. Someone has to make the decision.
> >
> But it's not Buffy. Buffy doesn't get to be an executioner to souled
> people. How have you missed this?
Because if she did, she'd be judging who lives or dies based on
perceived worthiness. I.e. becoming Faith. Good People don't do that.
But sometimes situations require people to step up and compromise
their principles; is there a greater good great enough to justify the
means? Compound that with the fact that Buffy, given that she's meant
to be a human character rather than an archetype, sometimes makes these
decisions based on emotion rather than principle or pragmatism. We're
supposed to think about whether Buffy's inner Faith has anything
worthwhile to offer.
-AOQ
(Harmony) Watcher
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-5E2936...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Sample wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
> > > > her own.
> > >
> > > But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
> > >
> >
> > OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
> >
> > My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
> > souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
> > bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
> > standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
> > this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
> > what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
> > right to decide who lives and dies.
>
> Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
> chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
> run out. Someone has to make the decision.
>
>
have the right to decide who lives or dies when it comes to humans [which,
btw, is an absurd principle, and that's why she had to break it]. I agree
with Shuggie on this point.
> > > > Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
> > > > that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
> > > > punishment.
> > >
> > > And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
> > > opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill her.
>
> Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's blood,
> without killing her.
>
>
But not even Buffy knew that Angel did not have to drain her to get cured. I
tend to think that Angel knew it was Buffy he was feeding from that he "put
the brakes on" (so-to-speak). Had Buffy captured Faith and fed Faith to
Angel, it will be debatable if Angel would still stop before draining Faith.
> And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
> taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
>
>
> >
> > Any way you slice it, Buffy is setting out with Faith's death and
> > Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
> > Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
>
> Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith had
> to die.
>
Up to the time before Buffy fed herself to Angel, nobody--not even Angel
(except the writers, of course)--would have known that Angel did not have to
drain a Slayer's blood to get cured.
Buffy went after Faith because of one thing: to feed Faith to Angel. Buffy
did what she had to do given the hard choices (she chose her love for Angel
over her own absurd principle about Slayers having no dominion over humans).
==(Harmony) Watcher==
vague disclaimer
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
OK Espen, how did you get hold of Don's account details?
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
(Harmony) Watcher
news:1145622633....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Oh yeah, (Harmony) Watcher recently used the term correctly in the RWAV
> thread, for the hundreds of people who I'm sure are still interested in
> this topic.
>
> -AOQ
>
LOL, AOQ. [I'm assuming it was not a sarcastic remark. I did check at least
MW online to see if I could use the word "jealous":
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jealous) before I posted that message in the
RWAV thread.]
Regardless of whether "envious" is more appropriate than "jealous" in
certain situations, I feel that the word "envy" has too nice a "ring" to it
that people usually forgot about its *implied* underlying malice
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/envy).
Listen:
Cordy is so *envious* of you, Buffy.
Cordy is so *jealous* of you, Buffy.
I usually stick with "common usage" unless it causes serious ambiguity in
meanings. For me, "envious" sounds too lame and harmless. The word has to go
out of the dictionary.
==(Harmony) Watcher==
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> "When something goes wrong, the first thing that seems to pop into
> Willow's head is that magic will fix it. Not a good thing. "
>
> BUT, she rejects that solution before it gets too far.
>
> Ken (Brooklyn)
>
lrf, fur qvq, ubjrire jr obgu xabj gung gur arkg gvzr fur qbrfa'g
fgbc... be gur gvzr nsgre gung... be gur gvzr nsgre gung...
(Harmony) Watcher
news:1145643034.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
==(Harmony) Watcher==
One Bit Shy
news:Dtudndkksqh...@giganews.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Someone on this group once noted that watching Willow cry is like watching
> someone kick a puppy. I think that's a good analogy. Makes me want to
> just hold her 'til she feels better, then go beat the living crap out of
> whoever caused it.
I've got to remember that. An apt description.
OBS
William George Ferguson
> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>> But it's not Buffy. Buffy doesn't get to be an executioner to souled
>> people. How have you missed this?
>
>The souled/unsouled line is something that is completely artificial, and
>created mostly by the fans. Buffy hasn't hesitated in killing souled
>people before, when she's had to. She's the one on the scene. She's
>the one who has to make the decision. There is no legitimate authority
>to pass that decision off to.
Buffy: "Okay. Then while you're looking for the meaning of that symbol
thingy, could you also find a loophole in that 'Slayers don't kill people'
rule?"
It's canonical.
Yes, Buffy has killed humans in the heat of battle and/or to stop an
immediate threat to herself or others she is protecting. Here, she hunted
Faith down, and deliberately set up the heat of battle so she could kill
her.
Of course, I've of two minds about this, since i've always maintained that
once she's called, a Slayer isn't exactly human anymore.
Don Sample
Buffy didn't pull out the knife until after Faith armed herself with a
hunk of pipe.
She didn't start out the fight be shooting Faith in the ass with the
tranq gun because Buffy tends to be a bit of an idiot. (And hey, what
would happen to the cool fight scene then?)
One Bit Shy
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-1D65C...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> > Oz faced with a dilemma. As in "Phases," this is the sort of
>> > situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
>> > as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
>> > himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
>> > things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
>>
>> Oz has a history of working things out on his own before approaching
>> others.
>> This time things obviously moved too quickly for that.
>
> oz is having inappropriate lusty feelings for veruca
> as she points out he couldve told buffy and arranged separate cages
> but he chooses to let things go to the point
> where they have to spend the night together
> again
Well, yes, he's having lusty feelings. But terms like "inappropriate" and
"choose" to describe what's going on seems a little questionable to me. The
introduction of a female werewolf is beyond his experience and taps into
uncontrolled wolf side in a way Oz is not prepared for and doesn't have a
handle on yet. The "choice" of spending the night together rather than
telling Buffy is more the path of least resistance than a choice and
buttressed by his genuine fear for her life - exactly the same feeling and
response to it that he exhibited when he first became a wolf.
It's not exactly that I want to defend what he did and how. I'm just saying
that the circumstances overwhelmed him, forcing him to live the situation
before he had a decent handle on it. His usual method of working it out on
his own was simply not up to the task. Indeed, that fact alone probably has
a great deal to do with his decision to leave.
> whether you want to go with the werewolf as a metaphor for sexuality
> or the werewolf as a metaphor for lycanthropy
> oz wants it wild at heart with veruca
> and the warm fuzzy blanky person with willow
I think that underestimates the degree of division within Oz between
werewolf and human. Yes, he wanted both, but not in the sense of wanting it
all. It's more two parts of himself at war with each other. Having both
can't solve that. One has to master the other.
For purposes of this episode alone, I'd downplay the metaphor aspect myself.
The surface physical and emotional conflict at work is so intense and filled
with consequence as to kind of overwhelm the metaphor.
But I do feel compelled to note that there *is* a thematic and personal
connection to In the Harsh Light of Day, where the other couples of the
series confronted aspects of lust for its own sake. I'm particularly struck
by the conversation between Willow and Buffy near the start.
Willow : Buffy's having lusty wrong feelings.
Buffy : No I'm not.
Willow : No, you're not.
Buffy : Oh, I so am.
Willow : No, uh, they're not wrong feelings cause you're free, you're both
grown-ups. You are free, right?
Aside from Willow's advice once again proving to not be so good for Buffy,
we may be seeing here Willow getting bit by her own attitude. I'm not sure
what to make of that - the show's attitudes towards sex aren't exactly
always clear. But I think something's there.
> he uses the wolf as an excuse to have both
> but that excuse doesnt fly
Well, it's an excuse not to control it and choose at the moment. I think
it's a better excuse - for the moment - than you give it credit for. But I
would agree that it can't last. (Which it doesn't.)
> so he needs to control himself
> and stop making excuses
Which he does. That's the point of him leaving.
>> > the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
>> > about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
>>
>> One of the saddest moments in the series.
>
> ohssl ybbxf vagb gur pnzren naq fvatf
> lbh pna fvat nybat gbb
V guvax V jvyy. Nf jr nyy fubhyq. N ebhaq bs Xhz On Ln'f ba gur ubhfr.
>> Oz decides to drive Route 66 to Chicago and has a series of meaningful
>> encounters with people of few words while the rest of the cast takes a
>> break
>> and retools for S5.
>
> he trades in the van for a motorcycle
> and travels from one hick town to another
> battking with inevitable corrupt sheriff
> then came osbourne
Oz on a motorcycle works for me. Tuning it to generate the most pleasing
pitch.
OBS
DysgraphicProgrammer
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> Does anyone really still call female college students "coeds"?
A quick google on "coeds" yealds porn in the first 9 positions. the
10th is a headline for a news story. Only pornogeaphers and ABCNews
still use the word. Draw your own conclusion.
One Bit Shy
news:1145621662....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>> news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> > Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
>> > (or "You a dog, Oz!")
>>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>> > On a stereotypical note, Willow joins the line of
>> > fictional Jewish girls who're more willing to engage in sex than to
>> > talk about it.
>>
>> Neal Simon once wrote a character (from Brighton Beach Memories maybe?)
>> that
>> reversed it - always able to frankly talk about it, but unable to do it.
>> It's pretty funny.
>
> I don't get this "cliche." Any examples TV or movies?
Not off the top of my head, no. If something occurs to me I'll try to
remember to pass it on. Personally, I associate the idea more with the
stock perception of the half Jewish community I went to high school with.
It was one of the stereotypes, but as AOQ said, fictional as far as I knew.
> <SNIP>
>> I don't think he had a choice. He didn't know where his head was at and
>> couldn't handle Willow's insights.
>
>
> OK. I'm in the camp that says the wolf is taking over, on a pure
> literal point of view. We've seen heightened "wolf" senses even in the
> daylight. I fear that those who insisted Marti was going for the
> metaphor, that all men are beasts and will eventually find a way to
> cheat on their "love" may be the reality of the writing. I prefer to
> just stay with the werewolf thing.
As I said in the last thing I posted, I think there's a thematic connection
to the Parker incident. Also a link with what Willow said about men in Beer
Bad. Naq gur boivbhf pbafrdhrag yvax gb ure arkg eryngvbafuvc. So I think
the show is doing something that direction. But, still, for the purpose of
this episode, I feel your take is more appropriate. I think it unecessarily
degrades the power of the moment to Oz and Willow if you push the metaphor
too hard.
>> > I still have a heart of stone and everything,
>> > but this was just so sad. And I of course didn't pay attention to
>> > the music, so it very well may have helped as well. Willow and Oz were
>> > about the closest BTVS gets to a normal well-adjusted couple too...
>>
>> One of the saddest moments in the series.
>
> And while I find it deeply touching, it still doesn't bring out the
> gasp and tearing up for me that "Close your eyes" and "Full of Grace"
> does in Becoming 2. Or even the throat catch that "There is no spell"
> causes in FH&T.
And see, I never felt that strongly in Becoming. (I actually relate more to
the FH&T example.) My own failing I suppose, but as much as I recognize the
power of that conclusion, I don't feel it emotionally quite so much. I
probably hurt more with Buffy's desperate too late run back to the library
at the end of B1.
>> Oh - remember the foreshadowing in Fear Itself. Aside from Oz slashing
>> at
>> Willow, there's Willow's echoing cry of don't leave me. Really blatant.
>> I
>> mention that because of how it illuminates a bit the nature of what was
>> done
>> there. It wasn't just looking at inner fears.
>>
>> OBS
>
> Oh! I mentioned this elsewhere. Didn't see I was "greeked" on it (IIRC
> that's the expression).
I don't know the expression. I'll settle for GMTA. ;-)
> No comment about Riley heroics?
He's a sweet hero. I expect I'll say more about Riley later.
> Professor Walsh cringing in fear?
> Professor Walsh's poor visual skills? (Two big dogs?)
Well, she did say one looked like a gorilla.
I thought about commenting on that and the follow-up scene with Riley and
Buffy. But I couldn't figure out what to say. The whole thing's a little
odd. So I didn't say anything.
OBS
Apteryx
>
> Apteryx wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > threads.
>> >
>> >
>> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> > Season Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
>> > (or "You a dog, Oz!")
>> >
>
> <SNIP>
>>
>> always
>> in him, but in fact it was only in him on the usual nights (and just a
>> little bit in the days between them). The possibility of him attacking
>> Willow has always been there (so maybe it is the fact that they ever had
>> a
>> relationship that is implausible). Normally if there is something I hate
>> in
>> an episode, but plenty else to like, I can look past the stuff I hate to
>> enjoy what I like, but it has taken me while to do that here. Even now, I
>> can only rate it Decent. But at least it has made it into my Top 100 BtVS
>> episodes (at 99), and is 16th best in Season 4.
>>
>> --
>> Apteryx
>
> I think Oz is realizing Veruca is right. The wolf is taking over even
> in non full moon situations. This is also Oz's fear in Fear Itself.
>
> As I noted earlier, his "wolf" senses are getting stronger and stronger
> even in the daylight when he's not the wolf physically. Not unlike
> Nicholson in "Wolf." Oz is losing himself in the wolf and does not know
> what he can and what he cannot control. What keeps him from physically
> harming Willow may be getting weaker. He can't take the chance. He
> sacrifices his true love because of his love. Very sad.
If they wanted to portray that, then they should have shown whatever
wolfishness he was concerned about coming out at New Moon. As it stands,
what he is appears to be most concerned about is his attack on Willow while
he was a wolf. And that is just lax security. That in itself is irritating.
If they want us to believe in love between in a witch and a werewolf, then
the characters at least should act as though they believe and have at least
worked through the practical issues concerning a guy who becomes homicidal
three nights a month. Yet it is not only obvious to the audience that the
security over Oz's monthly lockup is an accident waiting to happen, it
should be obvious to a moron in a hurry, and yet the characters ignore it.
--
Apteryx
jil...@hotmail.com
William George Ferguson wrote:
> Buffy: "Okay. Then while you're looking for the meaning of that symbol
> thingy, could you also find a loophole in that 'Slayers don't kill people'
> rule?"
>
> It's canonical.
>
> Yes, Buffy has killed humans in the heat of battle and/or to stop an
> immediate threat to herself or others she is protecting. Here, she hunted
> Faith down, and deliberately set up the heat of battle so she could kill
> her.
>
> Of course, I've of two minds about this, since i've always maintained that
> once she's called, a Slayer isn't exactly human anymore.
*gfx* V'z fbeel, ohg vg'f rfgnoyvfurq jung jvgu puvccrq Fcvxr gung
Fynlref ner uhzna. Abg n yvggyr ovg, abg n zvk, ohg uhzna. Abj, gur
svefg Fynlre cebonoyl jnfa'g jubyyl uhana orpnhfr bs nyy gung
vasyvpgvba bs gur qrzba'f urneg ba ure.
Mel
(Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-5E2936...@news.giganews.com...
>
>>In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Sample wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <1145644274.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and by
>>>>>her own.
>>>>
>>>>But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
>>>
>>>My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
>>>souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
>>>bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
>>>standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
>>>this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
>>>what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
>>>right to decide who lives and dies.
>>
>>Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
>>chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
>>run out. Someone has to make the decision.
>>
>>
>
> .... and make a decision against her *own* principle: that Slayers do not
But what about dominion over other Slayers? Faith isn't a normal human.
Who's going to take her out if she resists? The Watchers Council tried
and failed pathetically, and they're supposed to be the experts. No one
else could deal with a rogue Slayer except another Slayer.
Mel
Don Sample
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ubj? Whfg orpnhfr ur uheg jura ur uvg ure? Ol gung ernfbavat, fur
fgbccrq orvat uhzna va frnfba 6.
Gurl arire tbg na bjare'f znahny sbe gung puvc. Gurl unq ab vqrn ubj vg
jbexrq, be ubj vg znqr vgf qrpvfvbaf nobhg jub jnf, be jnfa'g uhzna.
Gurer'f ab jnl bs xabjvat vs vg jnf 100% npphengr.
Rowan Hawthorn
Eb dim 9, of course...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg,
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mair_fheal-1D65C...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> > Oz faced with a dilemma. As in "Phases," this is the sort of
> >> > situation that requires letting someone know what's going on. Now,
> >> > as then, Oz's usual rationality fails him, and he can't bring
> >> > himself to tell people about his inner beast, instead trying to handle
> >> > things himself. A trainwreck feels inevitable.
> >>
> >> Oz has a history of working things out on his own before approaching
> >> others.
> >> This time things obviously moved too quickly for that.
> >
> > oz is having inappropriate lusty feelings for veruca
> > as she points out he couldve told buffy and arranged separate cages
> > but he chooses to let things go to the point
> > where they have to spend the night together
> > again
>
> Well, yes, he's having lusty feelings. But terms like "inappropriate" and
> "choose" to describe what's going on seems a little questionable to me. The
its inappropriate because hes in a relation with willow
which willow assumes is monogamous
and willow knows something is going on
but oz lies to her about it
veruca and willow and buffy all point out the obvious to oz
that he couldve arranged alternative housing for veruca the second night
he chose to wait until there were no alternative
> introduction of a female werewolf is beyond his experience and taps into
> uncontrolled wolf side in a way Oz is not prepared for and doesn't have a
> handle on yet. The "choice" of spending the night together rather than
> telling Buffy is more the path of least resistance than a choice and
> buttressed by his genuine fear for her life - exactly the same feeling and
> response to it that he exhibited when he first became a wolf.
to quote a song
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
oz had an entire day to work out an alternative for the second night
gosh forced to spend a night locked up with a hot mama weregorilla
i can see how he could be overwhelmed by the rush of events
oz screwed up
and he knew it
> But I do feel compelled to note that there *is* a thematic and personal
> connection to In the Harsh Light of Day, where the other couples of the
> series confronted aspects of lust for its own sake. I'm particularly struck
> by the conversation between Willow and Buffy near the start.
> Willow : Buffy's having lusty wrong feelings.
> Buffy : No I'm not.
> Willow : No, you're not.
> Buffy : Oh, I so am.
> Willow : No, uh, they're not wrong feelings cause you're free, you're both
> grown-ups. You are free, right?
>
> Aside from Willow's advice once again proving to not be so good for Buffy,
> we may be seeing here Willow getting bit by her own attitude. I'm not sure
oz is not free
hes already in relation with willow
and every indication is that willow thinks its monogamous
buffy was free of any relation at that moment
what went wrong there is parker lied
> >> Oz decides to drive Route 66 to Chicago and has a series of meaningful
> >> encounters with people of few words while the rest of the cast takes a
> >> break
> >> and retools for S5.
> >
> > he trades in the van for a motorcycle
> > and travels from one hick town to another
> > battking with inevitable corrupt sheriff
> > then came osbourne
>
> Oz on a motorcycle works for me. Tuning it to generate the most pleasing
> pitch.
easy wolfer
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
One Bit Shy
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> > Just to throw us off our game, we open with Spike actually using the
>> > phrase "Big Bad," and then getting attacked by the black-clad guys.
>> > He's not seen again all episode. Well, that's different, I guess.
>>
>> Poor Spike. A run of bad luck, what? (I'm not actually very fond of the
>> moment. Seems to push the buffoonish quality further than I care for.)
>
> His last scene in "Into The Dark" bothered me much more on that level
> than this one did.
You're right that the content was more buffoonish then. (I'm not terribly
fond of either.) But I think this is the next time we see Spike. So this
gets a piling on penalty.
>> This is an oft repeated example of the characters offering genuine
>> wisdom,
>> but turning out to be wrong in the situation. The scoobies serve up an
>> awful lot of good sounding bad advice. I sometimes wonder if their often
>> inept way of handling personal issues is founded on a history of just
>> plain
>> bad luck.
>
> But would you really classify it as bad advice? Obviously he's wrong
> about there being nothing, but don't you think if Willow and Oz had sat
> down to talk things through before the cage night, things might have
> turned out differently/better? Remember how in "Phases," as others
> pointed out when i criticized his behavior, Oz seemed like he kinda
> wanted to ask for help but used the tone of the conversations around
> him to justify not doing so?
(I think Oz's memory of Phases influences him here. His warning to Veruca
about people hunting for her carries an extra tang to it from his own
experience.) Anyway, the advice isn't bad in itself. I also described it
as genuine wisdom. But in context it's likely too late, and serves to
falsely sooth Willow's fears.
The moment reminds me of when Angel gave really good advice - in abstract -
to Buffy about Ted, but was wildly wrong in the specifics. Variations of
this seem to keep coming up. The basic advice isn't always that good, but
either way, it keeps on missing key facts. Giles does it constantly.
Remember his lack of concern with Xander's behavior in the Pack?
>> Oh - remember the foreshadowing in Fear Itself. Aside from Oz slashing
>> at
>> Willow, there's Willow's echoing cry of don't leave me. Really blatant.
>> I
>> mention that because of how it illuminates a bit the nature of what was
>> done
>> there. It wasn't just looking at inner fears.
>
> And I'm sure it was meant as forshadowing too. But all I can say is
> that I didn't think of FI at all while watching WAH. The latter wasn't
> enhanced by the former at all; it stands just as well on its own (for
> me).
Probably not. But the former could be. You especially emphasized how Oz's
fear of his inner wolf wasn't new. But there *were* differences presented.
The direct attack upon Willow leading to his leaving her and her panic over
his departure. The unusual fear that the wolf could take over without a
full moon. (Which Ken pointed out.)
I had a terrible time figuring out what to say about that episode because of
the foreshadowing. I think I should have been more direct about what was
going on. Not what was foreshadowed, but as to the type of episode it is.
Someone else mentioned here that even to the extent that it repeated Oz's
old fear, that fact alone is a clanging alarm in the Buffyverse. By this
point I think you should be aware at how obsessively the series foreshadows.
It's one of the basic characteristics of the series. When She Was Bad's
mini-preview of Becoming's library disaster. How Lily's search for identity
in Anne was representative of every major character's search for identity in
S3. How Buffy's Nightmares encounter with the Master portends what is to
happen in Prophecy Girl.
Big and small examples abound. Often well disguised, but sometimes reeking
of it. Fear Itself reeks of it. That doesn't mean you can just watch the
episode and tell the future. It's not that simple, nor that illuminating.
But recognizing the kind of thing going on ought to make it more engaging.
And give you puzzle pieces to play with as the season progresses.
OBS
Daniel Damouth
news:rXc2g.57138$7a.10274@pd7tw1no:
>
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-5E2936...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article
>> <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Don Sample wrote:
[...]
>> > > And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had
>> > > plenty of opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs
>> > > herself to her.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e.
>> > kill her.
>>
>> Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's
>> blood, without killing her.
>>
>>
> But not even Buffy knew that Angel did not have to drain her to
> get cured. I tend to think that Angel knew it was Buffy he was
> feeding from that he "put the brakes on" (so-to-speak). Had Buffy
> captured Faith and fed Faith to Angel, it will be debatable if
> Angel would still stop before draining Faith.
But even if Angel were to kill Faith to save himself, it would be a
case of self-defense, since Faith poisoned him.
>> And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
>> taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
I don't know if he'd have the self-control to do that. He barely had
what it took to stop himself from killing Buffy. He was clearly in
an altered state.
[...]
-Dan Damouth
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
do recall wesley pointing out that angels poisoning
was intended to distract buffy
which it was doing
buffys reply and her break with council
was that they were letting her lover die
not that they were expecting her to prevent an ascension all by herself
abgr gung jvyybjf nggnpx ba tybel vf abg vagraqrq gb qrsrng tybel
fur vapyhqrf gung nf n cbffvoyr orarsvg ohg abg ure checbfr
ure checbfr vf gb urny ure ybire
the ascension was to take place in daylight out of doors
and it was assumed angel was out of the game
it was only after they learned about the suddden and unexplained
total eclipse of the sun that angel becamse a player again
buffys motives in going after faith had nothing to do with the ascension
as faith herself pointed out buffy was wearing big sisters clothes
want take have
intentional or not faith saved buffy by moving herself out of possession
buffy telling angel he didnt have to take all her blood
might well be bluff
that she didnt know
but she need to get angel to feed
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> thingy, could you also find a loophole in that 'Slayers don't kill people'
> rule?"
thats buffys credo
so she doesnt become faith
> Of course, I've of two minds about this, since i've always maintained that
> once she's called, a Slayer isn't exactly human anymore.
one of the recuring issues for buffy is the struggle to remain a human
thats why shes a capicorn on the cusp of aquarius
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > His last scene in "Into The Dark" bothered me much more on that level
> > than this one did.
>
> You're right that the content was more buffoonish then. (I'm not terribly
> fond of either.) But I think this is the next time we see Spike. So this
> gets a piling on penalty.
So watching ATS hurt your appreciation of BTVS? ;-)
> Big and small examples abound [of foreshadowing]. Often well disguised, but sometimes
> reeking of it. Fear Itself reeks of it. That doesn't mean you can just watch the
> episode and tell the future. It's not that simple, nor that illuminating.
> But recognizing the kind of thing going on ought to make it more engaging.
> And give you puzzle pieces to play with as the season progresses.
Yes, hints of future themes and events really are a big part of the
series, aren't they? Since I plan to rewatch the series again someday,
it'll be something to appreciate. The problem is that, as you said,
the series brings up so many themes that it's more or less imporssible
for a first-timer to recognize which ones are significant on first
viewing, so unless the foreshadowing itself is either interesting in
the absence of the followup or a key part of said followup, it runs the
risk of being ignored.
-AOQ
~I expect Anya to be menaced by a rabbit demon next episode~
~~and Willow has to have another spell go horribly wrong, of course,
but I could've told you that without FI~~
Michael Ikeda
news:Xns97ACBEA47281...@66.75.164.119:
> "\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in
> news:rXc2g.57138$7a.10274@pd7tw1no:
>
>>> And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
>>> taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
>
> I don't know if he'd have the self-control to do that. He
> barely had what it took to stop himself from killing Buffy. He
> was clearly in an altered state.
Although part of the reason Angel was in an altered state was that
Buffy forced him to drink from her by hitting him until he lost
control.
--
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
Espen Schjønberg
> In article <dsample-60DA6A...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
>
>> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Don Sample wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My argument is that the end doesn't justify the means and that as a
>>>>>souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
>>>>>bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
>>>>>standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and after
>>>>>this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and because of
>>>>>what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not having the
>>>>>right to decide who lives and dies.
>>>>
>>>>Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots of
>>>>chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them. Time has
>>>>run out. Someone has to make the decision.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But it's not Buffy. Buffy doesn't get to be an executioner to souled
>>>people. How have you missed this?
>>
>>The souled/unsouled line is something that is completely artificial, and
>>created mostly by the fans. Buffy hasn't hesitated in killing souled
>>people before, when she's had to. She's the one on the scene. She's
>>the one who has to make the decision. There is no legitimate authority
>>to pass that decision off to.
>>
Buffy has had no hesitation with, say, the zoo-keeper. But this was
because she found him evil, and she was in a pressed situation.
Even if I am with you on the "Faith deserves the chance to
change"-thing, I would put Angels "deserves to not die" above it, if I
was pressed to choose. (At least in principle. You know what I mean - if
you are anywhere normal;-))
>>>>>>>Everywhere else apart from this episode Buffy's attitude to Faith is
>>>>>>>that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
>>>>>>>punishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty of
>>>>>>opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill her.
>>>>
>>>>Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's blood,
>>>>without killing her. And if they'd had two Slayers there, he could have
>>>>taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Only demonstrably false because you've seen how it turns out. Buffy
>>>hasn't. From what she says before she goes out, from how she acts when
>>>she comes back without Faith, she believes that whoever Angel drains
>>>will die.
>>
>>And yet, later that same night she's telling Angel that he can cure
>>himself without killing her. Where did this new information come from?
She made this one up on the fly, typically girl-logic. "What could solve
my dilemma? Oh, 'Case 143'. Then perhaps 'Case 143' is the plain truth."
Some might of course claim this is human logic. ;-)
Buffys initial idea was not at all this one.
>>>>>Any way you slice it, Buffy is setting out with Faith's death and
>>>>>Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
>>>>>Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
>>>>
>>>>Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith had
>>>>to die.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Buffy thought it did.
>>
>>No she didn't. She was okay with the idea that it *might* kill Faith.
>>That doesn't mean that she thought that Faith had to die.
It is the classical dilemma of killing in self-defence, only put to the
very point. To save Angels life, she would have to kill Faith.
Her solution is of course _valid_, if you accept the consept of "it is
legal to kill the bad guy to save the innocent one".
>
> OK Espen, how did you get hold of Don's account details?
Well, really, I don't share all of Don's views or vice versa. I have
this ep on number 16 on my all-time high list, and i can't even _find_
his list. ;-)
Except the last point he had there, is of course just what i would have
said: it is not the point for Buffy Faith has to die, she is just
willing to kill her to save Angel.
Ok, I admit, we seems to be close on that one. ;-)
By the way, thinking of Eliza Dushku, I look just like the image some
people here has of me. Just wanted to verify this fact for them if they
read this. ;-)
--
Espen
Espen Schjønberg
> Ubj? Whfg orpnhfr ur uheg jura ur uvg ure? Ol gung ernfbavat, fur
> fgbccrq orvat uhzna va frnfba 6.
>
> Gurl arire tbg na bjare'f znahny sbe gung puvc. Gurl unq ab vqrn ubj vg
> jbexrq, be ubj vg znqr vgf qrpvfvbaf nobhg jub jnf, be jnfa'g uhzna.
> Gurer'f ab jnl bs xabjvat vs vg jnf 100% npphengr.
>
V guvax gur cbvag jnf vg vf qrsvarq gb or cresrpg, nf n cneg bs gur
fubjf frggvatf, gb chg vg gung jnl.
--
Espen
Noe er Feil[tm]
One Bit Shy
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> > His last scene in "Into The Dark" bothered me much more on that level
>> > than this one did.
>>
>> You're right that the content was more buffoonish then. (I'm not
>> terribly
>> fond of either.) But I think this is the next time we see Spike. So
>> this
>> gets a piling on penalty.
>
> So watching ATS hurt your appreciation of BTVS? ;-)
What a horrible thought. Now I'm going to have to rock myself to sleep
tonight. Thanks.
Actually I may have something related to say in a bit. I'm kind of the
school that crossover bits tend to hurt more than help.
>> Big and small examples abound [of foreshadowing]. Often well disguised,
>> but sometimes
>> reeking of it. Fear Itself reeks of it. That doesn't mean you can just
>> watch the
>> episode and tell the future. It's not that simple, nor that
>> illuminating.
>> But recognizing the kind of thing going on ought to make it more
>> engaging.
>> And give you puzzle pieces to play with as the season progresses.
>
> Yes, hints of future themes and events really are a big part of the
> series, aren't they? Since I plan to rewatch the series again someday,
> it'll be something to appreciate. The problem is that, as you said,
> the series brings up so many themes that it's more or less imporssible
> for a first-timer to recognize which ones are significant on first
> viewing, so unless the foreshadowing itself is either interesting in
> the absence of the followup or a key part of said followup, it runs the
> risk of being ignored.
Where's Scythe when you need him? I think he'd argue this point further
than I.
> -AOQ
> ~I expect Anya to be menaced by a rabbit demon next episode~
Pretty close. Remember Veruca's cage with the wheel? That's where she kept
a clatch of pet were-rabbits that have since escaped and will shortly
assault Anya's larder. Terror abounds.
> ~~and Willow has to have another spell go horribly wrong, of course,
> but I could've told you that without FI~~
Undoubtedly. But that misunderstands the danger. What you have to fear is
a spell going horribly right.
OBS
Scythe Matters
> Where's Scythe when you need him? I think he'd argue this point further
> than I.
Unfortunately, too busy to do more than read along, or give this point
the attention it deserves I've been groaning a lot, though. ;-) (Still
enjoying the reviews, in any case.)
But yes: I'd definitely argue that AoQ still hasn't properly embraced
this very fundamental part of BtVS. Noticing and understanding the
foreshadowing is hardly "impossible," as he claims, for a first-time
viewer (notice all the "upon first viewing" messages people have been
reposting, which are rife with understanding), it just requires better
attention and more willingness to presume that the foreshadowing is
almost always there.
drifter
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-5E2936...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <1145650063.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whilst this is understandable - it is wrong. By my standards and
>>>>> by her own.
>>>>
>>>> But by the standards of rational people, it is right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK rather than assert that care to argue it?
>>>
>>> souled being Faith deserves the chance to change - the chance behind
>>> bars ok, but the chance all the same. That's why it's against my
>>> standards. The reason it's against Buffy's is because before and
>>> after this incident her view was Faith needs to be locked up and
>>> because of what she says to Faith in Consequences about Slayers not
>>> having the right to decide who lives and dies.
>>
>> Faith has had lots of opportunity to change. They've given her lots
>> of chances, and tried to help her. In return she betrayed them.
>> Time has run out. Someone has to make the decision.
>>
>>
> humans [which, btw, is an absurd principle, and that's why she had to
> break it]. I agree with Shuggie on this point.
>
>
>>>>> is that she needs to be locked up. i.e. that she needs justice and
>>>>> punishment.
>>>>
>>>> And here, she's trying to take Faith into custody. She had plenty
>>>> of opportunity to kill Faith. Instead she handcuffs herself to her.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah to take her back to Angel, who has to drain her - i.e. kill
>>> her.
>>
>> Demonstrably false, since Angel was cured by drinking Buffy's blood,
>> without killing her.
>>
>>
> cured. I tend to think that Angel knew it was Buffy he was feeding
> from that he "put the brakes on" (so-to-speak). Had Buffy captured
> Faith and fed Faith to Angel, it will be debatable if Angel would
> still stop before draining Faith.
>
>
>> taken half as much from each, and still gotten enough.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Angel's healing as her primary goal. If Angel didn't have the poison
>>> Buffy's thinking capture not kill.
>>
>> Angel's healing was the primary goal. That didn't mean that Faith
>> had to die.
>>
> did not have to drain a Slayer's blood to get cured.
>
> Buffy went after Faith because of one thing: to feed Faith to Angel.
> Buffy did what she had to do given the hard choices (she chose her
> love for Angel over her own absurd principle about Slayers having no
> dominion over humans).
This whole "he must drain a Slayer" thing is wonderfully vague. How
much Slayer blood will it take to cure him? Unknown. Buffy is a tiny,
little thing. She can't have much more than a cup and a half of blood
in her. Suppose that the Slayer was Janet Reno? Angel would have
enough blood to cure himself and have leftovers for a week.
"He must drain a Slayer" seems to mean that he must drink her to
death, putting a mystical edge to the cure. This is plainly not the
case, since Buffy didn't die and Angel was cured. So it must be
more like antivenin for snake bites, where it takes a certain amount
to effect a cure. What if Buffy, being so petite, didn't have enough
blood in her to save Angel?
I will, of course, refrain from suggesting that they could have hunted
up some used Slayer tampons, and utilized them like teabags to brew
up a cure for Angel. That's a line even I won't cross.
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Arbitrar Of Quality
> This whole "he must drain a Slayer" thing is wonderfully vague. How
> much Slayer blood will it take to cure him? Unknown. Buffy is a tiny,
> little thing. She can't have much more than a cup and a half of blood
> in her. Suppose that the Slayer was Janet Reno? Angel would have
> enough blood to cure himself and have leftovers for a week.
>
> "He must drain a Slayer" seems to mean that he must drink her to
> death, putting a mystical edge to the cure. This is plainly not the
> case, since Buffy didn't die and Angel was cured. So it must be
> more like antivenin for snake bites, where it takes a certain amount
> to effect a cure. What if Buffy, being so petite, didn't have enough
> blood in her to save Angel?
For the purposes of the original topic, it doesn't really matter what
the final reality is, since as of GD1, they clearly don't know. They
know that it'll take a subsantial amount of blood, and that it may or
may not kill the Slayer in question. And that's about it.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> because she found him evil, and she was in a pressed situation.
actually he was already hyena possessed
and she threw him aside as he rushed her
its not clear she meant to drop him in the hyena pit
Kevin
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> [Marti Noxon's] name has been attached to some of my
> favorites of the series... and my two least favorites, as well as the
> worst individual scene in the history of humankind. But that was all
> back in S2, so we'll say that she was young and needed the money.
> -AOQ
> ~insert lecture on the perils of attempting to break down a serialized
> drama by credited writers, espeically a show with such a high Exective
> Producer factor~
Lecture understood, and appreciated. But despite Joss's busy hand --
which leaves distinctive marks on all episodes, and is so often
responsible for the most quotable moments, as all the writers have told
us in their commentaries -- I think underneath all that, nobody on the
staff but Noxon could have written IOHEFY, BATB or The Prom.
--Kevin
Kevin
DysgraphicProgrammer wrote:
> A quick google on "coeds" yealds porn in the first 9 positions. the
> 10th is a headline for a news story. Only pornogeaphers and ABCNews
> still use the word. Draw your own conclusion.
At this point, a quick Google search on "linoleum" probably yields porn
in the first several positions. (Xander would go nuts!)
It's amazing just how much porn is found by web searches, even when
you're not looking for it. And an innocent search for a picture of
something-or-other on Google Images? Fuhgeddaboutit.
--Kevin
Don Sample
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
Ab, vg jnfa'g qrsvarq nf orvat cresrpg. Gur punenpgref gerngrq vg nf
orvat cresrpg, sbe gur svefg pbhcyr bs lrnef. Abg gur fnzr guvat. Gurl
yrnearq va frnfba 6 gung gurl jrer zvfgnxra, naq gung gur puvc pbhyq
znxr zvfgnxrf nobhg jub jnf naq jnfa'g uhzna.
Gurl arire chg nal rssbeg vagb svaqvat bhg ubj jryy gur puvc ernyyl
jbexrq. Gurl whfg nffhzrq. Ubj jbhyq vg ernpg gb Qnja? Jbhyq vg ernpg
gb gur Xrl naq fnl "abg uhzna"? Ubj nobhg Naln, juvyr fur jnf uhzna?
Be Natry? Jbhyq vg ernpg gb uvf inzcver, naq nyybj Fcvxr gb xvyy uvz,
be jbhyq vg qrgrpg uvf fbhy, naq fgbc uvz?
Espen Schjønberg
Vg jnf fb.
Purpx bhg gur rcvfbqr snzvyl. Vg vf hfrq urer nf rivqrapr, naq guvf vf
gur znaf rcvfbqr. Vg vf gur irel cbag gur puvc vf abj n cresrpg jnl bs
xabjvat. Gb whfg cerrzcg: gur cbvag va frnfba frira vf vg fgnegf gb
znyshapgvba, gung vf fbzrguvat ryfr.
Gur jnl vg ernpgrq gb ohss va frnfba fvk jnf n ovt qrny, naq vg jnf abg
orpnhfr gur puvc jnf onq, vg jnf orpnhfr ohss unq n fhaohear.
Natry jbhyq bs pbhefr unir orra cbffvoyr gb xvyy. Ur vf abg ragver
uhzna. Qbrf fcvxr rire gbhpu qnjavr? V qbag xabj, ohg vs ur qbrf abg,
gung vf tbbq jevgvat.
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-119CD...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Buffy has had no hesitation with, say, the zoo-keeper. But this was
> > because she found him evil, and she was in a pressed situation.
>
> actually he was already hyena possessed
> and she threw him aside as he rushed her
> its not clear she meant to drop him in the hyena pit
The possession wasn't important. She didn't try to kill any of the pack
members while they were possessed.
If it had been a possessed Xander (or even one of the others in the
pack) she had 'accidentally' tossed in there, she would have been over
that fence, fighting off the hyenas to save him. She didn't even make
the effort with Dr. Weirick. (Or later, with Coach Marin, whom she
killed in a similar fashion.)
And given a Slayer's situational awareness, not knowing where Weirick
was going to land when she threw him would have been negligence on the
same scale as Faith's stabbing of Allan Finch.
Kevin
drifter wrote:
> Suppose that the Slayer was Janet Reno?
Ha! Now THERE'S a kickass image. :) I cannot think of Janet Reno
without picturing Will Ferrell dressed as Janet Reno, crashing
beastlike through the wall on the SNL set. Even more disturbing!
> I will, of course, refrain from suggesting that they could have hunted
> up some used Slayer tampons, and utilized them like teabags to brew
> up a cure for Angel. That's a line even I won't cross.
Okay, *now* this newsgroup has heard it all! <retch>
--Kevin
Don Sample
Rfcra Fpuwřaoret <rff...@rkpvgr.pbz> jebgr:
> Ba 22.04.2006 21:33, Qba Fnzcyr jebgr:
> > Va negvpyr <r2qs16$efq$2...@ernqzr.hvb.ab>,
> > Rfcra Fpuwřaoret <rff...@rkpvgr.pbz> jebgr:
> >
> >
> >>Ba 22.04.2006 03:20, Qba Fnzcyr jebgr:
> >>
> >>
> >>>How? Just because he hurt when he hit her? By that reasoning, she
> >>>stopped being human in season 6.
> >>>
> >>>They never got an owner's manual for that chip. They had no idea how it
> >>>worked, or how it made its decisions about who was, or wasn't human.
> >>>There's no way of knowing if it was 100% accurate.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think the point was it is defined to be perfect, as a part of the
> >>shows settings, to put it that way.
> >
> >
> > No, it wasn't defined as being perfect. The characters treated it as
> > being perfect, for the first couple of years. Not the same thing. They
> > learned in season 6 that they were mistaken, and that the chip could
> > make mistakes about who was and wasn't human.
> >
> > They never put any effort into finding out how well the chip really
> > worked. They just assumed. How would it react to Dawn? Would it react
> > to the Key and say "not human"? How about Anya, while she was human?
> > Or Angel? Would it react to his vampire, and allow Spike to kill him,
> > or would it detect his soul, and stop him?
>
> It was so.
>
> Check out the episode family. It is used here as evidence, and this is
> the mans episode. It is the very pont the chip is now a perfect way of
> knowing. To just preempt: the point in season seven is it starts to
> malfunction, that is something else.
This is a case of the *characters* treating the chip as infallible. It
says nothing about whether or not they were correct to do so. Joss's
characters make mistakes all the time. And it wasn't really the chip
that settled the issue. It was Tara's father admitting that he'd been
lying to her that settled it.
> The way it reacted to buff in season six was a big deal, and it was not
> because the chip was bad, it was because buff had a sunburne.
You can't have it both ways. Either the chip was infallible, and Buffy
wasn't human. Or the chip was fallible and Buffy was human. After
investigation the characters decided that the chip was fallible.
> Angel would of course have been possible to kill. He is not entire
> human.
How do you know that? We were never told *how* the chip makes its
determination.
Don Sample
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Something that he *meant* to ROT-13.
One Bit Shy
The idea (and moral standing) in both cases is that the victims were hoisted
with their own petard. The circumstances were not Buffy's doing, but can be
attributed to the victims.
That has some application to the Faith example, though the situation is more
ambiguous because the deed is so much more direct. Faith's blood was
literally the cure to her assault - in an important sense she brought the
consequence upon herself. What were the known alternatives? Dead Angel?
Dead Buffy? It's also not vigilante justice in the normal sense because the
assault still continues - Angel is not dead yet. The moral situation would
be radically different if Angel died and then Buffy went after Faith. It
also doesn't fit the usual foundation of the human prohibition because human
justice cannot be applied. Faith deserves to be locked up for other deeds,
but the attack upon Angel falls entirely outside human justice and
responsibility. It's a magical attack by a magical entity upon another
magical entity. If that doesn't fall within the realm of the slayer's
justice, then who's realm does it fall under? Nobody?
I think the series generally avoids drawing these lines because it doesn't
want to have to get into defining when humans should live or die - under any
conditions. But the simplistic never human dictum doesn't really stand up
to scrutiny IMO. I think the show chose correctly in avoiding that
scrutiny. But that need not prevent us from seeing that Coach Marin died at
the hands of his own creation - not Buffy - or that the attack upon Faith is
seriously clouded with moral ambiguity.
OBS
drifter
> drifter wrote:
>> Suppose that the Slayer was Janet Reno?
>
> Ha! Now THERE'S a kickass image. :) I cannot think of Janet Reno
> without picturing Will Ferrell dressed as Janet Reno, crashing
> beastlike through the wall on the SNL set. Even more disturbing!
For some reason I got a mental flash of Janet Reno doing an above-
the-head kick when I wrote that. Disturbing isn't even the word.
>> I will, of course, refrain from suggesting that they could have
>> hunted up some used Slayer tampons, and utilized them like teabags
>> to brew up a cure for Angel. That's a line even I won't cross.
>
> Okay, *now* this newsgroup has heard it all! <retch>
No, no, no! I "refrained," remember? Says so right in the post.
George W Harris
<ess...@excite.com> wrote:
:>>No she didn't. She was okay with the idea that it *might* kill Faith.
:>>That doesn't mean that she thought that Faith had to die.
:
:It is the classical dilemma of killing in self-defence, only put to the
:very point. To save Angels life, she would have to kill Faith.
:
That's stretching the concept of self-defense
beyond the breaking point. If you need a heart
transplant, is killing someone who'd be a good donor
self-defense?
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Daniel Damouth
> Now, where do you go from here? Green is still one of the leads,
> right? Do you do a quick retcon, or make this a slow long running
> story, or just wait a few weeks and then hit us with the next big
> block of plot? (Rhetorical.)
I think you mean "reset button", not "retcon". "Retcon" wouldn't seem
to make sense here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon
-Dan Damouth
Don Sample
Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
A retcon would be declaring that Willow had never had a boyfriend.
A reset would be them just ignoring that Willow had had a boyfriend.
I doubt if either of those will happen.
George W Harris
:
Try researching dam-building mammals on the web.
:
:--Kevin
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <Xns97ADA7D1C1C7...@66.75.164.120>,
> Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
> > news:1145579841.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > Now, where do you go from here? Green is still one of the leads,
> > > right? Do you do a quick retcon, or make this a slow long running
> > > story, or just wait a few weeks and then hit us with the next big
> > > block of plot? (Rhetorical.)
> >
> > I think you mean "reset button", not "retcon". "Retcon" wouldn't seem
> > to make sense here.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon
> >
> > -Dan Damouth
>
> A retcon would be declaring that Willow had never had a boyfriend.
maybe oz was just a sweet little flatchested crossdressing girl
One Bit Shy
news:814l4292h8r52irhl...@4ax.com...
That's not analogous. Now maybe if the need for the transplant was
immediate with no normal alternative available (in other words, this is the
only way for him to live without killing an innocent), and the donor was
directly and maliciously responsible for the transplant need (i.e. attempted
murder), and there is no vehicle for legal justice and never will be - then
maybe you have a comparison. Of course that's not going to happen. A real
world comparison for the situation is difficult to find. (Even before
getting to how magical powers are involved.)
Something more plausibly real would be somebody maliciously poisoning
someone else and then attempting to escape with the antidote. (With no
other source of the antidote available.) Would you be justified in shooting
him down to retrieve the antidote? If those facts stood up, I have a hard
time imagining a jury convicting. Still not a perfect match, but close
enough I think to demonstrate that the moral position is not clear cut and
that the self defense position isn't so far fetched.
OBS
(Harmony) Watcher
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145725248.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
subject than not (unless the vamp had a desire to sire the subject in the
first place, in which case when the vamp would "put the brakes on" I don't
know). So the chances are that a "groggy" Angel would more likely drain the
subject than not if Angel did not regain enough clear-headedness. Angel
himself understood the danger and that was why he refused to feed on Buffy,
until she punched him repeatedly to bring the animal out.
==(Harmony) Watcher==
Don Sample
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2006 12:31:39 -0700, "Kevin" <kl...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
> :
> :DysgraphicProgrammer wrote:
> :> A quick google on "coeds" yealds porn in the first 9 positions. the
> :> 10th is a headline for a news story. Only pornogeaphers and ABCNews
> :> still use the word. Draw your own conclusion.
> :
> :
> :At this point, a quick Google search on "linoleum" probably yields porn
> :in the first several positions. (Xander would go nuts!)
> :
> :It's amazing just how much porn is found by web searches, even when
> :you're not looking for it. And an innocent search for a picture of
> :something-or-other on Google Images? Fuhgeddaboutit.
>
> Try researching dam-building mammals on the web.
I did a google search for "dam-building mammals" and didn't find a
single porn site in the first three pages of hits. Darn!
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> immediate with no normal alternative available (in other words, this is the
> only way for him to live without killing an innocent), and the donor was
> directly and maliciously responsible for the transplant need (i.e. attempted
the way to hell is paved with good rationalizations
Arbitrar Of Quality
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <Xns97ADA7D1C1C7...@66.75.164.120>,
> Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > I think you mean "reset button", not "retcon". "Retcon" wouldn't seem
> > to make sense here.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon
> >
> > -Dan Damouth
>
> A retcon would be declaring that Willow had never had a boyfriend.
>
> A reset would be them just ignoring that Willow had had a boyfriend.
Having Oz realize next episode that he can control the wolf better than
he thought would be retcon-ish.
-AOQ
(Harmony) Watcher
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:124lm64...@news.supernews.com...
I agree with the major points of this post.
==(Harmony) Watcher==
KenM47
>kenm47 wrote:
>> "When something goes wrong, the first thing that seems to pop into
>> Willow's head is that magic will fix it. Not a good thing. "
>>
>> BUT, she rejects that solution before it gets too far.
>>
>> Ken (Brooklyn)
>>
>lrf, fur qvq, ubjrire jr obgu xabj gung gur arkg gvzr fur qbrfa'g
>fgbc... be gur gvzr nsgre gung... be gur gvzr nsgre gung...
Ohg nf bs guvf cbvag fur qvq, naq guvf cbvag vf jurer NBD vf.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Rowan Hawthorn
'S'alright - it's not the first time that's been brought up,
and the previous posters *didn't* refrain...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg,
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
William George Ferguson
[about Oz leaving Willow]
>>> One of the saddest moments in the series.
>"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
><mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> ohssl ybbxf vagb gur pnzren naq fvatf
>> lbh pna fvat nybat gbb
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>V guvax V jvyy. Nf jr nyy fubhyq. N ebhaq bs Xhz On Ln'f ba gur ubhfr.
"Jvyybj, lbhe fuveg..."
"Zbz? Zbz?
zbzzl"
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Eric Hunter
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Apteryx 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 Four, Episode 6: "Wild At Heart"
> >> > (or "You a dog, Oz!")
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >>
> >> Oz says he's leaving because Veruca persuaded him that "the wolf"
is
> >> always in him, but in fact it was only in him on the usual nights
(and
> >> just a little bit in the days between them).
> >
> > I think Oz is realizing Veruca is right. The wolf is taking over
even
> > in non full moon situations. This is also Oz's fear in Fear Itself.
> >
> > As I noted earlier, his "wolf" senses are getting stronger and
stronger
> > even in the daylight when he's not the wolf physically. Not unlike
> > Nicholson in "Wolf." Oz is losing himself in the wolf and does not
know
> > what he can and what he cannot control. What keeps him from
physically
> > harming Willow may be getting weaker. He can't take the chance. He
> > sacrifices his true love because of his love. Very sad.
>
> If they wanted to portray that, then they should have shown whatever
> wolfishness he was concerned about coming out at New Moon.
He noticed Veruca weeks ago; he was able to track her by
scent, just as he was able to track Willow by scent from
inside the van in "Lover's Walk":
Oz sniffs the air and stops the van.
Cordelia: Hello?
Oz sniffs the air some more.
Oz: It's Willow. She's nearby.
Cordelia: What? You can smell her? She doesn't even wear perfume.
Oz: She's afraid.
He puts the van in reverse and backs up a bit.
Cordelia: Oh, my God. Is this some sort of residual werewolf
thing?
This is very disturbing.
Oz: I really agree.
Veruca was right, and Oz realized it. The evidence was there.
Eric.
--