The biggest cock-up of all?
Andrew Cameron
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
o
s
t
i
a
m
m
o
s
t
l
y
g
o
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
Pylea. Sure, they wanted a fantasy land where Angel and the gang could go
to re-affirm their good-doingness [1] and also gave the opportunity to
explain more about the Host. However, it's an unbelievable coincidence that
the Pyleans, assumingly in another dimension with no contact to Earth other
than the portal, through which nobody except the Host and Fred had ever
used, speak the most popular language on Earth, albeit with a few words
changed around.
Most demons we have seen on the show(s) have their own languages, so why not
an entirely separate dimension? Did the writers cock up [2], or did they
just not want to bother with the language barrier [3], even if it ruins the
whole feel of the show? Buffy was all about throwing aside the cliches [4],
and yet here we are on the sister [5] show, with this huge plot hole, also
present in some of the cheapest movies ever made.
We seemed to skim over this on the group, presumably because most of you
enjoyed the mini-arc so much you let it pass, but my mind couldn't let it
pass, so I've got to ask what you all thought they were doing when they
decided to assume everyone speaks English. Opinions, please.
[1] Is that a word?
[2] Which is unlikely
[3] This is my opinion
[4] BYO accents, gravs, etc
[5] Brother? [6]
[6] Hey, look at me, doing footnotes.[7]
[7] Yay me [8]
[8] Let's not get carried away now [9]
[9] Oh, ok then.
--
Tags: af #1730 (remove LOVENUT to reply)
EAC Paradox Division
--
"i've been too honest with myself
i should have lied like everybody else"
Niall Harrison
> Angel S2 spoilers...
For the *whole* of S2, in case that wasn't clear to anyone...
> i
> n
> t
> h
> i
> s
> p
> o
> s
> t
> i
> a
> m
> t
> o
> b
> e
> to re-affirm their good-doingness and also gave the opportunity to
> explain more about the Host. However, it's an unbelievable coincidence that
> the Pyleans, assumingly in another dimension with no contact to Earth other
> than the portal, through which nobody except the Host and Fred had ever
> used, speak the most popular language on Earth, albeit with a few words
> changed around.
If you're assuming 'no contact', then it's also an amazing coincidence
that one of the Pylean races evolved to look just like humans. If you're
willing to assume that, at some point, a bunch of humans migrated over to
Pylea, then it's not hard to believe they brought english with them. At
that point, you're looking at an unlikely situation (english becoming the
dominant language) rather than a pretty much impossible one.
> Most demons we have seen on the show(s) have their own languages, so why not
> an entirely separate dimension? Did the writers cock up, or did they
> just not want to bother with the language barrier,
Tim Minear Speaks!
(second message in the thread)
<quote>
>>How is it that the Fang Gang can understand and write in the native
Pylean
language?<<
Because I said so.
</quote>
Personally, I quite like this explanation:
> even if it ruins the whole feel of the show?
It does? By far the majority of demons we've met speak english as well as
their own language; and if the priests have some kind of link with W&H
there may even be an incentive to adopt english as the default language
(assuming 'our' W&H are in charge ot their branch, of course).
> Buffy was all about throwing aside the cliches,
> and yet here we are on the sister show, with this huge plot hole, also
> present in some of the cheapest movies ever made.
'Buffy' has been all about putting a new spin on old cliches; evil twins,
body-swapping, robot doubles, whatever. 'Angel' does the same thing, but
in this instance didn't do it very well. Or, at least, did it more
subtlely; The Groosalugg is presented as a Hero, but he's presented as a
big dumb lunk. That his lunkness is due to his restricted worldview
rather than inherent is also something of a subversion of the cliche.
> We seemed to skim over this on the group, presumably because most of you
> enjoyed the mini-arc so much you let it pass,
Pardon? Have you been reading the same group as me? Most people seemed
not to have liked Pylea very much at all. Me, I think it was OK, and I
think I can see what they were trying to do, but I don't think they did it
very well.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Reality
Pasha
<tagsL...@limitwebdesign.co.uk> wrote:
:Angel S2 spoilers...
:
:
:We seemed to skim over this on the group, presumably because most of you
:enjoyed the mini-arc so much you let it pass, but my mind couldn't let it
:pass, so I've got to ask what you all thought they were doing when they
:decided to assume everyone speaks English. Opinions, please.
:
I admit I enjoyed the arc and therefore when it crossed my mind
briefly, I used the universal translator excuse and just went along
for the ride.
(I had the same problem with the film Star Trek First Contact and
never got a satisfactory response.) Good luck on your quest.
--
Battle On!
Regards Pasha
The Xena loving, Buffy watching Trekker
Stuff: http://www.pashao.co.uk
Wallpapers: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/pashao/
Reality
Pasha <pas...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:P21fO93VDmVN2p...@4ax.com...
Pasha, that was my my point?? sorry for not spelling it out (although I
thought reading between the lines), but ST has always been ethno-centric..
but why wouldn`t it be? It`s
a series after all.. This has been covered so many times.. why (if they
have universal translators) do ppl constantly talk in off human languages?
How can someone say "ptack" (pardon my pronunciation ;) on the series??
AAARRRGGHHH !!! ;)
What worries me is the adoption of Klingon as a university course?? oh,
dear god ;)
Pasha
wrote:
:
:Pasha <pas...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
:> :
::
:Pasha, that was my my point?? sorry for not spelling it out (although I
:thought reading between the lines), but ST has always been ethno-centric..
:but why wouldn`t it be? It`s
:a series after all.. This has been covered so many times.. why (if they
:have universal translators) do ppl constantly talk in off human languages?
:How can someone say "ptack" (pardon my pronunciation ;) on the series??
:AAARRRGGHHH !!! ;)
:
:What worries me is the adoption of Klingon as a university course?? oh,
:dear god ;)
:
Lol. I feel your pain. One assumes that the universal translator is
'always on', so it doesn't make sense too throw in the odd off human
language.
The problem I had with the movie was the fact that Cochran had just
met the Vulcans so he hadn't got around to making a universal
translator yet, so how could they possibly understand each other?
At least with Angel they didn't even bother to address the language
problem. Maybe they hoped we wouldn't notice. They obviously don't
know us very well. :)
David Chapman
> The problem I had with the movie was the fact that Cochran had just
> met the Vulcans so he hadn't got around to making a universal
> translator yet, so how could they possibly understand each other?
I don't know - maybe the Vulcans had made one?
--
Call it what you will, I call it
Pontiac to Home Girl
natalie
"Andrew Cameron" <tagsL...@limitwebdesign.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9jn0fm$6fkh$5...@ID-83402.news.dfncis.de...
> We seemed to skim over this on the group, presumably because most of you
> enjoyed the mini-arc so much you let it pass,
i have to object to this statement. if memory serves correctly then most of
us were pretty much underwhelmed with the Pylea arc. the only one which
really gained any fair praise was the Minear ep TTLG, which did have some
redeeming qualities (which greenwalt then happily ignored/jumped on).
speaking of that episode, TNPLPG was also praised but i can't fathom that
at all. maybe it was because it was the season finale but it was perceived
rather favourably here. except by me, and i ranted on it and *no one*
replied! ok, craig did but then i scared him off again i think.
in any case, the general uncertainty regarding this arc was pretty clear.
just to cement that, fact here's how the episodes faired in the polls.
10th - Through the looking glass
13th - There's no place like plrtz glrb
19th - Over the rainbow
21st - Belonging
<snipped>
> [1] Is that a word?
> [2] Which is unlikely
> [3] This is my opinion
> [4] BYO accents, gravs, etc
> [5] Brother? [6]
> [6] Hey, look at me, doing footnotes.[7]
> [7] Yay me [8]
> [8] Let's not get carried away now [9]
> [9] Oh, ok then.
i believe the correct phrase here is 'mwah hah hah' - you are one of us :-)
natalie
Niall Harrison
I think there was a definite 'it's the season finale and therefore must be
good' vibe.
> except by me,
And me! Well, I thought it was OK. Didn't hate it, anyway.
> just to cement that, fact here's how the episodes faired in the polls.
> 10th - Through the looking glass
> 13th - There's no place like plrtz glrb
> 19th - Over the rainbow
> 21st - Belonging
In retrospect, I'm surprised 'Belonging' is below OTR. After all, it di
have the great Wesley phone call, and some other nice bits. OTR was just,
well, functional.
> i believe the correct phrase here is 'mwah hah hah' - you are one of us :-)
We are UMTA. We will add your grammatical and ideological distinctiveness
to our own, etc.
Niall
--
Forgiveness divine;
Revenge is more human.
[craig]
nat...@nospam.com says...
> speaking of that episode, TNPLPG was also praised but i can't fathom that
> at all. maybe it was because it was the season finale but it was perceived
> rather favourably here. except by me, and i ranted on it and *no one*
> replied! ok, craig did but then i scared him off again i think.
Is that my cue for a ramble? Here we go then...
I was very let down by the finale but my reasons were different than
yours as I recall. When I'm the only one who thinks most of the season
was about W&H, Darla and Dru and hence should have been so in the
finale it's difficult to engage in such a discussion. Beige Angel is a
fine idea but when that results in a rather beige plot it isn't really
that good fun. That's what I didn't like about the finale - it just
petered out to nothing of real consequence and had little or no
relevance to the rest of the season, except for an extremely weak
metaphor about Angel's inner duality which seemed to appeal to
everyone except me. The problems with the execution of the episode
never really crossed my mind since I was too distracted with not
actually understanding why on earth they thought putting a fun sub-
plot at the end of a season would be a good idea.
--
[craig]
natalie
"natalie" <nat...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LQf87.11219$vN4....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
just incase anyone missed here, here's my dissenting post again. it's
slighty edited but i still stand by it. it also appears to be the only
review where i've resorted to swearing, and reading it now makes me cringe.
however it stays in as a reflection of my views at the time.
niall will probably thwap me for starting the Pylea debate too early but
it's a risk i'll have to take :-)
natalie's 'review' of TNPLPG:
a hearty hmm. which is usually how i start less than favourable reviews - at
least that's how i started 'blood money', and it's not a coincidence that i
equate these two. following on from what i wrote up above, at the moment
this is not an episode that rates highly. i've been rewatching (finished
this time), and reading
the script and nothing has changed so far. however, i feel reluctant to nail
this as my final opinion.
incidentally, it's on a level with 'blood money' because it's *that* bad.
i've not read the chief yet so he'll probably find some way of making things
seem better than i found them! but here we go.
this to me, is not what a finale should be. yet it has all the right
ingredients:
- all the loose ends are tied up
- fred is rescued
- angel battles his demon
- wesley finally gains that extra bit of confidence that he needed.
- cordy reconciles herself with her visions, though doesn't quite get the
guy (though who'd want him).
we have romance, fights, overthrowing the kingdom and bringing justice to
all. this is a suitable end for a season. our characters reaffirm their
roles in their chosen way of life (maybe not gunn) and all ends well.
we're almost set up for next season - new cast member and fully united gang.
so far so good. the problem is that's all there is to it. it was very
functional and lacked sparkle. the dialogue and action was cliched, the
direction uninspired and the pacing off.
so once more i feel left with my usual opinion about this pylea arc - the
ideas are good but they are just executed poorly both in terms of writing
and actual performance. TTLG being the exception to this.
where this episode does not fail is that it maintains the threads which have
been running through the series; cordy and her visions/place in AI, angel's
dual nature, wesley's uncertainties with being a responsible leader, and
gunn's torn loyalties betwixt his crew and the MoG. so in terms of
consistency, it's good. we've changed setting entirely but the core themes
are essentially the same. it is this (and possibly only this) that makes
this arc tolerable to me. that is to say, if i view it in terms of an
extension of what we had in eps 1-16, and not as an entirely separate
storyline. because it's really not separate at all.
that does not change the fact that i'm left distinctly unimpressed.
lorne - should he have stayed dead?
i like the guy, i really do, but i'd rather have utter deadness than the
talking head. especially the fake-ass head used in the mutilation chamber
scene. plus i don't buy that lorne's decapitated head was really that more
horrifying than anything that any of them had seen before.
this is one episode where i did not enjoy CC's or DB's performances. i think
that CC was still doing her best, but the lines she had to say were
absolutely rotten. in fact the whole 'no i really do love this man i've
known for two hours' story. bah. that was shit. or to use niall's word,
trite. the 'i love him', the 'oh no' at the vision and the protesting at
groo going off to fight - it was rotten. it made me cringe at its awfulness
and made me wonder why i was watching the episode.
yes it was fantasy and it's very being is excused on that fact (though it's
not done lightly) but...why was the dialogue so flat and unoriginal?
i don't like episodes that make me hate cordelia. actually i've never hated
cordelia in an episode until now. so now i know that i don't like it.
i was just screaming at the tv (er, computer screen) for them to get these
scenes over with.
so aside from that, there were the cheesy proclamations. i just didn't buy
cordy as being an authority figure of any sort. this last part was CC's
performance which was poor. at least try and sound like you mean it. then
again, maybe she'd had her fill of crap dialogue and her vocal chords were
rebelling at being forced to spout such bile.
so cordelia - blah. making me hate cordy is just unforgivable. bring me back
the real cordy please.
as for DB, he just wasn't enjoyable to watch. lines that were supposed to be
funny just fell flat, and DB just didn't nail them at all. for example the
'well, obviously' in response to fred's technobabble just didn't work. there
were others too which just didn't happen for me. so on the whole that made
for a very joyless episode, where all the supposedly funny bits just missed
the mark.
similarly, and i know this wasn't meant to be funny, but it made no impact
either - 'i'll remove your face. slowly'. that was a rubbish threat. given
by hannibal lecter then it would have held some weight for sure. said by
angel and it means nought. he's far more likely to remove his head. so
whatever.
also, angel's 'can't change, won't change' (can't cook, won't cook) lines
were heavy handed. i didn't like their inclusion and thought it too much. we
can pick things up without them being spelt out for us. so it was
interesting for me to note that these lines were _not_ in the script. they
must have been added in as an afterthought. i maintain that they should have
been left out. i don't need a running commentary on angel's stream of
thought - i didn't need it in 'redefinition' and i don't need it now. no
more please DG - ta!
what was funny was this cut scene between silas and another priest (groo bit
included for context):
SILAS If this filth should win, he will ravage and defile her. He will use
her for his
pleasure, again and again, and when she has no more screaming in her, he
will kill her.
GROOSALUGG HE WILL NOT!
HE WILL DIE!
PRIEST ONE
(to Silas, casually)
You do that really well.
SILAS - Thank you.
now, *that* i liked. shame it was cut though.
so, what else did i like then? i know it all sounds very bleak but there
were a few high points for me.
dialogue-wise, this is what stood out. the green dude's response to the news
that angel's heart was not in his rump - 'disgusting'. now _that_ was spot
on. that wasn't trying too hard, it felt like a natural response for a
pylean whose name escapes me.
the response to the host's head in a bucket. i don't think that it was
realistic for angel at least to react that way (he has to have seen worse),
but it was nicely done.
'he was', 'yeah', 'hmm'. hee! then followed by them keeling backwards. i
liked it.
numfar! rocks the show. the sound of shuffling was hysterical.
also, mum. lorne's mum was great. good performance i thought.
tetchy host is good. he's usually so laid back but his occasional snarky
comments here were much more successful than his prolongued whining in
'belonging' or 'over the rainbow'.
wesley's characterisation got a huge push in this episode. i'd no doubt say
this anyway, but he was the best thing in this episode. elaine mccue
mentioned this in her post, that wesley's actions were far more heroic than
buffy's - the grim realization that 'you try not to get anybody killed, you
wind up getting everyone killed' was both moving and noble.
i'd like to be able to offer my own views on the buffy/wesley heroic action
comparison, however, recording conflicts i couldn't tape it. so i'm at the
mercy of the buffy binary group, and goodness know how long that means i'll
have to wait until i get it.
so i'd appreciate other people's thoughts on this.
what was also of great interest, were gunn's reactions to wesley. at first
i thought it was perhaps the sign of rift growing between them, particularly
with wesley putting gunn firmly in his place whenever he raised objections.
however, i am now more inclined to think that he moved from objecting to
wesley's actions and demeanour to a greater understanding of what it takes
to successfully lead a group. that and gaining even more respect for wesley.
when watching this i was struck at how easily wesley and gunn gelled, and in
the previous two episodes also. this was something that i never thought
possible at the start of the season, and whereas during the beige-angel
story, gunn's presence did not entirely make sense, he now seems utterly
natural. wesley and gunn romping (fnar! sorry....) in the woods of pylea
did not seem out of place, and i would not have expected that from the
beginnings of their friendship in the early part of the season.
i can't say that i don't have my reservations about gunn's characterisation,
i do of course - to claim otherwise would be a complete lie. however, i
can't deny that there have been small moves towards rectifying this and once
more builds my hope for more gunn-ness in the next season. i have a horrible
feeling that he might get sidelined again (he's the angelverse xander
equivalent) in favour of fred. which is why i'm not keen on her addition to
the cast, as they did a pretty shoddy job of developing the character they
added the last time. but i'll wait and see. wesley's has probably had all
the growth he's going to get for awhile so i expect him to get pushed back
in favour of gunn and fred.
however, this was a good way to finalise wesley's character development
throughout this season. we still had the marks of uncertainty - the
willingness to defer to angel, and this cut scene from the script
illustrates this:
EXT. WOODS OF PYLEA - REBEL CAMP - NIGHT
Men prepare for battle. Wesley stands alone (except for Host's head on tree
stump next to him) by the dying fire.
HOST'S HEAD - Having some doubts, bro'?
WESLEY - Cordelia's all alone in that castle and this guerrilla warfare I'm
planning, I
don't know if it's going to work... we're doomed, there'll be no escape
for the Princess this time.
Beat.
HOST'S HEAD - You might want to keep that to yourself.
strangely this is better left out as it both undermines and highlights and
wesley's achievement. but i thought i'd mention it because i like to
celebrate consistency :-P
this was natural evolution for wesley, and what's really great is that it
puts him on a more even level with angel. there's lots of potential there,
and i'm looking forward to seeing how the wesley/angel relationship
develops. no, not *that* way, but in terms of friendship.
plus the scene between angel and wesley, where angel is looking to wesley
for reassurance is well done. i'd put that down to AD, who i always rave
about but it's true so there!
it was very moving, and probably the best scene in the whole episode.
so i'm very pleased with the way wesley has been dealt with - he so owned
this
episode.
sadly this useful employment of one character also served to emphasis the
crapness of the rest - especially the saccharine cordy/groo scenes.
fred, i'm undecided on. i don't outright feel an aversion to her, and yes
tim she's very pretty, but i'm wary of the technobabble. however, she's a
brunette (!) and intelligent, and depending on how well she adjusts to being
in
a more 'normal' environment, i think i'm eager to see how she fares. i'm not
sold on her character yet, but i am happy to wait and see. though i'd rather
that she didn't suck gunn's airtime please.
final grumbles - poor direction and rotten fight scenes. they just were not
exciting, and that's poor. this was homed in by my rewatching of TSIL last
night, and it was all action and excitement. greenwalt made sword fighting
look boring.
wesley and gunn storming the castle? grown men with wooden swords,
pretending they were stabbing people really but blatantly making no contact.
terrible.
i know it's cheesy but i want some excitement or intrigue in my season
finale and i had none. the bad parts were many, and the good parts few and
far between.
i'm super disappointed.
natalie
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=thoughts+on+TNPLPG+author:natalie&hl=en&gr
oup=uk.media.tv.angel&safe=off&rnum=1&selm=YDcT6.18802%24RD3.371325%40news11
-gui.server.ntli.net
Zara
David Chapman <da...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:9jpjbb$11h2l$3...@ID-93395.news.dfncis.de...
Exactly what I thought, after all the Vulcans had discovered warp technology
ages before Earth did and were meant to be more advanced.
The whole universal translator thing never really was explained enough for
someone as pedantic as myself (or maybe it has been and I haven't watched
enough ST), I've seen examples on the show where only one party has the a
Uni Translator and the others (assuming as they are less advanced) don't and
they were perfectly understood. So I'm going for Davids idea.
As for the "ptack" "karplar" thing, the only reason I can think of is if
there is no other comparable word in your own language for it, you hear the
Klingon version. But that's unlikely as we can all guess what those phrases
mean. Maybe these words are Klingon words that have been intergrated into
the language much like you get French and other foreign words in the English
now??
Zara *off to lurk again*
Niall Harrison
I didn't get a chance to deal with this first time around (exams), so...
> natalie's 'review' of TNPLPG:
>
> incidentally, it's on a level with 'blood money' because it's *that* bad.
No it's not...
> so far so good. the problem is that's all there is to it. it was very
> functional and lacked sparkle. the dialogue and action was cliched, the
> direction uninspired and the pacing off.
The pacing gets fixed, more-or-less, when you watch them all in one go.
And I found more to enjoy second time around. certainly.
> where this episode does not fail is that it maintains the threads which have
> been running through the series; cordy and her visions/place in AI, angel's
> dual nature, wesley's uncertainties with being a responsible leader, and
> gunn's torn loyalties betwixt his crew and the MoG. so in terms of
> consistency, it's good. we've changed setting entirely but the core themes
> are essentially the same.
Exactly. W&H, D&D were means to and end - an examination of our heroes,
and especially Angel. They were not an end in themselves.
> it is this (and possibly only this) that makes
> this arc tolerable to me. that is to say, if i view it in terms of an
> extension of what we had in eps 1-16, and not as an entirely separate
> storyline. because it's really not separate at all.
It's really a hiatus between S2 and S3. Think of it as a six-episode
mini-season and it makes a lot of sense.
> lorne - should he have stayed dead?
Yes. Teasing us like that is bad.
> i like the guy, i really do, but i'd rather have utter deadness than the
> talking head.
Oh, I don't know. 'Good Lord, woman, shut up!' was funny. :-)
> this is one episode where i did not enjoy CC's or DB's performances. i think
> that CC was still doing her best, but the lines she had to say were
> absolutely rotten. in fact the whole 'no i really do love this man i've
> known for two hours' story. bah. that was shit. or to use niall's word,
> trite.
I've revised my opinion on this, because watching them in one go leaves
Cordelia's sense of isolation and depression in 'Belonging' very fresh in
your mind. Her attachment to the Groosalugg makes sense in that light.
> as for DB, he just wasn't enjoyable to watch. lines that were supposed to be
> funny just fell flat, and DB just didn't nail them at all. for example the
> 'well, obviously' in response to fred's technobabble just didn't work.
You thought? OK...
> similarly, and i know this wasn't meant to be funny, but it made no impact
> either - 'i'll remove your face. slowly'. that was a rubbish threat.
OK, yeah, it was.
> also, angel's 'can't change, won't change' (can't cook, won't cook) lines
> were heavy handed. i didn't like their inclusion and thought it too much.
> we can pick things up without them being spelt out for us. so it was
> interesting for me to note that these lines were _not_ in the script. they
> must have been added in as an afterthought. i maintain that they should have
> been left out. i don't need a running commentary on angel's stream of
> thought - i didn't need it in 'redefinition' and i don't need it now. no
> more please DG - ta!
OTOH, there was something else not in the script that was added that I
thought worked very well, but I've forgotten what it was now. Arse.
<snip>
> now, *that* i liked. shame it was cut though.
Yeah, but it kind of deflates the priest's sinister image. They hadn't
made fun of them up to that point, so I think it was right of them not to
do it here.
> so, what else did i like then? i know it all sounds very bleak but there
> were a few high points for me.
> dialogue-wise, this is what stood out. the green dude's response to the news
> that angel's heart was not in his rump - 'disgusting'. now _that_ was spot
> on. that wasn't trying too hard, it felt like a natural response for a
> pylean whose name escapes me.
And that was my least favourite line of the episode, but hey...
> wesley's characterisation got a huge push in this episode. i'd no doubt say
> this anyway, but he was the best thing in this episode. elaine mccue
> mentioned this in her post, that wesley's actions were far more heroic than
> buffy's - the grim realization that 'you try not to get anybody killed, you
> wind up getting everyone killed' was both moving and noble.
And astonishing to see in a TV show, I thought.
And yes, Wesley was more heroic. :-)
<snip>
Niall
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
natalie
also known as will niall and natalie agree on anything in this post?
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9ka47j$emc$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
erm, it's all subjective isn't it? so i maintain that it is that bad - so
there :-P
> > so far so good. the problem is that's all there is to it. it was very
> > functional and lacked sparkle. the dialogue and action was cliched, the
> > direction uninspired and the pacing off.
>
> The pacing gets fixed, more-or-less, when you watch them all in one go.
> And I found more to enjoy second time around. certainly.
ok, but it was episodic. if inspired i might sit down and watch them all in
one go, but in truth i really don't think i would. just because i wouldn't
doesn't make my viewpoint wrong.
as time goes by i do find myself looking upon it in a kinder reflection. i
liked 'belonging'; was non-plussed with 'over the rainbow'; liked TTLG
(though it's not Minear's best, he did an admirable job of pulling
everything together); and hated TNPLPG.
so that's half and half. overall, in a season-wide context it fails. in a
mini-arc, well it just about passes. though i will forever be bitter about
that season finale, because i expect my season finales to knock me out not
bore me.
> > where this episode does not fail is that it maintains the threads which
have
> > been running through the series; cordy and her visions/place in AI,
angel's
> > dual nature, wesley's uncertainties with being a responsible leader, and
> > gunn's torn loyalties betwixt his crew and the MoG. so in terms of
> > consistency, it's good. we've changed setting entirely but the core
themes
> > are essentially the same.
>
> Exactly. W&H, D&D were means to and end - an examination of our heroes,
> and especially Angel. They were not an end in themselves.
we agree!
actually i know we agreed on that, it's those pesky doubters like craig that
i have quarrels with :-)
> > it is this (and possibly only this) that makes
> > this arc tolerable to me. that is to say, if i view it in terms of an
> > extension of what we had in eps 1-16, and not as an entirely separate
> > storyline. because it's really not separate at all.
>
> It's really a hiatus between S2 and S3. Think of it as a six-episode
> mini-season and it makes a lot of sense.
i think that you are being too favourable. for me things really started to
drop after 'epiphany'. i didn't like 'disharmony' and was similarly
displeased with 'dead end'. my views on pylea you know.
i can indeed view it as a six episode mini-season. can i view as a *good*
mini-season? well no i can't. it was sub-standard and i don't want to make
do, i wanted the same quality as we had in the early part of the season.
> > lorne - should he have stayed dead?
>
> Yes. Teasing us like that is bad.
slight tangent - how big a role do people think that host will play in S3?
> > i like the guy, i really do, but i'd rather have utter deadness than the
> > talking head.
>
> Oh, I don't know. 'Good Lord, woman, shut up!' was funny. :-)
er, no it wasn't.
:-)
> > this is one episode where i did not enjoy CC's or DB's performances. i
think
> > that CC was still doing her best, but the lines she had to say were
> > absolutely rotten. in fact the whole 'no i really do love this man i've
> > known for two hours' story. bah. that was shit. or to use niall's word,
> > trite.
>
> I've revised my opinion on this, because watching them in one go leaves
> Cordelia's sense of isolation and depression in 'Belonging' very fresh in
> your mind. Her attachment to the Groosalugg makes sense in that light.
okay, Groo. how could anyone be attached to *that*? was it just me or was he
as interesting as a piece of cardboard?
that's not to say that i don't understand what you are saying here. cordy's
attachment to him does indeed make sense to a degree, however that trite
dialogue that spewed forth from their mouths was inexcusable. it begged
belief. why couldn't she have been more cordelia-esque rather than suddenly
be reduced to an insipid heroine from a mills and boon novel?
again i find myself wondering if part of the fault lies with the groosalugg.
had he been more attractive (no not physically thought that sure wouldn't
have hurt), then would i be more sympathetic towards cordelia? i think i
would have to a degree, but the fact remains that cordy's dialogue makes me
cringe.
> > as for DB, he just wasn't enjoyable to watch. lines that were supposed
to be
> > funny just fell flat, and DB just didn't nail them at all. for example
the
> > 'well, obviously' in response to fred's technobabble just didn't work.
>
> You thought? OK...
i thought. deal with it :)
> > similarly, and i know this wasn't meant to be funny, but it made no
impact
> > either - 'i'll remove your face. slowly'. that was a rubbish threat.
>
> OK, yeah, it was.
we agree!
> <snip>
>
> > now, *that* i liked. shame it was cut though.
>
> Yeah, but it kind of deflates the priest's sinister image. They hadn't
> made fun of them up to that point, so I think it was right of them not to
> do it here.
they weren't very sinister though were they? i think it would have been fine
to have left it included. they were as sinister as my cat :-P
> > so, what else did i like then? i know it all sounds very bleak but there
> > were a few high points for me.
> > dialogue-wise, this is what stood out. the green dude's response to the
news
> > that angel's heart was not in his rump - 'disgusting'. now _that_ was
spot
> > on. that wasn't trying too hard, it felt like a natural response for a
> > pylean whose name escapes me.
>
> And that was my least favourite line of the episode, but hey...
but hey, we've established that you have no taste? [1]
mwah hah hah
ahem. it wasn't necessarily the line itself, that's pretty unspectacular.
but the delivery was nailed and it raised a smirk. it gets a mention for
managing to do that in the middle of this episode, where my forehead hurt
from all the frowning.
> > wesley's characterisation got a huge push in this episode. i'd no doubt
say
> > this anyway, but he was the best thing in this episode. elaine mccue
> > mentioned this in her post, that wesley's actions were far more heroic
than
> > buffy's - the grim realization that 'you try not to get anybody killed,
you
> > wind up getting everyone killed' was both moving and noble.
>
> And astonishing to see in a TV show, I thought.
yes, i agree. big plus there, and a reluctant yay greenwalt!
> And yes, Wesley was more heroic. :-)
but of course....
maybe we should ask the man himself about it? [2]
natalie
[1] our differences in taste are just making me laugh
[2] no not really
Clairey
Sorry to butt in but I just wanted to agree with you here. I liked
Pylea...a lot. But as a season finale arc following the kind of season we
had, it just didn't cut it. I'm torn over the whole thing. I enjoyed it
for what it was, but what it was wasn't good enough...does that make sense?
It was a shame because all season I was thinking that Angel was kicking
Buffys arse. Then they get rid of any tension and excitment, gave it all to
Buffy and instead churned out some lame fantasy story that in no way
compares to what was going on in Buffy.
<other interesting stuff snipped>
> maybe we should ask the man himself about it? [2]
Actually I think it would be interesting to know what his views on the Pylea
arc are. Not that I'm volunteering to ask.
Claire
Niall Harrison
> "natalie" <nat...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pmZa7.33271$io3.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>> news:9ka47j$emc$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>> > And I found more to enjoy second time around. certainly.
>>
>> ok, but it was episodic. if inspired i might sit down and watch them all
>> in one go, but in truth i really don't think i would. just because i
>> wouldn't doesn't make my viewpoint wrong.
>> as time goes by i do find myself looking upon it in a kinder reflection.
>> i liked 'belonging'; was non-plussed with 'over the rainbow'; liked TTLG
>> (though it's not Minear's best, he did an admirable job of pulling
>> everything together); and hated TNPLPG.
>> so that's half and half. overall, in a season-wide context it fails. in a
>> mini-arc, well it just about passes. though i will forever be bitter about
>> that season finale, because i expect my season finales to knock me out not
>> bore me.
>
> Sorry to butt in but I just wanted to agree with you here. I liked
> Pylea...a lot. But as a season finale arc following the kind of season we
> had, it just didn't cut it. I'm torn over the whole thing. I enjoyed it
> for what it was, but what it was wasn't good enough...does that make sense?
It makes a certain amount of sense. What I can't get my head around is
where the series was supposed to go after 'Epiphany' if *not* out on some
kind of tangent.
> It was a shame because all season I was thinking that Angel was kicking
> Buffys arse. Then they get rid of any tension and excitment, gave it all to
> Buffy and instead churned out some lame fantasy story that in no way
> compares to what was going on in Buffy.
Well, apart from the fact that Pylea - for all its faults - was solidly
and intelligently plotted whereas 'Buffy', erm, wasn't...
>> maybe we should ask the man himself about it? [2]
>
> Actually I think it would be interesting to know what his views on the Pylea
> arc are. Not that I'm volunteering to ask.
I'm not sure how willing he'd be to answer - he's been reluctant before to
venture actual opinions. Which is fair enough, really.
Niall
--
Could be a city thing
Could be a country thing
Could be a blues thing
Could be the real thing.
Niall Harrison
> arguing for the sake of it, me? oh no.
> also known as will niall and natalie agree on anything in this post?
Occasionally... :-)
Well, yes. That said...
My problem with 'Blood Money' is that it has some nice scenes (anything
with Boone in, the 'wipe away the tears line'), but a plot that doesn't
really make any sense. TNPLPG may be dull in places, but it has a lot
going for it thematically, and it has a plot that makes sense. So even if
I had enjoyed TNPLPG as little as I enjoyed 'Blood Money', I'd be inclined
to give it more credit.
>> > so far so good. the problem is that's all there is to it. it was very
>> > functional and lacked sparkle. the dialogue and action was cliched, the
>> > direction uninspired and the pacing off.
>>
>> The pacing gets fixed, more-or-less, when you watch them all in one go.
>> And I found more to enjoy second time around. certainly.
>
> ok, but it was episodic. if inspired i might sit down and watch them all in
> one go, but in truth i really don't think i would. just because i wouldn't
> doesn't make my viewpoint wrong.
No, but it doesn't make it right, either. Let's face it, from the moment
'Belonging' aired, people were saying it was hard to judge how successful
it was as a single episode.
Along similar lines, 'Reprise'/'Epiphany' is more succesful, for me at
least, when you know what's coming. First time around, it's a big
surprise. And 'Reunion' has actually gone down in my estimation as time
goes on, because it relies a little too much on action instead of
interesting character-related points for my liking. Not that 'Reunion' is
bad, far from it.
> as time goes by i do find myself looking upon it in a kinder reflection. i
> liked 'belonging';
It's got the character scene of the season...and it's a Wesley scene!
<snip>
>> Exactly. W&H, D&D were means to and end - an examination of our heroes,
>> and especially Angel. They were not an end in themselves.
>
> we agree!
See? It does happen. :-P
> actually i know we agreed on that, it's those pesky doubters like craig that
> i have quarrels with :-)
I still want to know what was left after 'Epiphany' that needed to be
wrapped up.
>> > it is this (and possibly only this) that makes
>> > this arc tolerable to me. that is to say, if i view it in terms of an
>> > extension of what we had in eps 1-16, and not as an entirely separate
>> > storyline. because it's really not separate at all.
>>
>> It's really a hiatus between S2 and S3. Think of it as a six-episode
>> mini-season and it makes a lot of sense.
>
> i think that you are being too favourable. for me things really started to
> drop after 'epiphany'. i didn't like 'disharmony' and was similarly
> displeased with 'dead end'.
Yes, and I'm not quite sure why this is. If it was anyone less
strong-willed I'd suggets their views might have been coloured by the
feedback from the alt group, but as it is...
> i can indeed view it as a six episode mini-season. can i view as a *good*
> mini-season? well no i can't. it was sub-standard and i don't want to make
> do, i wanted the same quality as we had in the early part of the season.
I certainly think 'Disharmony' and 'Dead End' are good, solid episodes.
I'd certainly pick them over, say, GWBG and TSOR as a pair of standalones.
>> > lorne - should he have stayed dead?
>>
>> Yes. Teasing us like that is bad.
>
> slight tangent - how big a role do people think that host will play in S3?
I don't think he'll have a plot like he did in Pylea - I think he'll be
background colour again, at least for a while.
(I wouldn't be at all surprised if we got another extended denouement,
though).
>> I've revised my opinion on this, because watching them in one go leaves
>> Cordelia's sense of isolation and depression in 'Belonging' very fresh in
>> your mind. Her attachment to the Groosalugg makes sense in that light.
>
> okay, Groo. how could anyone be attached to *that*? was it just me or
> was he as interesting as a piece of cardboard?
If they'd met in LA, I don't think Cordelia would have been at all
attracted to him. It was the circumstances that made his simple,
uncomplicated personality so appealing.
> why couldn't she have been more cordelia-esque rather than suddenly
> be reduced to an insipid heroine from a mills and boon novel?
What was so unCordelia-like about her behaviour? The dialogue was far
from great, I grant you, but none of it was out of character. Maybe a
little over the top, but nothing *wrong*.
> again i find myself wondering if part of the fault lies with the groosalugg.
> had he been more attractive (no not physically thought that sure wouldn't
> have hurt),
Again, that's taste. Lots of people I know rather like Groo. :-)
>> > 'well, obviously' in response to fred's technobabble just didn't work.
>>
>> You thought? OK...
>
> i thought. deal with it :)
Note to self: I'm clearly dealing with somebody who doesn't think
logically.
Note from self: This is news?
>> > now, *that* i liked. shame it was cut though.
>>
>> Yeah, but it kind of deflates the priest's sinister image. They hadn't
>> made fun of them up to that point, so I think it was right of them not to
>> do it here.
>
> they weren't very sinister though were they? i think it would have been fine
> to have left it included. they were as sinister as my cat :-P
I thought they were sinister...
<snip>
> yay greenwalt!
<snip>
Hurrah for imaginative quoting...
Niall
--
My imagination wants to see the vivid colours of reality.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <9kkbsi$oho$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Niall Harrison
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Clairey wrote:
:: Sorry to butt in but I just wanted to agree with you here. I liked
:: Pylea...a lot. But as a season finale arc following the kind of
:: season we had, it just didn't cut it. I'm torn over the whole thing.
:: I enjoyed it for what it was, but what it was wasn't good
:: enough...does that make sense?
:
: It makes a certain amount of sense.
It did fit with the "Where do I belong?" theme of season two. Pylea is
a lot easier to take once that common thematic thread is traced all the
way through since it finally looks like it fits with the rest of the
body of the season instead of like a bunion that sprouted on the tail
end. But it's still the longest denouement, both in absolute terms and
relative to the rest of the season, that I have ever seen in any
mainstream work of Western narrative irrespective of medium, genre, or
format. The audience couldn't help but have different expectations for
the pacing of the season.
: What I can't get my head around is where the series was supposed to go
: after 'Epiphany' if *not* out on some kind of tangent.
At the time, I thought they were going to continue on with the addiction
metaphor, which they had been leaning on implicitly for some time and to
which they had even made explicit lingo references in "Epiphany" with
the Host remarking that Angel had "hit bottom" and had had "a moment of
clarity." So I took the ball and ran with it and assumed that the rest
of the season would be about the difficulty of recovery: Angel takes two
steps forward, but then one step back. E.g., he tries to make amends to
his friends, but he also lies in the process ("You know I would never
[sleep with Darla]"), which is definitely not on in recovery, and he
looks for shortcuts, like buying Cordy off with clothes and taking the
gang out for dinner, instead of enduring the long hard process of
earning back trust. They could have gone that way easily and ended the
season on the unraveling of the lie and the shattering of the fragile
trust that had been rebuilt. (The only practical problem would be the
source of the revelation. Angel was covering his tracks, the Host
probably wouldn't rat him out, and the actors playing Darla and Lindsey
had left.)
At the time, it all seemed to fit, but after Pylea, that didn't seem to
be what they were trying to say with those story elements at all. It
wasn't until a couple days later that I realized that the Host had put a
pair of bookends around the season for us by giving his affectionate
monologue on the subject of L.A. in "Judgment" and then summing up how
no one belongs in L.A. therefore everyone belongs in L.A. in "Plrtz
Glrb." Evidently, the addiction metaphor was in service to the
"Belonging" theme. It was not itself the theme.
:: Actually I think it would be interesting to know what his views on
:: the Pylea arc are. Not that I'm volunteering to ask.
:
: I'm not sure how willing he'd be to answer - he's been reluctant
: before to venture actual opinions. Which is fair enough, really.
You could try asking whether Pylea achieved what they hoped it would.
That would make the answer relative to a goal they had set for
themselves rather than an absolute statement of merit.
-Micky,
outside agitator. :)
Sieue
mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
appropriate smiley>
>
> You could try asking whether Pylea achieved what they hoped it would.
> That would make the answer relative to a goal they had set for
> themselves rather than an absolute statement of merit.
>
> -Micky,
>
> outside agitator. :)
Ooooh so not an outsider now Micky - you have entered into a thread with
Niall. That makes you an UMTA regular, or something.
Now pick a goat, choose a camp, grab a beer out of the coolbox, and
welcome.
Sieue
--
It could be the burning baby fish swimming round your head.
Niall Harrison
That would certainly have worked thematically (although I was never as
concious of the addiction metaphor as you apparently were. Then again, I
only started lurking on ata a couple of months ago).
> (The only practical problem would be the
> source of the revelation. Angel was covering his tracks, the Host
> probably wouldn't rat him out, and the actors playing Darla and Lindsey
> had left.)
This was more my concern - the actual plot, rather than the themes. I
don't see quite what those people who think Darla and Drusilla should have
been around for the finale were expecting. Their parts in this story had
been played out by the end of 'Epiphany', as far as I'm concerned.
> :: Actually I think it would be interesting to know what his views on
> :: the Pylea arc are. Not that I'm volunteering to ask.
> :
> : I'm not sure how willing he'd be to answer - he's been reluctant
> : before to venture actual opinions. Which is fair enough, really.
>
> You could try asking whether Pylea achieved what they hoped it would.
> That would make the answer relative to a goal they had set for
> themselves rather than an absolute statement of merit.
Or, you could. Hey, he's as likely to take notice of you as he is of me.
And I'm off to the states for a week, so...
Niall
--
Oh look, there goes another year.
Niall Harrison
> I heard a whisper that in article <GHMDr...@world.std.com>,
> mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
>>
>>
>> outside agitator. :)
>
> Ooooh so not an outsider now Micky - you have entered into a thread with
> Niall. That makes you an UMTA regular, or something.
A hearty hmm to that, I think...
Niall
--
Before I knew how much it cost to play it safe.
Clairey
Who knows? I couldn't say, but I do think it would have been nicer if they
eased us out of the darkness instead of slapping us round the face with it.
> > It was a shame because all season I was thinking that Angel was kicking
> > Buffys arse. Then they get rid of any tension and excitment, gave it
all to
> > Buffy and instead churned out some lame fantasy story that in no way
> > compares to what was going on in Buffy.
>
> Well, apart from the fact that Pylea - for all its faults - was solidly
> and intelligently plotted whereas 'Buffy', erm, wasn't...
Well that perhaps is partly personal opinion because I didn't see any great
faults in Buffy's plotting. I was enjoying Buffy far more and that's what
I'm getting at. However much I liked Pylea it just wasn't as interesting or
exciting. But again, it's all down to personal preference I guess.
> >> maybe we should ask the man himself about it? [2]
> >
> > Actually I think it would be interesting to know what his views on the
Pylea
> > arc are. Not that I'm volunteering to ask.
>
> I'm not sure how willing he'd be to answer - he's been reluctant before to
> venture actual opinions. Which is fair enough, really.
Of course.
Claire
--
"For every ray of sunshine, there's a shadow lurking." V.C. Andrews
Niall Harrison
> "Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:9kkbsi$oho$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>> Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Clairey wrote:
>> > "natalie" <nat...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pmZa7.33271$io3.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>> >> > >> >
>> where the series was supposed to go after 'Epiphany' if *not* out on some
>> kind of tangent.
>
> Who knows? I couldn't say, but I do think it would have been nicer if
> they eased us out of the darkness instead of slapping us round the face
> with it.
I dunno; the more I think about 'Epiphany', the more I like it. Plus, if
they're planning to go dark again in S3 then this will have been a nice
break.
>> > It was a shame because all season I was thinking that Angel was kicking
>> > Buffys arse. Then they get rid of any tension and excitment, gave it
>> > all to
>> > Buffy and instead churned out some lame fantasy story that in no way
>> > compares to what was going on in Buffy.
>>
>> Well, apart from the fact that Pylea - for all its faults - was solidly
>> and intelligently plotted whereas 'Buffy', erm, wasn't...
>
> Well that perhaps is partly personal opinion because I didn't see any great
> faults in Buffy's plotting. I was enjoying Buffy far more and that's what
> I'm getting at. However much I liked Pylea it just wasn't as interesting or
> exciting. But again, it's all down to personal preference I guess.
Hrm. This isn't really the place, but...
I found 'Spiral' really, really dumb. Hines has a good (FSVO 'good',
anyway) critique here:
http://www.blueshifted.com/reviews/buffy/520Spiral.html
And if you say you found 'Weight Of The World' more exciting than 'Through
The Looking Glass', then, well, I'll just boggle at you.
'The Gift' was more exciting than TNPLPG, but it has a *lot* of problems.
I was practically screaming 'that doesn't make sense!' at the TV by the
end of it...
> Claire
> --
> "For every ray of sunshine, there's a shadow lurking." V.C. Andrews
Very optimistic. :-)
Niall
--
I bought a ticket to the end of the rainbow.
Niall Harrison
>>> and intelligently plotted whereas 'Buffy', erm, wasn't...
>>
>> Well that perhaps is partly personal opinion because I didn't see any great
>> faults in Buffy's plotting. I was enjoying Buffy far more and that's what
>> I'm getting at. However much I liked Pylea it just wasn't as interesting or
>> exciting. But again, it's all down to personal preference I guess.
>
> Hrm. This isn't really the place, but...
>
> I found 'Spiral' really, really dumb. Hines has a good (FSVO 'good',
> anyway) critique here:
>
> http://www.blueshifted.com/reviews/buffy/520Spiral.html
>
> And if you say you found 'Weight Of The World' more exciting than 'Through
> The Looking Glass', then, well, I'll just boggle at you.
>
> 'The Gift' was more exciting than TNPLPG, but it has a *lot* of problems.
> I was practically screaming 'that doesn't make sense!' at the TV by the
> end of it...
Clarification: From a purely things-happening-ooh-bang-whizz-excitement
point of view, 'Buffy' probably wins. But it was far less intelligently
written, and had far more plot holes. Ultimately, despite all its flaws,
I find Pylea to be more satisfying.
Niall
--
When he lunged onto the hood she stopped to tell him she'd been wrong
- he was thrown head over heels into the traffic coming on.
Micky DuPree
Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
: I heard a whisper that in article <GHMDr...@world.std.com>,
: mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
:: -Micky,
::
:: outside agitator. :)
:
: Ooooh so not an outsider now Micky - you have entered into a thread
: with Niall. That makes you an UMTA regular, or something.
Well, I've tried not to just repost things I've said in a.t.a, but
elaborate on them (or in one case, offer an answer to a question that no
one else had fielded). I think that makes me something of an UMTA
dilettante.
: Now pick a goat, choose a camp, grab a beer out of the coolbox, and
: welcome.
Love the goats. Goats, many. I gather from skimming old posts that
"camp" means Doyle vs. Wesley, and I like them both, so I guess that
means I've got fence-splinters on my bum. What I'd *really* like out of
the coolbox is a chocolate-hazelnut-flavored milk drink that I used to
buy on the high street in Leytonstone but can't get back in the States.
Oh, and Time Out bars and packets of papadam crisps ... and that way
lies madness. But thanks for the welcome.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
: I heard a whisper that in article <GHMDr...@world.std.com>,
: mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
:: -Micky,
::
:: outside agitator. :)
:
: Ooooh so not an outsider now Micky - you have entered into a thread
: with Niall. That makes you an UMTA regular, or something.
Well, I've tried not to just repost things I've said in a.t.a, but
elaborate on them (or in one case, offer an answer to a question that no
one else had fielded). I think that makes me something of an UMTA
dilettante.
: Now pick a goat, choose a camp, grab a beer out of the coolbox, and
: welcome.
Love the goats. Goats, many. I gather from skimming old posts that
Micky DuPree
spoilers change.
Spoilers for _Angel_, season 1, ep.17, season 2 through ep.18; _Buffy_,
season 2, eps.13-22.
Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
:: In article <9kkbsi$oho$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Niall Harrison
:: <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
::: What I can't get my head around is where the series was supposed to
::: go after 'Epiphany' if *not* out on some kind of tangent.
::
:: At the time, I thought they were going to continue on with the
:: addiction metaphor, which they had been leaning on implicitly for
:: some time and to which they had even made explicit lingo references
:: in "Epiphany" with the Host remarking that Angel had "hit bottom" and
:: had had "a moment of clarity." So I took the ball and ran with it
:: and assumed that the rest of the season would be about the difficulty
:: of recovery: [snip]
: That would certainly have worked thematically (although I was never as
: concious of the addiction metaphor as you apparently were. Then
: again, I only started lurking on ata a couple of months ago).
It's something the writers have mentioned in interviews and fan forums
since the early seasons of _Buffy_. I think it actually has more
parallels with the character as he appears on his own show, because he
either chooses to "fall off the wagon" ("Are You Now," "Reunion") or
gets careless ("Eternity"), whereas in _Buffy_, it's a bit more strained
since he didn't make a choice to go evil; he merely exercised some bad
judgment. Still, alcoholics don't know they're alcoholics until after
they've started drinking.
:: (The only practical problem would be the source of the revelation.
:: Angel was covering his tracks, the Host probably wouldn't rat him
:: out, and the actors playing Darla and Lindsey had left.)
:
: This was more my concern - the actual plot, rather than the themes. I
: don't see quite what those people who think Darla and Drusilla should
: have been around for the finale were expecting. Their parts in this
: story had been played out by the end of 'Epiphany', as far as I'm
: concerned.
I can see how Darla and Dru could have been integrated into the end of
the season, but only if at least one of them had been killed off. Darla
could have stayed around and continued to use Lindsey to plot a
woman-scorned type of revenge against Angel, so the real-world metaphor
would have been the psycho ex-wife who makes your life hell after you've
decided to move on (blown up to supernatural proportions by the
Buffyverse, of course). Lindsey's change of heart towards Wolfram &
Hart could have been expanded to two episodes easily, and he and Darla
could have had an actual falling out, not a mere parting of the ways.
Heck, they could have even written Dru as recruiting Spike to come down
to L.A. to help them put an end to Angel once and for all and closed out
the season on a big family showdown. Some deadly confrontational
tableaux like that might be what some people were expecting. After all,
Angel did promise to kill Darla when next their paths crossed.
However, I agree that "Reprise" would have made a dynamite season
finale, almost impossible to top, and if they didn't want to end on a
cliffhanger, "Epiphany" would have made an excellent coda. I don't see
Darla and Dru or Wolfram & Hart as ends in themselves, but as important
for their effect on and illumination of Angel. Had Mutant Enemy
retained all the recurring cast through to the end, the answer to my
eyes would have been to flesh out the Angel-tries-to-go-dark-but-only-
gets-as-far-as-beige story line more fully, give some more screen time
to not-Angel Investigations, and end the season on "Reprise"/"Epiphany."
:: You could try asking whether Pylea achieved what they hoped it would.
:: That would make the answer relative to a goal they had set for
:: themselves rather than an absolute statement of merit.
:
: Or, you could. Hey, he's as likely to take notice of you as he is of
: me. And I'm off to the states for a week, so...
I think he's only responded once to something I've addressed to him in
public (as is his prerogative). Once in a blue moon, he'll goose me
when I'm not expecting it. I say let those with the track record go for
it. I'll pop popcorn and cheer.
Have fun in Chicago (though you're probably not going to see this).
-Micky
Sieue
mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
> O.K., I think I've put this in the right place this time.
>
>
>
> Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> : I heard a whisper that in article <GHMDr...@world.std.com>,
> : mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
>
> :: -Micky,
> ::
> :: outside agitator. :)
> :
> : Ooooh so not an outsider now Micky - you have entered into a thread
> : with Niall. That makes you an UMTA regular, or something.
>
> Well, I've tried not to just repost things I've said in a.t.a, but
> elaborate on them (or in one case, offer an answer to a question that no
> one else had fielded). I think that makes me something of an UMTA
> dilettante.
All sounds good. There are a few of us who lurk/post on ATA but a lot
others who don't so feel free to repeat, regurgitate, rewrite.
> : Now pick a goat, choose a camp, grab a beer out of the coolbox, and
> : welcome.
>
> Love the goats. Goats, many. I gather from skimming old posts that
> "camp" means Doyle vs. Wesley, and I like them both, so I guess that
> means I've got fence-splinters on my bum. What I'd *really* like out of
> the coolbox is a chocolate-hazelnut-flavored milk drink that I used to
> buy on the high street in Leytonstone but can't get back in the States.
> Oh, and Time Out bars and packets of papadam crisps ... and that way
> lies madness. But thanks for the welcome.
Woo Hoo We got Micky on the fence... Right lets see, chocolate milk,
Time Out and Poppadom crisps now stocked in our bar... help yourself but
watch Angel - he guzzles chockie milk and can get quite possessive. Tim
will be along in a moment to go over the new season 3 scripts...
Micky DuPree
: I heard a whisper that in article <GHoos...@world.std.com>,
: mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
:: Well, I've tried not to just repost things I've said in a.t.a, but
:: elaborate on them (or in one case, offer an answer to a question that
:: no one else had fielded). I think that makes me something of an UMTA
:: dilettante.
:
: All sounds good. There are a few of us who lurk/post on ATA but a lot
: others who don't so feel free to repeat, regurgitate, rewrite.
That's a relief. If my brain claps out on me, I can go into the
archives and plagiarize myself as part of my plan to further American
cultural imperialism.
What I meant was, as part of a friendly cultural exchange.
: Woo Hoo We got Micky on the fence... Right lets see, chocolate milk,
: Time Out and Poppadom crisps now stocked in our bar... help yourself
: but watch Angel - he guzzles chockie milk and can get quite
: possessive. Tim will be along in a moment to go over the new season 3
: scripts...
My god, if he actually did that, get thee behind me, Satan. What a
thing to have to resist. Spoilers are eeeevil but Tim is a sweeeetie.
-Micky
Sieue
mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
> Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> : I heard a whisper that in article <GHoos...@world.std.com>,
> : mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
>
> :: Well, I've tried not to just repost things I've said in a.t.a, but
> :: elaborate on them (or in one case, offer an answer to a question that
> :: no one else had fielded). I think that makes me something of an UMTA
> :: dilettante.
> :
> : All sounds good. There are a few of us who lurk/post on ATA but a lot
> : others who don't so feel free to repeat, regurgitate, rewrite.
>
> That's a relief. If my brain claps out on me, I can go into the
> archives and plagiarize myself as part of my plan to further American
> cultural imperialism.
>
> What I meant was, as part of a friendly cultural exchange.
Aaaah so its going to be like that then.... pfft damn Merkins...
*ahem* what I meant was we welcome your cultural exchange and hope we
never argue about tea again.
> : Woo Hoo We got Micky on the fence... Right lets see, chocolate milk,
> : Time Out and Poppadom crisps now stocked in our bar... help yourself
> : but watch Angel - he guzzles chockie milk and can get quite
> : possessive. Tim will be along in a moment to go over the new season 3
> : scripts...
>
> My god, if he actually did that, get thee behind me, Satan. What a
> thing to have to resist. Spoilers are eeeevil but Tim is a sweeeetie.
Oh but that is one of the wonderful advantages of sitting on the fence-
that-is-no-longer-a-fence-but-a-small-settlement-between-both-camps-with
goats-tethered-nearby. We have a cast party on a Saturday and a script
discussion with the writers on a friday after the show (when we actually
have new eps that is).
Oh blimey, this has got off topic hasn't it.
Stewart Tolhurst
"Sieue" <si...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15dbed64a...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> I heard a whisper that in article <GHrKD...@world.std.com>,
> mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
> > Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > : I heard a whisper that in article <GHoos...@world.std.com>,
> > : mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
> >
> > :: Well, I've tried not to just repost things I've said in a.t.a, but
> > :: elaborate on them (or in one case, offer an answer to a question that
> > :: no one else had fielded). I think that makes me something of an UMTA
> > :: dilettante.
> > :
> > : All sounds good. There are a few of us who lurk/post on ATA but a lot
> > : others who don't so feel free to repeat, regurgitate, rewrite.
> >
> > That's a relief. If my brain claps out on me, I can go into the
> > archives and plagiarize myself as part of my plan to further American
> > cultural imperialism.
> >
> > What I meant was, as part of a friendly cultural exchange.
>
> Aaaah so its going to be like that then.... pfft damn Merkins...
Argle
The evil influence of afp is all persavise......
Stewart
Micky DuPree
: I heard a whisper that in article <GHrKD...@world.std.com>,
: mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
:: Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
::: Tim will be along in a moment to go over the new season 3 scripts...
::
:: My god, if he actually did that, get thee behind me, Satan. What a
:: thing to have to resist. Spoilers are eeeevil but Tim is a
:: sweeeetie.
:
: Oh but that is one of the wonderful advantages of sitting on the
: fence-that-is-no-longer-a-fence-but-a-small-settlement-between-both-
: camps-with goats-tethered-nearby. We have a cast party on a Saturday
: and a script discussion with the writers on a friday after the show
: (when we actually have new eps that is).
Is it too late to immigrate?
-Micky
Sieue
> Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> : I heard a whisper that in article <GHrKD...@world.std.com>,
> : mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
>
> :: Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> ::: Tim will be along in a moment to go over the new season 3 scripts...
> ::
> :: My god, if he actually did that, get thee behind me, Satan. What a
> :: thing to have to resist. Spoilers are eeeevil but Tim is a
> :: sweeeetie.
> :
> : Oh but that is one of the wonderful advantages of sitting on the
> : fence-that-is-no-longer-a-fence-but-a-small-settlement-between-both-
> : camps-with goats-tethered-nearby. We have a cast party on a Saturday
> : and a script discussion with the writers on a friday after the show
> : (when we actually have new eps that is).
>
> Is it too late to immigrate?
To the UK?
Or to the Wesley's Camp of the Leather Trousers/Doyles Hat Camp?
Or just to UMTA?
Hey which ever way - everyone is welcome - pick a camp, choose a goat....
erm isn't this where we started? [1]
Sieue
--
It could be the burning baby fish swimming round your head.
[1] I was going to insert a smiley here [2]
[2] in fact I was going to put in a ;) [3]
[3] that would be a 'winkie'[4]
[4] in fact, I wasn't going actually type in the emoticon but <insert....
[4] but it would have been rude [5] to write that and put winkie into the
sentence [6]
[5] wrong, all wrong
[6] we did tell you about the footnote daemon didn't we [7]
[7] Arghh get Angel, I have been struck again!
Niall Harrison
> Woo Hoo We got Micky on the fence...
It's not enough, although if Wesley keeps developing as he has been, I
might be up there at some point...
Niall
--
Walking barefoot along the sand
I hadn't planned to stay.
natalie
> Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Sieue wrote:
>
> > Woo Hoo We got Micky on the fence...
>
> It's not enough, although if Wesley keeps developing as he has been, I
> might be up there at some point...
i don't get this entirely. are you saying that wesley's development has been
bad?
oh wait, you'd elevate yourself from the doyle camp to the fence but not
quite aspire to the heady heights of wesley-dom just yet. i get it now :)
<g, d & r>
natalie
Niall Harrison
> I think I'm getting the hang of changing the Subject line when the
> spoilers change.
Not strictly necessary I don't think, but hey...
Speaking of killing off vampires (to everyone reading, not just Micky),
am I the only one who's satisfied with the way it's been handled on
_Angel_ so far? Yes, Angel has to try to kill Darla next time she shows
up, but as things stand I don't think any of the non-staking events have
been a stretch.
> Darla could have stayed around and continued to use Lindsey to plot a
> woman-scorned type of revenge against Angel, so the real-world metaphor
> would have been the psycho ex-wife who makes your life hell after you've
> decided to move on (blown up to supernatural proportions by the
> Buffyverse, of course).
I wouldn't be surprised if we actually did get this next season so I can
see where it's coming from.
> Lindsey's change of heart towards Wolfram &
> Hart could have been expanded to two episodes easily, and he and Darla
> could have had an actual falling out, not a mere parting of the ways.
> Heck, they could have even written Dru as recruiting Spike to come down
> to L.A. to help them put an end to Angel once and for all and closed out
> the season on a big family showdown. Some deadly confrontational
> tableaux like that might be what some people were expecting. After all,
> Angel did promise to kill Darla when next their paths crossed.
OK, yes, that would've been cool.
> Had Mutant Enemy
> retained all the recurring cast through to the end, the answer to my
> eyes would have been to flesh out the Angel-tries-to-go-dark-but-only-
> gets-as-far-as-beige story line more fully, give some more screen time
> to not-Angel Investigations, and end the season on "Reprise"/"Epiphany."
That, however, would've been cooler. :-)
> :: You could try asking whether Pylea achieved what they hoped it would.
> :: That would make the answer relative to a goal they had set for
> :: themselves rather than an absolute statement of merit.
> :
> : Or, you could. Hey, he's as likely to take notice of you as he is of
> : me. And I'm off to the states for a week, so...
>
> I think he's only responded once to something I've addressed to him in
> public (as is his prerogative). Once in a blue moon, he'll goose me
> when I'm not expecting it. I say let those with the track record go for
> it. I'll pop popcorn and cheer.
Righto. I'm also fighting the urge to point out that he seems to have
contradicted DG's opinion of the tone of S3. However, I think that would
be counter-productive. :-)
> Have fun in Chicago (though you're probably not going to see this).
Not from Chicago, anyway. I utterly failed to find an internet cafe of
any kind, which is odd considering the size of american malls. But, I did
have fun, although your country's freeway junctions were clearly designed
by a mad person. And it was very warm indeed for the first few days I was
over.
(And I very nearly went to LA to take TM up on his blooper-reel offer, but
decided that might be pushing things... :-)
Niall
--
Certain tribes are under the impression that usenet archives steal your
soul.
Niall Harrison
Yup, that's it. Why the running?
Niall
--
Seems like there's a hole in my dreams.
natalie
well no running since you don't seem to dispute that being a wesley fan is a
far greater state of being than both the fence and doyle camps.
but hey, if you don't have a problem with that, then i'll stop running
gladly.
natalie
i was only teasing...
Niall Harrison
> "Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:9le5j4$ar0$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>> Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - natalie wrote:
>>
>> > oh wait, you'd elevate yourself from the doyle camp to the fence but not
>> > quite aspire to the heady heights of wesley-dom just yet. i get it now
>> > :)
>> > <g, d & r>
>>
>> Yup, that's it. Why the running?
>
> well no running since you don't seem to dispute that being a wesley fan is a
> far greater state of being than both the fence and doyle camps.
Oh, I see. I assumed your 'heady heights' was ironic. :-)
Niall
--
Honest words don't know the damage they can do.
Micky DuPree
: I heard a whisper that in article <GHzoz...@world.std.com>,
: mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
:: Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
::: We have a cast party on a Saturday and a script discussion with the
::: writers on a friday after the show (when we actually have new eps
::: that is).
::
:: Is it too late to immigrate?
:
: To the UK?
:
: Or to the Wesley's Camp of the Leather Trousers/Doyles Hat Camp?
:
: Or just to UMTA?
Wherever they have script discussions with the writers after the episode
has aired.
: [6] we did tell you about the footnote daemon didn't we [7]
No, but I used to translate foreign phrases in footnotes because people
complained, but I got lazy and stopped.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
:: I think I'm getting the hang of changing the Subject line when the
:: spoilers change.
:
: Not strictly necessary I don't think, but hey...
I saw you do it, so I reckoned it was local custom. Or are you just the
wild man of UMTA? We're used to thread drift in a.t.a, which is why I
try to remember to list what the spoilers are specifically for at the
top of the body of the text. The Subject line could start off saying
(and spoiling) one thing, but a few messages down, it could be talking
about (and spoiling) something completely different.
Spoilers for _Angel_, season 2 through to the end; _Buffy_, season 2,
eps.21, 22, season 5, ep.14.
:: I can see how Darla and Dru could have been integrated into the end
:: of the season, but only if at least one of them had been killed off.
:
: Speaking of killing off vampires (to everyone reading, not just
: Micky), am I the only one who's satisfied with the way it's been
: handled on _Angel_ so far?
Possibly. :)
: Yes, Angel has to try to kill Darla next time she shows up, but as
: things stand I don't think any of the non-staking events have been a
: stretch.
We already knew that Angel had Darla issues (No, really? Who'd have
thought?), so that one wasn't a stretch. It was annoying on general
principles, but not a stretch. It was Cordelia failing to even try to
kill Harmony that took most of a.t.a by surprise. After ruminating for
a while, we came up with some hand-waves that took some of the edge off,
but I don't think any of us foresaw Cordy having a clear shot at an
obviously unensouled recidivist vampire and deliberately giving her a
free walk, nor did it all somehow click into place afterwards.
They let Gunn ask the right question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" but
it wasn't actually answered. The implicit answer may be that the White
Hats can't overcome the enemy-with-the-face-of-my-friend psychological
resistance anymore. I.e., they haven't gotten more hardened with time,
but have actually been worn down by the fight. However, when taken in
conjunction with "Crush," where Buffy let the Kendra-killing Drusilla
stroll away (there has never been any love lost there), the whole
business just seems to be inexplicably, "No, we don't kill 'em anymore."
[snip, as it's mostly agreement]
:: Have fun in Chicago (though you're probably not going to see this).
:
: Not from Chicago, anyway. I utterly failed to find an internet cafe
: of any kind, which is odd considering the size of american malls.
To be honest, I'm not even sure how to look for one in the Yellow Pages,
but these days it might be easier to look for a large public library
branch. They often have free terminals.
: But, I did have fun, although your country's freeway junctions were
: clearly designed by a mad person.
Would that be the classic four-leaf clover design? Or those newfangled
ones where you exit from the middle lane? I suspect that the latter
were put in place to weed out the weak. The cleverness of it is that
the ones who are afraid to exit never show up in the statistics. They
just keep driving and are never heard from again.
: (And I very nearly went to LA to take TM up on his blooper-reel offer,
: but decided that might be pushing things... :-)
I can't believe it never occurred to them to put it on the DVDs. Keep
giving them good ideas.
: Certain tribes are under the impression that usenet archives steal
: your soul.
I prefer to think of it as backing up my soul to hard disk.
-Micky
--
Spike: Simple. You let me and Dru skip town, I help you kill Angel.
Buffy: Forget about Drusilla. She doesn't walk.
Spike: There's no deal without Dru.
Buffy: She killed Kendra.
-- _Buffy_, "Becoming," pt.2
Stewart Tolhurst
"Micky DuPree" <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in message
news:GI5wr...@world.std.com...
Nope - I'm in favour of interesting Vamps not getting dusted.
> : Yes, Angel has to try to kill Darla next time she shows up, but as
> : things stand I don't think any of the non-staking events have been a
> : stretch.
>
> We already knew that Angel had Darla issues (No, really? Who'd have
> thought?), so that one wasn't a stretch. It was annoying on general
> principles, but not a stretch. It was Cordelia failing to even try to
> kill Harmony that took most of a.t.a by surprise. After ruminating for
> a while, we came up with some hand-waves that took some of the edge off,
> but I don't think any of us foresaw Cordy having a clear shot at an
> obviously unensouled recidivist vampire and deliberately giving her a
> free walk, nor did it all somehow click into place afterwards.
My feelings about this are fairly well documented.
I think that we seem to be moving into a more grey-area. While vampires are
dangerous they aren't nessessarily evil. Personally I find this much more
interesting. Also it means that you don't have to keep constructing ways to
stop interesting baddies from getting killed off. What you have to remember
about Harm is that she is crap and lame. She always goes for the easy way.
I believe that if she really wanted to she could fight for the side of
good - but that would take effort and abstinence.
On the Darla front I have actually thought of a way in which she could be
kept in the show and Angel would be unable to dust her. Given that time
travel seems to be getting introduced what if the portals not only allow
movement dimensionally but also temporally? Then if Angel came accross
Darla in the past (after the flashback events in The Trial for example) he
wouldn't be able to dust her becuase if he did he would never have been
cursed (given that it was Darla who brought him the gypsy girl).
I wonder how JW would deal with temporal paradox? Or would he just ignore
it a la Voyager?
<snip>
> : But, I did have fun, although your country's freeway junctions were
> : clearly designed by a mad person.
>
> Would that be the classic four-leaf clover design? Or those newfangled
> ones where you exit from the middle lane? I suspect that the latter
> were put in place to weed out the weak. The cleverness of it is that
> the ones who are afraid to exit never show up in the statistics. They
> just keep driving and are never heard from again.
Are you familar with the concept of a magic roundabout?
6 mini-roundabouts arranged around one big one. You can treat it as lots of
little ones or one big one. Hence it is possible to go round the big
roundabout in either direction.
Who the hell came up with that idea????
Stewart
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> : Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
>
> :: I think I'm getting the hang of changing the Subject line when the
> :: spoilers change.
> :
> : Not strictly necessary I don't think, but hey...
>
> I saw you do it, so I reckoned it was local custom.
I try to if things change dramatically, but I often forget. It's
appreciated, but not a general practice as such. I just do it for the
reasons you gave; adding new labels in the text works equally well.
Bah, humbug.
> : Yes, Angel has to try to kill Darla next time she shows up, but as
> : things stand I don't think any of the non-staking events have been a
> : stretch.
>
> We already knew that Angel had Darla issues (No, really? Who'd have
> thought?), so that one wasn't a stretch. It was annoying on general
> principles, but not a stretch.
I don't reconcile 'Epiphany' by saying he still had Darla issues because,
well, he clearly didn't. I reconcile it by noticing that he had just had
an Epiphany and was not thinking entirely clearly. Plus, he acknowledges
to the Host that he 'probably shoulda staked her', which suggests the me
that he won't hesitate when he's next given the chance.
> It was Cordelia failing to even try to
> kill Harmony that took most of a.t.a by surprise. After ruminating for
> a while, we came up with some hand-waves that took some of the edge off,
> but I don't think any of us foresaw Cordy having a clear shot at an
> obviously unensouled recidivist vampire and deliberately giving her a
> free walk, nor did it all somehow click into place afterwards.
It did for me...
> They let Gunn ask the right question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" but
> it wasn't actually answered. The implicit answer may be that the White
> Hats can't overcome the enemy-with-the-face-of-my-friend psychological
> resistance anymore.
Well, sort of. My view is that having spent hours reminiscing with
Harmony before finding out she was a vampire, Cordelia found it that much
harder to believe her friend wasn't in there somewhere. I certainly
would. It probably didn't help that Harmony turned up when Cordelia was
at a low ebb and desparately needed a friend. It also gives Cordelia some
insight into Angel's situation, I think.
The problem with Harmony is that whilst this, to me, was a convincing way
to let her go, I can't see her *ever* being staked. ME like her too much
as comic relief.
> However, when taken in
> conjunction with "Crush," where Buffy let the Kendra-killing Drusilla
> stroll away (there has never been any love lost there), the whole
> business just seems to be inexplicably, "No, we don't kill 'em anymore."
In 'Crush', Buffy *was* slightly preoccupied. However, I have a much
bigger problem with that episode than I do with any of the _Angel_ ones,
which is why I specified _Angel_ in my original question. :-)
The closest I come to having a problem with _Angel_ is the end of
'Redefinition', because it's not clear why Angel doesn't follow up after
he's set D&D on fire. Is it because he thinks he's killed them, or
because he was just playing with them? Both could be used as reasons, but
it's left as an exercise for the viewer...
(It's probably worth noting that this is not a new thing in the Buffyverse
- it goes right back to 'Belonging', after all. The difference, I'd
argue, is that _Angel_ still gives plausible reasons for not killing its
vampires, whereas _Buffy_ doesn't).
> : But, I did have fun, although your country's freeway junctions were
> : clearly designed by a mad person.
>
> Would that be the classic four-leaf clover design?
Yup. Everyone trying to get on and everyone trying to get off all trying
to use the same thirty metres of road...
> Or those newfangled ones where you exit from the middle lane?
I haven't seen those. Sounds fun.
> I suspect that the latter
> were put in place to weed out the weak. The cleverness of it is that
> the ones who are afraid to exit never show up in the statistics. They
> just keep driving and are never heard from again.
lol :-)
> : (And I very nearly went to LA to take TM up on his blooper-reel offer,
> : but decided that might be pushing things... :-)
>
> I can't believe it never occurred to them to put it on the DVDs. Keep
> giving them good ideas.
I'm not sure we've had extras announced for the _Angel_ DVDs yet - who
knows, they may yet see the light of day.
> : Certain tribes are under the impression that usenet archives steal
> : your soul.
>
> I prefer to think of it as backing up my soul to hard disk.
Heh. I like this quote, although the story behind it is long and rather
dull. It involves a fundamental difference in news posting styles and
attitudes between members of Oxford Universitry and members of Cambridge
University. You haven't seen a really anally pedantic flamewar until
you've read oxbridge.tat...
Niall
--
Can you take me where you're going if you're never coming back?
Niall Harrison
*shudder* :-)
> 6 mini-roundabouts arranged around one big one. You can treat it as lots of
> little ones or one big one. Hence it is possible to go round the big
> roundabout in either direction.
I only know of the one, and that's in Swindon. Which seems appropriate,
somehow.
> Who the hell came up with that idea????
Well, it wasn't an american, at least. They don't seem to have *any*
roundabouts, as far as I can tell.
Niall
--
I'm not here
This isn't happening.
Sieue
> Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> : I heard a whisper that in article <GHzoz...@world.std.com>,
> : mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply says...
>
> :: Sieue <si...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> ::: We have a cast party on a Saturday and a script discussion with the
> ::: writers on a friday after the show (when we actually have new eps
> ::: that is).
> ::
> :: Is it too late to immigrate?
> :
> : To the UK?
> :
> : Or to the Wesley's Camp of the Leather Trousers/Doyles Hat Camp?
> :
> : Or just to UMTA?
>
> Wherever they have script discussions with the writers after the episode
> has aired.
Oh that would be the Fence, which is now a small settlement between both
camps, the actual fence having been deconstructed to avoid The War.
You see when we go off topic we do it in style.
Micky DuPree
_Buffy_, season 1, ep.7, season 2, eps.7, 21, 22, season 4, ep.3,
season 5, ep.14.
Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote [to Niall
: Harrison]:
:: We already knew that Angel had Darla issues (No, really? Who'd have
:: thought?), so that one wasn't a stretch. It was annoying on general
:: principles, but not a stretch.
:
: I don't reconcile 'Epiphany' by saying he still had Darla issues
: because, well, he clearly didn't.
I thought he clearly did. He was grateful to Darla for something that
she obviously did not want to do for him: bringing him to his senses.
He gave her her (un)life in exchange for 1) admitting that she had come
to his room initially seeking to kill him, 2) trying to get him to lose
his soul when she discovered he was willing, and 3) trying to kill him
when he refused to try again to lose his soul.
That's not gratitude for anything she's actually deliberately
collaborated in. That's all his head stuff *in spite of* what she was
trying and hoping to accomplish, and that he's just associating with
her in his mind. Add all that to the fact that she *will* kill humans
again, and it spells 'issues' to me. I think it was the last time he
was going to let those issues get in the way, but they were still issues
nevertheless. I think that in his mind, they were parting with clean
slates between them on this, his first day of recovery. In point of
fact, the slates weren't clean between them, but it was important to
Angel's frame of mind to reset the counter to zero because he was in
need of a lot of forgiveness himself.
I'm not trying to say that Angel's Darla issues in "Epiphany" were the
exact same ones that had driven him through the second season. He
pretty explicitly said that he lost those when he woke up and I believed
him on that point. What didn't ring quite as true was that Angel
described himself as feeling neutral towards Darla now, but his behavior
was actually that of overcorrection. It's one thing to forgive your
enemies upon receiving enlightenment, but another to let them go forth
to murder again.
("Enlightenment," mm? Is that what the kids are calling it these days?)
That may be a rough edge where the metaphorical connection between the
ex-wife being given the boot and a serial killer being set free just
doesn't make an entirely comfortable match. It's easier to reconcile
forgiving a bitchy ex- than telling a murderer to go and sin some more
until their paths cross again.
: I reconcile it by noticing that he had just had an Epiphany and was
: not thinking entirely clearly. Plus, he acknowledges to the Host that
: he 'probably shoulda staked her', which suggests the me that he won't
: hesitate when he's next given the chance.
I didn't see unclear thinking per se, but misplaced motivation. If
anything, his moment of clarity was so reductive that a lot of people on
a.t.a were complaining that there wasn't much to it and that it wasn't a
real epiphany after all. (I wasn't in that camp, for what it's worth.)
The problem that I saw with his immediate post-epiphany reaction was
that it retained the self-absorption that had marred his beige period.
It was still all about him. The fact that Darla had wanted to kill him,
wanted to take his soul, and did try to kill him was all brushed aside
because his head was in gratitude mode and that had to set the agenda.
It wasn't that he was unclear about her motivations or her actions or
what she was or what she would go on to do in the future. It was that
he didn't much care about those things, and yet as both moral and
practical matters, they were important. He started to come out of the
"it's all about me" phase when he recalled Kate, and by the time he got
to Caritas, it seemed to have lifted. Then he had second thoughts about
not staking Darla, and I agree, I think Angel's going to be resolved
about his threat to her next time.
:: They let Gunn ask the right question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?"
:: but it wasn't actually answered. The implicit answer may be that the
:: White Hats can't overcome the enemy-with-the-face-of-my-friend
:: psychological resistance anymore.
:
: Well, sort of. My view is that having spent hours reminiscing with
: Harmony before finding out she was a vampire, Cordelia found it that
: much harder to believe her friend wasn't in there somewhere. I
: certainly would.
I actually think that the whole "the vampire is a completely different
entity" theory is a comforting fiction that the White Hats tell
themselves to make it easier for them to perform a difficult but
necessary job. I'm not saying it should have been easy for Cordelia to
pull the trigger. However, I am saying that her failure to do so didn't
come on the heels of chatting pleasantly with Harmony and then
discovering she was a vampire. It came on the heels of Harmony trying
to get Cordelia and all her friends killed. One has the moral luxury of
forgiving transgressions against the self, but to forgive past and
future threats against others? That's flirting dangerously with
accessory-before-and-after-the-fact territory.
There's also the disconcerting question of if Cordelia can't bring
herself to kill vamp-Harmony, can she bring herself to kill Angelus
should the need arise as she once assured Angel she would do?
: It probably didn't help that Harmony turned up when Cordelia was at a
: low ebb and desparately needed a friend.
That was part of the hand-waving we did at the time. Actually, I can
supply you with more ammunition if you want. I did try to argue the
opposite case as well as I could. It's just that I ended up with,
"Yeah, but still ... "
: It also gives Cordelia some insight into Angel's situation, I think.
I think it may end up giving Angel an out somewhere down the road.
Cordy says, "How could you just let Darla go?" and Angel points to
Harmony by way of answer. However, the parallels break down at certain
key points. Angel never once made the mistake of thinking that
unensouled vampires were redeemable. While in some ways that makes
letting Darla go even more egregious, he did try to share that bit of
wisdom with Cordelia when vamp-Harmony was around.
:: However, when taken in conjunction with "Crush," where Buffy let the
:: Kendra-killing Drusilla stroll away (there has never been any love
:: lost there), the whole business just seems to be inexplicably, "No,
:: we don't kill 'em anymore."
:
: In 'Crush', Buffy *was* slightly preoccupied. However, I have a much
: bigger problem with that episode than I do with any of the _Angel_
: ones, which is why I specified _Angel_ in my original question. :-)
I try to keep the series separate in my head, but there comes a point
where what happens in _Buffy_ seems to send signals about the Mutant
Enemy mindset on certain global issues in the Buffyverse. The fact that
they had Gunn ask the question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" says to me
that they're quite consciously and deliberately doing this. What
exactly they're trying to say with it, though, I'm still hesitant about,
and I find it all the more unsatisfying for its lack of clarity.
: The closest I come to having a problem with _Angel_ is the end of
: 'Redefinition', because it's not clear why Angel doesn't follow up
: after he's set D&D on fire. Is it because he thinks he's killed them,
: or because he was just playing with them? Both could be used as
: reasons, but it's left as an exercise for the viewer...
I took Angel's earlier lines, "I'm not ready," and "I'm too close to
fight her," as clues that what he managed to do to Darla and Dru in
"Redefinition" was as far as he could push himself at that time. I
think the only reason he was able to kill Darla on _Buffy_ was because
she was directly threatening Buffy in that episode. Hey, when you make
it an either/or choice like that, it's no contest. But when it wasn't a
forced choice, Angel gave vamp-Darla a free pass (twice in the episode
"Angel") and Drusilla a free pass ("Lie to Me"). People complained
about Angel not finishing the vamp-gals off in "Redefinition," but
setting them on fire without being forced into it by exigent
circumstances was actually a step forward for him, not a step back.
As events later unfolded, it became clear that Angel was only fooling
himself about becoming genuinely hardened, so not closing in for the
kill with his "family" wasn't so much of a surprise after all. In
retrospect, Angel's portion of "Redefinition" is a study in macho
self-deception.
: (It's probably worth noting that this is not a new thing in the
: Buffyverse - it goes right back to 'Belonging', after all.
Erm, you mean "Becoming"? That was a strategic alliance, after all:
Spike and Dru's lives in exchange for helping to save the world. A
bargain at the price.
: The difference, I'd argue, is that _Angel_ still gives plausible
: reasons for not killing its vampires, whereas _Buffy_ doesn't).
I don't actually see the plausible reason in "Disharmony." I've tried
making some up and interpolating between the lines, but since Cordelia
hasn't actually shared with us a change of philosophy when it comes to
vampire killing, we don't actually know. (Here, have some ammo: I've
hypothesized that part of it is the down side to Cordelia's growing
empathy for the human race. I.e., she's overshot the mark and now some
of her compassion is misplaced.) Cordelia used to be the most
hardheaded of all of them when it came to supernatural threats in
general and her own personal safety in particular. Now? I'm just not
sure what they're trying to say now.
::: But, I did have fun, although your country's freeway junctions were
::: clearly designed by a mad person.
::
:: Would that be the classic four-leaf clover design?
:
: Yup. Everyone trying to get on and everyone trying to get off all
: trying to use the same thirty metres of road...
I think the guiding open-road interstate highway philosophy of the '50s
was to never force any lane of traffic to stop, but as you say, it makes
new arrivals and hopeful departers compete at cross purposes for the
same stretch of lane. I think it's more common in newer designs to
bring departers off first and then let arrivals on, even if that means
forcing both to stop at the other road's junction with the ramp.
:: Or those newfangled ones where you exit from the middle lane?
:
: I haven't seen those. Sounds fun.
The hurdle is really psychological. It just seems wrong to exit by
moving into the fast lane instead of the slow lane.
: I'm not sure we've had extras announced for the _Angel_ DVDs yet - who
: knows, they may yet see the light of day.
We know they did some commentary expressly for that purpose. Tim Minear
suggested they include some deleted footage and alternate coverage of
shots. It would be nice if they included the original six-minute promo
as well. There was a short flashy lead-in to the first showing of "City
of" that was kind of cute too. Bloopers just seem like a natural
selling point.
::: Certain tribes are under the impression that usenet archives steal
::: your soul.
::
:: I prefer to think of it as backing up my soul to hard disk.
:
: Heh. I like this quote, although the story behind it is long and
: rather dull. It involves a fundamental difference in news posting
: styles and attitudes between members of Oxford Universitry and members
: of Cambridge University. You haven't seen a really anally pedantic
: flamewar until you've read oxbridge.tat...
Sounds enticing. I was just reminded of a few years ago when people
first realized that they were being archived. Before, if you didn't
save it yourself, it was likely gone forever. Suddenly people were very
self-conscious about what kind of words might come back to haunt them.
Me, I've always been a notorious net.packrat, and would often quote back
people's words to them to demonstrate that memory will play you false
(and to prove that they had misquoted me). Now people take archiving
for granted, to the point where there was much disgruntlement in the
land during the time when most of the old Deja archive was unavailable.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
"Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> writes:
: "Micky DuPree" <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in message
: news:GI5wr...@world.std.com...
:: Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
::: Speaking of killing off vampires (to everyone reading, not just
::: Micky), am I the only one who's satisfied with the way it's been
::: handled on _Angel_ so far?
::
:: Possibly. :)
:
: Nope - I'm in favour of interesting Vamps not getting dusted.
To an extent, I sympathize with allowing the best villains to live to
enliven the story another day, but it's even harder to suspend one's
disbelief when the heroes simply allow them to live than when the heroes
are prevented from killing them by circumstances beyond their control.
: I think that we seem to be moving into a more grey-area. While
: vampires are dangerous they aren't nessessarily evil.
Harming other sapient beings (except in self-defense) is pretty much the
only consistent definition of evil you can come up with (i.e., one that
can be consistently applied across all points of view).
And neutralizing the danger to sapient beings is exactly the
public-safety justification for killing vampires.
: Personally I find this much more interesting. Also it means that you
: don't have to keep constructing ways to stop interesting baddies from
: getting killed off. What you have to remember about Harm is that she
: is crap and lame. She always goes for the easy way. I believe that
: if she really wanted to she could fight for the side of good - but
: that would take effort and abstinence.
The problem with Buffyverse vampires isn't that they don't know right
from wrong. They do. They actively seek out evil and many of them
revel in it. They're not unreasoning animals out in the wild who act
only on instinct. They're not even like people who were brought up in
violent societies, like the Mafia, that don't respect the rights of
outsiders. All vampires started out raised as human, and then almost
all were forcibly converted, yet they retained all the reasoning powers
of their human selves and all their memories of having been socialized
as human. The problem is that vampires lack the motivation to be good.
They can perform individual good acts for a variety of reasons, but
they're never going to want to do good merely for the sake of doing
good.
Even if Mutant Enemy wants to get into a closer examination of the
subject (and if anything, they seem to me to want to avoid a closer
examination of the subject), I can't see Joss Whedon subverting Buffy's
heroism for the past five seasons. He doesn't mind writing her as
screwing up from time to time, but he's not going to start saying, "No,
you see, it actually turns out that Buffy was wrong to kill all those
vampires."
: On the Darla front I have actually thought of a way in which she could
: be kept in the show and Angel would be unable to dust her. Given that
: time travel seems to be getting introduced ...
If this is a spoiler for future episodes, I don't want to know. (I
don't want to know it, I don't want to see it, and with all my heart, I
don't want to believe it.) If it's not, I don't see where it's coming
from. They did some really bad pseudo-physics and stopped time in a
bottle in one episode, but no one actually moved around in time.
: Are you familar with the concept of a magic roundabout?
Only as the title of a children's program. (It all comes back to
television, dunnit?)
: 6 mini-roundabouts arranged around one big one. You can treat it as
: lots of little ones or one big one. Hence it is possible to go round
: the big roundabout in either direction.
:
: Who the hell came up with that idea????
The colorblind, so they wouldn't have to deal with traffic signals. :)
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Stewart Tolhurst wrote:
:: Who the hell came up with that idea????
:
: Well, it wasn't an american, at least. They don't seem to have *any*
: roundabouts, as far as I can tell.
Only in New England, where they're called rotaries, and while I'm sure
it was an imported idea, New Englanders seem to approve of having a
place in the road where it's considered O.K. to cut one another off.
-Micky
H.G.Hettinger
Is a roundabout the same as a circle? (All roads lead into the circle
and you drive around it until you get to the one you want to take. If
you miss it you go around again for a second try.)
If so, they do have them in New Jersey (lots and lots of them) and
when I last lived there (admittedly more than ten years ago) they had
one particularly fun variation of the same where you not only had
three different roads joining to form the circle, but additionally had
to bigger roads cut straight through the circle in a skewed variation
of a standard intersection. Trying to navigate that monster with even
only moderately heavy traffic should make even the worst adrenaline
junky happy.
They also had that ingenious invention called a 'jug-handle' that was
supposed to make it possible for you to make a left across a major
(muli-lane) intersection without causing major traffic pile-ups.
In order to make a left you get into the right lane and exit your road
a ways before coming up on the actual intersection you want to make a
left at in a road shaped like a jug handle (hence the clever name) so
you end up making a left onto the smaller road intersecting the big
one and then make your way straight across through the light from
there.
hgh
(much happier here in Ohio - even if we don't have any accessible
beaches...)
>
>Niall
"Can we really change the world? -
At Wolfram and Hart - we're counting on it."
Holland in "Blood Money"
Niall Harrison
That's not really how roundabouts work. They're more of a 'give way'
thing. Sounds more like your cloverleaf freeway junctions, actually.
:-)
Niall
P.S. Someone remind me who the quote in my sig is from - I'm fairly
certain it's one of the new _Angel_ writers, but I can't remember which,
and I foolishly forgot the attribution when I added it.
--
My little teeny piece of advice is, anything Tim Minear tells you or
suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
Niall Harrison
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Well, it wasn't an american, at least. They don't seem to have *any*
>>roundabouts, as far as I can tell.
>
> Is a roundabout the same as a circle? (All roads lead into the circle
> and you drive around it until you get to the one you want to take. If
> you miss it you go around again for a second try.)
Yes, that's about it. Although you don't normally miss your exit, since
there are signposts beforehand.
> If so, they do have them in New Jersey (lots and lots of them) and
> when I last lived there (admittedly more than ten years ago) they had
> one particularly fun variation of the same where you not only had
> three different roads joining to form the circle, but additionally had
> to bigger roads cut straight through the circle in a skewed variation
> of a standard intersection. Trying to navigate that monster with even
> only moderately heavy traffic should make even the worst adrenaline
> junky happy.
They had a *four-way junction* imposed on a roundabout? Wow. We
occasionally have roundabouts where the main road runs straight through,
but they're almost always controlled by traffic lights and so are easy
to navigate.
Can't say I've come across jug handles, though.
Niall
--
My vengeance will be swift and pathetic.
Niall Harrison
> Spoilers for _Angel_, season 1, ep. 11, season 2 through to the end;
> _Buffy_, season 1, ep.7, season 2, eps.7, 21, 22, season 4, ep.3,
> season 5, ep.14.
What she said. :-)
Because in his mind at that moment, the fact that she facilitated his
epiphany outweighed what she'd been trying to do. It wasn't right, but
hey, he was confused, having to deal with this new perspective.
> That's not gratitude for anything she's actually deliberately
> collaborated in. That's all his head stuff *in spite of* what she was
> trying and hoping to accomplish, and that he's just associating with
> her in his mind. Add all that to the fact that she *will* kill humans
> again, and it spells 'issues' to me. I think it was the last time he
> was going to let those issues get in the way, but they were still issues
> nevertheless. I think that in his mind, they were parting with clean
> slates between them on this, his first day of recovery. In point of
> fact, the slates weren't clean between them, but it was important to
> Angel's frame of mind to reset the counter to zero because he was in
> need of a lot of forgiveness himself.
I'm afraid I don't see why the desire to part with clean slates has to
come with Darla issues. He didn't act as he did because she was Darla;
he acted as he did because he was trying to deal with his epiphany.
> I'm not trying to say that Angel's Darla issues in "Epiphany" were the
> exact same ones that had driven him through the second season. He
> pretty explicitly said that he lost those when he woke up and I believed
> him on that point. What didn't ring quite as true was that Angel
> described himself as feeling neutral towards Darla now, but his behavior
> was actually that of overcorrection. It's one thing to forgive your
> enemies upon receiving enlightenment, but another to let them go forth
> to murder again.
But what I'm saying is that at that time, it seemed to him like the
right thing to do. He'd realised it was an overcorrection by the time
he got to Caritas.
> : I reconcile it by noticing that he had just had an Epiphany and was
> : not thinking entirely clearly. Plus, he acknowledges to the Host that
> : he 'probably shoulda staked her', which suggests the me that he won't
> : hesitate when he's next given the chance.
>
> I didn't see unclear thinking per se, but misplaced motivation.
Well, OK, that works for me as well.
> The problem that I saw with his immediate post-epiphany reaction was
> that it retained the self-absorption that had marred his beige period.
> It was still all about him. The fact that Darla had wanted to kill him,
> wanted to take his soul, and did try to kill him was all brushed aside
> because his head was in gratitude mode and that had to set the agenda.
> It wasn't that he was unclear about her motivations or her actions or
> what she was or what she would go on to do in the future. It was that
> he didn't much care about those things, and yet as both moral and
> practical matters, they were important. He started to come out of the
> "it's all about me" phase when he recalled Kate, and by the time he got
> to Caritas, it seemed to have lifted. Then he had second thoughts about
> not staking Darla, and I agree, I think Angel's going to be resolved
> about his threat to her next time.
That's exactly what happened, but I just don't see why it's a problem.
Why should we expect him to be able to make sense of his new perspective
immediately?
> :: They let Gunn ask the right question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?"
> :: but it wasn't actually answered. The implicit answer may be that the
> :: White Hats can't overcome the enemy-with-the-face-of-my-friend
> :: psychological resistance anymore.
> :
> : Well, sort of. My view is that having spent hours reminiscing with
> : Harmony before finding out she was a vampire, Cordelia found it that
> : much harder to believe her friend wasn't in there somewhere. I
> : certainly would.
>
> I actually think that the whole "the vampire is a completely different
> entity" theory is a comforting fiction that the White Hats tell
> themselves to make it easier for them to perform a difficult but
> necessary job.
I agree - I think the series has been fairly clear about it, in fact.
But pre-'Disharmony', it was something Cordelia believed in completely.
I think her experiences with Harmony caused her to doubt it.
> I'm not saying it should have been easy for Cordelia to
> pull the trigger. However, I am saying that her failure to do so didn't
> come on the heels of chatting pleasantly with Harmony and then
> discovering she was a vampire. It came on the heels of Harmony trying
> to get Cordelia and all her friends killed.
Which came on the heels of Harmony trying to help them all. In the end,
she just couldn't go against her vampire nature. But she did try, which
probably also had an effect on Cordelia's judgement.
> One has the moral luxury of
> forgiving transgressions against the self, but to forgive past and
> future threats against others? That's flirting dangerously with
> accessory-before-and-after-the-fact territory.
Firstly, Harmony doesn't come across as being particularly dangerous.
She is, of course, but at first glance she appears harmless.
Secondly, the acid test I apply is - could I have done it? In
Cordelia's place, could I have pulled the trigger? And the answer is
no, I don't think I could. Angel and Buffy are champions; they have to
answer to different standards. But Cordelia is just a regular human,
like me. And if I were in her place, I don't think I'd have pulled that
trigger either. There are, as you point out, many reasons why she
*should* have staked Harmony; but emotions get in the way at times like
that. I'd need time to come to terms with it all.
> There's also the disconcerting question of if Cordelia can't bring
> herself to kill vamp-Harmony, can she bring herself to kill Angelus
> should the need arise as she once assured Angel she would do?
Yes, I think. She encountered Angelus before she became friends with
Angel, but she was friends with Harmony before Harmony was a vampire.
> : It probably didn't help that Harmony turned up when Cordelia was at a
> : low ebb and desparately needed a friend.
>
> That was part of the hand-waving we did at the time. Actually, I can
> supply you with more ammunition if you want. I did try to argue the
> opposite case as well as I could. It's just that I ended up with,
> "Yeah, but still ... "
Fair enough. I end up with 'perfectly understandable, in the
circumstances'. :-)
> : It also gives Cordelia some insight into Angel's situation, I think.
>
> I think it may end up giving Angel an out somewhere down the road.
> Cordy says, "How could you just let Darla go?" and Angel points to
> Harmony by way of answer.
Yes.
> However, the parallels break down at certain
> key points. Angel never once made the mistake of thinking that
> unensouled vampires were redeemable.
I don't think Cordelia ever did, really. Not deep down. She told Angel
she knew Harmony could never work with them, but she wanted to believe
that something good could happen in her life. When Harmony betrayed
them at the end of the episode, I don't think it was a revelation for
Cordelia. A disappointment, but not a revelation.
> : In 'Crush', Buffy *was* slightly preoccupied. However, I have a much
> : bigger problem with that episode than I do with any of the _Angel_
> : ones, which is why I specified _Angel_ in my original question. :-)
>
> I try to keep the series separate in my head, but there comes a point
> where what happens in _Buffy_ seems to send signals about the Mutant
> Enemy mindset on certain global issues in the Buffyverse. The fact that
> they had Gunn ask the question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?" says to me
> that they're quite consciously and deliberately doing this. What
> exactly they're trying to say with it, though, I'm still hesitant about,
> and I find it all the more unsatisfying for its lack of clarity.
They're just trying to keep their favourite vampires alive, as far as I
can see.
<snip stuff about 'Redefinition' that makes sense>
> : (It's probably worth noting that this is not a new thing in the
> : Buffyverse - it goes right back to 'Belonging', after all.
>
> Erm, you mean "Becoming"?
Yes. I *keep* making that typo. Dang.
> That was a strategic alliance, after all:
> Spike and Dru's lives in exchange for helping to save the world. A
> bargain at the price.
But still a story strategy to keep popular name-vampires alive. Just a
more believeable one than we saw in, say, 'Crush'. :-)
> : The difference, I'd argue, is that _Angel_ still gives plausible
> : reasons for not killing its vampires, whereas _Buffy_ doesn't).
>
> I don't actually see the plausible reason in "Disharmony." I've tried
> making some up and interpolating between the lines, but since Cordelia
> hasn't actually shared with us a change of philosophy when it comes to
> vampire killing, we don't actually know.
I see Harmony as a one-off specifically designed to parallel the
Angel/Darla situation. Cordelia had never had to deal with a vampire
that personal before, and that was the worst possible timing, and the
worst possible way that it could happen.
> (Here, have some ammo: I've
> hypothesized that part of it is the down side to Cordelia's growing
> empathy for the human race. I.e., she's overshot the mark and now some
> of her compassion is misplaced.)
It's possible, but I don't think there's been any evidence for it as
yet.
> ::: Certain tribes are under the impression that usenet archives steal
> ::: your soul.
> ::
> :: I prefer to think of it as backing up my soul to hard disk.
> :
> : Heh. I like this quote, although the story behind it is long and
> : rather dull. It involves a fundamental difference in news posting
> : styles and attitudes between members of Oxford Universitry and members
> : of Cambridge University. You haven't seen a really anally pedantic
> : flamewar until you've read oxbridge.tat...
>
> Sounds enticing.
You have no idea...!
> I was just reminded of a few years ago when people
> first realized that they were being archived. Before, if you didn't
> save it yourself, it was likely gone forever. Suddenly people were very
> self-conscious about what kind of words might come back to haunt them.
That's the cambridge attitude.
> Me, I've always been a notorious net.packrat, and would often quote back
> people's words to them to demonstrate that memory will play you false
> (and to prove that they had misquoted me). Now people take archiving
> for granted, to the point where there was much disgruntlement in the
> land during the time when most of the old Deja archive was unavailable.
That's the Oxford attitude. So when one of the machines in Oxford broke
and leaked to google, and the Cambridge people found out that Oxford had
been keeping an archive, all hell broke loose...
Niall
--
I feel like dancing on my own
Where no-one knows me and where I
Can cause offence just by the way I look.
H.G.Hettinger
Nope, no traffic lights only some lonely yield signs that where
ignored by the majority of the drivers (you know, those whose cars
come with a built-in 'right of way').
>
>Can't say I've come across jug handles, though.
I think they are pretty much unique to Jersey (rather a good thing,
too, if you ask me).
hgh
Fred: "Bad things always happen here."
Mark Evans
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - H.G.Hettinger wrote:
>>
>>They had a *four-way junction* imposed on a roundabout? Wow. We
>>occasionally have roundabouts where the main road runs straight through,
>>but they're almost always controlled by traffic lights and so are easy
>>to navigate.
> Nope, no traffic lights only some lonely yield signs that where
American traffic lights use a different sequence anyway.
> ignored by the majority of the drivers (you know, those whose cars
> come with a built-in 'right of way').
In Europe only pedestrians have those...
Micky DuPree
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
:: Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
::: [Americans] don't seem to have *any* roundabouts, as far as I can
::: tell.
::
:: Only in New England, where they're called rotaries, and while I'm
:: sure it was an imported idea, New Englanders seem to approve of
:: having a place in the road where it's considered O.K. to cut one
:: another off.
:
: That's not really how roundabouts work. They're more of a 'give way'
: thing.
I seem to recall that's the theory, but, well, this is New England,
where defensive driving is considered the mark of tourists and wimps.
: Sounds more like your cloverleaf freeway junctions, actually. >:-)
Those are supposed to have rules about yielding as well, but you
wouldn't know it from actually driving on them.
: Someone remind me who the quote in my sig is from - I'm fairly certain
: it's one of the new _Angel_ writers, but I can't remember which, and I
: foolishly forgot the attribution when I added it.
:
: My little teeny piece of advice is, anything Tim Minear tells you or
: suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
I think it's a quote from the Bronze not long before it was shut down,
but when I went to the archive
<http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/media/tv/buffy/bronze/>
to check on authorship, I got an "Internal Server Error." Maybe someone
else will have more luck?
-Micky
Niall Harrison
Not from this computer; it being a college computer, it's limited to a
very few websites. Still, I think you're right and will check when I get
home.
Niall
--
After the flood
All the colours came out.
Niall Harrison
Well, Fred *is* a physicist...
Hmm. I can't ask 'if it's not a spoiler, do you want me to deny it?',
even, because if you say 'yes' and I don't deny it, it confirms the
spoiler. You're just left with hope, I guess. :-)
Niall
--
Yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon.
Niall Harrison
> Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
>> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>> :
>> : suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
>>
>> I think it's a quote from the Bronze not long before it was shut down,
>> but when I went to the archive
>>
>> <http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/media/tv/buffy/bronze/>
>>
>> to check on authorship, I got an "Internal Server Error." Maybe someone
>> else will have more luck?
>
> Not from this computer; it being a college computer, it's limited to a
> very few websites. Still, I think you're right and will check when I get
> home.
Well, now that I'm home I can get at the page, but I can't find the quote.
I could have sworn it was from the Bronze, though.
Niall
--
My night is coloured headache gray.
Micky DuPree
end; _Buffy_, let's just say everything up through season 5, ep.14.
Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
:: Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes [to Micky DuPree]:
::: I don't reconcile 'Epiphany' by saying [Angel] still had Darla
::: issues because, well, he clearly didn't.
::
:: I thought he clearly did. He was grateful to Darla for something
:: that she obviously did not want to do for him: bringing him to his
:: senses. He gave her her (un)life in exchange for 1) admitting that
:: she had come to his room initially seeking to kill him, 2) trying to
:: get him to lose his soul when she discovered he was willing, and
:: 3) trying to kill him when he refused to try again to lose his soul.
:
: Because in his mind at that moment, the fact that she facilitated his
: epiphany outweighed what she'd been trying to do. It wasn't right,
: but hey, he was confused, having to deal with this new perspective.
Maybe we're just harping on the differences between knowing and feeling,
but I don't see him as confused. I see him as seeing things very
clearly, but as feeling some things that would later pass. It's
analogous to being angry and then cooling down later. Angel was
grateful that he was able to come back up for air, and he bestowed some
of that gratitude on Darla, not because he thought she deserved it (if
he had thought she deserved it, I doubt he would have made the death
threat at their parting), but because he wasn't in a position to cast
stones. It's not that the facts as he understood them changed, but that
the way he felt towards them changed.
:: That's not gratitude for anything she's actually deliberately
:: collaborated in. That's all his head stuff *in spite of* what she
:: was trying and hoping to accomplish, and that he's just associating
:: with her in his mind. Add all that to the fact that she *will* kill
:: humans again, and it spells 'issues' to me. I think it was the last
:: time he was going to let those issues get in the way, but they were
:: still issues nevertheless. I think that in his mind, they were
:: parting with clean slates between them on this, his first day of
:: recovery. In point of fact, the slates weren't clean between them,
:: but it was important to Angel's frame of mind to reset the counter to
:: zero because he was in need of a lot of forgiveness himself.
:
: I'm afraid I don't see why the desire to part with clean slates has to
: come with Darla issues. He didn't act as he did because she was
: Darla; he acted as he did because he was trying to deal with his
: epiphany.
If you like, then it was because Darla was the catalyst for the
epiphany. If anyone else could have brought it about, then the same
would have applied to them, but frankly, I don't think anyone else could
have brought it about.
"And it *was* perfect, Darla. It was perfect despair. And you
were the reason. You've always been the reason."
-- Angel, "Epiphany"
I've said on other occasions that Darla was the anti-Buffy in Angel's
life. It completes the ironic parallelism between them. Angel sleeps
with Buffy, turns back to evil, and tries to kill her. Angel sleeps
with Darla, turns back towards good, and spares her life. Yes, I agree
with you to the extent that if, for example, Drusilla had managed the
same thing, I think Angel would have spared Dru as well because of the
epiphany, but I don't think Dru could have done it, because Darla was
the reason. She's always been the reason. She was the one who put him
on this path in the first place.
:: I'm not trying to say that Angel's Darla issues in "Epiphany" were
:: the exact same ones that had driven him through the second season.
:: He pretty explicitly said that he lost those when he woke up and I
:: believed him on that point. What didn't ring quite as true was that
:: Angel described himself as feeling neutral towards Darla now, but his
:: behavior was actually that of overcorrection. It's one thing to
:: forgive your enemies upon receiving enlightenment, but another to let
:: them go forth to murder again.
:
: But what I'm saying is that at that time, it seemed to him like the
: right thing to do. He'd realised it was an overcorrection by the time
: he got to Caritas.
I think he changed his mind. That's not the same thing as being
confused. Perhaps it seems to make no difference, but going back to the
comparison with Cordy and Harmony, I see Angel as giving Darla her "exit
interview" (as they sometimes call it when you leave university or a
corporation) in "Epiphany." They had had an extremely long and
intensely close relationship, though for the worse. It could only be
Darla who could bring about the epiphany that would cause Angel to, in
effect, give Darla one last walk before he would lose his sentimentality
over her. That Angel would give his vampire "family" a walk is
established behavior with him. When he does manage to kill them (and
not when it's an immediate either/or situation), *then* he will have
finally broken with the past.
I don't see an epiphany in Cordelia's relationship with Harmony, nor do
I see a speck of gratitude as Cordy let her walk. I thought Cordy was
grateful *before* the betrayal, for the company and the connection with
the past, but not after the betrayal. For Cordelia to get sentimental
over *any* unensouled vampire is a new twist in her behavior.
::: I reconcile it by noticing that he had just had an Epiphany and was
::: not thinking entirely clearly. Plus, he acknowledges to the Host
::: that he 'probably shoulda staked her', which suggests the me that he
::: won't hesitate when he's next given the chance.
::
:: I didn't see unclear thinking per se, but misplaced motivation.
:
: Well, OK, that works for me as well.
Maybe we are just arguing the difference between knowing and feeling
after all.
[snip]
:::: They let Gunn ask the right question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?"
:::: but it wasn't actually answered. The implicit answer may be that
:::: the White Hats can't overcome the enemy-with-the-face-of-my-friend
:::: psychological resistance anymore.
:::
::: Well, sort of. My view is that having spent hours reminiscing with
::: Harmony before finding out she was a vampire, Cordelia found it that
::: much harder to believe her friend wasn't in there somewhere. I
::: certainly would.
::
:: I actually think that the whole "the vampire is a completely
:: different entity" theory is a comforting fiction that the White Hats
:: tell themselves to make it easier for them to perform a difficult but
:: necessary job.
:
: I agree - I think the series has been fairly clear about it, in fact.
: But pre-'Disharmony', it was something Cordelia believed in
: completely. I think her experiences with Harmony caused her to doubt
: it.
At least at a very basic level, I think they do somewhat accept that
there is some continuity of identity. Buffy, of course, at first didn't
want to accept that there was nothing of Angel left in Angelus, but as
time went on, it was obviously easier for her to think of them as two
separate people (and Angelus himself didn't want to identify with
good-Angel).
And yet no one goes into a tizzy over Angel wanting to atone for deeds
committed as Angelus (the characters, I mean; some of the fans will
never give up). No one tries to talk him out of it. They instinctly
treat him in line with the addiction metaphor. On the one hand,
everyone's willing to say, "He's like a different person when he's on
the bottle," but they know that he knows what he's doing when he's a
nasty drunk and that it's important to hold him responsible for his
actions when he's drunk and for maintaining his sobriety when he's on
the wagon.
:: I'm not saying it should have been easy for Cordelia to pull the
:: trigger. However, I am saying that her failure to do so didn't come
:: on the heels of chatting pleasantly with Harmony and then discovering
:: she was a vampire. It came on the heels of Harmony trying to get
:: Cordelia and all her friends killed.
:
: Which came on the heels of Harmony trying to help them all. In the
: end, she just couldn't go against her vampire nature. But she did
: try, which probably also had an effect on Cordelia's judgement.
We're getting into pretty tenuous territory here. Since Cordelia didn't
actually share with us what she was thinking, there's only a few facial
expressions to go on, and apart from being negative expressions, there's
not a lot to nail them to the wall. I didn't see Cordelia granting
clemency to Harmony for having given it the old college try, but even
so, it's customary to give clemency when the the good act comes on the
heels of the evil act to mitigate the evil act, not when the evil act
comes on the heels of the good act to completely undo the good act and
bring about a terrible reversal of fortune.
If you're trying to draw a parallel with Angel and Darla, then for the
sake of argument, even if I concede that Angel was having epiphany
issues, not Darla issues, can you tell me what sort of epiphany that
Cordelia had that would cloud her judgment with gratitude towards an
evil Harmony? Harmony had just finished snatching away all reason for
Cordelia to feel grateful.
:: One has the moral luxury of forgiving transgressions against the
:: self, but to forgive past and future threats against others? That's
:: flirting dangerously with accessory-before-and-after-the-fact
:: territory.
:
: Firstly, Harmony doesn't come across as being particularly dangerous.
: She is, of course, but at first glance she appears harmless.
We have to accept that Cordelia hadn't gone completely insane, so the
only possible explanation for the initial acceptance of vamp-Harmony has
to be something along those lines.
At the point at which Cordelia let Harmony go, however, she had just
very deliberately set them all up to be killed (and had thanked Cordelia
for putting her on this path). Harm had demonstrated harm. It was way
beyond the theoretical at that point.
(Don't get me started on Spike aiding and abetting Adam and then getting
a free pass.)
: Secondly, the acid test I apply is - could I have done it? In
: Cordelia's place, could I have pulled the trigger? And the answer is
: no, I don't think I could. Angel and Buffy are champions; they have
: to answer to different standards. But Cordelia is just a regular
: human, like me. And if I were in her place, I don't think I'd have
: pulled that trigger either. There are, as you point out, many reasons
: why she *should* have staked Harmony; but emotions get in the way at
: times like that. I'd need time to come to terms with it all.
I think that they have all stepped consciously into the role of heroes.
Buffy and Angel are larger than life, but demands are made of all of
them (just as life can end up making demands of ordinary people). And
I don't think that Buffy and Angel are meant to establish an inhuman
standard of behavior, despite the supernatural exaggeration of their
depiction. At least in the first three seasons, I would have described
Buffy as Everyteen. To me, Angel is humanity writ large, the best and
the worst in one package, "God and the devil are fighting there, and the
battlefield is the heart of man" (Dostoyevsky), but there's nothing in
his heart that is actually beyond the reach of humanity, despite his
undead body.
And while I'd like to think that I'd be able to kill a vampire Harmony
were I in Cordelia's shoes, there are many points on which Cordelia's
personality differs from mine. As I've stated, up until the end of
"Disharmony," I would have said that she was the most hardheaded of them
all.
:: There's also the disconcerting question of if Cordelia can't bring
:: herself to kill vamp-Harmony, can she bring herself to kill Angelus
:: should the need arise as she once assured Angel she would do?
:
: Yes, I think. She encountered Angelus before she became friends with
: Angel, but she was friends with Harmony before Harmony was a vampire.
And yet I wouldn't be surprised if Angel is her first real friend ever.
("I can be surrounded by people and be completely alone. It's not like
any of them really know me. I don't even know if they like me half the
time." -- Cordelia, "Out of Mind, Out of Sight") Before, she had
minions in the Cordettes and she had boyfriends and she even had
comrades in arms in the Scooby gang, but was she close with any of
them?
I think Angel was her first friend and they're on fair if not perfect
terms in the wake of the clothes bribe. If Cordelia can get sentimental
over Harmony, with whom she did not actually part company as friends
when Harm was still human ("Oh, hey, it's Garbage Girl. Loved the look
last night, Cor. Dumpster chic for the dumped" -- Harmony in "The
Wish"), then I think that her first reaction upon hearing Angel's lost
his soul again may be akin to Buffy's: "Curse him again" ("Innocence"),
not, "I must stake him for the greater good right now as I promised him
I'd do."
[snip]
:: However, the parallels break down at certain key points. Angel never
:: once made the mistake of thinking that unensouled vampires were
:: redeemable.
:
: I don't think Cordelia ever did, really. Not deep down. She told
: Angel she knew Harmony could never work with them, but she wanted to
: believe that something good could happen in her life. When Harmony
: betrayed them at the end of the episode, I don't think it was a
: revelation for Cordelia. A disappointment, but not a revelation.
But that really only argues that Cordelia should have therefore come to
her senses. Letting Harmony go wasn't somehow going to make it all
better.
:: I try to keep the series separate in my head, but there comes a point
:: where what happens in _Buffy_ seems to send signals about the Mutant
:: Enemy mindset on certain global issues in the Buffyverse. The fact
:: that they had Gunn ask the question, "Don't we kill 'em anymore?"
:: says to me that they're quite consciously and deliberately doing
:: this. What exactly they're trying to say with it, though, I'm still
:: hesitant about, and I find it all the more unsatisfying for its lack
:: of clarity.
:
: They're just trying to keep their favourite vampires alive, as far as
: I can see.
External to the story, I agree completely, and I'm even willing to cut
them all the slack they want on that point. Good villains don't just
grow on trees (watch them come up with an Arbor Demon now), but internal
to the story, I'd really like to see or hear an explanation. If the
reason is that Buffy's too tired to chase after Drusilla, I'd like to
see it clearly portrayed that way. On most issues, I don't ask for big
neon signs, but as this issue stands now in the Buffyverse, the answer
really could be almost anything, and clarity is surely the most
underrated of virtues.
::: (It's probably worth noting that this is not a new thing in the
::: Buffyverse - it goes right back to ['Becoming'], after all.
:: That was a strategic alliance, after all: Spike and Dru's lives in
:: exchange for helping to save the world. A bargain at the price.
:
: But still a story strategy to keep popular name-vampires alive. Just
: a more believeable one than we saw in, say, 'Crush'. :-)
Exactly. It would have been easy to write Cordelia as shooting at
Harmony and missing, and it would have been easy to write Buffy as not
being unchained until after Dru had departed, and the writers know it.
They deliberately chose not to take those routes, so they're trying to
say something internal to the story, not just, "We may want to bring
Harmony and Dru back later."
:: I don't actually see the plausible reason in "Disharmony." I've
:: tried making some up and interpolating between the lines, but since
:: Cordelia hasn't actually shared with us a change of philosophy when
:: it comes to vampire killing, we don't actually know.
:
: I see Harmony as a one-off specifically designed to parallel the
: Angel/Darla situation. Cordelia had never had to deal with a vampire
: that personal before, and that was the worst possible timing, and the
: worst possible way that it could happen.
I can think of much worse ways for it to happen, Angelus being but one.
If I accept that it was only a one-off deal, then I'm forced to conclude
that they pulled Cordy out of character just that once in order to give
Angel a pass later down the line. I'd actually prefer to think that
they're deliberately trying to say something more lasting than that
about Cordy and about vampires in general (if I could just pin down what
that is).
:: (Here, have some ammo: I've hypothesized that part of it is the down
:: side to Cordelia's growing empathy for the human race. I.e., she's
:: overshot the mark and now some of her compassion is misplaced.)
:
: It's possible, but I don't think there's been any evidence for it as
: yet.
I think there's evidence right there in the episode itself. You keep
saying that Cordy and Harm were friends, but Harmony was more like a
minion when they were on good terms and she was downright nasty to Cordy
when Cordy lost her Queen C status. Accepting Harmony back as if they
had always been best pals and had not parted as antagonists was more in
line with the new Cordy. True, Cordy was hungry for some companionable
socializing, but god, could the old Cordy ever hold a grudge.
However -- I did say I could follow along with this only so far -- it's
one thing to forgive a human being for high-school ridicule, but when
you let a vampire go after she tried to kill you and your friends and
knowing that she'll go on to kill again, we're on an entirely different
level of engagement. Maybe it's yet another case of rough edges around
the metaphor, but if so, I wish they'd get hold of a file.
:: I was just reminded of a few years ago when people first realized
:: that they were being archived. Before, if you didn't save it
:: yourself, it was likely gone forever. Suddenly people were very
:: self-conscious about what kind of words might come back to haunt them.
:
: That's the cambridge attitude.
Heh. SIS traditionally recruits there, doesn't it? Maybe they're
getting a headstart on D notices.
:: Me, I've always been a notorious net.packrat, and would often quote
:: back people's words to them to demonstrate that memory will play you
:: false (and to prove that they had misquoted me). Now people take
:: archiving for granted, to the point where there was much
:: disgruntlement in the land during the time when most of the old Deja
:: archive was unavailable.
:
: That's the Oxford attitude. So when one of the machines in Oxford
: broke and leaked to google, and the Cambridge people found out that
: Oxford had been keeping an archive, all hell broke loose...
<snerk> If it can't stand to be requoted in public, it shouldn't be
said in public in the first place.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Niall Harrison wrote:
:: Previously, on uk.media.tv.angel - Micky DuPree wrote:
::: Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
:::: My little teeny piece of advice is, anything Tim Minear tells you
:::: or suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
:::
::: I think it's a quote from the Bronze not long before it was shut
::: down [....]
: Well, now that I'm home I can get at the page, but I can't find the
: quote. I could have sworn it was from the Bronze, though.
"Me too." I'm sure I saw it too and I'm at a loss to think of an
alternative source.
-Micky
Tim Minear
Tim Minear
:::: or suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
:::
::: I think it's a quote from the Bronze not long before it was shut
::: down<<
I'm pretty sure I said it.
Debra
>Date: 25/08/01 01:02 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <GILK3...@world.std.com>
I have read it. I think it may have been in an interview with Joss. But
I have emailed Minearketeers and asked if they know.
Debra
Who wants a wife whose knees only bend the one way?
Debra
>Date: 25/08/01 07:50 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010825025044...@mb-fw.aol.com>
I think you are being suitably modest. Noted.
Debra
>>:::: My little teeny piece of advice is, anything Tim Minear tells you
>>:::: or suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
>>:::
>>::: I think it's a quote from the Bronze not long before it was shut
>>::: down [....]
>>
>>: Well, now that I'm home I can get at the page, but I can't find the
>>: quote. I could have sworn it was from the Bronze, though.
>>
>>"Me too." I'm sure I saw it too and I'm at a loss to think of an
>>alternative source.
>
>I have read it. I think it may have been in an interview with Joss. But
>I have emailed Minearketeers and asked if they know.
Bless Kristen from Minearketeers!
She writes:
<< The statement was actually made by jengod of Buffy News Wire during her
interview with Amy Acker (Fred):
BNW: My little teeny piece of advice is anything Tim Minear tells you or
suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
http://home.pacbell.net/jengod/buffy/newswire/interviews/amy/
Hope this helps!
Kristen >>
Sieue
fw.aol.com>, timm...@aol.com says...
> I'm kidding.
>
Still made me laugh, which means you *are* a genius.
Niall Harrison
> :: I thought he clearly did. He was grateful to Darla for something
> :: that she obviously did not want to do for him: bringing him to his
> :: senses. He gave her her (un)life in exchange for 1) admitting that
> :: she had come to his room initially seeking to kill him, 2) trying to
> :: get him to lose his soul when she discovered he was willing, and
> :: 3) trying to kill him when he refused to try again to lose his soul.
> :
> : Because in his mind at that moment, the fact that she facilitated his
> : epiphany outweighed what she'd been trying to do. It wasn't right,
> : but hey, he was confused, having to deal with this new perspective.
>
> Maybe we're just harping on the differences between knowing and feeling,
I think we probably are.
> but I don't see him as confused. I see him as seeing things very
> clearly, but as feeling some things that would later pass. It's
> analogous to being angry and then cooling down later.
Well, yes. His judgement was clouded. And (to bring this back to the
original point) for me, it is clouded for entirely believable and
understandable reasons, so I don't have a problem with him not staking
Darla.
<snip>
> :: I actually think that the whole "the vampire is a completely
> :: different entity" theory is a comforting fiction that the White Hats
> :: tell themselves to make it easier for them to perform a difficult but
> :: necessary job.
> :
> : I agree - I think the series has been fairly clear about it, in fact.
> : But pre-'Disharmony', it was something Cordelia believed in
> : completely. I think her experiences with Harmony caused her to doubt
> : it.
>
> At least at a very basic level, I think they do somewhat accept that
> there is some continuity of identity.
Had Cordelia ever been confronted with it, though? It's been a while
since I saw any of S2 or S3 _Buffy_.
> :: I'm not saying it should have been easy for Cordelia to pull the
> :: trigger. However, I am saying that her failure to do so didn't come
> :: on the heels of chatting pleasantly with Harmony and then discovering
> :: she was a vampire. It came on the heels of Harmony trying to get
> :: Cordelia and all her friends killed.
> :
> : Which came on the heels of Harmony trying to help them all. In the
> : end, she just couldn't go against her vampire nature. But she did
> : try, which probably also had an effect on Cordelia's judgement.
>
> We're getting into pretty tenuous territory here. Since Cordelia didn't
> actually share with us what she was thinking, there's only a few facial
> expressions to go on, and apart from being negative expressions, there's
> not a lot to nail them to the wall.
Well, we know Cordelia was keen to give Harmony a fair shot. And on a
scale of 1-10, those cult vampires must have rated about a two, at best,
running from a fight like that. So we have what is apparently a large
amount of wishful thinking from Cordelia, and an act that, whilst evil,
wasn't really that threatening or dangerous.
> If you're trying to draw a parallel with Angel and Darla, then for the
> sake of argument, even if I concede that Angel was having epiphany
> issues, not Darla issues, can you tell me what sort of epiphany that
> Cordelia had that would cloud her judgment with gratitude towards an
> evil Harmony? Harmony had just finished snatching away all reason for
> Cordelia to feel grateful.
I see the parallel more as being with Angel and Darla's relationship in
the early and middle parts of the season, where Cordelia was continually
complaining about how obsessed he was with Darla. After 'Disharmony', she
understands a bit better how it's not quite as simple as 'see vampire,
kill vampire' all the time.
"We're still friends, right?" Isn't that Harmony's line at the end?
Making it that bit harder for Cordelia to stop seeing the face of her
friend?
> :: One has the moral luxury of forgiving transgressions against the
> :: self, but to forgive past and future threats against others? That's
> :: flirting dangerously with accessory-before-and-after-the-fact
> :: territory.
> :
> : Firstly, Harmony doesn't come across as being particularly dangerous.
> : She is, of course, but at first glance she appears harmless.
>
> We have to accept that Cordelia hadn't gone completely insane, so the
> only possible explanation for the initial acceptance of vamp-Harmony has
> to be something along those lines.
>
> At the point at which Cordelia let Harmony go, however, she had just
> very deliberately set them all up to be killed (and had thanked Cordelia
> for putting her on this path). Harm had demonstrated harm. It was way
> beyond the theoretical at that point.
I think I place more emphasis on how much Harmony meant to Cordelia than
you do...
> (Don't get me started on Spike aiding and abetting Adam and then getting
> a free pass.)
I wouldn't dream of it. It's a different situation, after all. Buffy
apparently let Spike go because he did a good deed to balance the bad;
Cordelia let Harmony go because she couldn't bring herself to kill what
Harmony represented.
What I would ask, however - do you have a problem with Angel hesitating
before staking Darla in 'Reunion'? My guess is not; Angel, after all, had
just been put through the ringer; he had to mentally shift gears from an
all-out attempt to save Darla to an all-out attempt to kill Darla.
Cordelia's situation, obviously, was less intense. But the association of
personal feelings with an evil vampire was the same in both cases.
> : Secondly, the acid test I apply is - could I have done it? In
> : Cordelia's place, could I have pulled the trigger? And the answer is
> : no, I don't think I could. Angel and Buffy are champions; they have
> : to answer to different standards. But Cordelia is just a regular
> : human, like me. And if I were in her place, I don't think I'd have
> : pulled that trigger either. There are, as you point out, many reasons
> : why she *should* have staked Harmony; but emotions get in the way at
> : times like that. I'd need time to come to terms with it all.
>
> I think that they have all stepped consciously into the role of heroes.
> Buffy and Angel are larger than life, but demands are made of all of
> them (just as life can end up making demands of ordinary people). And
> I don't think that Buffy and Angel are meant to establish an inhuman
> standard of behavior, despite the supernatural exaggeration of their
> depiction. At least in the first three seasons, I would have described
> Buffy as Everyteen. To me, Angel is humanity writ large, the best and
> the worst in one package, "God and the devil are fighting there, and the
> battlefield is the heart of man" (Dostoyevsky), but there's nothing in
> his heart that is actually beyond the reach of humanity, despite his
> undead body.
That's the metaphor, but within the Buffyverse, they are also champions.
Angel is not a 'lesser being'. He's capable of humanity's goodness writ
large, so when he falls it's that much more shocking.
> :: There's also the disconcerting question of if Cordelia can't bring
> :: herself to kill vamp-Harmony, can she bring herself to kill Angelus
> :: should the need arise as she once assured Angel she would do?
> :
> : Yes, I think. She encountered Angelus before she became friends with
> : Angel, but she was friends with Harmony before Harmony was a vampire.
>
> And yet I wouldn't be surprised if Angel is her first real friend ever.
> ("I can be surrounded by people and be completely alone. It's not like
> any of them really know me. I don't even know if they like me half the
> time." -- Cordelia, "Out of Mind, Out of Sight") Before, she had
> minions in the Cordettes and she had boyfriends and she even had
> comrades in arms in the Scooby gang, but was she close with any of
> them?
Oh, I don't doubt that she's better friends with Angel, Wesley and Gunn
than she ever was with the Cordettes; but I think she still counted
Harmony as a friend. There's also what Harmony represented: a time when
Cordelia was popular, powerful - when she had it all.
> :: However, the parallels break down at certain key points. Angel never
> :: once made the mistake of thinking that unensouled vampires were
> :: redeemable.
> :
> : I don't think Cordelia ever did, really. Not deep down. She told
> : Angel she knew Harmony could never work with them, but she wanted to
> : believe that something good could happen in her life. When Harmony
> : betrayed them at the end of the episode, I don't think it was a
> : revelation for Cordelia. A disappointment, but not a revelation.
>
> But that really only argues that Cordelia should have therefore come to
> her senses. Letting Harmony go wasn't somehow going to make it all
> better.
Well...yeah. My whole argument is that Cordelia let Harmony go for
emotional reasons. I'm certain she knows, on reflection, that it was
wrong.
> ::: (It's probably worth noting that this is not a new thing in the
> ::: Buffyverse - it goes right back to ['Becoming'], after all.
> :: That was a strategic alliance, after all: Spike and Dru's lives in
> :: exchange for helping to save the world. A bargain at the price.
> :
> : But still a story strategy to keep popular name-vampires alive. Just
> : a more believeable one than we saw in, say, 'Crush'. :-)
>
> Exactly. It would have been easy to write Cordelia as shooting at
> Harmony and missing,
And make it believable? And as useful in terms of making parallels with
the Angel/Darla story?
> :: I don't actually see the plausible reason in "Disharmony." I've
> :: tried making some up and interpolating between the lines, but since
> :: Cordelia hasn't actually shared with us a change of philosophy when
> :: it comes to vampire killing, we don't actually know.
> :
> : I see Harmony as a one-off specifically designed to parallel the
> : Angel/Darla situation. Cordelia had never had to deal with a vampire
> : that personal before, and that was the worst possible timing, and the
> : worst possible way that it could happen.
>
> I can think of much worse ways for it to happen, Angelus being but one.
Actually, I disagree, there. Angelus would be scarier, but he'd be a hell
of a lot less ambiguous. Cordelia wouldn't have any reason to doubt that
he needed staking; the only reason she might not stake him would be
that she can't get close to him without being killed.
> If I accept that it was only a one-off deal, then I'm forced to conclude
> that they pulled Cordy out of character
Well, I don't think it's out of character, but...
> just that once in order to give
> Angel a pass later down the line.
You mean Angelus?
Niall
--
"Who are you?"
"Just a bean trying to get some sleep."
Niall Harrison
> Bless Kristen from Minearketeers!
>
> She writes:
>
> << The statement was actually made by jengod of Buffy News Wire during her
> interview with Amy Acker (Fred):
>
> BNW: My little teeny piece of advice is anything Tim Minear tells you or
> suggests you, you should listen. The man is a genius.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/jengod/buffy/newswire/interviews/amy/
>
> Hope this helps!
> Kristen >>
Hurrah! Thanks, Debra. Attribution added.
Niall
--
If it ain't broke, take it apart to see what makes it so damn special.
Micky DuPree
::::: My little teeny piece of advice is, anything Tim Minear tells you
See, this was what I was talking about. He clams up on a forum for a
while, so just when you think he's not reading anymore, >goose<. He
probably thinks it's funny because, well, it is.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
season 1, ep.11, season 2, eps.7, 14, 16, season 3, ep.9, season 4,
ep.21
Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
: Micky DuPree wrote [to Niall Harrison]:
:: Maybe we're just harping on the differences between knowing and
:: feeling ...
:
: I think we probably are.
:
:: ... but I don't see [Angel] as confused [in "Epiphany"]. I see him
:: as seeing things very clearly, but as feeling some things that would
:: later pass. It's analogous to being angry and then cooling down
:: later.
:
: Well, yes. His judgement was clouded. And (to bring this back to the
: original point) for me, it is clouded for entirely believable and
: understandable reasons, so I don't have a problem with him not staking
: Darla.
Neither do I. It was frustrating, but not a big surprise.
:: At least at a very basic level, I think [the White Hats] do somewhat
:: accept that there is some continuity of identity [between human and
:: vamped version].
:
: Had Cordelia ever been confronted with it, though? It's been a while
: since I saw any of S2 or S3 _Buffy_.
You mean has she had to stake someone she knew from before? I don't
think so, but I am keying off of her willingness to arm up and entertain
the thought of using deadly force against Angelus in the first season of
_Angel_.
:::: I'm not saying it should have been easy for Cordelia to pull the
:::: trigger. However, I am saying that her failure to do so didn't
:::: come on the heels of chatting pleasantly with Harmony and then
:::: discovering she was a vampire. It came on the heels of Harmony
:::: trying to get Cordelia and all her friends killed.
:::
::: Which came on the heels of Harmony trying to help them all. In the
::: end, she just couldn't go against her vampire nature. But she did
::: try, which probably also had an effect on Cordelia's judgement.
::
:: We're getting into pretty tenuous territory here. Since Cordelia
:: didn't actually share with us what she was thinking, there's only a
:: few facial expressions to go on, and apart from being negative
:: expressions, there's not a lot to nail them to the wall.
:
: Well, we know Cordelia was keen to give Harmony a fair shot. And on a
: scale of 1-10, those cult vampires must have rated about a two, at
: best, running from a fight like that.
Hey, they were all in a pyramid scheme. Undeath isn't known for
strengthening one's independence of mind.
: So we have what is apparently a large amount of wishful thinking from
: Cordelia, and an act that, whilst evil, wasn't really that threatening
: or dangerous.
I'm not at all clear on which act you're referring to (Harm's? Cor's?
The vamps'?), but it's important to remember that despite being cowards
in the face of unyielding demon-fighters, the vampires in the theater
were nevertheless not pigs' blood aficionados. They had humans in that
cage. These weren't just naughty teenagers pulling pranks for a lark or
stupid white-collar con artists who were only going to go on to fleece
others as gullible as they were. They were serial killers. Maybe
that's rough edges around the metaphor again, but since we're talking
about vampires here, there was more to them than just working a scam.
:: If you're trying to draw a parallel with Angel and Darla, then for
:: the sake of argument, even if I concede that Angel was having
:: epiphany issues, not Darla issues, can you tell me what sort of
:: epiphany that Cordelia had that would cloud her judgment with
:: gratitude towards an evil Harmony? Harmony had just finished
:: snatching away all reason for Cordelia to feel grateful.
:
: I see the parallel more as being with Angel and Darla's relationship
: in the early and middle parts of the season, where Cordelia was
: continually complaining about how obsessed he was with Darla. After
: 'Disharmony', she understands a bit better how it's not quite as
: simple as 'see vampire, kill vampire' all the time.
But Darla was human earlier in the season. There is no parallel,
because it's never been considered fair game to 'see human, kill human.'
You had been saying that the parallel was in the inability to stake,
which isn't the same thing.
: "We're still friends, right?" Isn't that Harmony's line at the end?
"No, Harmony. We're not friends," was the response.
: Making it that bit harder for Cordelia to stop seeing the face of her
: friend?
They had never actually been friends is part of my point. Harmony had
been a minion and an antagonist in life, and a deceiver and a traitor in
undeath.
And this doesn't address my point about the *lack* of parallel between
Angel and Cordelia, *especially* if I concede your argument about Angel
not having Darla issues, but having merely "epiphany issues." So
where's Cordelia's epiphany that gives her fluffy-bunny feelings for a
vampire, even if only for a fleeting moment?
:: At the point at which Cordelia let Harmony go, however, she had just
:: very deliberately set them all up to be killed (and had thanked
:: Cordelia for putting her on this path). Harm had demonstrated harm.
:: It was way beyond the theoretical at that point.
:
: I think I place more emphasis on how much Harmony meant to Cordelia
: than you do...
It's just that what human-Harmony meant to Cordelia was fraught with
things that were painful and shameful to Cordelia, and vamp-Harmony's
entire (and *very* brief) relationship with Cordy had been a built on
deceit and illusion. I can understand being a soft touch when one is in
the throes of the illusion. It's deciding that the proper response to
deceit and the bursting of illusion is ... letting a traitorous murderer
go. Yeah, that'll make it all right.
:: (Don't get me started on Spike aiding and abetting Adam and then
:: getting a free pass.)
:
: I wouldn't dream of it. It's a different situation, after all. Buffy
: apparently let Spike go because he did a good deed to balance the bad;
: Cordelia let Harmony go because she couldn't bring herself to kill
: what Harmony represented.
And what exactly did Harmony represent?
: What I would ask, however - do you have a problem with Angel
: hesitating before staking Darla in 'Reunion'? My guess is not; Angel,
: after all, had just been put through the ringer; he had to mentally
: shift gears from an all-out attempt to save Darla to an all-out
: attempt to kill Darla.
I'd hardly have a problem with it as a point of characterization when
I'm the one who's claimed that Angel's had Darla issues all along.
Those only got worse after they had, for the first and only time, shared
a sad and tender victory while both were ensouled. ("He remembers when
you were warm." -- Dru, "Redefinition")
: Cordelia's situation, obviously, was less intense. But the
: association of personal feelings with an evil vampire was the same in
: both cases.
Cordelia does not remember when Harmony was warm, at least not
figuratively. They parted as antagonists when Harmony was human and
the brief relationship struck up after Harm was a vampire was based on
deceit and treachery. What Angel and human-Darla shared at the end
was real and good. Harmony was an opportunistic bitch both in life and
in death. Christ, you'd think Cordelia would be that much more angry
because of it, not that much more forgiving (hence my offering the "new
Cordelia" theory in partial mitigation, "now with 50% more misplaced
compassion"[1]).
:: To me, Angel is humanity writ large, the best and the worst in one
:: package, "God and the devil are fighting there, and the battlefield
:: is the heart of man" (Dostoyevsky), but there's nothing in his heart
:: that is actually beyond the reach of humanity, despite his undead
:: body.
:
: That's the metaphor, but within the Buffyverse, they are also
: champions. Angel is not a 'lesser being'. He's capable of humanity's
: goodness writ large, so when he falls it's that much more shocking.
I've never forgotten that he's also capable of evil writ large, as well
as a heapin' helping of amoral self-indulgence when it comes to his
vampire "family." He was going to give Dru *and* Spike a free walk in
"Lie to Me," and that was after he had started fighting alongside the
Sunnydale White Hats.
While Cordy's had her problems with amorality, I see no parallel there
with evil evil-things. Harmony was never like family to her, not even
in an evil sense. Cordelia has no history of sentimentality over
vampires nor over Harmony. The last time she had a falling out with the
Cordettes, she gave them a tongue-lashing.
If we are indeed meant to see the two situations as closely parallel, I
think they did a piss-poor job of it. I'd prefer to think they're
trying to do something else.
:: And yet I wouldn't be surprised if Angel is her first real friend
:: ever. ("I can be surrounded by people and be completely alone. It's
:: not like any of them really know me. I don't even know if they like
:: me half the time." -- Cordelia, "Out of Mind, Out of Sight") Before,
:: she had minions in the Cordettes and she had boyfriends and she even
:: had comrades in arms in the Scooby gang, but was she close with any
:: of them?
:
: Oh, I don't doubt that she's better friends with Angel, Wesley and
: Gunn than she ever was with the Cordettes; but I think she still
: counted Harmony as a friend.
I don't. I think she was willing to pretend that they had been friends
when Harmony showed up again so as to go on to build something more
substantial, but since Harmony wasn't up to the task, it didn't actually
happen.
: There's also what Harmony represented: a time when Cordelia was
: popular, powerful - when she had it all.
Huh? In "Disharmony," those two enacted a supernaturally exaggerated
version of their mortal relationship, i.e., Harmony pretending to be
Cordy's friend, but then stabbing her in the back when Cordy appeared to
be at a power disadvantage. Gee, such sweet memories. I'm getting all
choked up just thinking about it.
Explain to me why Harmony's betrayal should remind Cordelia of the good
old days when she had it all rather than the bad old days when she lost
it all and Harmony was right there to rub it in. Cordelia used to be a
past master at remembering affronts and cherishing grudges. That's why
I've come up with a kinder, gentler, new-Cordy theory.
::: When Harmony betrayed them at the end of the episode, I don't think
::: it was a revelation for Cordelia. A disappointment, but not a
::: revelation.
::
:: But that really only argues that Cordelia should have therefore come
:: to her senses. Letting Harmony go wasn't somehow going to make it
:: all better.
:
: Well...yeah. My whole argument is that Cordelia let Harmony go for
: emotional reasons.
Cordelia had far better, stronger, and more numerous emotional reasons
to kill her. So far, I like my hand-wave better than yours. Here, have
some ammunition.
:: It would have been easy to write Cordelia as shooting at Harmony and
:: missing [....]
:
: And make it believable?
Shooting and missing? Easily. Off the top of my head, just have
another vampire attack and throw her aim off at the critical moment.
This kind of let-'em-get-away plotting is dead easy. You must know
that, and the writers know it too. No, they did this deliberately.
: And as useful in terms of making parallels with the Angel/Darla story?
That's just it. You *cannot* make those kinds of parallels between
Angel/Darla and Cordelia/Harmony. There just aren't the similarities in
their respective backgrounds to support such. If indeed that was the
whole point of the exercise, then it was ill conceived ("Hey, let's make
up some parallels that don't exist") and poorly executed ("and let's
pull Cordelia out of character for the job"). Dreadful. That's why I'm
hoping that wasn't the point.
::: Cordelia had never had to deal with a vampire that personal before,
::: and that was the worst possible timing, and the worst possible way
::: that it could happen.
::
:: I can think of much worse ways for it to happen, Angelus being but
:: one.
:
: Actually, I disagree, there. Angelus would be scarier, but he'd be a
: hell of a lot less ambiguous. Cordelia wouldn't have any reason to
: doubt that he needed staking; the only reason she might not stake him
: would be that she can't get close to him without being killed.
No, in the wake of all this Harmony nonsense, I think she'd want her
*real* friend back now. I think she'd hesitate because she's seen him
after the second cursing. If Buffy had managed to stake him in
"Innocence," then there wouldn't have been a second cursing. If there
hadn't been a second cursing, Cordelia wouldn't be where she is today:
with *real* friends, a job (albeit low-paying), and a sense of purpose
in life. If he was successfully cursed twice, why not a third time?
If Cordelia can let Harmony go to kill again, I don't see why she
wouldn't rationalize to herself that she should try to get her friend
Angel back, not kill him.
:: If I accept that it was only a one-off deal, then I'm forced to
:: conclude that they pulled Cordy out of character ...
:
: Well, I don't think it's out of character, but...
If this is part of the new Cordelia, I want to hear why. I'll make the
mental adjustment and move on. If this is part of a growing discomfort
on the part of all the White Hats with killing rational (albeit evil)
beings with human faces and human voices because the old "it's not a
person" rationalization is wearing thin, I can deal with that too. I'd
even find it interesting, but I'd want to hear it, not just assume it,
especially since I'm dubious that Mutant Enemy wants to go there.
:: ... just that once in order to give Angel a pass later down the line.
:
: You mean Angelus?
No. Hypothetical future exchange:
Cordelia: You could have staked Darla and you just let her *go*?
For god's sake, WHY?
Angel: Remember Harmony? There's your answer.
[Cordelia falls silent.]
They speak no more of it, and Cordelia does not hold it against Angel,
which she would have done if he didn't have a vampire-walk of hers to
shield himself with.
-Micky
--
[1] Terry McNeal.
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes:
Ain't newsgroup threads wonderful? I'd forgotten that we agreed on that
to start with, more or less. :-/
> : So we have what is apparently a large amount of wishful thinking from
> : Cordelia, and an act that, whilst evil, wasn't really that threatening
> : or dangerous.
>
> I'm not at all clear on which act you're referring to (Harm's? Cor's?
> The vamps'?),
Harmony's. The cult vampires ran away at the first sign of trouble, and
were generally not terribly threatening. Harmony betraying them to the
cult vamps was evil, but there wasn't much of a sense that Our Heroes were
ever in any danger. Couple this lack of a threat with what I see as
enthusiastic wishful thinking from Cordelia, and I can understand why she
let Harmony walk in the heat of the moment.
> And this doesn't address my point about the *lack* of parallel between
> Angel and Cordelia, *especially* if I concede your argument about Angel
> not having Darla issues, but having merely "epiphany issues." So
> where's Cordelia's epiphany that gives her fluffy-bunny feelings for a
> vampire, even if only for a fleeting moment?
It's not an epiphany. It's Harmony - the embodiment of the life she left
behind in Sunnydale - turning up when Cordelia was at a low ebb. It's the
'school reunion' effect: people who may not have parted on the best of
terms at school happily reliving the good old days together. I think
Cordelia was extremely tired of the demands life had put on her recently
(which is one reason why I think she was won over by Angel's buying her
clothes; she wasn't used to that kind of frivolity or pampering).
> :: At the point at which Cordelia let Harmony go, however, she had just
> :: very deliberately set them all up to be killed (and had thanked
> :: Cordelia for putting her on this path). Harm had demonstrated harm.
> :: It was way beyond the theoretical at that point.
> :
> : I think I place more emphasis on how much Harmony meant to Cordelia
> : than you do...
>
> It's just that what human-Harmony meant to Cordelia was fraught with
> things that were painful and shameful to Cordelia,
But from her conversations with Harmony in the episode before she knew she
was a vampire, Cordelia is clearly viewing that part of history with
rose-tinted spectacles. She's happier now than she was then, but she
still sometimes wishes she could go back to the way things were.
> : There's also what Harmony represented: a time when Cordelia was
> : popular, powerful - when she had it all.
>
> Huh? In "Disharmony," those two enacted a supernaturally exaggerated
> version of their mortal relationship, i.e., Harmony pretending to be
> Cordy's friend, but then stabbing her in the back when Cordy appeared to
> be at a power disadvantage. Gee, such sweet memories. I'm getting all
> choked up just thinking about it.
For a large chunk of her time at Sunnydale High, Cordelia ruled the high
school. Heck, Angel even commented on it to Doyle - "it was like the
soviet secret police, if they cared a lot about shoes" - early on in S1.
If her present-day life was exhausting, I can see how she'd look back on
those days fondly, no matter what happened later.
> Explain to me why Harmony's betrayal should remind Cordelia of the good
> old days when she had it all rather than the bad old days when she lost
> it all and Harmony was right there to rub it in.
Maybe I'm remembering this period of _Buffy_ wrong - it's possible, I
haven't seen it for years - but I thought Cordelia was the one who 'broke
ranks'. She went out with Xander, so she may remember bringing the abuse
on herself.
I don't recall any scenes between Harmony and Cordelia where Harmony
rubbed in that Cordelia's family had lost everything to the tax man.
> Cordelia used to be a
> past master at remembering affronts and cherishing grudges. That's why
> I've come up with a kinder, gentler, new-Cordy theory.
That's not even a theory, though - as of TSIL, it's fact. If Harmony had
been human, I'm certain Cordelia would have forgiven her her past insults.
> : Well...yeah. My whole argument is that Cordelia let Harmony go for
> : emotional reasons.
>
> Cordelia had far better, stronger, and more numerous emotional reasons
> to kill her. So far, I like my hand-wave better than yours. Here, have
> some ammunition.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&selm=GC7HxG.7I1%40world.std.com&oe=ISO-8859-1&frame=right>
Well, OK, that articulates my argument better than I've been able to. I
can't think of anything to add, particularly. :-)
> :: It would have been easy to write Cordelia as shooting at Harmony and
> :: missing [....]
> :
> : And make it believable?
>
> Shooting and missing? Easily.
No, having that kind of easy get-away for name vampires. I'm sure that
would cause at least as much frustration as this way around, where they're
at least *trying* to give better reasons for the getaways. The Harmony
thing may not work for you, but I certainly prefer it to writerly fiat.
> : Actually, I disagree, there. Angelus would be scarier, but he'd be a
> : hell of a lot less ambiguous. Cordelia wouldn't have any reason to
> : doubt that he needed staking; the only reason she might not stake him
> : would be that she can't get close to him without being killed.
>
> No, in the wake of all this Harmony nonsense, I think she'd want her
> *real* friend back now. I think she'd hesitate because she's seen him
> after the second cursing. If Buffy had managed to stake him in
> "Innocence," then there wouldn't have been a second cursing. If there
> hadn't been a second cursing, Cordelia wouldn't be where she is today:
> with *real* friends, a job (albeit low-paying), and a sense of purpose
> in life. If he was successfully cursed twice, why not a third time?
> If Cordelia can let Harmony go to kill again, I don't see why she
> wouldn't rationalize to herself that she should try to get her friend
> Angel back, not kill him.
Because the spell is an extremely long shot, and Angelus is extremely
dangerous.
> :: If I accept that it was only a one-off deal, then I'm forced to
> :: conclude that they pulled Cordy out of character ...
> :
> : Well, I don't think it's out of character, but...
>
> If this is part of the new Cordelia, I want to hear why. I'll make the
> mental adjustment and move on.
Wesley articulated it rather well in 'Epiphany', I thought. It's all down
to the visions. She cares more about other people now.
> :: ... just that once in order to give Angel a pass later down the line.
> :
> : You mean Angelus?
>
> No. Hypothetical future exchange:
>
> Cordelia: You could have staked Darla and you just let her *go*?
> For god's sake, WHY?
> Angel: Remember Harmony? There's your answer.
> [Cordelia falls silent.]
>
> They speak no more of it, and Cordelia does not hold it against Angel,
> which she would have done if he didn't have a vampire-walk of hers to
> shield himself with.
Well...sure. That's certainly one of the reasons 'Disharmony' is there,
IMO. That way, if The Lie resurfaces, they can deal with the implications
of Angel lying, rather than Angel not staking Darla. I suspect this is
what they would want to do since we already know Angel had good reasons
for non-stakage, and they don't want to go over it all again for
Cordelia's benefit.
But, I think the time may have come to agree to differ on this one. Hell,
if you can't convince you, I'm not gonna be able to... :-)
Niall
--
Nothing is impossible in my all-powerful mind.
Iain Clark
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9mr9ve$2e2$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> It's not an epiphany. It's Harmony - the embodiment of the life she left
> behind in Sunnydale - turning up when Cordelia was at a low ebb. It's the
> 'school reunion' effect: people who may not have parted on the best of
> terms at school happily reliving the good old days together. I think
> Cordelia was extremely tired of the demands life had put on her recently
<snip>
> > Explain to me why Harmony's betrayal should remind Cordelia of the good
> > old days when she had it all rather than the bad old days when she lost
> > it all and Harmony was right there to rub it in.
>
Having just waded through this weighty discussion, I'm with Niall on this
one. You can argue all the "logical" reasons why Cordy should
hypothetically resent, mistrust and eventually kill Harmony in this episode,
but I think the episode paints a different picture. Cordy clearly does feel
a bond with Harmony, regardless of their past differences. In fact I agree
that the "school reunion" effect is a good way of putting it :-)
Cordy gets used to the idea that Harmony is her "friend" and gets nostalgic
for all the things she used to have in Sunnydale. Then it's revealed that
Harmony's a vampire, but even so she clearly wasn't out to harm Cordy from
the start - she's just as bad at being a Vampire as she ever was at being a
human being, and she really was after the companionship and solace of her
old friend. In fact, both of them are after the same thing - company from
someone they used to hate, but who now represents something they can never
get back.
> > :: If I accept that it was only a one-off deal, then I'm forced to
> > :: conclude that they pulled Cordy out of character ...
> > :
> > : Well, I don't think it's out of character, but...
> >
I think it's in character. Her bond with Harmony was forged out of a
powerful yearning for a more innocent past, and wasn't just wiped away by
Harmony not being what she appeared. There really is some sentimentality
colouring Cordy's perceptions. Even when Harmony betrays them it's because
she's such a sheep she's easily swayed to any cause that comes along. And
she's bad at that too - she's as silly, self-deluding and trivial a Vampire
as ever rose from the grave. There is so much of the old Harmony's
personality showing through that it must be extremely difficult for Cordy to
set that aside, no matter what her mind tells her. She's feeling pity, the
dregs of companionship, and Harmony's appeal to her as a friend is so direct
that she can't bring herself to kill her.
I'm not so sure this story parallels Darla/Angel completely, but in one way
it's bang on - both Cordy and Angel spare someone at a time when they're
more focussed on themselves and their own learning experience than the
Vampire. And I have no doubt that the next time either of them met that
same Vampire they'd be capable of killing them in a heatbeat (if you'll
excuse the expression).
It's a personal decision each may come to regret, it's morally indefensible
given the murders that either vampire could commit in the future, and it
arises from sentiment above all else. But it's believable. An interesting
counterpoint is Gunn's girlfriend in Season 1. Effectively he's placed in
the same situation as Angel or Cordy - presented with the human-seeming side
of the Vampire. Just like them he doesn't have the strength to kill her -
it's only when she actually tries to bite him that he really admits that
she's not the person he knew, and destroys her.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Stewart Tolhurst
"Iain Clark" <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9n0q9n$4ib2h$1...@ID-36593.news.dfncis.de...
> It's a personal decision each may come to regret, it's morally
indefensible
> given the murders that either vampire could commit in the future, and it
> arises from sentiment above all else. But it's believable. An
interesting
> counterpoint is Gunn's girlfriend in Season 1.
Sister.
> Effectively he's placed in
> the same situation as Angel or Cordy - presented with the human-seeming
side
> of the Vampire. Just like them he doesn't have the strength to kill her -
> it's only when she actually tries to bite him that he really admits that
> she's not the person he knew, and destroys her.
I disagree. As soon as it becomes clear what she is Gunn knows he has to
kill her. Rather than fight her he leads her on into thinking he will join
her then stakes her......
I really don't think that Gunn understands why Cordelia let Harmony go, as
he is still getting his head round the whole white-hat vampire thing wrt
Angel.
Stewart
Niall Harrison
Now that's dedication. :-)
> I'm with Niall on this
> one. You can argue all the "logical" reasons why Cordy should
> hypothetically resent, mistrust and eventually kill Harmony in this episode,
> but I think the episode paints a different picture. Cordy clearly does feel
> a bond with Harmony, regardless of their past differences. In fact I agree
> that the "school reunion" effect is a good way of putting it :-)
I can't claim that I thought up the phrase, although I can't remember
where I first heard it, either.
> I'm not so sure this story parallels Darla/Angel completely,
I have to admit, I haven't really thought through my argument on this
point in any depth. It just seems unlikely to me that there isn't a
parallel there somewhere.
> And I have no doubt that the next time either of them met that
> same Vampire they'd be capable of killing them in a heatbeat (if you'll
> excuse the expression).
Yes. I don't really see why some people are worried about Angel not
keeping his promise; I'm certain he will want to try to kill Darla. He'll
almost certainly fail first time around, to keep the character on the show
for a bit longer, but I'm fairly confident that she'll be dust by the end
of S3.
> It's a personal decision each may come to regret, it's morally indefensible
> given the murders that either vampire could commit in the future, and it
> arises from sentiment above all else. But it's believable. An interesting
> counterpoint is Gunn's girlfriend in Season 1. Effectively he's placed in
> the same situation as Angel or Cordy - presented with the human-seeming side
> of the Vampire. Just like them he doesn't have the strength to kill her -
> it's only when she actually tries to bite him that he really admits that
> she's not the person he knew, and destroys her.
As Stewart pointed out, that's not quite accurate. Gunn may have wavered
at the end, but he did know that he had to kill her. That certainty comes
of growing up watching your friends get vamped, I'd imagine.
Niall
--
There is no wrong, there is no right
The circle only has one side.