AOQ Review 3-13: "The Zeppo"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
(or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
Writer: Dan Vebber
Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode. My second
is that that look really, really doesn't suit Buffy. Anyway, our
heroes kill a bunch of new weird things, Willow gets to explain
Rowan's sig, and it then becomes clear that the scene is about Xander
(who was offscreen for most of it) and his Jimmy Olsen complex.
>From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me. Let
me say right off that I got annoyed pretty quickly here. Part of it is
that I don't understand certain things (i.e. why Xander is suddenly
all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
"Halloween" and "Go Fish"). And part of it is that quite
frankly I don't watch _Buffy_ for the high school stories in which
everyone acts like junior high schoolers. It's cartoonish. Given
all the deep hurting and deep friendship and moral ambiguity that
Xander's gone through in the last couple seasons, this feels like a
step back, or a step into a lesser series.
So from here on we're divided between good and bad comedy, as I like
to say. Some of it works, and a lot doesn't, so it's list time,
with the big paragraph above being a "fails":
Works: Anything with Xander and Cordelia trading insults. There is no
part of that that isn't fun. Remember back in early Season One when
just about the only time I enjoyed watching Cordelia (and sometimes
Xander too, for that matter) was when her involvement was limited to
scenes like these? Well, guess you can go home again. Knowing the
show, it'll probably try to play it up as some sort of renewed
love-hate tension, but I'm digging the hate.
Fails: Xander falls in... with the wrong crowd! What is this, an
After School Special? Especially the part where he instantly earns
their trust by not tattling. This episode gets downright embarrassing
to watch in places.
Works: Most of the car-girl thing isn't very interesting, but
Xander's impossibly bored expression in the Bronze and reaction to
seeing Angel is nice.
Fails: Jack and friends cruising around and acting frat-like, even
though they're dead. Dude! Yeeeah! It never commences to be funny!
Huh, that's a short list. But it pretty much covers the first half
of the episode. There is so little of interest happening that the
whole thing "fails." Oh, also, any particular reason that Buffy
and the others decided that now would be a good time to start excluding
Xander from the dangerous activities, rather than, say, *two and a half
years ago*? It's In The Script.
Things pick up quite a bit once Xander rolls by to save Faith. Not
only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
so deadpan during the whole thing, like an actual action here. Faith
being who she is, this leads to what's actually quite a hot sex
sequence with a minimum of bullshit. Looks like someone won't die a
virgin after all. And then, Faith being who she is, on with the
episode, next scene. A strange and fun little interlude.
>From there Xander's story continues to be stupid, but it starts
hitting the notes that it was missing earlier. Maybe it's the silly
music, but the end does work. Accidentally "interrogating" and
killing the one dead guy. The "note to self: less talk" bit ("I
wasn't done!"). And despite the capacity for cheese (and reminding
us of Cordelia's somewhat similar scene in the superior
"Homecoming"), the game of explosive chicken once again helps him
be a convincing hero while still being, well, Xander.
Oh, and the Hellmouth is opening. That's going on in the background
all episode. A lot of dissonant scenes here. Why is Willow suddenly
so worried? wonders the first-time viewer. Angel and Buffy suddenly
being so melodramatic and "this is worse than anything we've ever
faced" with no buildup is very jarring. The CGI is uniformly cheesy
here, particularly the ridiculous effect for the oracle that Giles goes
to for help. Very strong "what the hell is this crap?" feelings.
Things finally start to have something to do with each other when we do
the noise vs. silence thing, which helps Xander's part and makes the
rest seem even more of a mess. And then, well...
Now, I'm of the opinion, which may not be shared by everyone, that if
the show is going to incorporate the audience into an elaborate bit of
humor, the only way to do it is to make the joke really, really, really
obvious. I'm talking fucking neon signs here. "The Zeppo" is
kind enough to hit us over the head with it, but only at the very end.
Earlier might have been nice, but I can't say how much I appreciated
that last scene, as it spells things out for the benefit of even the
dense viewers (i.e. me) among us. And then once one finally gets the
joke, not only does it retroactively "explain" the whole B-story,
but then the conversation just keeps going on and on, getting funnier
and funnier the longer it lasts. So I suppose the show's first (that
I recall) foray into this kind of meta-humor would have to be viewed as
a success. It's a lot of setup for one joke, but it's quite a
joke, and does a lot to help TZ stand out as something different.
Overall, not the best of episodes, but thanks to a memorable bit of
fucking and a memorable bit of funny, I'm glad I watched it.
Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
except in context.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Moment(s):
- Just one, but it's worth quoting...
Willow: Even after the Hellmouth was closed, you could still hear it
screaming.
Oz: But Angel's gonna be okay?
Buffy: He was only out for a few minutes. Longest of my life.
Willow: I will never forget that thing's face. Its real face, I mean.
Giles: Yes.
Buffy: I don't know how you managed. It was the bravest thing I've
ever seen.
Giles: Stupidest. But the world continues to turn.
Willow: No one will ever know how close it came to stopping. Never
know what we did.
So...
One-sentence summary: A strong second half to help us forget about an
awful first.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Three so far:
1) "Anne" - Decent
2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent
5) "Homecoming" - Good
6) "Band Candy" - Weak
7) "Revelations" - Good
8) "Lovers Walk" - Excellent
9) "The Wish" - Decent
10) "Amends" - Good
11) "Gingerbread" - Good
12) "Helpless" - Excellent
13) "The Zeppo" - Decent]
Rowan Hawthorn
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
> (or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
> Writer: Dan Vebber
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>
> You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
> assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
> otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode. My second
> is that that look really, really doesn't suit Buffy. Anyway, our
> heroes kill a bunch of new weird things, Willow gets to explain
> Rowan's sig,
Heh.
>
> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> except in context.
>
That's it precisely. Zeppo is The One That Nobody Remembers. You know,
there was Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and... um... the Other One...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
vague disclaimer
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
> > (or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
> > Writer: Dan Vebber
> > Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
> >
> >
> > You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
> > assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
> > otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode. My second
> > is that that look really, really doesn't suit Buffy. Anyway, our
> > heroes kill a bunch of new weird things, Willow gets to explain
> > Rowan's sig,
>
> Heh.
>
> >
> > Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> > the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> > except in context.
> >
>
> That's it precisely. Zeppo is The One That Nobody Remembers. You know,
> there was Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and... um... the Other One...
You mean Gummo?
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
> (or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
> Writer: Dan Vebber
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>
This is the episode I am most bi-polar about. Sometimes I love it for
the place it ends, and sometimes I hate it for the horrible cheat it
used to set it up.
kenm47
Zeppo was their leading man, but he rarely got a funny line.
AND it's Chico's birthday today.
AND there was "Gummo" too.
BTW, I put it solidly in "good." It's a comedy episode, not unlike BB&B
in tone. It's strange, but fun. Possibly NB's best acting as Xander to
date (not counting the nice job he did as Vamp Xander in The Wish).
It's a let's make fun of ourselves show done nicely without too much
stupidity. And some good gags. And like I said earlier re "Helpless,"
you really wonder if they're suddenly going to pull the rug out and a
regular is going to bite the dust. For all the comedy, there was real
suspense re Xander surviving this ordeal. (The others and the
Hellmouth? Not really a concern, but oddly funny).
I loved how they disposed of all the walking dead guys, including Jack
(the actor just recently did a turn on "24"). BTW, Xander wasn't afraid
of Jack because he was "big guy," but because he was pretty clearly
scary psychotic guy capable of who knows what.
Some other favorite moments: Oz-wolf attacking Jack, the now obvious
reconciliation between Buffy and Giles, and Oz's "I'm oddly full
today."
My only real quibble with all we've been through, and I know Willow
thinks the world may end, but why the "I love you" to Xander?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Rowan Hawthorn
Yeah, him! (Okay, so I can't remember two of them...)
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> except in context.
I always wondered this myself. The only Zeppo that I could think of is
the brand of lighter.
The Marx brother makes a bit of sense. Would have never thought of that.
Mel
vague disclaimer
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> >
> > Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> > the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> > except in context.
>
>
> I always wondered this myself. The only Zeppo that I could think of is
> the brand of lighter.
That's Zippo.
John Briggs
Precisely. Zeppo was the fourth Marx brother, and Gummo the fifth - so it
should really have been called "The Gummo" :-)
--
John Briggs
Jeff Jacoby
As punishiment you will sit in the corner and watch
"Duck Soup" and "A Day at the Races" until you have
memorized all the dialog.
Jeff
kenm47
The problem is no one alive knows Gummo's work. He quit the act before
the Broadway hits and was not in any of the movies.
For that matter, Zeppo was not all that useless. He did a decent
Maurice Chevalier in "Monkey Business."
Ken (Brooklyn)
gree...@gmail.com
> You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
> assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
> otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode.
Mine too.
>(i.e. why Xander is suddenly
> all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
> "Halloween" and "Go Fish").
'Cause in "Halloween" and "Go Fish", there was more at stake than a
football. This episode was pretty consistent with that aspect of
Xander's courage in that Jack may have scared the carp out of him in
the beginning, but not so when there was something more at stake.
> Angel and Buffy suddenly
> being so melodramatic and "this is worse than anything we've ever
> faced" with no buildup is very jarring.
Angel and Buffy "suddenly" being melodramatic? Have you ever seen an
episode of _Buffy, the Vampire Slayer_? Angel and Buffy wouldn't exist
without melodrama.
As for this, and the rest, given the POV of the unreliable narrator,
sympathetic to Xander and wanting to portray him in the best light,
everything Xander goes through is going to be shown in more absolute
terms then they truly were. By which I mean, Xander may feel his
friends cut him out of the action, but really, when he decided to take
off with the blonde after delivering the donuts, he pretty much cut
himself out of the action. Its the unreliable narrator who chose to
give it a different spin.
> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> except in context.
A source of debate when first this episode aired.
> AOQ rating: Decent
Well, I'd rate it higher; good(+), even excellent(-).
-- Terry
Mel
vague disclaimer wrote:
Whatever. It never made any sense to me. And, having never watched any
Marx brothers comedy or whatever, the reference still kinda falls flat.
Besides, based on everything we've seen for 2-1/2 seasons, it doesn't
really apply to Xander anyway. It was just Cordelia being Cordelia.
Mel
Jeff Jacoby
It applies to Xander's view of himself. As others
have pointed out, the events from Revelation to now
have to have had some effect on his self-confidence.
> It was just Cordelia being Cordelia.
While Xander was having his first confrontation with
O'Toole, Cordelia was in the background almost the entire
time, watching and waiting to deliver her put-down.
It's a level of directed viciousness we never saw from
her before LW. She is a very angry yound woman!
X: You think you know everything.
C: I think I know you.
And she does. She knows exactly what his weak points
are and where to jab the needle.
Jeff
DysgraphicProgrammer
> Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
> (or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
> Writer: Dan Vebber
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
This ep has always been one of my Favorates.
<snip>
> Fails: Xander falls in... with the wrong crowd! What is this, an
> After School Special? Especially the part where he instantly earns
> their trust by not tattling. This episode gets downright embarrassing
> to watch in places.
My take was that he didn't so much fall in as got pulled in. He seems
to be looking for an excuse to gat away from them.
> Works: Most of the car-girl thing isn't very interesting, but
> Xander's impossibly bored expression in the Bronze and reaction to
> seeing Angel is nice.
The only girl he could get with the car was the one who dated guys for
thair cars. Poor Xander.
> Things pick up quite a bit once Xander rolls by to save Faith. Not
> only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
> so deadpan during the whole thing, like an actual action here. Faith
> being who she is, this leads to what's actually quite a hot sex
> sequence with a minimum of bullshit. Looks like someone won't die a
> virgin after all. And then, Faith being who she is, on with the
> episode, next scene. A strange and fun little interlude.
Xander getting shoved out the door in his skivees was one of the
funnier scenes in this one.
> Oh, and the Hellmouth is opening. That's going on in the background
> all episode. A lot of dissonant scenes here. Why is Willow suddenly
> so worried? wonders the first-time viewer. Angel and Buffy suddenly
> being so melodramatic and "this is worse than anything we've ever
> faced" with no buildup is very jarring. The CGI is uniformly cheesy
> here, particularly the ridiculous effect for the oracle that Giles goes
> to for help. Very strong "what the hell is this crap?" feelings.
> Things finally start to have something to do with each other when we do
> the noise vs. silence thing, which helps Xander's part and makes the
> rest seem even more of a mess. And then, well...
This is really no more melodramatic then its been in the past. All the
"End of the World"
bits seem absurdly overdone because we get dropped into the middle of
them with no warning. This is all just a bit of Joss & co. pokeing a
bit of fun at them selfs. It's what makes the ep for me. And did you
notice the way the music shifts when we get jerked into and out of the
melodrama?
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Moment(s):
> - Just one, but it's worth quoting...
> Willow: Even after the Hellmouth was closed, you could still hear it
> screaming.
> Oz: But Angel's gonna be okay?
> Buffy: He was only out for a few minutes. Longest of my life.
> Willow: I will never forget that thing's face. Its real face, I mean.
> Giles: Yes.
> Buffy: I don't know how you managed. It was the bravest thing I've
> ever seen.
> Giles: Stupidest. But the world continues to turn.
> Willow: No one will ever know how close it came to stopping. Never
> know what we did.
Add to this:
The dead guy's "Bwa-ha-ha interuptis" just before getting eaten.
Oz's "strangely full" comment
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A strong second half to help us forget about an
> awful first.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I would give it a Good. It may be one that improves on the rewatching.
I know where thay are going (metahumor-wise) before I even pop the disc
in.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
>(or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
>Writer: Dan Vebber
>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>
>You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
>assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
>otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode. My second
>is that that look really, really doesn't suit Buffy. Anyway, our
>heroes kill a bunch of new weird things, Willow gets to explain
>Rowan's sig, and it then becomes clear that the scene is about Xander
>(who was offscreen for most of it) and his Jimmy Olsen complex.
>
>>From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
>finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
>a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me. Let
>me say right off that I got annoyed pretty quickly here. Part of it is
>that I don't understand certain things (i.e. why Xander is suddenly
>all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
>"Halloween" and "Go Fish").
He wasn't here, either. When the zombie-guy pulled out a knife at the
school, he reacted much the same way that Wash would react when Jayne would
threaten him.
>And part of it is that quite
>frankly I don't watch _Buffy_ for the high school stories in which
>everyone acts like junior high schoolers. It's cartoonish. Given
>all the deep hurting and deep friendship and moral ambiguity that
>Xander's gone through in the last couple seasons, this feels like a
>step back, or a step into a lesser series.
It's a step forward into the spotlight. I'm not sure if you got this but
the entire episodes was from Xander's point of view, both visual and
emotional. In this ep, the B story (Xander's story) is the A story, and
the purported A story just goes on in the background. Much of what goes on
in the background is virtually a parody of a regular Buffy episode, with
over-the-top cheese.
A great subtle piece is when Buffy and Angel are in one of their
heart-wrenching talks at the mansion, with Beck playing an incredibly
florid arrangement of the B/A theme. Xander walks in, the theme stops, the
world goes back to normal. Xander gets information, leaves, and the scene,
and theme, pick up where they left off without missing a beat.
This episode is, as you recognize, meta-fiction. It is a comedy episode,
but it's a comedy episode about the normal BtVS conventions.
It is one of the more 'complete lack of middle ground' episodes in the
series, people tend to absolutely love or absolutely loathe it, generally
based on whether they like the meta-fiction element or not (not whether
they 'get' the meta-fiction as many proponents have claimed, it's perfectly
possible to 'get' it, and still not like it).
>Works: Anything with Xander and Cordelia trading insults. There is no
>part of that that isn't fun. Remember back in early Season One when
>just about the only time I enjoyed watching Cordelia (and sometimes
>Xander too, for that matter) was when her involvement was limited to
>scenes like these? Well, guess you can go home again. Knowing the
>show, it'll probably try to play it up as some sort of renewed
>love-hate tension, but I'm digging the hate.
The razor's edge with Cordelia is always writing her as more than one
dimensional while still not taking away her esssential Cordyness.
>Fails: Xander falls in... with the wrong crowd! What is this, an
>After School Special? Especially the part where he instantly earns
>their trust by not tattling. This episode gets downright embarrassing
>to watch in places.
He didn't so much fall in with the wrong crowd, he got co-opted, and was
pretty much looking for a way out right along.
>Works: Most of the car-girl thing isn't very interesting, but
>Xander's impossibly bored expression in the Bronze and reaction to
>seeing Angel is nice.
>Fails: Jack and friends cruising around and acting frat-like, even
>though they're dead. Dude! Yeeeah! It never commences to be funny!
>
>Huh, that's a short list. But it pretty much covers the first half
>of the episode. There is so little of interest happening that the
>whole thing "fails." Oh, also, any particular reason that Buffy
>and the others decided that now would be a good time to start excluding
>Xander from the dangerous activities, rather than, say, *two and a half
>years ago*? It's In The Script.
As I said, this entire ep is from Xander's viewpoint. All of that was
about Xander seeing them as treating him this way, not so much them
actually treating him this way. We've seen almost exactly these scenes
before, except from Buffy's POV. Going all the way back to the Harvest we
would have scenes of Buffy not wanting Xander to go because it was too
dangerous, but him coming along anyway. In this ep, we're seeing Xander's
emotional reaction to that sort of thing.
>Things pick up quite a bit once Xander rolls by to save Faith. Not
>only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
>so deadpan during the whole thing, like an actual action here. Faith
>being who she is, this leads to what's actually quite a hot sex
>sequence with a minimum of bullshit. Looks like someone won't die a
>virgin after all. And then, Faith being who she is, on with the
>episode, next scene. A strange and fun little interlude.
A bit of trivia, Eliza Dushku turned 18 on December 30, 1998. The Zeppo
was shot in mid December 1998. Eliza was 17 when she did that scene.
So, based on the above, you actually did get that this is Buffy's
"Rosecranz and Guilderstern Are Dead" takeoff?
>Overall, not the best of episodes, but thanks to a memorable bit of
>fucking and a memorable bit of funny, I'm glad I watched it.
>
>Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
>the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
>except in context.
Even though Cordy spelled it out? Xander is the Zeppo, the unmemorable
Marx brother (although Zeppo was certainly more memorable than Gummo, who
left the act before they started making movies, to become their behind the
scenes manager). Another meta-comment, Groucho, Harpo, and Chico all said
that Zeppo was actually the funniest of the brothers in real life, it just
didn't transfer well to the screen.
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Moment(s):
>- Just one, but it's worth quoting...
>Willow: Even after the Hellmouth was closed, you could still hear it
>screaming.
>Oz: But Angel's gonna be okay?
>Buffy: He was only out for a few minutes. Longest of my life.
>Willow: I will never forget that thing's face. Its real face, I mean.
>Giles: Yes.
>Buffy: I don't know how you managed. It was the bravest thing I've
>ever seen.
>Giles: Stupidest. But the world continues to turn.
>Willow: No one will ever know how close it came to stopping. Never
>know what we did.
Don't forget Oz
"I feel strangely full."
>So...
>
>One-sentence summary: A strong second half to help us forget about an
>awful first.
There's at least one, maybe two episodes in the future that run into a
similar problem to the one you have with this ep. The first half sets up
the second half. Without it, the second half wouldn't work, but by itself
it seems to drag.
>AOQ rating: Decent
>
>[Season Three so far:
>1) "Anne" - Decent
>2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
>3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
>4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent
>5) "Homecoming" - Good
>6) "Band Candy" - Weak
>7) "Revelations" - Good
>8) "Lovers Walk" - Excellent
>9) "The Wish" - Decent
>10) "Amends" - Good
>11) "Gingerbread" - Good
>12) "Helpless" - Excellent
>13) "The Zeppo" - Decent]
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> >>>the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> >>>except in context.
> >>
> >>
> >>I always wondered this myself. The only Zeppo that I could think of is
> >>the brand of lighter.
> >
> >
> > That's Zippo.
>
>
> Whatever. It never made any sense to me. And, having never watched any
> Marx brothers comedy or whatever, the reference still kinda falls flat.
zeppo is the member of the marx brothers that doesnt do very much
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Mel
I got the "doesn't do much" aspect from Cordelia spelling it out. But
until now, had no idea who/what Zeppo she was actually referring to.
Mel
Jeff Jacoby
For some reason, this reminds me of a line from a
Simon & Garfunkel song:
"He's so unhip that
When you say Dylan,
he thinks you're talking about Dylan Thomas,
Whoever he was.
The man ain't got no culture"
How long before BtVS fades away into obscurity?
Jeff
Vanya6724
William George Ferguson wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2006 08:21:40 -0800, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> wrote:
> This episode is, as you recognize, meta-fiction. It is a comedy episode,
> but it's a comedy episode about the normal BtVS conventions.
>
> It is one of the more 'complete lack of middle ground' episodes in the
> series, people tend to absolutely love or absolutely loathe it, generally
> based on whether they like the meta-fiction element or not (not whether
> they 'get' the meta-fiction as many proponents have claimed, it's perfectly
> possible to 'get' it, and still not like it).
I think it's brilliant. But I like meta-fiction. Unfortunately when a
show's writers start writing metafiction it may be an indication the
writers are running out of ideas. Although you could probably make a
good case that most of Buffy is meta-fiction on some level since the
writers rarely take the conventions of teen drama genre or vampire
horror genre very seriously.
The X-Files was very good at meta-fiction too - "Jose Chung's 'From
Outer Space' " was one of their top ten episodes, also Season Three
oddly enough. Maybe that's the point the writers feel the need to poke
fun at themselves, and/or their fans. Didn't Xena do a meta-fiction
episode at some point? I can't think of many more examples, at least in
genre shows, it seems like most Sci-Fi shows take themselves too
seriously.
Don Sample
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
And he was responsible for a lot of the behind the scenes stuff. His
job was to make the others look funny, and he did it very well. Groucho
always claimed that Zeppo was really the funniest one of the bunch. In
some ways calling Xander the Zeppo is a very appropriate meta-comment on
his character. Yes, he seems to be the "normal" one without any special
powers, but without him, Buffy would have been dead long ago. She might
not have even survived the second episode.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
hopelessly devoted
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
And my #3. And while the spoiler threads will more than likely keep
going, now may be the time to reveal my Peacock theory. This story is
very important important part Xander's arc which is well underway. A
few others may choose to reveal their thoughts on the sideline
discussions.
More on the Peacock in a moment.....
> You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
> assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
> otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode. My second
> is that that look really, really doesn't suit Buffy. Anyway, our
> heroes kill a bunch of new weird things, Willow gets to explain
> Rowan's sig, and it then becomes clear that the scene is about Xander
> (who was offscreen for most of it) and his Jimmy Olsen complex.
>
> >From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
> finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
> a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me.
Unfortunately for X, it's been growing since season one. X's thing
could be considered as one of two things, Blatant In Your Face or Total
Embarrassment. Despite wearing his heart on his sleeve at all times, X
swings back and forth between the two. Xander's "cool" factor, well,
isn't. But X's thing has always been there. Just needed a little
refinement.
> Part of it is
> that I don't understand certain things (i.e. why Xander is suddenly
> all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
> "Halloween" and "Go Fish").
I'm going to guess when Jack pulled Katie, it really wasn't much of a
surprise. Guys like Jack always have a Katie somewhere. I'll say, in
this case, X's fear is well warranted.
> Works: Anything with Xander and Cordelia trading insults. There is no
> part of that that isn't fun.
More theory reveal: Xander's already been dealt a pretty good double
whammy. First losing C then W. His Confidence is at an all time low.
C's insults are even more biting because they are now based on actual
"facts". She knows his weaknesses and will exploit them in the worst
possibly way. X LETTING C (or people or situations in general) get to
him is another X soft spot.
> Huh, that's a short list. But it pretty much covers the first half
> of the episode. There is so little of interest happening that the
> whole thing "fails."
I tend to think of the first have as a reminder of the 2.5 seasons of
Xander. Relationship front: No Buffy, No Cordy, No Willow and the only
girl who wants to be next to him would rather have a relationship with
his car. Xander's looking for the same thing for 2.5 years and it's
the same thing he's tended to use in the not so presentable fashion in
the past.
Oh, also, any particular reason that Buffy
> and the others decided that now would be a good time to start excluding
> Xander from the dangerous activities, rather than, say, *two and a half
> years ago*? It's In The Script.
Tempting, but now.
> Things pick up quite a bit once Xander rolls by to save Faith. Not
> only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
> so deadpan during the whole thing, like an actual action here. Faith
> being who she is, this leads to what's actually quite a hot sex
> sequence with a minimum of bullshit. Looks like someone won't die a
> virgin after all. And then, Faith being who she is, on with the
> episode, next scene. A strange and fun little interlude.
Also promising........along with the expression on his face being LOL
funny.
> >From there Xander's story continues to be stupid, but it starts
> hitting the notes that it was missing earlier. Maybe it's the silly
> music, but the end does work. Accidentally "interrogating" and
> killing the one dead guy. The "note to self: less talk" bit ("I
> wasn't done!"). And despite the capacity for cheese (and reminding
> us of Cordelia's somewhat similar scene in the superior
> "Homecoming"), the game of explosive chicken once again helps him
> be a convincing hero while still being, well, Xander.
It's very rare to see farce in a drama. This one actually works very
well. And yes, the best of all, X interrupting B/A. (Lbh pna npghnyyl
frr FZT ortva fgneg gb penpx hc whfg nf fur gheaf onpx gb gur fprar.
Vg'f evtug orsber gur phg. Tbq V'ir jngpurq guvf bar gbb znal gvzrf.)
Xander first confrontation stems from a very interesting statement:
"Giles will know what to do. He's *way* more calm than Buffy."
Although it's never been shown that Giles has shown his polished
Peacock in front of the scoobs (Ethan Rayne, Snyder), that's not to say
that X hasn't put a few things together. Watching X use what the frat
boys would understand while also learning to use what, in a way, is
already there....Great fun.
Once at the school, the farce is on big time. Beck really nailed this
one, something he tried once before with BB&B, but Dead Guys With Bombs
is right on target. To me the ep is one of the better planned and
executed. JW and crew finding their groove.
We've all seen X lose his cool and yell and bellow and beat his chest
and growl and, well basically Get His Peacock On in situations (usually
with Buffy....well, always with Buffy) where his thinking cap isn't on
as tight as his heart strings. X has to learn the same lesson B
learned in Ted. Think first, react second. Here he begins to learn
that lesson while standing Peacock to Peacock to Jack. A few
fisticuffs but in the end it all comes down to who has less fear (or
the biggest and brightest tail feathers). Fighting, physically or
verbally, won't get the job done. Xander proves that he can use both
control and his "bravado" and come out the Champion. The surprise on
his face when Jack folds is priceless. Finally X gets it right. The
thing that Xander has been looking for, his Think has been with him all
along. Now click your heels three times......Oops.
It's a lot of setup for one joke, but it's quite a
> joke, and does a lot to help TZ stand out as something different.
Funny you should mention joke, because it's not what everyone else
thinks of X but what X thinks himself. For the first time, he was
forced to take himself seriously, life or death situation and all. And
for the first time, X rose to the challenge. If B's test was Helpless,
then X has been tested by fire, or bomb.
> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> except in context.
Having grown up loving Marx Bros. movies, the analogy is perfect. He's
present, but he's not the one you paid to see. He's good, but he
doesn't have that .... whatever the others have. He shines, just not
quite as bright. Ya know. Grouch has the Cigar and the Mustache and
the funny pants. Chico has the Accent and the Hat and the funny pants,
Hapro has the Hair and the Harp and the funny pantssssseverything.
Xander has the .....................sorry, Zeppo.
As the second front of the Xander arc, this ep is crucial. It's also
very much drama undercut with satirical farce. The only thing missing
was the slamming doors during the school chase.
X finally learns 2 very important lessons. 1) How to take himself
seriously and 2) when and how to wear his Peacock. X's Peacock strut
at the end is proof of that, IMO.
Don Sample
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
> vague disclaimer wrote:
>
> > In article <aLWdnTBpjpeJob3Z...@uci.net>,
> > Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> >>>the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> >>>except in context.
> >>
> >>
> >>I always wondered this myself. The only Zeppo that I could think of is
> >>the brand of lighter.
> >
> >
> > That's Zippo.
>
>
> Whatever. It never made any sense to me. And, having never watched any
> Marx brothers comedy or whatever, the reference still kinda falls flat.
Well, someone was raised in a culture free environment.
> Besides, based on everything we've seen for 2-1/2 seasons, it doesn't
> really apply to Xander anyway. It was just Cordelia being Cordelia.
It fits with Xander's self image of himself. We know better, but he
doesn't.
And like Xander with Buffy, Zeppo was much more important to the Marx
Brothers' success than just looking at his filmography would indicate.
He did a lot of behind the scenes stuff, writing their jokes and such.
(And the five Marx Brothers' feature films he does appear in are their
five best, IMNSHO.)
Apteryx
news:k4ednXLXXdcxor3Z...@comcast.com...
I am shocked, shocked, that so many people are unaware of Zeppo Marx. Its
like wandering into an episode of the Twilight Zone where no one has heard
of Eccles, and doesn't respond to straight lines like "I didn't expect the
Spanish Inquisition". Just last week on another newsgroup a woman who I
think is a professor of English at a US University commented that the 1942
Preston Sturges movie "Sullivan's Travels" was "a rather obscure source" for
the title of the 2000 Coen brothers movie "O Brother Where Art Thou".
Doesn't the US education system teach the classics anymore?
Its possible that watching A Day at the Races repeatedly would be a
punishment. But watching it after Duck Soup would also be a valuable pointer
to the contribution made by Zeppo, since he is in Duck Soup but not in A Day
at the Races.
Some lines from A Day at the Races:
Dr. Hackenbush: [Taking a pulse] Either he's dead or my watch has stopped.
Dr. Hackenbush: Oh, well, uh, to begin with I took four years at Vassar.
Mrs. Upjohn: Vassar? But that's a girls' college.
Dr. Hackenbush: I found that out the third year. I'd 've been there yet, but
I went out for the swimming team.
Flo: Why, I've never been so insulted in my life!
Dr. Hackenbush: Well, it's early yet.
And from Duck Soup:
Cabinet Member: The Department of Labor wishes to note that the workers of
Freedonia are demanding shorter hours.
Rufus T. Firefly: Very well, we'll give them shorter hours. We'll start by
cutting their lunch hour to 20 minutes.
Rufus T. Firefly to Chicolini, his Secretary of War: Awfully decent of you
to drop in today. Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What
do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already.
Rufus T. Firefly: You've done what?
Chicolini: I've changed to the other side.
Rufus T. Firefly: Go, and never darken my towels again!
Rufus T. Firefly: [Dictating] Uh... Dear dentist, enclosed find check for
$500, yours very truly. Send that off immediately.
Bob Roland: I'll, um, I'll have to enclose a check first.
Rufus T. Firefly: You do and I'll fire you.
Zeppo plays Bob Roland in Duck Soup (ie, the straight man).
--
Apteryx
George W Harris
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
:> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
:> except in context.
:>
:
:That's it precisely. Zeppo is The One That Nobody Remembers. You know,
:there was Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and... um... the Other One...
The thing about that is, even though Zeppo always
played the romantic lead and wasn't funny, all the Marx
Brothers movies that he wasn't in were really bad.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
George W Harris
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:>And part of it is that quite
:>frankly I don't watch _Buffy_ for the high school stories in which
:>everyone acts like junior high schoolers. It's cartoonish. Given
:>all the deep hurting and deep friendship and moral ambiguity that
:>Xander's gone through in the last couple seasons, this feels like a
:>step back, or a step into a lesser series.
:
:It's a step forward into the spotlight. I'm not sure if you got this but
:the entire episodes was from Xander's point of view, both visual and
:emotional. In this ep, the B story (Xander's story) is the A story, and
:the purported A story just goes on in the background. Much of what goes on
:in the background is virtually a parody of a regular Buffy episode, with
:over-the-top cheese.
It's the BtVS version of "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead".
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
Kevin
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Now, I'm of the opinion, which may not be shared by everyone, that if
> the show is going to incorporate the audience into an elaborate bit of
> humor, the only way to do it is to make the joke really, really, really
> obvious. I'm talking fucking neon signs here. "The Zeppo" is
> kind enough to hit us over the head with it, but only at the very end.
Arrrggh! Oh dear. I wonder, if you watch the episode again, if you
might begin to convince yourself that you really saw it coming much
earlier... At this point I can't recall how long it took me to "get"
the conceit on very first viewing. But I loved rewatching it,
especially for things like the opening scene -- which is, as you say,
stylistically out-of-place and "dream"-like.
I thought the melodrama was perfectly arranged, the dialogue was some
of the best of the series, pacing was fantastic, Chris Beck's score was
*brilliant*, and the result was a top-notch episode. In my Top 3 of
Season 3, along with two still to come.
Xander interrupts Buffy and Angel's teary, over-the-top moment, and
even interrupts their music! Giles' oracle scene in the graveyard is
delicious cheese, capped with "It's the stench of death." -- "Yeah, I
think it's Bob." :) The whirlwind that throws Xander together with
Faith and dumps him just as quickly, bewildered, on the stoop
afterward... followed by his self-interrupting recollection (while
surveying damage at the hardware store) that "I can't believe I had
sex" -- this is great stuff.
And amidst the stretched-beyond-belief "end of the world" plot, with
the whole gang leaving Xander out of the loop, and all the in-jokes and
parodies, we still get a climactic moment for Xander to score a
personal triumph and be a real hero, saving the day. And nobody knows
but him. His reaction to Cordy's final insult is beautiful.
What can I say? I loved The Zeppo. And don't worry, AOQ, this kind of
deliberately bizarre Buffy is pretty much a one-off. *This* kind. :)
--Kevin
***Bonus: You can't know from the DVD, but in its TV airing, even the
"Previously on BTVS" segment for the Zeppo was a joke: instead of the
usual melange of relevant scenes, it gave us one shot only: Quentin
Travers saying "You're fired."
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:48:58 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> :> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> :> except in context.
> :>
> :
> :That's it precisely. Zeppo is The One That Nobody Remembers. You know,
> :there was Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and... um... the Other One...
>
> The thing about that is, even though Zeppo always
> played the romantic lead and wasn't funny, all the Marx
> Brothers movies that he wasn't in were really bad.
Being The One That Nobody Remembers doesn't necessarily mean you're bad
at your job. A sizable chunk of films have been saved from being
completely worthless by character actors who rarely received any
recognition during their career. Nowadays, film buffs look at those old
films and go, "Man, <fitb> really propped that one up, didn't (s)he?"
Shuggie
Only 'decent'? Bah!
*sigh*
A couple of comments.
> Things pick up quite a bit once Xander rolls by to save Faith. Not
> only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
> so deadpan during the whole thing, like an actual action here.
Action heroes aren't 'actual' they're a movie cliche. Like all cliches
there's a reason they work I guess but give me the under-cutting of the
cliche ('note to self...') that we get later on any day.
I don't agree with those that say The Zeppo makes fun of BtVS. Perhaps
it's a subtle distinction but I think that it takes the kind of
end-of-the-world story that BtVS has done and uses it for a) backdrop
and b) contrast with Xander's smaller story. Some see that constrast as
parody but I don't because I associate that word with a mocking of the
material its referencing and I think The Zeppo is more gentle and
generous than that. Besides you'll never convince me that Becoming II is
any less over-the-top apocalyptic melodrama than the relevant segments
here.
Sorry - it's an old bugbear of mine. Mostly 'cos I (mostly) lost that
argument. (Google 'shuggie','zeppo' and 'parody' if you're curious).
I do like the ending. Unlike you AOQ, I don't think that it's just one
joke. I also think it's not just a joke. It tells us a lot of stuff
about Xander.
Also, my absolute favourite moment of the ep is the way Xander brushes
off Cordy's jibes with that knowing half-smile. If he could only bottle
that sense of self-confidence...
And finally. Zeppo contains possibly my favourite line ever.
Giles: (speaking about the Spirit Guides) I have no idea if they will
respond to my efforts, but I have to try. All we know is that the fate
of the entire world rests on it. (looks into the doughnut box) Did you
eat all the jellies?
The reason I love it is that it encapsulates what the show itself does
so well - the line, and of course ASH's delivery goes from serious
end-of-the-world drama to broad comedy without missing a beat.
--
Shuggie
Apteryx
news:1142958100....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
> being who she is, this leads to what's actually quite a hot sex
> sequence with a minimum of bullshit. Looks like someone won't die a
> virgin after all. And then, Faith being who she is, on with the
> episode, next scene. A strange and fun little interlude.
I agree that Xander's story starts slow and only gets interesting with this
interlude with Faith. That may be deliberate of course, to hide the fact
that Xander's story is going to overshadow the 2nd Coming of the Hellmouth.
But if so, they do too good a job of making the early part boring.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
>
I'd agree with that. In the end, its not far off being Good, but can't quite
make up for the lost time earlier. For me its the 82nd best BtVS episode,
19th best in Season 3
--
Apteryx
John Briggs
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:35:05 -0700, William George Ferguson
> <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>> And part of it is that quite
>>> frankly I don't watch _Buffy_ for the high school stories in which
>>> everyone acts like junior high schoolers. It's cartoonish. Given
>>> all the deep hurting and deep friendship and moral ambiguity that
>>> Xander's gone through in the last couple seasons, this feels like a
>>> step back, or a step into a lesser series.
>>
>> It's a step forward into the spotlight. I'm not sure if you got
>> this but the entire episodes was from Xander's point of view, both
>> visual and emotional. In this ep, the B story (Xander's story) is
>> the A story, and the purported A story just goes on in the
>> background. Much of what goes on in the background is virtually a
>> parody of a regular Buffy episode, with over-the-top cheese.
>
> It's the BtVS version of "Rosencrantz and
> Guildenstern Are Dead".
With Nicky B playing both roles?
:-)
--
John Briggs
Mel
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <ypWdnUKgT_qL273Z...@uci.net>,
> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
>
>>vague disclaimer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <aLWdnTBpjpeJob3Z...@uci.net>,
>>> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
>>>>>the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
>>>>>except in context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I always wondered this myself. The only Zeppo that I could think of is
>>>>the brand of lighter.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's Zippo.
>>
>>
>>Whatever. It never made any sense to me. And, having never watched any
>>Marx brothers comedy or whatever, the reference still kinda falls flat.
>
>
> Well, someone was raised in a culture free environment.
Gee thanks for the insult.
Stephen Tempest
>And finally. Zeppo contains possibly my favourite line ever.
>
>Giles: (speaking about the Spirit Guides) I have no idea if they will
>respond to my efforts, but I have to try. All we know is that the fate
>of the entire world rests on it. (looks into the doughnut box) Did you
>eat all the jellies?
Yeah, but it's bad scripting. Being English, Giles would of course
talk about *jam* doughnuts. :)
Stephen
Mel
Shuggie wrote:
Who knows...maybe the spirit guides would have answered his questions if
he'd brought them jelly doughnuts :-)
Mel
cry...@panix.com
The fact is, there is talk in the council that he may have become
a bit too . . . American :-)
-Crystal
vague disclaimer
Stephen Tempest <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Hmmm. Perhaps, but around my American friends I tend to "translate" on
the fly.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
> (or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
> Writer: Dan Vebber
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>
> You know, we've gotten to the point where I almost automatically
> assume that every non-vampire opening is a dream sequence until proven
> otherwise. So, that was my first impression of the episode. My second
> is that that look really, really doesn't suit Buffy. Anyway, our
> heroes kill a bunch of new weird things, Willow gets to explain
> Rowan's sig, and it then becomes clear that the scene is about Xander
> (who was offscreen for most of it) and his Jimmy Olsen complex.
BTW: Do your DVDs have the "Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
segments? (Some seasons do, others don't, I forget which ones.) If not,
you miss a joke. This episode had the shortest "Previously..." of all
the episodes that had one at all. (And is just about the only episode
that includes Faith that doesn't have the clip of Faith introducing
herself from FH&T.)
"Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer..."
"You're fired!"
Cut to the cave.
One Bit Shy
news:1142958100....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
> (or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
I just noticed this - and it really strikes me funny 'cause I struggled to
understand what you wrote - which is unusual.
> Writer: Dan Vebber
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
I'm not exactly sure what you did and didn't get, so I'm just going to dive
into a couple of things. Pardon me if it was already self evident.
I see people have explained Zeppo to you. I'm just a little sad reading the
comments because I see that the disconnect for some people isn't Zeppo, but
rather the Marx Brothers as a whole. The old greats are fading away. Oh,
well.
Anyway, concerning the separation of the hellmouth story, which so many
remarks have been written about:
Yes, it's the background story.
Yes, it's a play on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
Yes, they're poking fun at themselves with all the florid melodrama.
But, in my estimation, what really explains the odd way in which it's
presented is the understanding that it's strictly from Xander's point of
view. This episode is Xander's story - including the background hellmouth
story - which does not occur straight, but rather according to what makes an
impression upon Xander. (Or would make an impression upon him since he's
not always a direct witness.) To him, life with the slayer crew has become
donut boy to the Knights of the Round Table. And that's all he can see.
There's an old joke (Gary Larson I think) about what a dog actually hears
when his owner speaks to him. "Blah, blah, blah, blah. Rex! Blah, blah,
blah. Rex! Blah, blah. Rex! Blah, blah, blah."
Xander is hopefully a step or two up from that dog. But the effect for him
is similar. To his ears, the typical conversation goes something like this:
Giles, Buffy, Willow, Angel: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah. End of the world.
Xander: How can I help?
Giles, Buffy, Willow, Angel: Go get some donuts.
Cordelia: Look! It's donut boy.
That's what makes the hell mouth part of the story seem so odd. He's not
really getting that picture. (Oh, the world's ending again.) And why
should he? He's just the donut boy. Instead, he fixates on the parts that
resonate with him. Which are mostly people telling him to stay out of the
way so he doesn't get hurt... With a dose of Cordelia making fun of him
every now and then.
You can't even be sure that the literal words you hear are what was actually
spoken. All the overblown rhetoric at the end about the bravest thing
anybody's ever done and so on - you can't believe they would actually talk
like that, can you? That's just the way it comes across to Xander. They're
always the big heroes... But this time he can smile at it knowing that
sometimes he can make a difference too.
Or that strange moment when Willow hugs him and says, "I love you Xander."
What do you want to bet that it was really a rather more benign expression
of concern, but anything from Willow gets exaggerated in his mind to
something greater?
>>From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
> finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
> a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me. Let
> me say right off that I got annoyed pretty quickly here.
It's beyond him too - and kind of annoying to him as well. Revelations.
Lovers Walk. His self confidence has been battered.
> Part of it is
> that I don't understand certain things (i.e. why Xander is suddenly
> all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
> "Halloween" and "Go Fish"). And part of it is that quite
> frankly I don't watch _Buffy_ for the high school stories in which
> everyone acts like junior high schoolers. It's cartoonish. Given
> all the deep hurting and deep friendship and moral ambiguity that
> Xander's gone through in the last couple seasons, this feels like a
> step back, or a step into a lesser series.
He's feeling generally useless and unappreciated. High school is just where
he happens to be.
> So from here on we're divided between good and bad comedy, as I like
> to say. Some of it works, and a lot doesn't, so it's list time,
> with the big paragraph above being a "fails":
>
> Works: Anything with Xander and Cordelia trading insults. There is no
> part of that that isn't fun.
Heh-heh.
> Huh, that's a short list. But it pretty much covers the first half
> of the episode. There is so little of interest happening that the
> whole thing "fails."
I think there's more there, but it's hard to see initially because it takes
a while for it to become clear that the story has broken into two and that
the hellmouth part is the background. Even longer to figure out his
distorted view of that background. So the first part might improve some on
second viewing.
None the less, I agree that the first part isn't nearly as fun as the latter
part. It drags down the story some. Makes it a low good for me.
> Oh, also, any particular reason that Buffy
> and the others decided that now would be a good time to start excluding
> Xander from the dangerous activities, rather than, say, *two and a half
> years ago*? It's In The Script.
No, it's in Xander's head.
> Things pick up quite a bit once Xander rolls by to save Faith. Not
> only is using the car as a weapon a nice bit of catharsis, but he's
> so deadpan during the whole thing, like an actual action here. Faith
> being who she is, this leads to what's actually quite a hot sex
> sequence with a minimum of bullshit. Looks like someone won't die a
> virgin after all. And then, Faith being who she is, on with the
> episode, next scene. A strange and fun little interlude.
Imagine how stunned Xander must be. Talk about wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
He doesn't even get a chance to go "Wow!" before he's wondering if it really
happened.
>>From there Xander's story continues to be stupid, but it starts
> hitting the notes that it was missing earlier. Maybe it's the silly
> music, but the end does work. Accidentally "interrogating" and
> killing the one dead guy. The "note to self: less talk" bit ("I
> wasn't done!"). And despite the capacity for cheese (and reminding
> us of Cordelia's somewhat similar scene in the superior
> "Homecoming"), the game of explosive chicken once again helps him
> be a convincing hero while still being, well, Xander.
The silly music helps, doesn't it. I pretty much laugh through the rest of
the episode.
> Oh, and the Hellmouth is opening. That's going on in the background
> all episode. A lot of dissonant scenes here. Why is Willow suddenly
> so worried? wonders the first-time viewer. Angel and Buffy suddenly
> being so melodramatic and "this is worse than anything we've ever
> faced" with no buildup is very jarring. The CGI is uniformly cheesy
> here, particularly the ridiculous effect for the oracle that Giles goes
> to for help.
Giles: There's something in the air. The stench of death.
Xander: Yeah, I think it's Bob.
The line is funny in itself, but the thing I like about it is that Bob might
actually be what Giles is noticing, but Giles will never get that.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A strong second half to help us forget about an
> awful first.
And, evidently, Xander back on an even keel.
> AOQ rating: Decent
Maybe it'll go up next time.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> As punishiment you will sit in the corner and watch
> "Duck Soup" and "A Day at the Races" until you have
> memorized all the dialog.
Not _A Night At The Opera_?
-AOQ
~The Party Of The Ninth Part... nah~
Arbitrar Of Quality
> >Part of it is
> >that I don't understand certain things (i.e. why Xander is suddenly
> >all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
> >"Halloween" and "Go Fish").
>
> He wasn't here, either. When the zombie-guy pulled out a knife at the
> school, he reacted much the same way that Wash would react when Jayne would
> threaten him.
Huh. I can't imagine Wash looking that scared for his life the way
Xander did, both pre- and post-knife. He's wisecracking a little,
sure, but that's what characetrs on this show do.
> A great subtle piece is when Buffy and Angel are in one of their
> heart-wrenching talks at the mansion, with Beck playing an incredibly
> florid arrangement of the B/A theme. Xander walks in, the theme stops, the
> world goes back to normal. Xander gets information, leaves, and the scene,
> and theme, pick up where they left off without missing a beat.
And I'm sure I'll enjoy it on re-watching, but this illusttrates the
problem with being too subtle with your meta-ing; there's no such thing
as "clearly" a parody (unlike Shuggie, I don't think that word implies
any disrespect), especially on a show that has never meta'd before.
The reason I didn't get it until so late in the episode is that, as
florid and insane as, say, the B/A exchange is, it's not really that
much more over-the-top than a certain florid scene from "Amends" which
is played completely straight.
> It is one of the more 'complete lack of middle ground' episodes in the
> series, people tend to absolutely love or absolutely loathe it, generally
> based on whether they like the meta-fiction element or not (not whether
> they 'get' the meta-fiction as many proponents have claimed, it's perfectly
> possible to 'get' it, and still not like it).
I AM the middle ground.
> As I said, this entire ep is from Xander's viewpoint. All of that was
> about Xander seeing them as treating him this way, not so much them
> actually treating him this way.
That's a good point, given that he's the one who chose to go off with
Car-girl, etc. I guess TZ does a good job at sucking the viewer into
Xander-land.
> So, based on the above, you actually did get that this is Buffy's
> "Rosecranz and Guilderstern Are Dead" takeoff?
I don't get why people keep mentioning R&GAD. Just because we're
following someone with their own agenda whilst jumping in and out of a
"big" story with a different tone?
> >One-sentence summary: A strong second half to help us forget about an
> >awful first.
>
> There's at least one, maybe two episodes in the future that run into a
> similar problem to the one you have with this ep. The first half sets up
> the second half. Without it, the second half wouldn't work, but by itself
> it seems to drag.
I'm not sure I agree there. Most of my complaints with "The Zeppo" are
related to how things are done, not necessarily where they go. Like
Butt-head might say, you can keep the part that sucks, you should just,
like, make it not suck.
-AOQ
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
I'd go with "Animal Crackers" myself. Just like
oyster crackers go with clam chowder, "Animal Crackers"
goes with "Duck Soup".
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
Arbitrar Of Quality
> BTW: Do your DVDs have the "Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
> segments? (Some seasons do, others don't, I forget which ones.) If not,
> you miss a joke. This episode had the shortest "Previously..." of all
> the episodes that had one at all. (And is just about the only episode
> that includes Faith that doesn't have the clip of Faith introducing
> herself from FH&T.)
>
> "Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer..."
>
> "You're fired!"
My DVDs don't have any "previously"s so far. I wish they did, it's
part of how the show was presented. Ah, well... Anyway, yeah, that's
funny.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> You can't even be sure that the literal words you hear are what was actually
> spoken. All the overblown rhetoric at the end about the bravest thing
> anybody's ever done and so on - you can't believe they would actually talk
> like that, can you? That's just the way it comes across to Xander. They're
> always the big heroes... But this time he can smile at it knowing that
> sometimes he can make a difference too.
>
> Or that strange moment when Willow hugs him and says, "I love you Xander."
> What do you want to bet that it was really a rather more benign expression
> of concern, but anything from Willow gets exaggerated in his mind to
> something greater?
I think I'm going to get a headache if I try to think too hard about
which parts to take literally (what about the stuff with Faith?) and
which not to, so no further pondering from me. That being said, I'm
fine with that interpretation, since the Hellmouth story is basically
crying out to not be taken too seriously as far as continuity goes.
> >>From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
> > finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
> > a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me. Let
> > me say right off that I got annoyed pretty quickly here.
>
> It's beyond him too - and kind of annoying to him as well. Revelations.
> Lovers Walk. His self confidence has been battered.
Am I the only one who's not seeing this natural progression that
everyone else seems to see? "Revelations" showed us (briefly) what
Xander's like without his self-confidence. "Gingerbread" and
"Helpless" show him acting basically 'normal.' The moron jumping
around trying to get the jocks to pass him the football is pratically a
totally different character.
-AOQ
Daniel Damouth
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
> What can I say? I loved The Zeppo.
Zeppo is occasionally my #1 favorite of the entire show. AOQ, being a
literalist, will probably prefer the later seasons of the show.
-Dan Damouth
Bill Reid
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> > You can't even be sure that the literal words you hear are what was
actually
> > spoken. All the overblown rhetoric at the end about the bravest thing
> > anybody's ever done and so on - you can't believe they would actually
talk
> > like that, can you? That's just the way it comes across to Xander.
They're
> > always the big heroes... But this time he can smile at it knowing that
> > sometimes he can make a difference too.
> >
> > Or that strange moment when Willow hugs him and says, "I love you
Xander."
> > What do you want to bet that it was really a rather more benign
expression
> > of concern, but anything from Willow gets exaggerated in his mind to
> > something greater?
>
> I think I'm going to get a headache if I try to think too hard about
> which parts to take literally (what about the stuff with Faith?) and
> which not to, so no further pondering from me. That being said, I'm
> fine with that interpretation, since the Hellmouth story is basically
> crying out to not be taken too seriously as far as continuity goes.
>
SHOULDN'T take it too seriously, because it sucks, and you
don't want to ponder something that sucks, do you?
> > >>From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
> > > finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges
as
> > > a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me. Let
> > > me say right off that I got annoyed pretty quickly here.
> >
> > It's beyond him too - and kind of annoying to him as well. Revelations.
> > Lovers Walk. His self confidence has been battered.
>
> Am I the only one who's not seeing this natural progression that
> everyone else seems to see? "Revelations" showed us (briefly) what
> Xander's like without his self-confidence. "Gingerbread" and
> "Helpless" show him acting basically 'normal.' The moron jumping
> around trying to get the jocks to pass him the football is pratically a
> totally different character.
>
Oh God, I see I have to step in here and explain the obvious
to EVERYBODY again...
Look, there ARE two different Xander characters, learn to live with
it, the writers did. Hell, there are two different Buffy characters, two
different Willow characters, etc. You might even speculate what
would happen if you were to split the two different characters apart
somehow, have both of them walking around in separate bodies...
For now though, it might help to remember these "rules":
1. There is a stupid cowardly incompetent Xander, and a smart
brave competent Xander. You can generally distinguish which
Xander you will get in any episode BY HIS HAIR. If he has
"stupid hair", hanging down in his face uncombed, you will see
"stupid Xander". If he has "smart hair", slicked back like an
Italian gigolo, you get "suave Xander".
2. Xander's attempts at bravery are in direct proportion to his
proximity to Buffy, and to a lesser extent some other lesser female
he may have some sort of crush on or emotional attachment to.
That's why he was so easily threatened by Jack when he was
with "car girl", because it had been established he didn't care
about her. And his hair was stupid.
Now as to the episode, for me, the "B" story here NEVER worked,
never will work, and I was pretty put off by it the first time I saw it.
However, I really like the precision timing of the humor in the "A"
Xander story (the highlight being the zombie getting his head knocked
off by the mailbox while Xander is trying to interrogate him), as improbable
as it may be, so I've learned to ignore the crappiness of the rest of the
episode. I just pretend that ridiculous fight with the Hellmouth monster
isn't really happening, and then I'm fine.
I can then enjoy it the way it SHOULD be enjoyed, as a 1-hour
penis metaphor...
---
William Ernest Reid
vague disclaimer
"Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> 2. Xander's attempts at bravery are in direct proportion to his
> proximity to Buffy, and to a lesser extent some other lesser female
> he may have some sort of crush on or emotional attachment to.
> That's why he was so easily threatened by Jack when he was
> with "car girl", because it had been established he didn't care
> about her.
Apart from the great physical courage he showed facing down Angelus when
no-one knew about it.
I think you meant "inverse" proportion.
kenm47
football is pratically a
totally different character."
IMO, it's a regression to Season 1 Xander. The show kind of replays
Xander's growth, throws in a quick coming of age (if that's the right
words for losing one's virginity), and ends with the privately heroic
and cooler Xander at the end. It is canon however. Among other things,
X and C never screwed (at least not in the traditional Clinton "sex"
concept).
If anything this emotional regression business is IMO one of the show's
major failings, even at this point. We've seen it before in Buffy as
well. It's a great series, but not without some problems.
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
My DVDs also do not have the "previously on," but I do still have older
off the air recordings and sure enough it's there.
But why is this a joke? I hate when I don't get the joke.
I always assumed when the "previously" was short it meant there were
some time issues looking to save seconds for the almost too long new
stuff.
I mean at this point, and with Giles participating in that weird
opening, all the audience really needed to be reminded about was that
Giles was no longer Buffy's Watcher despite the episode's appearances
to the contrary. Is it that they needed to remind themselves of this?
Was The Zeppo originally intended for a much earlier (even earlier
season) showing?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Now, I'm of the opinion, which may not be shared by everyone, that if
> the show is going to incorporate the audience into an elaborate bit of
> humor, the only way to do it is to make the joke really, really, really
> obvious. I'm talking fucking neon signs here. "The Zeppo" is
> kind enough to hit us over the head with it, but only at the very end.
> that last scene, as it spells things out for the benefit of even the
> dense viewers (i.e. me) among us. And then once one finally gets the
> joke, not only does it retroactively "explain" the whole B-story,
> but then the conversation just keeps going on and on, getting funnier
> and funnier the longer it lasts. So I suppose the show's first (that
> I recall) foray into this kind of meta-humor would have to be viewed as
> a success. It's a lot of setup for one joke, but it's quite a
> joke, and does a lot to help TZ stand out as something different.
I think this may be why some of the first half failed for you too,
here. If you're in on the joke -- that this is a Xander's-eye view of a
Big Season Finale Apocalypse and we're only seeing the edges of it, in
a manner where the show is often quite cuttingly parodying itself --
then many of those scenes are freaking hilarious.
The Buffy-Angel one being the best example. You may or may not
remember, many reviews back, a comment I made to you about the show's
score being used in a really funny metatextual gag? That was this
scene. This is a scene that is an intentionally overdone, overacted,
melodramatic parody of the entire Buffy-Angel storyline. ("I want to
die to save the world!" "No I do!") The background music is Christopher
Beck's Buffy-Angel Love Theme, the one used to such devastating effect
in episodes like "Becoming."
When Xander barges in, it actually audibly screeches to a halt. And
then as soon as he leaves it rips right back into full swing, and Buffy
dive back into the melodrama.
I think if you rewatch this episode now that you're in on the joke, I
think you'll find a lot of that side of things funnier.
Also, as to the frat zombies, anyone who doesn't laugh at the first
thing a guy asks after being ressurected as a zombie being whether his
friend's been taping Walker: Texas Ranger has no soul.
--Sam
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who's not seeing this natural progression that
> everyone else seems to see? "Revelations" showed us (briefly) what
> Xander's like without his self-confidence. "Gingerbread" and
> "Helpless" show him acting basically 'normal.' The moron jumping
> around trying to get the jocks to pass him the football is pratically a
> totally different character.
>
I just realized something. This is a basic bit of Buffy lore, but if
you haven't been part of the fandom forever and nobody's mentioned it,
you may well be completely in the dark on this one:
Xander = Teenage Joss Whedon.
It's not a complete and direct equivalence, granted, and the longer the
show goes on the more Xander becomes his own character and less a bit
of self-insertion by Joss Whedon. But certainly in the beginning, and
more or less throughout the high school stories, there is at least a
strong degree to which Xander is the embodiment of what Joss was like
in high school (or, at least, what he remembers being like in high
school.)
I've always suspected that that's why, no matter how heroic Xander
might be from time to time, no matter how much character development he
gets, he is always only moments away from acting like a big goober.
Because Joss Whedon's sense of humor is self-deprecating enough that a
character based on him is going to act like sort of a silly dork a lot
of the time.
(See also: Wash on Firefly.)
Bill Reid
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:l64o-1rj5-7EC68...@mercury.nildram.net...
> In article <pm7Uf.16931$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
>
> > 2. Xander's attempts at bravery are in direct proportion to his
> > proximity to Buffy, and to a lesser extent some other lesser female
> > he may have some sort of crush on or emotional attachment to.
> > That's why he was so easily threatened by Jack when he was
> > with "car girl", because it had been established he didn't care
> > about her.
>
> Apart from the great physical courage he showed facing down Angelus when
> no-one knew about it.
>
was protecting his precious Buffy, said atavistic protection behavior
being exacerbated by his confounsion (confoundation?) that usually
she could more than handle herself. He wasn't "showing off", he was
reacting "from his heart"...
> I think you meant "inverse" proportion.
Nope, I meant what I said (as much as you can mean anything
concerning shifting characterization in a TV show aimed at
adolescents), but I actually was NOT referring to actual
physical location, but rather an "emotional closeness".
---
William Ernest Reid
Don Sample
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
No need for that. Giles tells us in the first scene that he's been
fired: "Most of my sources have dried up since the, uh, Council has
relieved me of my duties."
> Is it that they needed to remind themselves of this?
> Was The Zeppo originally intended for a much earlier (even earlier
> season) showing?
The Zeppo pretty much has to take place where it is, in the series.
Xander has to be where he is in his various relationships with Faith,
Cordelia and the scoobies; Buffy has to be where she is with Angel; Even
the strained Slayer/Watcher relationship has to be where it is. The
final scene tells us that Buffy and Giles have pretty much patched
things up at the end, due to something he did that we didn't see, that
was either incredibly brave, or incredibly stupid, depending on your
point of vew.
John Briggs
In which case, you won't be pleased to hear that the "previouslies" were
specially removed from the S3 R1 release, "because Americans don't like
Previouslies". (They cut them off the S2 DVDs, but the outcry from the
rest of the world was such that they had to be included for subsequent
seasons - except for R1, "because...")
This become a serious issue in S5 :-)
--
John Briggs
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I just realized something. This is a basic bit of Buffy lore, but if
> you haven't been part of the fandom forever and nobody's mentioned it,
> you may well be completely in the dark on this one:
>
> Xander = Teenage Joss Whedon.
You mean Joss was an loathsome bastard who told ~EVIL LIES OF DEATH~ in
a deliberate attempt to murder his crushes' boyfriends? (j/k)
-AOQ
Shuggie
>
> vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:l64o-1rj5-7EC68...@mercury.nildram.net...
>> In article <pm7Uf.16931$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Xander's attempts at bravery are in direct proportion to his
>> > proximity to Buffy, and to a lesser extent some other lesser female
>> > he may have some sort of crush on or emotional attachment to.
>> > That's why he was so easily threatened by Jack when he was
>> > with "car girl", because it had been established he didn't care
>> > about her.
>>
>> Apart from the great physical courage he showed facing down Angelus when
>> no-one knew about it.
>>
> Are you talking about when Buffy was in the hospital? Again, he
> was protecting his precious Buffy, said atavistic protection behavior
Atavistic? That's a bit extreme. The motivation behind his behaviour was
pretty consistent even if the need for it wasn't always present.
> being exacerbated by his confounsion (confoundation?)
'confoundedness' sounds closest to me but I'm not sure there's really a
word there. I'd've gone with 'confusion'
> that usually
> she could more than handle herself. He wasn't "showing off", he was
> reacting "from his heart"...
>
>> I think you meant "inverse" proportion.
>
> Nope, I meant what I said (as much as you can mean anything
> concerning shifting characterization in a TV show aimed at
> adolescents), but I actually was NOT referring to actual
> physical location, but rather an "emotional closeness".
>
In which case 'proximity' probably wasn't the best choice of word.
--
Shuggie
John Briggs
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one who's not seeing this natural progression that
>> everyone else seems to see? "Revelations" showed us (briefly) what
>> Xander's like without his self-confidence. "Gingerbread" and
>> "Helpless" show him acting basically 'normal.' The moron jumping
>> around trying to get the jocks to pass him the football is
>> pratically a totally different character.
>>
>
> I just realized something. This is a basic bit of Buffy lore, but if
> you haven't been part of the fandom forever and nobody's mentioned it,
> you may well be completely in the dark on this one:
>
> Xander = Teenage Joss Whedon.
>
> It's not a complete and direct equivalence, granted, and the longer
> the show goes on the more Xander becomes his own character and less a
> bit of self-insertion by Joss Whedon. But certainly in the beginning,
> and more or less throughout the high school stories, there is at
> least a strong degree to which Xander is the embodiment of what Joss
> was like in high school (or, at least, what he remembers being like
> in high school.)
Except that Joss spent his last two high school years at England's oldest
and most intellectual public (i.e. private) school. Giles is based on some
of his teachers...
--
John Briggs
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Oh God, I see I have to step in here and explain the obvious
> to EVERYBODY again...
>
> Look, there ARE two different Xander characters, learn to live with
> it, the writers did. Hell, there are two different Buffy characters, two
> different Willow characters, etc. You might even speculate what
> would happen if you were to split the two different characters apart
> somehow, have both of them walking around in separate bodies...
>
> For now though, it might help to remember these "rules":
>
> 1. There is a stupid cowardly incompetent Xander, and a smart
> brave competent Xander. You can generally distinguish which
> Xander you will get in any episode BY HIS HAIR. If he has
> "stupid hair", hanging down in his face uncombed, you will see
> "stupid Xander". If he has "smart hair", slicked back like an
> Italian gigolo, you get "suave Xander".
You know, I think I'd rather just pretend that there's only one version
of each character who's mroe or less consistently portrayed rather than
dividing them into two people. (And why only two, in that case? What
about self-righteous petty Xander as seen in parts of "Becoming" and
"Revelations?"). With the possible exception of Cordelia, Xander is
probably the character with the most hiccups, but his normal state
(regardless of hairstyle) is to be comic relief with a would-be hero
underneath, which can emerge at any moment based on a variety of
factors (i.e. whether there's a girl he's trying to impress...)
> I just pretend that ridiculous fight with the Hellmouth monster
> isn't really happening, and then I'm fine.
Well, you could just pretend that it'd all make sense if we weren't
seeing it from an outside perspective. That seems to be what the rest
of us do (when we're not laughing).
-AOQ
Rowan Hawthorn
> Sam wrote:
>
>>I just realized something. This is a basic bit of Buffy lore, but if
>>you haven't been part of the fandom forever and nobody's mentioned it,
>>you may well be completely in the dark on this one:
>>
>>Xander = Teenage Joss Whedon.
>
>
> You mean Joss was an loathsome bastard who told ~EVIL LIES OF DEATH~ in
Depending on who you listen to on usenet... ;-)
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
> Bill Reid wrote:
>
>
>>Oh God, I see I have to step in here and explain the obvious
>>to EVERYBODY again...
Not really, but if it makes you feel better. I can always ignore it
again...
>>
>>For now though, it might help to remember these "rules":
>>
Tsk. Damn. And here I failed "Rules 101." Oh, well.
>
>
> You know, I think I'd rather just pretend that there's only one version
> of each character who's mroe or less consistently portrayed rather than
> dividing them into two people. (And why only two, in that case? What
> about self-righteous petty Xander as seen in parts of "Becoming" and
> "Revelations?"). With the possible exception of Cordelia, Xander is
> probably the character with the most hiccups, but his normal state
> (regardless of hairstyle) is to be comic relief with a would-be hero
> underneath, which can emerge at any moment based on a variety of
> factors (i.e. whether there's a girl he's trying to impress...)
>
Yeah, I like the "Peacock Theory," myself, too, I just hadn't really
thought of it precisely in those terms.
>
>>I just pretend that ridiculous fight with the Hellmouth monster
>>isn't really happening, and then I'm fine.
>
>
> Well, you could just pretend that it'd all make sense if we weren't
> seeing it from an outside perspective. That seems to be what the rest
> of us do (when we're not laughing).
Pretty much, yep...
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Reid wrote:
>
> > Oh God, I see I have to step in here and explain the obvious
> > to EVERYBODY again...
> >
> > Look, there ARE two different Xander characters, learn to live with
> > it, the writers did. Hell, there are two different Buffy characters, two
> > different Willow characters, etc. You might even speculate what
> > would happen if you were to split the two different characters apart
> > somehow, have both of them walking around in separate bodies...
> >
> > For now though, it might help to remember these "rules":
> >
> > 1. There is a stupid cowardly incompetent Xander, and a smart
> > brave competent Xander. You can generally distinguish which
> > Xander you will get in any episode BY HIS HAIR. If he has
> > "stupid hair", hanging down in his face uncombed, you will see
> > "stupid Xander". If he has "smart hair", slicked back like an
> > Italian gigolo, you get "suave Xander".
>
> You know, I think I'd rather just pretend that there's only one version
> of each character who's mroe or less consistently portrayed rather than
gur ercynprzrag bs pbhefr
naq qbccrytnatynaq
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
ripper was a biology teacher?
Rowan Hawthorn
Ohg bs pbhefr, gung'f bayl gubfr gjb rcvfbqrf, abg gur ragver frevrf.
Naq gurer jrer fcrpvsvp *ernfbaf* sbe gubfr gb or gjb qvfgvapg Knaqref.
(Ol gur jnl, lbh sbetbg "Gur Jvfu.")
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In which case, you won't be pleased to hear that the "previouslies" were
> specially removed from the S3 R1 release, "because Americans don't like
> Previouslies". (They cut them off the S2 DVDs, but the outcry from the
> rest of the world was such that they had to be included for subsequent
> seasons - except for R1, "because...")
It's hard to be an American in today's day and age.
-AOQ
vague disclaimer
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
That would be part of why it is not a 'direct equivalence'.
Apteryx
news:cLiUf.12117$Mx1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Previouslies or their absence gets particularly confusing for me, because I
have Seasons 1, 6, & 7 in R4, and Seasons 2-5 in R1
--
Apteryx
One Bit Shy
news:1143002598.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> You can't even be sure that the literal words you hear are what was
>> actually
>> spoken. All the overblown rhetoric at the end about the bravest thing
>> anybody's ever done and so on - you can't believe they would actually
>> talk
>> like that, can you? That's just the way it comes across to Xander.
>> They're
>> always the big heroes... But this time he can smile at it knowing that
>> sometimes he can make a difference too.
>>
>> Or that strange moment when Willow hugs him and says, "I love you
>> Xander."
>> What do you want to bet that it was really a rather more benign
>> expression
>> of concern, but anything from Willow gets exaggerated in his mind to
>> something greater?
>
> I think I'm going to get a headache if I try to think too hard about
> which parts to take literally (what about the stuff with Faith?) and
> which not to, so no further pondering from me. That being said, I'm
> fine with that interpretation, since the Hellmouth story is basically
> crying out to not be taken too seriously as far as continuity goes.
Nah, it's not worth the headache. It's not like there's an alternate
version to compare notes with. The point is simply recognizing that we're
seeing things through a distorted lens rather than the literal one we're
more accustomed to. So laugh and take things with a grain of salt.
>> >>From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
>> > finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
>> > a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me. Let
>> > me say right off that I got annoyed pretty quickly here.
>>
>> It's beyond him too - and kind of annoying to him as well. Revelations.
>> Lovers Walk. His self confidence has been battered.
>
> Am I the only one who's not seeing this natural progression that
> everyone else seems to see? "Revelations" showed us (briefly) what
> Xander's like without his self-confidence. "Gingerbread" and
> "Helpless" show him acting basically 'normal.' The moron jumping
> around trying to get the jocks to pass him the football is pratically a
> totally different character.
I don't think we've seen a whole lot of him interacting with others at
school for a while. Are you sure that things had changed all that much?
His manner there and his manner with Buffy et al wouldn't necessarily be the
same. I would simply observe that the one thing we know could have made a
difference in his general social position was Cordelia as girl friend -
which he no longer has.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:pm7Uf.16931$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If "canon" doesn't take into account distorted perspectives, then I think
your concept of canon needs to be upgraded a bit.
We have an outline of a real event here. The details are - fuzzy. But my
way or your way, it's still not worth worrying about too much.
> I can then enjoy it the way it SHOULD be enjoyed, as a 1-hour
> penis metaphor...
That's quite a way to enjoy it. LOL
But I still think the rest of it has some good yucks too if you just take it
as a joke.
OBS
Bill Reid
Shuggie <shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eiq8f3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de...
> Bill Reid <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> > vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> > news:l64o-1rj5-7EC68...@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> In article <pm7Uf.16931$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> "Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2. Xander's attempts at bravery are in direct proportion to his
> >> > proximity to Buffy, and to a lesser extent some other lesser female
> >> > he may have some sort of crush on or emotional attachment to.
> >> > That's why he was so easily threatened by Jack when he was
> >> > with "car girl", because it had been established he didn't care
> >> > about her.
> >>
> >> Apart from the great physical courage he showed facing down Angelus
when
> >> no-one knew about it.
> >>
> > Are you talking about when Buffy was in the hospital? Again, he
> > was protecting his precious Buffy, said atavistic protection behavior
>
> Atavistic? That's a bit extreme. The motivation behind his behaviour was
> pretty consistent even if the need for it wasn't always present.
>
the show as acting on a primal urge to "protect the wimmenz"...
> > being exacerbated by his confounsion (confoundation?)
> >
> 'confoundedness' sounds closest to me but I'm not sure there's really a
> word there. I'd've gone with 'confusion'
>
Confound it, that's not the same idea I was looking for!
Actually, those wacky psychologists have a term for it called
"cognitive dissonance"...
> > that usually
> > she could more than handle herself. He wasn't "showing off", he was
> > reacting "from his heart"...
> >
> >> I think you meant "inverse" proportion.
> >
> > Nope, I meant what I said (as much as you can mean anything
> > concerning shifting characterization in a TV show aimed at
> > adolescents), but I actually was NOT referring to actual
> > physical location, but rather an "emotional closeness".
> >
> In which case 'proximity' probably wasn't the best choice of word.
>
Yeah, and busted!, I REALLY was thinking that Xander gets
crazy brave most often when his "girlfriend" Buffy is involved, and
that's typically when she's right there and conscious.
Remember, very early on, we saw that in his dreams, he
heroically rescues Buffy, not the other way around, so this
is clearly something that is his SUBCONSCIOUS DESIRE.
So we shouldn't be surprised when we see him act out on
his NATURAL INSTINCTS without much thought for
his own safety WHENEVER there's a beloved "damsel
in distress"...
---
William Ernest Reid
Bill Reid
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uJidnWPxHbi...@giganews.com...
of man (and chicks too)". It's only like kind of a primary theme
in the show, hell, it's inherent in the FRIGGIN' TITLE OF THE
SHOW...
However, I can forgive you for overlooking this because you
were preoccupied laughing to point of loss of bladder control
at the hi-frickin'-larious "meta-humor" of satirizing the melodrama
of the series...I only noticed it because I was snug in my "Depends"...
---
William Ernest Reid
Mel
One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142958100....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>>threads.
>>
>>
>>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>Season Three, Episode 13: "The Zeppo"
>>(or "I can't even begin to describe what I saw!")
>
>
> I just noticed this - and it really strikes me funny 'cause I struggled to
> understand what you wrote - which is unusual.
>
>
>>Writer: Dan Vebber
>>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you did and didn't get, so I'm just going to dive
> into a couple of things. Pardon me if it was already self evident.
>
> I see people have explained Zeppo to you. I'm just a little sad reading the
> comments because I see that the disconnect for some people isn't Zeppo, but
> rather the Marx Brothers as a whole. The old greats are fading away. Oh,
> well.
>
> Anyway, concerning the separation of the hellmouth story, which so many
> remarks have been written about:
>
> Yes, it's the background story.
> Yes, it's a play on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
> Yes, they're poking fun at themselves with all the florid melodrama.
>
> But, in my estimation, what really explains the odd way in which it's
> presented is the understanding that it's strictly from Xander's point of
> view. This episode is Xander's story - including the background hellmouth
> story - which does not occur straight, but rather according to what makes an
> impression upon Xander. (Or would make an impression upon him since he's
> not always a direct witness.) To him, life with the slayer crew has become
> donut boy to the Knights of the Round Table. And that's all he can see.
>
> There's an old joke (Gary Larson I think) about what a dog actually hears
> when his owner speaks to him. "Blah, blah, blah, blah. Rex! Blah, blah,
> blah. Rex! Blah, blah. Rex! Blah, blah, blah."
>
> Xander is hopefully a step or two up from that dog. But the effect for him
> is similar. To his ears, the typical conversation goes something like this:
>
> Giles, Buffy, Willow, Angel: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
> blah, blah. End of the world.
>
> Xander: How can I help?
>
> Giles, Buffy, Willow, Angel: Go get some donuts.
>
> Cordelia: Look! It's donut boy.
>
> That's what makes the hell mouth part of the story seem so odd. He's not
> really getting that picture. (Oh, the world's ending again.) And why
> should he? He's just the donut boy. Instead, he fixates on the parts that
> resonate with him. Which are mostly people telling him to stay out of the
> way so he doesn't get hurt... With a dose of Cordelia making fun of him
> every now and then.
>
> You can't even be sure that the literal words you hear are what was actually
> spoken. All the overblown rhetoric at the end about the bravest thing
> anybody's ever done and so on - you can't believe they would actually talk
> like that, can you? That's just the way it comes across to Xander. They're
> always the big heroes... But this time he can smile at it knowing that
> sometimes he can make a difference too.
I think this is an interesting way to look at the episode, that what we
hear is what _Xander_ hears and may not be what they _actually_ said.
I'll have to remember that next time I watch this episode.
Mel
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> If anything this emotional regression business is IMO one of the show's
> major failings, even at this point. We've seen it before in Buffy as
> well. It's a great series, but not without some problems.
Yeah because people never regress.
--
You can't stop the signal
One Bit Shy
news:AvydnRgCWY7zZ7zZ...@uci.net...
If you do, keep in mind that it's being shown as how a Xander would take it
in, not literally what he sees. There are some places where Xander is not
actually a direct witness. But once the early confusion about what the real
story is passes, the way the hellmouth story is presented is pretty
consistent. The dialog is stilted. The visual exaggerated. (Notice, for
example, that it takes *two* shots to tranquilize were-Oz.)
OBS
Bill Reid
One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:1223trb...@news.supernews.com...
> "Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
> news:pm7Uf.16931$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1143002598.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> which parts to take literally (what about the stuff with Faith?) and
> >> which not to, so no further pondering from me. That being said, I'm
> >> fine with that interpretation, since the Hellmouth story is basically
> >> crying out to not be taken too seriously as far as continuity goes.
> >>
> > Actually, unfortunately, it's real, and "canon", but you really
> > SHOULDN'T take it too seriously, because it sucks, and you
> > don't want to ponder something that sucks, do you?
>
> If "canon" doesn't take into account distorted perspectives, then I think
> your concept of canon needs to be upgraded a bit.
>
perspective" the even more over-the-top dialog and events from previous
episodes that ostensibly weren't played as a "joke" ("when I kiss you, I
want to die"--WTF!!??!!!??!!!). Or the fact that they apparently counted
it later as another time they "saved the world"...
> We have an outline of a real event here. The details are - fuzzy.
No, the details are concrete. OUR perspective is SUPPOSED to
be that it is "funny" that they are making fun of the melodrama.
But MY "perspective" is that is just sucked majorly...
> way or your way, it's still not worth worrying about too much.
>
It made me dislike the episode initially, even though I really liked
a lot of the other stuff in it...therefore, whoever wrote it should be
SHOT. Or maybe we could just cut off one of the writer's hands
since it was only half-bad...
---
William Ernest Reid
Mel
One Bit Shy wrote:
Was Xander there for the tranq'ing? I thought it was just Willow and Giles.
Mel
One Bit Shy
>
> One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
> news:1223trb...@news.supernews.com...
>> "Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
>> news:pm7Uf.16931$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1143002598.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> I think I'm going to get a headache if I try to think too hard about
>> >> which parts to take literally (what about the stuff with Faith?) and
>> >> which not to, so no further pondering from me. That being said, I'm
>> >> fine with that interpretation, since the Hellmouth story is basically
>> >> crying out to not be taken too seriously as far as continuity goes.
>> >>
>> > Actually, unfortunately, it's real, and "canon", but you really
>> > SHOULDN'T take it too seriously, because it sucks, and you
>> > don't want to ponder something that sucks, do you?
>>
>> If "canon" doesn't take into account distorted perspectives, then I think
>> your concept of canon needs to be upgraded a bit.
>>
> There was no "distorted perspective".
Says you.
> Unless you count as "distorted
> perspective" the even more over-the-top dialog and events from previous
> episodes that ostensibly weren't played as a "joke" ("when I kiss you, I
> want to die"--WTF!!??!!!??!!!). Or the fact that they apparently counted
> it later as another time they "saved the world"...
And yet, somehow, this sequence plays different than usual as you observe by
how much it sucks for you.
>> We have an outline of a real event here. The details are - fuzzy.
>
> No, the details are concrete.
Says you. Besides, at the least, that part of the story is highly
fragmented and incomplete even accepting it literally.
> OUR perspective is SUPPOSED to
> be that it is "funny" that they are making fun of the melodrama.
Well it is supposed to be funny. But I think it's pretty stubborn to take
that as the whole story when the content repeatedly plays to the things
Xander would be sensitive to. And when this is Xander's story after all.
Somehow I think Xander has something to do with how it's played.
> But MY "perspective" is that is just sucked majorly...
Evidently.
>> way or your way, it's still not worth worrying about too much.
>>
> It made me dislike the episode initially, even though I really liked
> a lot of the other stuff in it...therefore, whoever wrote it should be
> SHOT. Or maybe we could just cut off one of the writer's hands
> since it was only half-bad...
I think someone else in the thread said this may be the best episode ever
for him/her. LOL I think the writers should hang both perspectives on
their wall as a constant reminder of what their audience is.
OBS
KenM47
Ab, orpnhfr va yngre frnfbaf vg'f nyzbfg yvxr fbnc bcren nzarfvn. Vg
trgf birecynlrq.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
As I said, Xander is not always a direct witness, but there remains a
consistency in how things are presented. Don't misunderstand. This is
definitely a device. And you've got this Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are
Dead tribute going on. It's not just what Xander literally interacts with.
It's a way of seeing things whether Xander is there or not.
Another way of looking at it is that the particular event is pretty
irrelevant. Just another end of the world scenario. In Xander's universe,
this would be pretty much how they all look.
A different device very common to BTVS is presaging with a near literal
abbreviated run through of the story to come. At the start of this episode
there is a pretty extravagant fight ending with Xander climbing out from
under the rubble, hearing all the congratulations among the true champions
while having missed most of it himself. That's the snapshot of his
situation. It's not just that he's the hopeless blunderer. He also has a
skewed perspective of what's happening, where he has to imagine as much as
he actually sees.
OBS
Scythe Matters
> From there we're into a world of Xander talking really loudly about
> finding his identity or becoming cool or whatever. Why this emerges as
> a major concern in the twilight of his senior year is beyond me.
Because he was, for a brief time, associated with coolness thanks to
Cordelia. And now he's lost it with her; not having it was one sort of
problem, but having it and losing it is a bigger sort of problem. So
what does Xander have, exactly? He *is* Jimmy Olsen. He *is* Zeppo. He's
got nothing, except...well, that's what the episode is about, isn't it?
Giles is the brain, Buffy's the muscle, Willow's the other brain and the
connection to the supernatural, and Xander's something else. I won't
tell you what it is, but if you think about it hard enough, you'll see
it. Eventually, this might matter.
> Part of it is
> that I don't understand certain things (i.e. why Xander is suddenly
> all afraid of big guys, much the way he kinda wasn't in
> "Halloween" and "Go Fish").
This has been explained well by others. Xander's bravery has,
heretofore, been either mere peacockery or desperate eagerness to
impress the current object of his lust (Buffy, Inca Mummy Girl, etc.),
which is a very different thing from bravery. In fact, the episode
points you in this direction:
----
Xander: (glances at Jack) Why is it that I've come face-to-face with
vampires, demons, the most hideous creatures Hell ever spit out, and I'm
still afraid of a little bully like Jack O'Toole?
----
> And part of it is that quite
> frankly I don't watch _Buffy_ for the high school stories in which
> everyone acts like junior high schoolers.
I couldn't disagree more. This is actually one of the rare times that
the gang *does* act like high schoolers, not preternaturally mature
young adults.
> So from here on we're divided between good and bad comedy, as I like
> to say.
To hearken back to our little disagreement about "Band Candy," *this* is
comedy, and I laughed, repeatedly.
> Works: Anything with Xander and Cordelia trading insults. There is no
> part of that that isn't fun.
Actually, that's one of the few things that I don't love about this
episode; the interactions themselves were nicely done, but at this point
I feel like there should be some sort of payoff to Cordelia's continued
bitterness. It's understandable in light of the fact that she really did
love Xander, but it's still getting a little lengthy. Anyway, I forgive
all for their final scene.
> Fails: Xander falls in... with the wrong crowd! What is this, an
> After School Special? Especially the part where he instantly earns
> their trust by not tattling. This episode gets downright embarrassing
> to watch in places.
In classic BTVS fashion, however, "the wrong crowd" is taken to a rather
unique extreme. They're not just the wrong element, they're *dead*. They
don't just "do crime," they raise the dead and try to blow up the
school. It's yet another quirky BTVS riff on a classic trope, and it's
one of the better ones.
> Works: Most of the car-girl thing isn't very interesting, but
> Xander's impossibly bored expression in the Bronze and reaction to
> seeing Angel is nice.
The girl, until the arrival of Angel and then again for the rest of her
appearance, was wasted airspace.
> Fails: Jack and friends cruising around and acting frat-like, even
> though they're dead. Dude! Yeeeah! It never commences to be funny!
Aw, c'mon. The mailbox scene *had* to make you laugh (scanning down, I
guess it did). Anyway, I was fine with all this, because the concept of
a bunch of decomposing corpses grabbing and gladhanding and having a
"what are we going to do tonight" conversation is something I find
amusing. The overall execution could, I agree, have been a little crisper.
> Oh, also, any particular reason that Buffy
> and the others decided that now would be a good time to start excluding
> Xander from the dangerous activities, rather than, say, *two and a half
> years ago*?
Well, other than the fact that *they explicitly point out the reasons in
the opening scene*, they've been doing this all along. As others have
pointed out.
I feel compelled to paraphrase Bill Reid here: sometimes, you miss an
awful lot.
> From there Xander's story continues to be stupid, but it starts
> hitting the notes that it was missing earlier. Maybe it's the silly
> music, but the end does work.
The music in this episode is fantaastic, throughout, and I share others'
joy at the Buffy/Angel/Xander scene and its deliberate abuse of the
"Close Your Eyes" theme.
> And despite the capacity for cheese (and reminding
> us of Cordelia's somewhat similar scene in the superior
> "Homecoming")
This is *way* better than "Homecoming," and *way* better than the
Gorch/Cordelia scene.
> the game of explosive chicken once again helps him
> be a convincing hero while still being, well, Xander.
The important point is that it's Xander *actually* being brave, for a
change. Brave when it matters. Brave when no one else notices. It's the
payoff to all the "how do I achieve coolness" angst of the early scenes,
because the desperate public attempts are anything but, yet the private,
inner strength is the very definition.
> Oh, and the Hellmouth is opening. That's going on in the background
> all episode. A lot of dissonant scenes here. Why is Willow suddenly
> so worried? wonders the first-time viewer. Angel and Buffy suddenly
> being so melodramatic and "this is worse than anything we've ever
> faced" with no buildup is very jarring. The CGI is uniformly cheesy
> here, particularly the ridiculous effect for the oracle that Giles goes
> to for help. Very strong "what the hell is this crap?" feelings.
As so many others have pointed out, you missed the entire point of this
subplot (which, of course, is really the "A" plot in a normal episode).
There's no need to repeat the explanation here. You just didn't get it
from the beginning (though I think it was awfully obvious), and were
unable to re-engage soon enough for it to have the proper effect. As
I've said before, it's not the first thing you've missed, and it won't
be the last. It is rather a *big* thing to miss, but oh well...
> Now, I'm of the opinion, which may not be shared by everyone, that if
> the show is going to incorporate the audience into an elaborate bit of
> humor, the only way to do it is to make the joke really, really, really
> obvious.
I'm of the opinion that you're describing "Three's Company." A fine
enough show given it's incredibly limited goal of humor understandable
by lowbrow infants, but hardly worth considering in the context of BTVS.
> So I suppose the show's first (that
> I recall) foray into this kind of meta-humor would have to be viewed as
> a success.
First, huh? The very first scene of the series is meta-humor (or, more
specifically, meta-textual).
> Question: What is a "Zeppo?" The only thing I could think of was
> the rarely-seen Marx Brother, but the meaning there isn't so clear
> except in context.
Since this is sort of the crux of the episode, it's a shame you didn't
make the connection earlier.
The usual additional thoughts:
1) This episode is "Lower Decks" done with more courage and a lot more
style...and I *liked* "Lower Decks." The flaws of "Lower Decks" were
twofold: a lack of self-referential humor (one good "did you ever notice
that every time the ship is attacked, there's a committee meeting?"
would have helped), and the same problem that affected "The Inner
Light": an inability to stick with the POV rather than having
"meanwhile, back among our regular crew" scenes. "The Zeppo" does what
"Lower Decks" couldn't, by remaining faithful to the concept and the
execution.
2) Your prediction about steady-state Giles is already showing seams:
----
Giles: (stands up) Yes. I'm sorry. I should've had you better prepared,
and I should never have allowed Willow and, uh... (looks around) And,
uh...
----
He's always discouraged Willow's magical explorations. Now he's inviting
them, and his whole plan of involving her (and Xander, and frankly
himself) is fraught with an escalating potential for danger.
3) Because-the-script-requires-it moment: why is Jack in school? He's dead.
4) Works-but-it-doesn't moment:
----
The clock on the wall behind Giles shows it's 5:20pm.
Giles: (checks his watch) Um, y-you're cutting it a bit close.
Oz: (steps into the cage) Well, you know me.
----
Serves well to remind the audience of the Oz/wolf thing without saying
it. Doesn't serve well because it might imply some darker reason for
Oz's tardiness, but doesn't follow through on it.
5) "Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." "But, gee, Mr. White, if
Clark and Lois get all the good stories, I'll *never* be a good
reporter." "Like that Michael Jackson song, right? (chuckles) That was
a lot of fun. 'Too high to get over, yeah, yeah...' Remember that fun
song?" "Okay, but on the other hand: eighth grade. I'm taking the
french horn and gettin' *zero* trim." "Is this a penis metaphor?"
"'Sisterhood of Jhe. Race of female demons, fierce warriors...' Eww.
'...celebrate victory in battle by eating their foes.' They couldn't
just pour Gatorade on each other?" "All we know is that the fate of the
entire world rests on it. (looks into the doughnut box) Did you eat all
the jellies?" "Whoa! Walker, Texas Ranger. You been taping 'em?"
"Yeah, I think it's Bob." "No. I'm oddly full today."
*That's a comedy.*
> AOQ rating: Decent
Gets something close to "excellent" from me, though maybe not quite for
some too-long driving scenes and the blonde girl. But "excellent" is
probably closer than "good" for me.
Scythe Matters
> If B's test was Helpless,
> then X has been tested by fire, or bomb.
This is an excellent point. Buffy's been tested multiple times, but
quite explicitly in "Helpless." Giles, in "Helpless" but also in "The
Dark Age." It could be argued that "Homecoming" was a mild sort of test
for Cordelia. Angel was tested in "Amends," though it's also plain that
this whole season so far has been a test for him. So who does that
leave? Willow, Oz and Faith. And since AoQ has seen "Bad Girls"...
Scythe Matters
> That being said, I'm
> fine with that interpretation, since the Hellmouth story is basically
> crying out to not be taken too seriously as far as continuity goes.
I don't think it's too spoilery to say that the events shown will be
remembered by our characters. As for whether they "matter" or not, we'll
have to wait and see.
vague disclaimer
Scythe Matters <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
> > the game of explosive chicken once again helps him
> > be a convincing hero while still being, well, Xander.
>
> The important point is that it's Xander *actually* being brave, for a
> change. Brave when it matters. Brave when no one else notices
You mean like when he faced down Angelus?
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Because he was, for a brief time, associated with coolness thanks to
> Cordelia. And now he's lost it with her; not having it was one sort of
> problem, but having it and losing it is a bigger sort of problem
I don't think that's so clear. From what little we know about what was
trendy at SHS, Cordelia basically gave up some of her coolness for
Xander, but I can't recall any indication that Xander's social standing
benefited from the relationship.
> Xander's bravery has,
> heretofore, been either mere peacockery or desperate eagerness to
> impress the current object of his lust (Buffy, Inca Mummy Girl, etc.),
> which is a very different thing from bravery.
I'd argue that it's not as clear-cut as that. One fo the things I
liked about the character from the beginning is that he so often has a
plausible noble and a plausible self-driven reason for everything he
does, so it's hard to separate the two.
> The important point is that it's Xander *actually* being brave, for a
> change. Brave when it matters. Brave when no one else notices. It's the
> payoff to all the "how do I achieve coolness" angst of the early scenes,
> because the desperate public attempts are anything but, yet the private,
> inner strength is the very definition.
And yes, I generally like the idea of the ending, but I don't know if
you can really treat it as such a unique case. As v.d. mentions below,
there's his courage in the scene with Angel in "Killed By Death,"
despite the fact that it'll go unnoticed and unmentioned. And although
there're some mitigating circumstances, I'll also mention that he's not
intimidated by Cameron when they're alone in "Go Fish" or by Larry in
"Phases."
> Actually, that's one of the few things that I don't love about this
> episode; the interactions themselves were nicely done, but at this point
> I feel like there should be some sort of payoff to Cordelia's continued
> bitterness.
No need to be so impatient. ;-)
> As so many others have pointed out, you missed the entire point of this
> subplot (which, of course, is really the "A" plot in a normal episode).
> There's no need to repeat the explanation here. You just didn't get it
> from the beginning (though I think it was awfully obvious), and were
> unable to re-engage soon enough for it to have the proper effect.
I'd disagree about the inability to re-engage. As I thought the
"retroactively explains" comment made clear, I don't have any problem
with the B-story; I was just explaining where it started to make sense
to me (the relation to Xander in the "work in silence" exchange, the
all-out humor in the final scene). Maybe that's slow, but I just don't
think it was all that obvious given the straight melodrama the show has
done in the past. And me being all slow and first-timey and all, I may
ahve also been thrown by the fact that Xander is absent for most or all
of some of the Hellmouth stuff, so it's not as obviously a Xander's-eye
thing right away.
So I have no issues at all with the second half of the episode, which
would be rated "Good" or higher if I had to break it down, but I found
the first half painful to watch.
> First, huh? The very first scene of the series is meta-humor (or, more
> specifically, meta-textual).
Not the same thing. And this is the first meta'ing that I can recall
that specifically targets the show itself, rather than its
inspirations.
> 3) Because-the-script-requires-it moment: why is Jack in school? He's dead.
Is he actually confirmed to be in school? He could've just been
hanging around the lawn because he liked the local scene so much.
-AOQ
Scythe Matters
> You mean like when he faced down Angelus?
Yes, somewhat, though I don't want to revisit the "proximity to Buffy"
subthread. I think there's a difference, though: had Angelus actually
started something, lots of people would have noticed. In the school
basement, it was only Xander and a dead guy, and other than Jack's
friends no one would ever have known he was down there or what he did.
Scythe Matters
> I don't think that's so clear. From what little we know about what was
> trendy at SHS, Cordelia basically gave up some of her coolness for
> Xander, but I can't recall any indication that Xander's social standing
> benefited from the relationship.
Well, we know that Buffy improved it in Cordelia's eyes:
----
Cordelia: I never would've looked twice at Xander if Buffy hadn't made
him marginally cooler by hanging with him.
----
In any case, what matters isn't the reality, what matters is Xander's
perception of it. Dating Cordelia made him feel cool.
> I'd argue that it's not as clear-cut as that.
Well, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong. ;-) It's true that
Xander often does the right thing (and, often, the wrong thing). But the
reasons are interesting as well, and here we have a reason that we
haven't seen before.
>>I feel like there should be some sort of payoff to Cordelia's continued
>>bitterness.
>
> No need to be so impatient. ;-)
;-) But this has been going on for a while now. Your impatience is
usually episodic.
> I'd disagree about the inability to re-engage. As I thought the
> "retroactively explains" comment made clear, I don't have any problem
> with the B-story; I was just explaining where it started to make sense
> to me (the relation to Xander in the "work in silence" exchange, the
> all-out humor in the final scene). Maybe that's slow, but I just don't
> think it was all that obvious given the straight melodrama the show has
> done in the past. And me being all slow and first-timey and all, I may
> ahve also been thrown by the fact that Xander is absent for most or all
> of some of the Hellmouth stuff, so it's not as obviously a Xander's-eye
> thing right away.
I guess I just don't understand why it wouldn't be obvious. Some of your
initial criticisms rely on a misunderstanding of why the on-screen
dramatic choices are what they are, and some of them are mitigated by
understanding the purpose behind them.
> Not the same thing. And this is the first meta'ing that I can recall
> that specifically targets the show itself, rather than its
> inspirations.
I still don't agree. "School Hard" (Spike vs. the ritualistic
Master/Anointed One setting) and "Phases" (the hunter) both dipped their
toes into this water. Trick has made a character out of this sort of
meta-textual commentary. ("It's called an Uzi, chump," etc.). And even
"Gingerbread" can be read this way, if one is interested enough in the
episode to do so.
> Is he actually confirmed to be in school? He could've just been
> hanging around the lawn because he liked the local scene so much.
True. But since both Xander and Cordelia know him, the implication is
that he's at least *been* in school. His friends all seem to be
longer-dead, and we don't see him with any living buddies. And we know
his death/resurrection turnaround was quick. Maybe it's for appearances?
Anyway, it's true that there's no way to know for sure, but it's hard to
think of a plausible reason for him to be there if he's not actually
attending (or semi-attending) school.
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> And yes, I generally like the idea of the ending, but I don't know if
> you can really treat it as such a unique case. As v.d. mentions below,
> there's his courage in the scene with Angel in "Killed By Death,"
> despite the fact that it'll go unnoticed and unmentioned. And although
> there're some mitigating circumstances, I'll also mention that he's not
> intimidated by Cameron when they're alone in "Go Fish" or by Larry in
> "Phases."
Neither Larry, nor Cameron had the "I'm a psycho killer" vibe that
O'Toole gave off. If sufficiently provoked they might break his nose.
O'Toole gave Xander the impression that he'd leave his bleeding corpse
in an alley somewhere.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Scythe Matters wrote:
> > 3) Because-the-script-requires-it moment: why is Jack in school? He's dead.
>
> Is he actually confirmed to be in school? He could've just been
> hanging around the lawn because he liked the local scene so much.
And no one knows he's dead, so they wouldn't have taken him off the
rolls.
vague disclaimer
Scythe Matters <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
Had Angelus wanted to quickly and quietly dispatch Xander he could have
done. Xander must have known that, but called Angelus's bluff in an act
of real physical courage with no "either mere peacockery or desperate
eagerness". Just raw courage.
That's why I'm bi-polar about The Zeppo: there is so much that is good -
wonderful, even - yet to set it up it retcons this amazing piece of
bravery away. As such it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't
already know. But it does it very well indeed.
Scythe Matters
> Had Angelus wanted to quickly and quietly dispatch Xander he could have
> done. Xander must have known that, but called Angelus's bluff in an act
> of real physical courage with no "either mere peacockery or desperate
> eagerness". Just raw courage.
Well, I'm of the opinion that the involvement/proximity/potential
victimhood of Buffy *does* matter here. That's the "peacockery," even
though it's a private sort of plumage-exhibition (plus, Xander discusses
the Angel visit and the potential for another later, while there's no
evidence that he ever discusses the events of "Zeppo" with anyone,
ever). But that argument's already been had, so no need to revisit it. I
do agree that it was a noble and brave thing to do, but I don't agree
that "Zeppo" requires a retcon of this scene.
hopelessly devoted
vague disclaimer wrote:
> > Yes, somewhat, though I don't want to revisit the "proximity to Buffy"
> > subthread. I think there's a difference, though: had Angelus actually
> > started something, lots of people would have noticed. In the school
> > basement, it was only Xander and a dead guy, and other than Jack's
> > friends no one would ever have known he was down there or what he did.
>
> Had Angelus wanted to quickly and quietly dispatch Xander he could have
> done. Xander must have known that, but called Angelus's bluff in an act
> of real physical courage with no "either mere peacockery or desperate
> eagerness". Just raw courage.
For me, that is the biggest difference between the two. Just raw
courage.
Leaving the X/B peacock displays aside, X stood up to Angelus using raw
courage while shaking in his boots because he appointed himself as B's
guard. I understand your take, but approaching a serial killer vampire
without a really big cross can also be considered an act of lunacy. :->
Here X maintains control of the situation that he did not request
without losing his composure and without showing one shake or quiver.
And while the act of lunacy theory can also be applied here, what X
says, in addition to his stance and demeanor, also makes a lot of
rational sense.
The type of raw courage that he shows Angelus is another variation of
the mere peacockery that he shows B when he's in his heated mode. The
same raw courage that, shown to the wrong person, will ultimate land
him in the hospital or the morgue if he doesn't figure out how to
control it, channel it and use it to his advantage. That's why that
scene is so great IMO. Xander's finally REALIZING his powers and using
them constructively. The courage he shows here is more than raw, it's
refined.
Giles, at some point, seems to have learned a similar lesson. See
Ripper with Ethan/Snyder/Trick in Band Candy vs. Giles with anyone
anywhere otherwise. Giles learned at some point to harness his own
powers and now only whips it out in "select" situations. In those
situations he becomes a guy you don't want to mess with.
I see your raw courage and raise you one Powerful Xander.
;->
One Bit Shy
Umm. I don't think the concepts are getting integrated right in this
conversation. I really like the peacock concept as a Xander description,
but I can't see that as the whole story. I think Xander's bond to Buffy and
his need to "protect" her exists independently of that characteristic. He
had been drawn that way early, but with Prophecy Girl it got burned into him
as a compulsion. A part of him is always scared that Buffy's going to die.
So in the Angel showdown at the hospital that's his motive, that's his
source of courage, that's why he was there at that moment to begin with -
even before Angel showed up.
But at the same time, the peacock element remains his manner. That's how he
knows how to do it. So the actual confrontation is a bit peacockery in its
play - very akin, incidentally, to the bomb scene in The Zeppo, though not
yet as desperate a situation. The peacockery and desperate eagerness show
up in other situations more by themselves - not no so much driven by the
protection impulse. And other times none of its around and he's just a
chicken. There's a mix, varying according to situation.
The bottom line being that I don't think The Zeppo contradicts or retcons
his past real bravery. Hell, it ultimately brings it out more broadly
useful than in the past - not so dependent on the protect Buffy or peacock
impulses.
OBS
Scythe Matters
> The bottom line being that I don't think The Zeppo contradicts or retcons
> his past real bravery. Hell, it ultimately brings it out more broadly
> useful than in the past - not so dependent on the protect Buffy or peacock
> impulses.
Thank you for saying it better. ;-)
cars...@webtv.net
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rowan Hawthorn wrote:"That's it precisely. Zeppo is The One That Nobody
Remembers. You know, there was Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and... um... the
Other One..."
I thought the Marx brother nobody remembered was the one none of them
talked about, Karl. :-)
Kevin
Don Sample wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > Scythe Matters wrote:
> > > 3) Because-the-script-requires-it moment: why is Jack in school? He's dead.
> > Is he actually confirmed to be in school? He could've just been
> > hanging around the lawn because he liked the local scene so much.
> And no one knows he's dead, so they wouldn't have taken him off the
> rolls.
He's pretending to be alive, so he's in school to keep up appearances,
right? Plus, maybe he has a real zest for learning.
:)
--Kevin
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Cordelia: I never would've looked twice at Xander if Buffy hadn't made
> him marginally cooler by hanging with him.
This is a tangent of the original discussion, but I'm curious - do you
buy that explanation, and think that Cordelia believes what she's
saying? I don't. The way I see it, she's trying to rationalize out a
plausible-sounding reason for the perceived insanity of her time with
Xander. She was eventually able to make space in her worldview for the
fact that she was dating a "total loser," but she hasn't quite accepted
(as of TW) that one broke her heart, and is grasping for explanations.
> Well, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong. ;-)
Sez you.
> Some of your
> initial criticisms rely on a misunderstanding of why the on-screen
> dramatic choices are what they are, and some of them are mitigated by
> understanding the purpose behind them.
Out of an obsessive need to set the record straight: Apparently I'm not
making myself clear. I didn't *have* any initial criticsms of the
Hellmouth story (other than that maybe the flashing neon signs about
the central conceit could've been brighter earlier on). Anything else
that seemed like a complaint was an on-first-viewing reaction, and as
you imply, gets negated by the end of the episode once one figures out
what the writers were trying to do.
Oh yeah, didn't bother to respond to it originally, but how can you do
"Lower Decks" when the central character is one of the core cast?
(Yeah, the analogy still holds, I'm just being nitpicky.)
Unlike TIL, I don't think LD was hurt much by going back to the
familiar senior officers' POV. A lot of the episode is about
parallels: the part with the dueling poker games comes to mind.
-AOQ
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Scythe Matters wrote:
>
> > Cordelia: I never would've looked twice at Xander if Buffy hadn't made
> > him marginally cooler by hanging with him.
>
> This is a tangent of the original discussion, but I'm curious - do you
> buy that explanation, and think that Cordelia believes what she's
> saying? I don't. The way I see it, she's trying to rationalize out a
> plausible-sounding reason for the perceived insanity of her time with
> Xander. She was eventually able to make space in her worldview for the
> fact that she was dating a "total loser," but she hasn't quite accepted
> (as of TW) that one broke her heart, and is grasping for explanations.
I don't think it was "He's hanging out with Buffy, so he's cooler." She
didn't start to see Xander's more attractive side until she started
hanging out with Buffy too, and saw that there was more to Xander than
his goofball wisecracks.
So, yes, her seeing Xander in a better light was because he was hanging
out with Buffy. Buffy helped bring out that better side of Xander.
Before she came to town he *was* just a wisecracking goofball.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Kevin" <kl...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
home ec?
lets bake a cake
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Scythe Matters
> This is a tangent of the original discussion, but I'm curious - do you
> buy that explanation, and think that Cordelia believes what she's
> saying? I don't.
I buy it to an extent. Yes, it's post-facto self-rationalization, but
the only reason she was even proximate to Xander enough to start a
relationship with him was due to Buffy. It could be argued whether or
not he was "cool" because of it, but it can't be argued that it's Buffy
that brought her to him.
> and is grasping for explanations.
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think it necessarily invalidates
any given rationalization.
> Anything else that seemed like a complaint was an on-first-viewing
> reaction
Yes. Well, we've been down this road before, but this is why Tim Lynch,
who we both agree was an excellent reviewer, would watch an episode
several times before writing his reviews. Your first-impulse reaction to
an event or character is not always what it is in retrospect, but what
matters is the retrospective view. No one -- well, I should say no one I
know, because I learned long ago that it takes all kinds to populate
Usenet -- pauses mid-episode to go write a review at minute 18, then
pauses and writes again at minute 22, etc. It's a narrative impatience
that leads the unwary viewer (reviewing or not) down wrong paths. And
it's the same impulse that leads to "I don't know where they're going
with this, if anywhere, and since they didn't resolve it at the end of
the episode I've decided it sucks" in so many lousy reviews. Impressions
are built on the whole, not the parts.
We've already determined that we disagree on this point, but I still
maintain that the outcome of something -- an event, a character arc, a
plot -- affects the quality of its entirety. Introducing something and
then ignoring it forever makes its introduction less interesting. This
is true within the framework of an episode, and it's true within the
framework of a season or a series. If they don't do something -- could
be anything, as long as it's interesting to watch -- about Snvgu xvyyvat
Svapu (not a spoiler for AoQ), then "Bad Girls" gets worse. (I know you
don't agree with that view.) If they do in a satisfying way, then "Bad
Girls" gets better. But here's the relevance: one could easily watch
"Bad Girls" and complain "but they didn't do anything about Snvgu
xvyyvat Svapu," and insist that it was completely valid to downgrade
what they were seeing without having to consider "Consequences."
Similarly, one could complain "but this plot doesn't make any sense" and
insist that it was a valid criticism even if the end of the episode
explains everything. (Know anyone who's done that? ;-) ) It's probably
different from your perspective as you go through the process of writing
a review, but from the perspective of a reader of a review written in
this way -- again, possibly not all readers -- it's "he's not getting
this...he's still not getting this...boy, is he not getting this...hey,
he finally got it...OK, why did I have to read about all the ways he
didn't get it if, in the end, he did?"
> Oh yeah, didn't bother to respond to it originally, but how can you do
> "Lower Decks" when the central character is one of the core cast?
The "Xander self-identifies as the outcast" analysis explains it pretty
well. (In any case, I think another weakness of "Lower Decks" was the
amount of interaction with the senior staff. It was necessary for that
particularl plot, but unreasonable in the context of every other episode
of the series. It would have been improved even more were it *really* an
ensign-level view of things.)
> Unlike TIL, I don't think LD was hurt much by going back to the
> familiar senior officers' POV. A lot of the episode is about
> parallels: the part with the dueling poker games comes to mind.
But those were forced scenes because they were clearly meant to showcase
the parallels *with the senior staff*; they were playing poker because
we'd seen the senior staff play poker. The junior staff, however, was
the focus of the episode, and so the parallels were a distraction; we
could easily see the junior staff poker game and draw our own
conclusions about the parallel. To have to show it in case we don't get
it is to lack confidence in your viewers, much like "The Inner Light"
failed in its courage and in its trust of the viewer every time they
went back to the Enterprise. I'm grateful that, in the main, BTVS has
that confidence. At least, right now it does.
(You're getting a reprieve and possibly some last words here, because
I'm going on vacation for a while. So after the next episode, which I'll
try to respond to, you'll have to wait a while to hear a tiresome
lecture on how much subtext you're missing. ;-) )
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Yes. Well, we've been down this road before, but this is why Tim Lynch,
> who we both agree was an excellent reviewer, would watch an episode
> several times before writing his reviews. Your first-impulse reaction to
> an event or character is not always what it is in retrospect, but what
> matters is the retrospective view.
>
> It's probably
> different from your perspective as you go through the process of writing
> a review, but from the perspective of a reader of a review written in
> this way -- again, possibly not all readers -- it's "he's not getting
> this...he's still not getting this...boy, is he not getting this...hey,
> he finally got it...OK, why did I have to read about all the ways he
> didn't get it if, in the end, he did?"
Yeah, understood, but keep in mind that what I'm doing is very much
about first impulses. There's plenty of time to discuss and re-watch,
but I'm trying to present things as a first-timer, discovering this
show for the first time, writing for an audience of mostly people who
know the series forward and backward. And since I try to change up the
organizational style a little, for certain episodes I do think it's
interesting as a writer to take the reader through a step-by-step tour.
What was AOQ thinking at the moment he was seeing this play out? I'd
like to imagine that that's also interesting to others, especially
those who enjoy the "vicariuosly see it again for the first time" feel.
You''ll probably just be someone who prefers what Tim was doing with
his reviews to what I'm doing.
-AOQ
Scythe Matters
> Yeah, understood, but keep in mind that what I'm doing is very much
> about first impulses. There's plenty of time to discuss and re-watch,
> but I'm trying to present things as a first-timer, discovering this
> show for the first time, writing for an audience of mostly people who
> know the series forward and backward.
I know. My point was that no one (qualified per usual) actually rates an
episode that way. It's considered on its merits in total, not
component-by-component as if they existed in isolation. If, at 12:58,
there's a "huh?" moment that's explained at 25:13, is it really valuable
to note the "huh?" as if we don't know you've seen the explanation
twelve and a half minutes later? Wouldn't a connection between the two
be better ("I was initially confused by X, but the resolution did/didn't
work for me, because," etc.)? You still get to comment on your initial
reaction, but without the pretense that you have narrative ADD. (Which
you might; the jury's still out on that. ;-) )
Even if it were useful to do things the other way, the greater issue is
that compartmentalizing a greater narrative in this way almost
inevitably closes one's mind off to changes in direction. We've all done
it, and I've tried to point it out in your reviews (because it's
reasonably frequent). By focusing too forcefully on an element, you
don't see the bigger picture as well as you might, or you see it through
a different lens than that intended by the writers...and sometimes,
"different" goes as far as being "incorrect." There's also the danger of
finding some micro-component so important that one becomes incapable of
thinking rationally about what's around, behind and beyond it (the "I
suppose 'Becoming' was a good episode but since Buffy was holding her
sword incorrectly, I'm incapable of enjoying it and in fact think the
whole series sucks and Joss is incompetent" school of reviewing, which
is inexplicably common on the net). Not to suggest that you've ever done
this (*cough* Cordelia *cough*).
> You''ll probably just be someone who prefers what Tim was doing with
> his reviews to what I'm doing.
Yes, I do, though it doesn't mean I don't enjoy your reviews.
One Bit Shy
news:FOednXc37vpp-L7Z...@rcn.net...
Or for not reading ahead and seeing you say the same thing.
Synchronized slaying. ;-)