AOQ Review 2-1: "When She Was Bad"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
(or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
Writer: Joss Whedon
Director: Joss Whedon
Hi, guys. Miss me?
This is going to be a bit of a tough one to write, since I'm still
sorting out what I think of this episode. One thing is for certain,
though: Buffy looked better as a brunette.
I mentioned at the beginning that I'd seen "maybe a grand total of
five minutes of Buffyverse material" prior to starting up the reviews
(although it's actually closer to fifteen minutes). This was part of
that statement; the course director of my med school's Human
Development (read: psych for dipshits) class showed a bunch of clips
from this episode as part of his lecture on adolescence. (He used to
use _The Breakfast Club_, but apparently too many people don't know
that one anymore.) Some of the scenes seemed appropriate to the topic,
some not so much (I remember that he showed the Giles-as-Master bit,
leaving many of us in the lecture hall wondering "what the fuck is
this, and why are we watching it?")
After a rather lengthy recap, we start with Willow and Xander. Maybe I
was a little spoiled by "Prophecy Girl," which actually seemed
interested in doing something with the soap opera crap beyond
"characters pining silently," since I did think they might actually
get to kiss without being interrupted. This is the first real
indication that Xander might return her affections. I don't much
care for him apparently totally forgetting that fact once Buffy
reappears. I can buy lifelong platonic friends (though maybe that's
a TV Myth too), but I just don't see the kind of comfort level the
two of them have coexisting with two-way sexual tension. They'd
probably act about the same if they were dating anyway, so it
wouldn't change the show too much (they already have the timing down;
I got a real kick out of the idea that they regularly bring food for
each other for some reason). In any case, I really think it's time
to pull the trigger on this thing, one way or the other.
Oh, I also don't like the TV rule that whether or not two people end
up getting together is determined purely by whether or not they're
interrupted at a Certain Moment which only happens once every six
months. Basically, me no likee the bad soap opera, especially coming
on the heels of the good soap opera we saw in "Prophecy Girl."
I did like Xander's unhesitating attempt to attack the vampire -
points for effort, at least.
Speaking of going somewhere, is Snyder actually going to be part of any
stories or just hang around doing broad comedy for the rest of the SHS
years? I did enjoy parts of the first exchange with Giles,
particularly Head's delivery when suggesting that maybe school
principal isn't the best job for someone who despises kids.
Bones has been promoted from "Guest Star" to "Also Starring"
now. Angel's first scene made him seem really fundamentally shy,
which might be a common side effect of eighty-whatever years of
self-loathing. I'd never really gotten that vibe from the character
before for some reason. But at the same time he seems more willing to
involve himself in Slayer affairs than in Season One. Hmm.
Having discussion-type scenes around lunch tables is a nice change of
pace, especially with Giles as cola-swilling cafeteria man. And we all
know that anyone from SHS who overheard the discussion would just
forget anyway. It's a little disappointing that the strategy
meetings end up going back to the library, although I guess having the
books and computers nearby would be an advantage.
One effective little scenelet is Cordelia's reaction-take to seeing
Calendar unconscious. I bought the possibility that she might be dead,
because this show has proven itself willing and able to do things like
that.
This is all backdrop, though (and a way to put off trying to talk about
the heart of the show). "When She Was Bad" is almost entirely
about Buffy, so let's discuss. Xander says that he's never seen
her so mean, and while I'm not entirely sure I agree (she's had a
few temper-tantrums before), it's definitely a change. The fact that
we the audience are left in the dark about what's in her head for so
long makes the episode feel a little out of control. We don't know
where it's taking us; it looks like it'll probably be somewhere
interesting, but it's hard to say.
One plus is that the New Buffy is introduced gradually. We've seen
her act casual about vampire threats before, so the indifference
isn't new. The bedroom scene with Angel is a bit hostile, but it's
easy to imagine Season One Buffy in the same role, so that doesn't
set off any warning bells. Buffy's treatment of Cordelia is the
first sign that something's wrong, and it's subtle given that
we've seen the other heroes diss her often enough, and that the scene
is played mostly for laughs ("now _that_ was a good insult"). In
fact, Xander puts his finger on the changes in her before I (and
probably some of the audience) really did, which is how it should be.
Watching Buffy toy with Angel and Xander simultaneously is disturbing
to watch, as is Cordelia coming off as more sensible than Buffy in the
followup scene.
But as an audience member, I didn't know quite what to think. On the
one hand, the scenes were certainly effective, and of course everyone
loves flawed heroes (or should, anyway). On the other, since Buffy's
behavior hasn't been explained (at this point in the episode), it
gives a "seriously, where are they going with this?" vibe that
isn't so pleasant. I'm trying to figure out where the line is
between "unpleasant to watch" and "uncomfortable, but for the
right reasons" is, and I'm not quite able to assign the first half
of WSWB firmly into either category. I found myself enjoying the show
more after we get... well, it's not an explicit statement of what
she's thinking, but it's enough information to let us put things
together. And happily, the later scenes don't turn off the moral
ambiguity. The trick with the cross... it's worrisome that Buffy's
so comfortable with torture, but you can't knock it too much when
it's such an effective way to get information fast, during a legit
crisis. We understand her violent anger during the big fight scene,
but we don't so much like her turning into a killing machine. This
is good stuff.
Going back to mid-episode for a moment... Cordelia can't smack any
sense into the Slayer. Xander has a good moment where he looks like
he'll be the next one to try after her unjustified insult to Giles
(isn't it nice when the writers remember that sense can trump
hormones once in awhile?). For once, a script-mandated interruption
of a pivotal scene actually works, so we continue to put off addressing
the problem (and Xander will still get to do his "I officially
don't care" speech a little later). How about the fact that what
finally forces the issue is irony? Buffy's attempt to push everyone
else out of her world ends up almost getting her friends killed.
There's no innocence or safety on the Hellmouth, so our group pretty
much has to stick together by default.
As far as the character dynamics at the end, Buffy collapsing in tears
after smashing up the bones seems, for my tastes, like a
too-conventional way to end an unconventional story. On the other
hand, her friends' "you _will_ laugh, damn you" bit at the very
end is really quite sweet, and it's good that we don't actually get
to hear the dialogue that actually does the trick (the funniest jokes
remain untold).
I don't have much to say about the villains, especially since
they're less threatening than Psycho Slayer and most of them end up
dead (SF/F shows always kill off their black guys). BTVS has been one
of those shows where the heroes are invariably more interesting than
the villains anyway. But there're some nice subverted expectations
in there - Absalom seems set up to become a long-term character, but
that doesn't happen. And of course, need I mention the episode
teasing the return of the Master for almost the whole hour, and then
not delivering? Now it seems more likely than ever that he's gone
for good.
Shorter takes:
Did Mark Metcalf get credited for the non-speaking role? I didn't
see his name. (Or did they just stick someone else under the makeup?)
I'm hoping to see more scenes between Joyce and Hank in the future.
A few nice directoral flourishes this week (one of them made it to the
new opening credits), but also one of the show's worst examples so
far of excessive darkness during a key fight scene. Do people not
realize that if you don't put a light source of some kind in your
shot, it's impossible to see what's going on?
The end credits mention a "Tara." I have no idea who that is,
other than that her name pops up a lot in discussions of stuff I
haven't seen yet (threads with spoilers about her in the subject
line, that kind of thing). Was this the first appearance?
It didn't fit into any other paragraph, but my absolute favorite line
of the episode was Willow's "Well, what about the rest of the
note... the part that says 'P.S., this is a trap?'"
These reviews are getting longer.
So....
One-sentence summary: Well, it certainly gets one's attention.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good]
rrh...@acme.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Hi, guys. Miss me?
Yes. Welcome back.
> I can buy lifelong platonic friends (though maybe that's
> a TV Myth too)
I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I am a heterosexual male and my
best friend is a heterosexual female. We have known each other for
about fifteen years, which isn't exactly "lifelong" since we are both
in our early forties, but it isn't exactly a fleeting moment, either.
We initially dated, but found that we ended up standing in parking lots
screaming at each other. So we broke up, but (to our surprise) ended
up as platonic best friends. We make great friends and terrible
lovers: it does happen. People who know us both, but didn't when we
were dating, respond to the fact of our having dated with an "eeeuw"
reaction, because it is like brother and sister dating. Truthfully, we
kind of have that reaction too. She was, by the way, my best man (uh,
best person?) at my wedding. So I have no problem with the idea of
platonic friends, though I will grant it being less probable if they
are in the raging hormones stage of life.
<snippage>
>Xander says that he's never seen
> her so mean, and while I'm not entirely sure I agree (she's had a
> few temper-tantrums before), it's definitely a change.
I don't recall any examples of her having been mean. Angry, yes. But
in this episode she is hurting people just to do it, which is not at
all the same thing.
This is, incidently, one of my favorite episodes from the early years.
But I am a fan of the darker side of Buffy.
Richard R. Hershberger
Espen Schjønberg
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Hi, guys. Miss me?
>
> This is going to be a bit of a tough one to write, since I'm still
> sorting out what I think of this episode.
I think you will say this one grows on you. If not: your bad.
> One thing is for certain,
> though: Buffy looked better as a brunette.
I think Buffy is blond, the problem is SMG is not.
> I mentioned at the beginning that I'd seen "maybe a grand total of
> five minutes of Buffyverse material" prior to starting up the reviews
> (although it's actually closer to fifteen minutes). This was part of
> that statement; the course director of my med school's Human
> Development (read: psych for dipshits) class showed a bunch of clips
> from this episode as part of his lecture on adolescence. (He used to
> use _The Breakfast Club_, but apparently too many people don't know
> that one anymore.) Some of the scenes seemed appropriate to the topic,
> some not so much (I remember that he showed the Giles-as-Master bit,
> leaving many of us in the lecture hall wondering "what the fuck is
> this, and why are we watching it?")
Did he use the "I miss you" parts?
> After a rather lengthy recap, we start with Willow and Xander.
The problem with TV-showsa is they always want to have sexual tension.
You get that with long-time, stable relationships? Hollywood says NO.
> Oh, I also don't like the TV rule that whether or not two people end
> up getting together is determined purely by whether or not they're
> interrupted at a Certain Moment which only happens once every six
> months.
This is not only a TV-rule, but the damn thruth. Don't you know?
> Speaking of going somewhere, is Snyder actually going to be part of any
> stories or just hang around doing broad comedy for the rest of the SHS
> years?
I count this as rhetorical.
> I did enjoy parts of the first exchange with Giles,
> particularly Head's delivery when suggesting that maybe school
> principal isn't the best job for someone who despises kids.
"I might as well be talking with myself." I still laugh.
> This is all backdrop, though (and a way to put off trying to talk about
> the heart of the show). "When She Was Bad" is almost entirely
> about Buffy, so let's discuss. Xander says that he's never seen
> her so mean, and while I'm not entirely sure I agree (she's had a
> few temper-tantrums before), it's definitely a change.
Oh, no need to argue. She has never been mean. She has been angry, but
never mean.
> The bedroom scene with Angel is a bit hostile, but it's
> easy to imagine Season One Buffy in the same role, so that doesn't
> set off any warning bells.
Hostile? Here she shows her sadness, the one she hides with mean-ness in
the rest of the episode? Of course, Angel may have taken it as hostility.
> In
> fact, Xander puts his finger on the changes in her before I (and
> probably some of the audience) really did, which is how it should be.
Could you please use your time-machine to go back to when season 7 was
made, and explain them this? (OK. That counts as a meta-spoiler;-))
> And happily, the later scenes don't turn off the moral
> ambiguity. The trick with the cross... it's worrisome that Buffy's
> so comfortable with torture, but you can't knock it too much when
> it's such an effective way to get information fast, during a legit
> crisis.
It is a demon. It is not a human. It's not torture unless it is against
a human.
It is of bigger worry for the ep that it works, storyline-wise, methinks.
> As far as the character dynamics at the end, Buffy collapsing in tears
> after smashing up the bones seems, for my tastes, like a
> too-conventional way to end an unconventional story. On the other
> hand, her friends' "you _will_ laugh, damn you" bit at the very
> end is really quite sweet, and it's good that we don't actually get
> to hear the dialogue that actually does the trick (the funniest jokes
> remain untold).
I really enjoyed (and enjoy) this episode. "I hate that girl." Well
said, Mr. demon!
> Shorter takes:
>
> I'm hoping to see more scenes between Joyce and Hank in the future.
>
> A few nice directoral flourishes this week (one of them made it to the
> new opening credits), but also one of the show's worst examples so
> far of excessive darkness during a key fight scene. Do people not
> realize that if you don't put a light source of some kind in your
> shot, it's impossible to see what's going on?
It's too dark. But it is also very low-budget. On the other hand: the
cameramen are sober. Some shows think it gives extra action to hire
piss-drunk cameramen, shooting like they were out in a boat on open sea.
Now _thats_ annoying.
> The end credits mention a "Tara." I have no idea who that is,
> other than that her name pops up a lot in discussions of stuff I
> haven't seen yet (threads with spoilers about her in the subject
> line, that kind of thing). Was this the first appearance?
Not rhetorical? Ok: no.
> AOQ rating: Good
Understatement.
--
Espen
Daniel Damouth
news:1138630606....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these
> review threads.
> Having discussion-type scenes around lunch tables is a nice change
> of pace, especially with Giles as cola-swilling cafeteria man.
If you watch carefully you'll notice Giles reacting with alarmed
disgust to the taste (and I can't read the label, but it's not Coke).
The first time I saw WSWB, I didn't like seeing Buffy being mean. IME,
this is one of the episodes that improves markedly upon rewatching.
When you're not so worried about "where it's going" or "what to think".
There's so much goodness in this episode that goes by while you worry
about such things. So much dialogue to die for, such as Xander's "a
bitca?" and the whole "three Musketeers / three stooges" exchange. And
the emotional ride that Buffy goes through is what gets me. The
previous sentence applies to the whole series.
> It didn't fit into any other paragraph, but my absolute favorite
> line of the episode was Willow's "Well, what about the rest of the
> note... the part that says 'P.S., this is a trap?'"
Ah ha! You noticed a good line of dialogue. Excellent.
> One-sentence summary: Well, it certainly gets one's attention.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Bah.
-Dan Damouth
William George Ferguson
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
>(or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
>Writer: Joss Whedon
>Director: Joss Whedon
>
>Hi, guys. Miss me?
>
>This is going to be a bit of a tough one to write, since I'm still
>sorting out what I think of this episode. One thing is for certain,
>though: Buffy looked better as a brunette.
buffy is always a blonde, the shade just changes, sometimes between one
episode and the next (I think it's also been made clear that Buffy, like
SMG, is a bottle-blonde)
>
>After a rather lengthy recap, we start with Willow and Xander. Maybe I
>was a little spoiled by "Prophecy Girl," which actually seemed
>interested in doing something with the soap opera crap beyond
>"characters pining silently," since I did think they might actually
>get to kiss without being interrupted. This is the first real
>indication that Xander might return her affections. I don't much
>care for him apparently totally forgetting that fact once Buffy
>reappears. I can buy lifelong platonic friends (though maybe that's
>a TV Myth too), but I just don't see the kind of comfort level the
>two of them have coexisting with two-way sexual tension. They'd
>probably act about the same if they were dating anyway, so it
>wouldn't change the show too much (they already have the timing down;
>I got a real kick out of the idea that they regularly bring food for
>each other for some reason).
I took that (even though it was in Buffy's dream sequence, I took it for
standard Xander/Willow) more as what their respective parents sent them
to school with (Xander's mom, store bought junk food, Willow's mom,
healthy fruits and such)
>I did like Xander's unhesitating attempt to attack the vampire -
>points for effort, at least.
>
>Bones has been promoted from "Guest Star" to "Also Starring"
>now.
A completely unrelated comment, actually the forensic anthropologist,
Temperence Brennan (Deschanel's character) is the one known as Bones, not
the lantern-jawed FBI agent (Boreanaz' character)
>Having discussion-type scenes around lunch tables is a nice change of
>pace, especially with Giles as cola-swilling cafeteria man. And we all
>know that anyone from SHS who overheard the discussion would just
>forget anyway. It's a little disappointing that the strategy
>meetings end up going back to the library, although I guess having the
>books and computers nearby would be an advantage.
>
>One effective little scenelet is Cordelia's reaction-take to seeing
>Calendar unconscious. I bought the possibility that she might be dead,
>because this show has proven itself willing and able to do things like
>that.
>
>This is all backdrop, though (and a way to put off trying to talk about
>the heart of the show). "When She Was Bad" is almost entirely
>about Buffy, so let's discuss. Xander says that he's never seen
>her so mean, and while I'm not entirely sure I agree (she's had a
>few temper-tantrums before), it's definitely a change. The fact that
>we the audience are left in the dark about what's in her head for so
>long makes the episode feel a little out of control. We don't know
>where it's taking us; it looks like it'll probably be somewhere
>interesting, but it's hard to say.
It's odd, but I never had the slightest doubt what was wrong with Buffy.
Throughout the summer of 1997, I and others were saying "Buffy better not
come back all better". One strong thing about Buffy the series is that
actions have consequences. Buffy died. Most 16 year olds in the US tend
to not really believe in their own mortality. Buffy does now, all the
way down to the core of her soul. She now knows viscerally that she was
killed, and that she's going to be killed again, in the not too distant
future, violently and probably painfully. On a scale of one to ten, that
sucked.
About two weeks before WSWB aired, Joss Whedon in an interview about the
upcoming season, said that the show was going to be less about the
monsters and more about relationships, that we were going to see a kinder
and gentler Buffy. This was the first time most of us learned that Joss
Whedon lies like a rug. My online comment after seeing WSWB was that
there were dogs in the last stages of hydrophobia kinder and gentler than
Buffy in that episode.
No Star Trek(tm) Giant Reset Button here.
>Watching Buffy toy with Angel and Xander simultaneously is disturbing
>to watch,
For those keeping score at home, Angel, Xander, and Willow (keep in mind,
she knew how Willow feels about Xander when she started to dance with him
(hereinafter known as Buffydance Pt1).
>as is Cordelia coming off as more sensible than Buffy in the
>followup scene.
>But as an audience member, I didn't know quite what to think. On the
>one hand, the scenes were certainly effective, and of course everyone
>loves flawed heroes (or should, anyway). On the other, since Buffy's
>behavior hasn't been explained (at this point in the episode), it
>gives a "seriously, where are they going with this?" vibe that
>isn't so pleasant. I'm trying to figure out where the line is
>between "unpleasant to watch" and "uncomfortable, but for the
>right reasons" is, and I'm not quite able to assign the first half
>of WSWB firmly into either category. I found myself enjoying the show
>more after we get... well, it's not an explicit statement of what
>she's thinking, but it's enough information to let us put things
>I don't have much to say about the villains, especially since
>together.
And this may be why this is one of my favorite episodes. I came in
hoping that the emotional damage from Prophecy Girl wouldn't be ignored,
and fearing that it would. When I heard Hank and Joyce talk about her, I
was going 'Yes!'.
>
>Shorter takes:
>
>Did Mark Metcalf get credited for the non-speaking role? I didn't
>see his name. (Or did they just stick someone else under the makeup?)
It was Mark Metcalf, and my memory is that he was in the closing credits
rather than the opening guest star credits.
>I'm hoping to see more scenes between Joyce and Hank in the future.
>
>A few nice directoral flourishes this week (one of them made it to the
>new opening credits), but also one of the show's worst examples so
>far of excessive darkness during a key fight scene. Do people not
>realize that if you don't put a light source of some kind in your
>shot, it's impossible to see what's going on?
>
>The end credits mention a "Tara." I have no idea who that is,
>other than that her name pops up a lot in discussions of stuff I
>haven't seen yet (threads with spoilers about her in the subject
>line, that kind of thing). Was this the first appearance?
Not the same Tara as the one everyone talks about, just one of those
curious coinkydinks.
>It didn't fit into any other paragraph, but my absolute favorite line
>of the episode was Willow's "Well, what about the rest of the
>note... the part that says 'P.S., this is a trap?'"
>
>These reviews are getting longer.
>
>
>So....
>
>One-sentence summary: Well, it certainly gets one's attention.
>
>AOQ rating: Good
>
>[Season Two so far:
>1) "When She Was Bad" - Good]
Obviously I rated it far higher, but then that was because it allayed my
fears and met my expectations. (Plus Buffy's three-with-one-blow
backstab to the tune of Sugar Water)
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
rrh...@acme.com
William George Ferguson wrote:
> My online comment after seeing WSWB was that
> there were dogs in the last stages of hydrophobia kinder and gentler than
> Buffy in that episode.
Hmm... Are rabid dogs hydrophobic? I know that hydrophobia is a
symptom of rabies in humans, but does this manifest itself in all
mammals? It's completely irrelevant, of course, but I am curious.
Richard R. Hershberger
Carlos Moreno
Well, I was going to say...... ;-)
Carlos
--
Matthias Wolf
>Not the same Tara as the one everyone talks about, just one of those
>curious coinkydinks.
Another one of the loosely Tara-related "coinkydinks" comes from 1x03
Witch: The cheerleader on fire is called Amber and has a personal
coach by the name of Benson.
--
Matthias Wolf
jil...@hotmail.com
talking about the stories. Just you wait....
I did like this story.
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 Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Hi, guys. Miss me?
>
Yep.
<snip>
>
> I did like Xander's unhesitating attempt to attack the vampire -
> points for effort, at least.
You should by now be realising that Xander, for all his innumerable
faults, is capable of quite extraordinary physical courage.
>
> Speaking of going somewhere, is Snyder actually going to be part of any
> stories or just hang around doing broad comedy for the rest of the SHS
> years?
That would be telling :)
> I did enjoy parts of the first exchange with Giles,
> particularly Head's delivery when suggesting that maybe school
> principal isn't the best job for someone who despises kids.
>
> Bones has been promoted from "Guest Star" to "Also Starring"
> now. Angel's first scene made him seem really fundamentally shy,
> which might be a common side effect of eighty-whatever years of
> self-loathing. I'd never really gotten that vibe from the character
> before for some reason. But at the same time he seems more willing to
> involve himself in Slayer affairs than in Season One. Hmm.
>
> Having discussion-type scenes around lunch tables is a nice change of
> pace, especially with Giles as cola-swilling cafeteria man. And we all
> know that anyone from SHS who overheard the discussion would just
> forget anyway. It's a little disappointing that the strategy
> meetings end up going back to the library, although I guess having the
> books and computers nearby would be an advantage.
>
> One effective little scenelet is Cordelia's reaction-take to seeing
> Calendar unconscious. I bought the possibility that she might be dead,
> because this show has proven itself willing and able to do things like
> that.
>
> This is all backdrop, though (and a way to put off trying to talk about
> the heart of the show). "When She Was Bad" is almost entirely
> about Buffy, so let's discuss. Xander says that he's never seen
> her so mean, and while I'm not entirely sure I agree (she's had a
> few temper-tantrums before), it's definitely a change.
Hmmm. A tempter tantrum is not the same as being mean. She does a mean
impersonation of...oh no! That would be a spoiler.
> The fact that
> we the audience are left in the dark about what's in her head for so
> long makes the episode feel a little out of control. We don't know
> where it's taking us; it looks like it'll probably be somewhere
> interesting, but it's hard to say.
This is interesting 'cos I saw a similar grumble somewhere about the
latest Veronica Mars - that the viewer did not know what was going on
and that this was a sign of something wrong. Surely the point of a
mystery is to withhold and the only thing that counts is if the
resolution after 42-43 mins is convincing and not hopelessly
telegraphed? Surely you were supposed to *wonder* what was going on?
<snip>
>
> But as an audience member, I didn't know quite what to think. On the
> one hand, the scenes were certainly effective, and of course everyone
> loves flawed heroes (or should, anyway). On the other, since Buffy's
> behavior hasn't been explained (at this point in the episode), it
> gives a "seriously, where are they going with this?" vibe that
> isn't so pleasant.
See above
> I'm trying to figure out where the line is
> between "unpleasant to watch" and "uncomfortable, but for the
> right reasons" is, and I'm not quite able to assign the first half
> of WSWB firmly into either category.
Hmmm. Maybe. I thought Giles explained it quite clearly and at the right
moment.
<snip>
> One-sentence summary: Well, it certainly gets one's attention.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
>
> [Season Two so far:
> 1) "When She Was Bad" - Good]
You are in for such a treat. I suspect I'm not the only one who kinda
envies you.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Hi, guys. Miss me?
Yes. :)
>
>
> I did like Xander's unhesitating attempt to attack the vampire -
> points for effort, at least.
He does get an 'A' for effort here. The Willow/Xander moment was cute
but after *Prophecy Girl* I was a little thrown off by the lovey dovey
moment.
>
> Speaking of going somewhere, is Snyder actually going to be part of any
> stories or just hang around doing broad comedy for the rest of the SHS
> years? I did enjoy parts of the first exchange with Giles,
> particularly Head's delivery when suggesting that maybe school
> principal isn't the best job for someone who despises kids.
Snyder. He really hates kids. It's what makes him so fun as the principal.
>
> Bones has been promoted from "Guest Star" to "Also Starring"
> now. Angel's first scene made him seem really fundamentally shy,
> which might be a common side effect of eighty-whatever years of
> self-loathing. I'd never really gotten that vibe from the character
> before for some reason. But at the same time he seems more willing to
> involve himself in Slayer affairs than in Season One. Hmm.
Yes. Hmmm.
>
> One plus is that the New Buffy is introduced gradually. We've seen
> her act casual about vampire threats before, so the indifference
> isn't new. The bedroom scene with Angel is a bit hostile, but it's
> easy to imagine Season One Buffy in the same role, so that doesn't
> set off any warning bells. Buffy's treatment of Cordelia is the
> first sign that something's wrong, and it's subtle given that
> we've seen the other heroes diss her often enough, and that the scene
> is played mostly for laughs ("now _that_ was a good insult"). In
> fact, Xander puts his finger on the changes in her before I (and
> probably some of the audience) really did, which is how it should be.
> Watching Buffy toy with Angel and Xander simultaneously is disturbing
> to watch, as is Cordelia coming off as more sensible than Buffy in the
> followup scene.
I did love the the scene in the Alley. Buffy was really pushing
everyone's buttons, wasn't she?
>
>
> The end credits mention a "Tara." I have no idea who that is,
> other than that her name pops up a lot in discussions of stuff I
> haven't seen yet (threads with spoilers about her in the subject
> line, that kind of thing). Was this the first appearance?
Nope.
>
> It didn't fit into any other paragraph, but my absolute favorite line
> of the episode was Willow's "Well, what about the rest of the
> note... the part that says 'P.S., this is a trap?'"
>
> These reviews are getting longer.
>
>
> So....
>
> One-sentence summary: Well, it certainly gets one's attention.
Yes, it definitely does. Thanks for continuing with the reviews. I'm
hoping you will get a real kick out of Season 2.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Agreed. Mostly because some later episodes will surely get an
'excellent' and maybe even higher rating. :)
Carlos Moreno
>>Not the same Tara as the one everyone talks about, just one of those
>>curious coinkydinks.
>
> Another one of the loosely Tara-related "coinkydinks" comes from 1x03
> Witch: The cheerleader on fire is called Amber and has a personal
> coach by the name of Benson.
Hush, kids!!! AOQ doesn't want to be spoiled about the future
of the series!! (no pun intended -- you know where ;-))
Carlos
--
kenm47
TWICE with vanilla ice cream on her nose, with continuity and growth of
the main character and the supporting cast as well.
Let's not forget that this was a second season opener, and for those of
us already baited and hooked and having tried to sell our friends on
what a special show this was on this "WB" thing, the episode did not
disappoint. Would it hook someone who had missed S1 and was tiptoeing
in? I don't know. If I hadn't been there from S1E1, I think I would
have made room on my viewing schedule from then on.
And yes, I did miss her and was glad to have her back.
Brilliant head fake with The Master and all. Like I said, with PG I
personally figured it was over because among other things our Big Bad
is gone. Suddenly it looks like he'll be back, pushing us into a
certain TV viewing comfort zone, and then Joss pulls the rug out yet
again.
Well, the ME message was quite clear: fasten your seat belts it's going
to be a bumpy ride. BTW, did you notice that DB's vamp face was a tad
less scary than S1?
I thought SMG looked great. Possibly her best looking season.
The only reason not to call this episode "Excellent" would be a
sneaking suspicion things are going to go so off the scale that where
do you go if that's where you start.
A couple of other things: again, great stunt work, and also great use
of music from Allison Krauss to Cibo Matto to the original stuff now
working it's way in from Christophe Beck. And no, that's not "Tara."
Enjoy!
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I took that (even though it was in Buffy's dream sequence, I took it for
> standard Xander/Willow) more as what their respective parents sent them
> to school with (Xander's mom, store bought junk food, Willow's mom,
> healthy fruits and such)
I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch. It could be driven by
what they have lying around the house, though, so they've worked out
their little exchange program.
> >Bones has been promoted from "Guest Star" to "Also Starring"
> >now.
>
> A completely unrelated comment, actually the forensic anthropologist,
> Temperence Brennan (Deschanel's character) is the one known as Bones, not
> the lantern-jawed FBI agent (Boreanaz' character)
Ah. That oughtta learn me to make quips incorporating shows I'm not
actually familiar with, ah tell you whut.
> About two weeks before WSWB aired, Joss Whedon in an interview about the
> upcoming season, said that the show was going to be less about the
> monsters and more about relationships, that we were going to see a kinder
> and gentler Buffy. This was the first time most of us learned that Joss
> Whedon lies like a rug. My online comment after seeing WSWB was that
> there were dogs in the last stages of hydrophobia kinder and gentler than
> Buffy in that episode.
Amuse'd.
In response to the other response, I believe that all animals have this
response
> No Star Trek(tm) Giant Reset Button here.
Interesting that you'd say that. Because, as I'll soon elaborate
(trade secret: I'm a few episodes past this one right now. I've taken
to building up a backlog of reviews so I can keep posting them at a
steady rate [and make sure each episode gets the discussion it
deserves] however busy things get), one of my biggest problems with the
first few episodes of S2 is that they take the ending of WSWB to be a
reset button. I'd be a lot happier with the show right now if it were
following in the mold of this episode. Well, there's still plenty of
season left, I guess...
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> This is interesting 'cos I saw a similar grumble somewhere about the
> latest Veronica Mars - that the viewer did not know what was going on
> and that this was a sign of something wrong. Surely the point of a
> mystery is to withhold and the only thing that counts is if the
> resolution after 42-43 mins is convincing and not hopelessly
> telegraphed? Surely you were supposed to *wonder* what was going on?
That's a valid point. I think the disconnect comes from being right
there with Buffy and knowing what she's going through in "Prophecy
Girl," and then suddenly seeing this stranger on screen. What's going
through Buffy's mind was rarely a big mystery in S1, and now... I
think what really needs to be done in this kind of show (WSWB does it a
little bit) is to give the message "Yes, we know this is weird, but
it'll all make sense if you pay attention."
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In response to the other response, I believe that all animals have this
> response
Didn't finish the thought. I think all rabid mammals get hydrophobic,
and am a little ashamed to not know for sure. I'm sure a search of the
NHI or the Center For Disease Control websites would shed light on the
matter.
-AOQ
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
It didn't seem like a big mystery to me what was going through Buffy's
head. Giles pins it too, when he says at about the half way point: "She
may simply have what you Americans refer to as 'issues.' Her experience
with the Master must have been extremely traumatic. She was, for at
least a few minutes, technically dead. I don't think she's dealt with
that on a conscious level."
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
One Bit Shy
news:1138630606....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Hi, guys. Miss me?
LOL (Where's the quotes?)
I like that moment a lot too.
> In any case, I really think it's time
> to pull the trigger on this thing, one way or the other.
>
> Oh, I also don't like the TV rule that whether or not two people end
> up getting together is determined purely by whether or not they're
> interrupted at a Certain Moment which only happens once every six
> months. Basically, me no likee the bad soap opera, especially coming
> on the heels of the good soap opera we saw in "Prophecy Girl."
Well, the opening was mainly a construct to welcome viewers back to a new
season while quickly reminding everybody what it's all about. Life's
moments being interrupted by vampire attacks being a big part of that. (And
letting Joss show off his craft by showing the first vampire with a reveal
shot - the first of several such shots in this episode. I thought it was
nicely framed.) Leading up to Buffy's, "Hi, guys." <slay vampire> "Miss
me?" Just kicking off the season with a cocky moment. Though the sweet ice
cream on the nose moment also served (nicely IMO) to set up a later scene.
> I did like Xander's unhesitating attempt to attack the vampire -
> points for effort, at least.
>
> Speaking of going somewhere, is Snyder actually going to be part of any
> stories or just hang around doing broad comedy for the rest of the SHS
> years? I did enjoy parts of the first exchange with Giles,
> particularly Head's delivery when suggesting that maybe school
> principal isn't the best job for someone who despises kids.
I was amused by that whole sequence. The locust ramble. Punctuality.
Talking to himself. I also relate to the conversation quite a bit. I
always felt that my own high school principal had gotten himself trapped in
the wrong career because over time he'd come to loathe kids.
> Bones has been promoted from "Guest Star" to "Also Starring"
> now. Angel's first scene made him seem really fundamentally shy,
> which might be a common side effect of eighty-whatever years of
> self-loathing. I'd never really gotten that vibe from the character
> before for some reason.
I thought it was a little inconsistant Season 1, but it did show up. Some
of his man of few words moments I think were his version of being tongue
tied around Buffy. He only talked business because he couldn't talk
anything else.
> But at the same time he seems more willing to
> involve himself in Slayer affairs than in Season One. Hmm.
>
> Having discussion-type scenes around lunch tables is a nice change of
> pace, especially with Giles as cola-swilling cafeteria man.
One of my all time favorite Giles moments when he momentarily stares with
disgust at the can as if asking himself what swill this is that he's pouring
down his throat. A small pleasure, I admit, but lasting for me.
> And we all
> know that anyone from SHS who overheard the discussion would just
> forget anyway. It's a little disappointing that the strategy
> meetings end up going back to the library, although I guess having the
> books and computers nearby would be an advantage.
>
> One effective little scenelet is Cordelia's reaction-take to seeing
> Calendar unconscious. I bought the possibility that she might be dead,
> because this show has proven itself willing and able to do things like
> that.
>
> This is all backdrop, though (and a way to put off trying to talk about
> the heart of the show). "When She Was Bad" is almost entirely
> about Buffy, so let's discuss. Xander says that he's never seen
> her so mean, and while I'm not entirely sure I agree (she's had a
> few temper-tantrums before), it's definitely a change. The fact that
> we the audience are left in the dark about what's in her head for so
> long makes the episode feel a little out of control. We don't know
> where it's taking us; it looks like it'll probably be somewhere
> interesting, but it's hard to say.
>
> One plus is that the New Buffy is introduced gradually.
Sort of. I encourage you to watch the first scene after the credits again.
Her attitude gets layed out there (and the connection to the Master) in
words and facial expressions right off the bat. Perhaps not meant for you
to understand right away. (Maybe to rediscover later.) But it's there.
> We've seen
> her act casual about vampire threats before, so the indifference
> isn't new. The bedroom scene with Angel is a bit hostile, but it's
> easy to imagine Season One Buffy in the same role, so that doesn't
> set off any warning bells. Buffy's treatment of Cordelia is the
> first sign that something's wrong, and it's subtle given that
> we've seen the other heroes diss her often enough, and that the scene
> is played mostly for laughs ("now _that_ was a good insult"). In
> fact, Xander puts his finger on the changes in her before I (and
> probably some of the audience) really did, which is how it should be.
Xander recognizes the insult. Willow recognizes the change. But your
general point is good. I hadn't thought of that.
> Watching Buffy toy with Angel and Xander simultaneously is disturbing
> to watch,
Sure is. I still squirm watching it. But it connects. I really feel for
how uncomfortable it had to have been for Xander.
Did you notice how nicely filmed and synched in with the music that scene
was? And did you by any chance contrast the starting shot of Buffy focused
on her shoes and dress with the similar shot in Phrophecy Girl? I think
Joss is showing off again in this scene.
> as is Cordelia coming off as more sensible than Buffy in the
> followup scene.
>
> But as an audience member, I didn't know quite what to think. On the
> one hand, the scenes were certainly effective, and of course everyone
> loves flawed heroes (or should, anyway). On the other, since Buffy's
> behavior hasn't been explained (at this point in the episode), it
> gives a "seriously, where are they going with this?" vibe that
> isn't so pleasant. I'm trying to figure out where the line is
> between "unpleasant to watch" and "uncomfortable, but for the
> right reasons" is, and I'm not quite able to assign the first half
> of WSWB firmly into either category. I found myself enjoying the show
> more after we get... well, it's not an explicit statement of what
> she's thinking, but it's enough information to let us put things
> together. And happily, the later scenes don't turn off the moral
> ambiguity. The trick with the cross... it's worrisome that Buffy's
> so comfortable with torture, but you can't knock it too much when
> it's such an effective way to get information fast, during a legit
> crisis. We understand her violent anger during the big fight scene,
> but we don't so much like her turning into a killing machine. This
> is good stuff.
I agree.
> Going back to mid-episode for a moment... Cordelia can't smack any
> sense into the Slayer. Xander has a good moment where he looks like
> he'll be the next one to try after her unjustified insult to Giles
> (isn't it nice when the writers remember that sense can trump
> hormones once in awhile?). For once, a script-mandated interruption
> of a pivotal scene actually works, so we continue to put off addressing
> the problem (and Xander will still get to do his "I officially
> don't care" speech a little later). How about the fact that what
> finally forces the issue is irony? Buffy's attempt to push everyone
> else out of her world ends up almost getting her friends killed.
> There's no innocence or safety on the Hellmouth, so our group pretty
> much has to stick together by default.
I'm not sure I like Xander blurting that he'll kill her if anything happens
to Willow. But he didn't ask my opinion. <g>
> As far as the character dynamics at the end, Buffy collapsing in tears
> after smashing up the bones seems, for my tastes, like a
> too-conventional way to end an unconventional story. On the other
> hand, her friends' "you _will_ laugh, damn you" bit at the very
> end is really quite sweet, and it's good that we don't actually get
> to hear the dialogue that actually does the trick (the funniest jokes
> remain untold).
Interesting. The former worked for me (a moment of release), while the
latter didn't so much. (Though Xander's we did that last night line was
good. A nice way of saying he understands and they can move on.)
> I don't have much to say about the villains, especially since
> they're less threatening than Psycho Slayer and most of them end up
> dead (SF/F shows always kill off their black guys). BTVS has been one
> of those shows where the heroes are invariably more interesting than
> the villains anyway. But there're some nice subverted expectations
> in there - Absalom seems set up to become a long-term character, but
> that doesn't happen. And of course, need I mention the episode
> teasing the return of the Master for almost the whole hour, and then
> not delivering? Now it seems more likely than ever that he's gone
> for good.
I think the important subtext of the show was to recast the demise of the
Master to have different meaning than it did in Phrophecy Girl. I assume
that's because the prior ending had too much finality for the Buffy
character to effectively build upon. This added twist returns vulnerability
to her role, makes her take a step back so that she has somewhere forward to
go again. Nicely done IMO, because it doesn't exactly deny what happened
last season - just reveals consequences not seen in the flush of victory.
> Shorter takes:
>
> Did Mark Metcalf get credited for the non-speaking role? I didn't
> see his name. (Or did they just stick someone else under the makeup?)
>
> I'm hoping to see more scenes between Joyce and Hank in the future.
>
> A few nice directoral flourishes this week (one of them made it to the
> new opening credits), but also one of the show's worst examples so
> far of excessive darkness during a key fight scene. Do people not
> realize that if you don't put a light source of some kind in your
> shot, it's impossible to see what's going on?
>
> The end credits mention a "Tara." I have no idea who that is,
> other than that her name pops up a lot in discussions of stuff I
> haven't seen yet (threads with spoilers about her in the subject
> line, that kind of thing). Was this the first appearance?
>
> It didn't fit into any other paragraph, but my absolute favorite line
> of the episode was Willow's "Well, what about the rest of the
> note... the part that says 'P.S., this is a trap?'"
>
> These reviews are getting longer.
>
>
> So....
>
> One-sentence summary: Well, it certainly gets one's attention.
> AOQ rating: Good
>
> [Season Two so far:
> 1) "When She Was Bad" - Good]
>
I'm glad you got me to watch this episode critically again. In many
respects it's not a stand out episode. Doesn't have a really big story or
particularly memorable monsters. But I think it's well crafted and acted
and effectively handles some necessary adjustments for starting a new season
following the conclusive end of the prior season. It's impressive in its
fashion. I'd consider it for excellent myself.
OBS
Apteryx
news:1138675130.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Well, there's still plenty of
> season left, I guess...
Never a truer word...
Season 2 has 4 of my Top Ten BtVS episodes (and a 5th in 11th place), yet
overall, it is only about the same standard as Seasons 1 & 3 (neither of
which have any Top Ten episodes). So naturally it has more weak episodes
than they do, to bring its average down from what its great episodes would
otherwise manage.
I'd rate WSWB as better than Good (Excellent for dialogue and character
development, but the plot is only fair, and the cinematography pretty poor),
and much better than most of the episodes that immediately follow, but it is
a long way short of some that are ahead (it's my 28th best BtVS episode
overall, 7th best in Season 2).
--
Apteryx
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> This is going to be a bit of a tough one to write, since I'm still
> sorting out what I think of this episode.
Heh. That fairly well sums up the immediate reaction to the episode
when it first aired. Years later, people were still arguing about what
was going on in Buffy's head in this ep. It's usually considered a
good ep, but one that's a little hard to really love, and rarely makes
it onto Best Ever lists.
On the other
> hand, her friends' "you _will_ laugh, damn you" bit at the very
> end is really quite sweet, and it's good that we don't actually get
> to hear the dialogue that actually does the trick (the funniest jokes
> remain untold).
A lot of people hated that ending, calling it "90210-ish." But I've
always loved it, right down to the bouncy music. This ep marked the
debut of Christophe Beck as composer, by the way. He more-or-less
alternated eps with the team of Shawn Clement and Sean Murray. Beck
happened to get most of the key emotional eps. Whether by design or
happy accident I don't know. Anyway, the sad piano theme while Buffy
smashes up the Master's bones is a typical Beck theme. There will be
many more, so if you hated that part of the score, you've been warned.
[grin]
> A few nice directoral flourishes this week (one of them made it to the
> new opening credits), but also one of the show's worst examples so
> far of excessive darkness during a key fight scene. Do people not
> realize that if you don't put a light source of some kind in your
> shot, it's impossible to see what's going on?
Heh. I like to say that DP Michael Gershman didn't light scenes, he
darked them. My pet theory is that he secretly wanted to be doing b&w
noir films. It didn't always work well during the first two seasons,
when they filmed on Super 16mm.
> The end credits mention a "Tara." I have no idea who that is,
> other than that her name pops up a lot in discussions of stuff I
> haven't seen yet (threads with spoilers about her in the subject
> line, that kind of thing). Was this the first appearance?
No. Just a name cooincidence.
-- Mike Zeares
John Briggs
> William George Ferguson wrote:
>
>> No Star Trek(tm) Giant Reset Button here.
>
> Interesting that you'd say that. Because, as I'll soon elaborate
> (trade secret: I'm a few episodes past this one right now. I've taken
> to building up a backlog of reviews so I can keep posting them at a
> steady rate [and make sure each episode gets the discussion it
> deserves] however busy things get), one of my biggest problems with
> the first few episodes of S2 is that they take the ending of WSWB to
> be a reset button. I'd be a lot happier with the show right now if
> it were following in the mold of this episode. Well, there's still
> plenty of season left, I guess...
Actually, WSWB itself was the reset button. Joss does this in the first one
or two episodes of a season. They have been called 'adjustment' episodes.
I think the object of the exercise is to set the tone for the season,
covering up the change of direction from the previous one. More
justifiably, they have been explained (away) as dealing with how Buffy's
changed circumstances change her relationship with her friends - but the
criticism is that this is done in an artificial way to make a heavy-handed
point.
--
John Briggs
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
But if you pay attention it will make sense anyway ;-).
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > I can buy lifelong platonic friends (though maybe that's
> > a TV Myth too)
>
> I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I am a heterosexual male and my
> best friend is a heterosexual female. We have known each other for
> about fifteen years, which isn't exactly "lifelong" since we are both
> in our early forties, but it isn't exactly a fleeting moment, either.
> We initially dated, but found that we ended up standing in parking lots
> screaming at each other. So we broke up, but (to our surprise) ended
> up as platonic best friends. We make great friends and terrible
> lovers: it does happen. People who know us both, but didn't when we
> were dating, respond to the fact of our having dated with an "eeeuw"
> reaction, because it is like brother and sister dating. Truthfully, we
> kind of have that reaction too. She was, by the way, my best man (uh,
> best person?) at my wedding. So I have no problem with the idea of
> platonic friends, though I will grant it being less probable if they
> are in the raging hormones stage of life.
It's always nice to know that can happen in life, since I like that
particular convention.
-AOQ
Eric Hunter
> On 30.01.2006 15:16, Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
>> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
>> And happily, the later scenes don't turn off the moral
>> ambiguity. The trick with the cross... it's worrisome that
>> Buffy's so comfortable with torture, but you can't knock
>> it too much when it's such an effective way to get
>> information fast, during a legit crisis.
>
> It is a demon. It is not a human. It's not torture unless it
> is against a human.
While this is a concept the current US administration has
trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
is still torturing.
Eric.
--
shuggie
Mike Zeares wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >
> On the other
> > hand, her friends' "you _will_ laugh, damn you" bit at the very
> > end is really quite sweet, and it's good that we don't actually get
> > to hear the dialogue that actually does the trick (the funniest jokes
> > remain untold).
>
> A lot of people hated that ending, calling it "90210-ish." But I've
> always loved it, right down to the bouncy music.
Indeed. I love it too. Much later on, at the end of Season 6, Jane
Espenson said (editted for spoilage):
"I think Buffy can tend to be harsh... And her friends
forgive her because they are good people and she has
the hardest job in the world."
I think of that when I see the end of WSWB now. Buffy may do the actual
Slaying but to have such support makes her much more powerful. And it's
just kind of moving to see such bonding.
shuggie
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> Hi, guys. Miss me?
>
We soldiered on.
Most people have hit the issues I would have apart from:
> I did like Xander's unhesitating attempt to attack the vampire -
> points for effort, at least.
>
And standing up to Buffy. Xander's not without backbone even if he is
without super-powers.
> Speaking of going somewhere, is Snyder actually going to be part of any
> stories or just hang around doing broad comedy for the rest of the SHS
> years?
Duu-ude! I thought we had a deal?
>I did enjoy parts of the first exchange with Giles,
> particularly Head's delivery when suggesting that maybe school
> principal isn't the best job for someone who despises kids.
>
Heh. For a long time I had as a sig:
Snyder: "There're some things I can just smell. It's like a sixth
sense."
Giles: "No, actually that would be one of the five."
:)
Eric Hunter
Yes, rabies was, at one time, referred to as hydrophobia,
because it is a classic symptom.
Eric.
--
kenm47
I disagree. Torturing an evil, evil thing, as season 2 Buffy vampires
(except Angel) were, is fine. Those vampires were the perfect PC
villains - purely evil husk-sitters, looking only to feed and destroy
the "human" world, any race, any gender. It really did not matter what
happened to any of them. Dust is dust, and walking talking dust in the
Buffy-verse was dangerous and needed to be reduced to its resting
state.
IMO, of course.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
Which is one of the main gripes about what has gone on before in WSWB. Her
friends know what she has gone through, so should have been making allowance
for that.
--
John Briggs
Carlos Moreno
>>What's going
>>through Buffy's mind was rarely a big mystery in S1
Some time in the future (no, don't worry, what I'm going to
say can not possibly be considered a spoiler), you will hear
Giles saying the following to Buffy:
"(...) it might as well be the eternal mystery that is
your brain (...)"
:-)
Carlos
--
kenm47
Her
friends know what she has gone through, so should have been making
allowance
for that."
IMO, Willow was, in the "PS, it's a trap" snap her out of it sense.
Giles was as well with the "issues" statement.
Xander was less so, always confusing his lusts with his sense of honor.
Only later, at the end of the rescue does he get his hormones back
under control.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Eric Hunter
> Eric Hunter wrote:
>> Espen Schjønberg wrote:
>>> On 30.01.2006 15:16, Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these
>>>> review threads.
>>>>
>>>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>>> Season Two, Episode 1: "When She Was Bad"
>>>> (or "Don't know where we're gong, but we're on our way")
>>
>>>> And happily, the later scenes don't turn off the moral
>>>> ambiguity. The trick with the cross... it's worrisome that
>>>> Buffy's so comfortable with torture, but you can't knock
>>>> it too much when it's such an effective way to get
>>>> information fast, during a legit crisis.
>>>
>>> It is a demon. It is not a human. It's not torture unless it
>>> is against a human.
>>
>> While this is a concept the current US administration has
>> trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
>> the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
>> is still torturing.
>
> (except Angel) were, is fine. Those vampires were the perfect PC
> villains - purely evil husk-sitters, looking only to feed and destroy
> the "human" world, any race, any gender. It really did not matter what
> happened to any of them. Dust is dust, and walking talking dust in the
> Buffy-verse was dangerous and needed to be reduced to its resting
> state. IMO, of course.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process
he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough
into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." - Friedrich
Nietzsche. Dusting the vamp isn't the problem. Torturing
the vamp for information is. To me, this is another example
of Buffy being "Bad". Torture is, by definition, an evil act,
whether it is a kid torturing an animal, the CIA torturing an
Iraqi insurgent, a Monster-of-the-Week torturing one of the
Scoobies, or Buffy torturing a vampire.
Eric.
--
kenm47
of Buffy being "Bad". Torture is, by definition, an evil act,
whether it is a kid torturing an animal, the CIA torturing an
Iraqi insurgent, a Monster-of-the-Week torturing one of the
Scoobies, or Buffy torturing a vampire."
I never thought of it that "bad" way here. Maybe you're onto something.
Personally, at the time it did not bother me for reasons previously
stated. Briefly, but for Angel I accepted fully that the vamps were
purely human soulless evil incapable of any form of redemption. Dust
was too good for them.
I guess I'll think about it further as the rewatching continues for any
hint of similar vamp torture later.
Ken (Brooklyn)
vague disclaimer
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
But that's just about learning isn't it? This is still new territory for
them. Before, they may have been aware of how hard her calling was, but
they had no real concept of how deeply it had cut her. After getting an
all too graphic picture of just how much was bottled up, they understood.
Then they did exactly the right thing: let her come to them, saved her a
seat - and moved on.
I think this scene is echoed time and again - in more or less subtle and
indirect ways - throughout the series.
John Briggs
Usually the first or second episode of the season.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Either that, or it's such a normal component of American culture that nobody
noticed.
--
John Briggs
Carlos Moreno
>>>While this is a concept the current US administration has
>>>trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
>>>the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
>>>is still torturing.
>
> "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process
> he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough
> into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." - Friedrich
> Nietzsche. Dusting the vamp isn't the problem. Torturing
> the vamp for information is. To me, this is another example
> of Buffy being "Bad". Torture is, by definition, an evil act,
> whether it is a kid torturing an animal, the CIA torturing an
> Iraqi insurgent, a Monster-of-the-Week torturing one of the
> Scoobies, or Buffy torturing a vampire.
Can not agree more.
Actually, with the "kids torturing an animal" there's probably
a blurry line in there -- a child hasn't necessarily developed
the skills to judge that it is an "evil" act. So, it's an
extremely unfortunate act that comes as a consequence of the
inability to see things in perspective and realize that the
act is deplorable. But I agree with the principle of listing
it as examples of "torture being unconditionally questionable
and evil".
Carlos
--
shuggie
John Briggs wrote:
Well that's not one of my gripes (of which I few about WSWB). Actually
it was kind of my point that they don't initially make allowances. I
don't agree that they "should" have been. They're not saints. Even
given what they know about what she's been through, most people
wouldn't take the crap bitca-Buffy was handing out. Cordy's speech
outside the Bronze basically makes that point. I mean leaving aside the
dirty-dancing incident I don't think Xander's wrong when he says that
she literally risked all their lives by going off on her own. It
actually speaks to the level of friendship that exists that they get to
the forgiveness stage at all. That's what that scene's about and that's
why I love it.
Naq nf lbh xabj, gur vqrn gung Ohssl'f erny fgeratgu vf gur fhccbeg bs
ure sevraqf vf ba bs gur erpheevat gurzrf bs gur fubj. (rot-13)
david serafini
> William George Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>>I took that (even though it was in Buffy's dream sequence, I took it for
>>standard Xander/Willow) more as what their respective parents sent them
>>to school with (Xander's mom, store bought junk food, Willow's mom,
>>healthy fruits and such)
>
>
> I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
> the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
> sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch. It could be driven by
> what they have lying around the house, though, so they've worked out
> their little exchange program.
No, no, no. This is _classic_ Joss, playing with convention
by giving away the secret to the observant viewer before the
big reveal, undermining the surprise.
This scene is a dream, but the viewer doesn't know that going in,
and the script doesn't give it away until Giles attacks Buffy.
*But*, the exchange of food is _wrong_ for those characters. Xander
wouldn't give up his candy
and Willow would keep the fruit (who packed the
lunch is irrelevant). So this is Joss way of giving a little
hint to anyone
paying close attention that this scene isn't what it appears to
be. Joss loves doing stuff like this.
-dbs
vague disclaimer
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
rot-13
Naq, bs pbhefr, va frnfba frira vg vf erirefrq, rknpgyl nf vg fubhyq or.
"V tbg fb zhpu fgeratgu, V'z tvivat vg njnl."
kenm47
and the script doesn't give it away until Giles attacks Buffy.
*But*, the exchange of food is _wrong_ for those characters. Xander
wouldn't give up his candy
and Willow would keep the fruit (who packed the
lunch is irrelevant). So this is Joss way of giving a little
hint to anyone
paying close attention that this scene isn't what it appears to
be. Joss loves doing stuff like this.
-dbs"
Very insightful. Seriously. It's that kind of thought that keeps me
coming back here to see what others have to say.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Espen Schjønberg
> "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process
> he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough
> into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." - Friedrich
> Nietzsche. Dusting the vamp isn't the problem. Torturing
> the vamp for information is. To me, this is another example
> of Buffy being "Bad". Torture is, by definition, an evil act,
> whether it is a kid torturing an animal, the CIA torturing an
> Iraqi insurgent, a Monster-of-the-Week torturing one of the
> Scoobies, or Buffy torturing a vampire.
I am an european myself, as you probably has figured out;-) , so my
upbringing on torture are quit different than the one americans has got.
Here, torture are the kind of stuff you can recognize a bad guy by.
Wait with this to the reviewer reaches the first episode where torture
of humans are depicted as great fun, if such episodes exist.
OK?
--
Espen
Scott Lurndal
>
>Eric Hunter wrote:
What purpose does torture serve, here? Simply dust 'em and
be done with it.
Torture is torture, the subject notwithstanding.
scott
Eric Hunter
I listed it because a childhood history of torturing animals
is very common for serial killers, along with arson and
bedwetting beyond age 10 (the McDonald or Homicide
Triad).
Eric.
--
John Briggs
It's no good, the ROT-13 unscramble has stopped working on my browser :-)
--
John Briggs
Stephen Tempest
>Naq nf lbh xabj, gur vqrn gung Ohssl'f erny fgeratgu vf gur fhccbeg bs
>ure sevraqf vf ba bs gur erpheevat gurzrf bs gur fubj. (rot-13)
Just as an aside, one of the effects of these AoQ review threads is
that I've seen so much ROT-13 recently, I can recognise the name
Ohssl without having to decode it. :)
Stephen
William George Ferguson
The thing is, it has nothing to do with the worthiness of the subject of
the torture, it has to do with what engaging in torture does to, and says
about, the participant. Putting a crucifix down the throat of a vampire
is a wrong thing to do, just as pulling the wings off of flys is. Nobody
sane should think that a fly is worthy of special consideration, but most
people will agree that kids who will pull the wings off of flies for fun
are probably restrained from doing similar actions to humans only by fear
of reprisal.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Shuggie
>
> I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
> the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
> sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch.
Really? REALLY?? You never knew a 16-yr-old a) lazy and b) indulged by
their parents?
--
Shuggie
William George Ferguson
>Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
>> the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
>> sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch.
>
>Really? REALLY?? You never knew a 16-yr-old a) lazy and b) indulged by
>their parents?
Plus, while it can be a little bit of a stretch for Xander, it was
established in the series premiere that Willow's mother still dresses her
(well, picks out her clothes).
vague disclaimer
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Ah well, you'll just have to spend the rest of your life wondering then
(or learn to read 13 places displaced) :).
Don Sample
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
> > the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
> > sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch.
>
> Really? REALLY?? You never knew a 16-yr-old a) lazy and b) indulged by
> their parents?
But we're talking about Xander and Willow's parents here.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Daniel Damouth
ULeR...@comcast.com:
> While this is a concept the current US administration has
> trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
> the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
> is still torturing.
So, is it better to (a) let Giles, Jenny, Cordelia, and Willow bleed to
death upside down, or (b) torture one of the creatures responsible,
that you're going to kill anyway? What's your choice?
-Dan Damouth
Eric Hunter
Can I be sure that the torture victim will tell me the
truth, and not just tell me her old boyfriend's address
to end the pain? If she lies, and I stake her, the time
I spent torturing her could have been better spent
searching, couldn't it?
Eric.
--
Don Sample
"Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
Which is why you let the torturee know that you're going to keep them
alive until after you've confirmed that the information they've given
you is true.
Stephen Tempest
>In article <0h15b3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de>,
> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>
>> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
>> > the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
>> > sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch.
>>
>> Really? REALLY?? You never knew a 16-yr-old a) lazy and b) indulged by
>> their parents?
>
>But we're talking about Xander and Willow's parents here.
For some reason, I'm moved to say "She packed her own lunches and wore
floods."... Although I have to say I don't know what 'floods' are -
soime kind of clothing, obviously, from the context?
Stephen
Don Sample
Stephen Tempest <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Pants that don't go all the way down to your ankles. The cuffs don't
get wet if there's a minor flood.
vague disclaimer
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
The you had better be a very skilled torturer, with years of practice.
'Cos most people wouldn't know how *not* to kill someone they were
trying to hurt (Even a vamp, given their famously variable flammability/
dissolveability/ heart positioning).
Daniel Damouth
> Daniel Damouth wrote:
>> "Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote in
>> news:w8KdnT-jc-s0- ULeR...@comcast.com:
>>
>>> While this is a concept the current US administration has
>>> trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
>>> the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
>>> is still torturing.
>>
>> So, is it better to (a) let Giles, Jenny, Cordelia, and Willow
>> bleed to death upside down, or (b) torture one of the creatures
>> responsible, that you're going to kill anyway? What's your
>> choice?
>
> Can I be sure that the torture victim will tell me the
> truth, and not just tell me her old boyfriend's address
> to end the pain?
Well, this is all happening in a fantasy universe in which torture
works. I consider many of the arguments against all torture to be
somewhat iffy, but the best argument (IMO) is that it doesn't work.
-Dan Damouth
Don Sample
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
Vamps are easy. Holy water applied externally, and crosses burn,
causing great pain, without doing any permanent damage. In fact, as
long as you avoid wood trough the heart, and fire, you can pretty much
do anything to them without killing them. Use a steel knife, and as long
as you don't chop off their heads, you can stab and chop to your heart's
content.
Ian Galbraith
> William George Ferguson wrote:
[snip]
>> No Star Trek(tm) Giant Reset Button here.
> Interesting that you'd say that. Because, as I'll soon elaborate
> (trade secret: I'm a few episodes past this one right now. I've taken
> to building up a backlog of reviews so I can keep posting them at a
> steady rate [and make sure each episode gets the discussion it
> deserves] however busy things get), one of my biggest problems with the
> first few episodes of S2 is that they take the ending of WSWB to be a
> reset button. I'd be a lot happier with the show right now if it were
> following in the mold of this episode. Well, there's still plenty of
> season left, I guess...
Buffy gets over her specific behavioural issues here pretty quickly, but
this doesn't make it a reset button it just means its more compressed than
it perhaps should realistically be. And not to spoil anything but the
issues raised about what her role as a slayer means regarding her life
aren't finished.
--
You Can't Stop The Signal
Don Sample
Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> "Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote in
> news:zI2dnQ35F7l...@comcast.com:
>
> > Daniel Damouth wrote:
> >> "Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote in
> >> news:w8KdnT-jc-s0- ULeR...@comcast.com:
> >>
> >>> While this is a concept the current US administration has
> >>> trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
> >>> the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
> >>> is still torturing.
> >>
> >> So, is it better to (a) let Giles, Jenny, Cordelia, and Willow
> >> bleed to death upside down, or (b) torture one of the creatures
> >> responsible, that you're going to kill anyway? What's your
> >> choice?
> >
> > Can I be sure that the torture victim will tell me the
> > truth, and not just tell me her old boyfriend's address
> > to end the pain?
>
> Well, this is all happening in a fantasy universe in which torture
> works. I consider many of the arguments against all torture to be
> somewhat iffy, but the best argument (IMO) is that it doesn't work.
>
> -Dan Damouth
It depends on how you use it. Most people don't stand up to torture
very well. They even see the hot irons coming out, and they start
babbling, telling you everything you want to know. It doesn't even
occur to them to lie.
OTOP, if you don't like what you hear right away, and you keep torturing
someone long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear, whether
it's true or not.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> No, no, no. This is _classic_ Joss, playing with convention
> by giving away the secret to the observant viewer before the
> big reveal, undermining the surprise.
>
> This scene is a dream, but the viewer doesn't know that going in,
> and the script doesn't give it away until Giles attacks Buffy.
> *But*, the exchange of food is _wrong_ for those characters. Xander
> wouldn't give up his candy
> and Willow would keep the fruit (who packed the
> lunch is irrelevant). So this is Joss way of giving a little
> hint to anyone
> paying close attention that this scene isn't what it appears to
> be. Joss loves doing stuff like this.
That's an interesting idea. I can accept Xander wanting the candy
given "Nightmares," but have we ever seen Willow express any interest
in having her sugar contaminated by nutrients? I can't think of any
example so far.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <Xns975CB60D1EA0...@66.75.164.120>,
> Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > Well, this is all happening in a fantasy universe in which torture
> > works. I consider many of the arguments against all torture to be
> > somewhat iffy, but the best argument (IMO) is that it doesn't work.
> >
> > -Dan Damouth
>
> It depends on how you use it. Most people don't stand up to torture
> very well. They even see the hot irons coming out, and they start
> babbling, telling you everything you want to know. It doesn't even
> occur to them to lie.
Anyone have any definitive sources? Everything i've heard agrees with
Damouth that, regardless of what you see on TV, torture is not a very
effective way to obtain information. But I'm not an expert on the
topic or anything.
-AOQ
kenm47
of
the torture, it has to do with what engaging in torture does to, and
says
about, the participant. Putting a crucifix down the throat of a
vampire
is a wrong thing to do, just as pulling the wings off of flys is.
Nobody
sane should think that a fly is worthy of special consideration, but
most
people will agree that kids who will pull the wings off of flies for
fun
are probably restrained from doing similar actions to humans only by
fear
of reprisal. "
Flies? They're insects! Now kittens and puppies I get, but flies? Why
not cockroches?
I see the point. I still have no trouble with the torturer of a S2
vampire. Sorry.
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
For Buffy, and S2 vampires? Whatever it takes IMO.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Rowan Hawthorn
Simple enough, just check the historical references on the witch hunts.
Torture was an accepted method of getting a confession from accused
witches, because it worked. Of course, information gained that way is
notoriously unreliable, as the victims will confess to anything to stop
the torture. (One of the top witch-finders like to boast that he could
make the pope himself confess, if he could but get him within his grasp.)
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
You're asking leading questions which may or may not result in real
spoilers, but I think it's pretty safe to tell you that Willow does,
indeed, have a sweet tooth and a taste for "junk food." (Particularly,
donuts, mochas, and Halloween candy...)
Don Sample
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apples and oranges. Picking up someone and questioning them about
difficult to verify subjects ("Are you a witch?" or "Are you a
terrorist?") until you get an answer you like doesn't work very well,
because the innocent will lie to make you stop.
Asking them questions about simple things that they really *do* know the
answer to, ("What's your address? Where are you holding the prisoners?")
that can be verified is another matter.
vague disclaimer
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <l64o-1rj5-8413D...@mercury.nildram.net>,
> vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <dsample-9F2803...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <zI2dnQ35F7l...@comcast.com>,
> > > "Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel Damouth wrote:
> > > > > "Eric Hunter" <hunt...@comcast.invalid> wrote in news:w8KdnT-jc-s0-
> > > > > ULeR...@comcast.com:
> > > > >
> > > > >> While this is a concept the current US administration has
> > > > >> trouble grasping, the good guys aren't supposed to torture
> > > > >> the bad guys. It makes them less good. Torturing a demon
> > > > >> is still torturing.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, is it better to (a) let Giles, Jenny, Cordelia, and Willow bleed
> > > > > to death upside down, or (b) torture one of the creatures responsible,
> > > > > that you're going to kill anyway? What's your choice?
> > > >
> > > > Can I be sure that the torture victim will tell me the
> > > > truth, and not just tell me her old boyfriend's address
> > > > to end thRemind me never to let you handle an interrogation....e pain? If she lies, and I stake her, the time
> > > > I spent torturing her could have been better spent
> > > > searching, couldn't it?
> > >
> > > Which is why you let the torturee know that you're going to keep them
> > > alive until after you've confirmed that the information they've given
> > > you is true.
> >
> > The you had better be a very skilled torturer, with years of practice.
> > 'Cos most people wouldn't know how *not* to kill someone they were
> > trying to hurt (Even a vamp, given their famously variable flammability/
> > dissolveability/ heart positioning).
>
> Vamps are easy. Holy water applied externally, and crosses burn,
> causing great pain, without doing any permanent damage. In fact, as
> long as you avoid wood trough the heart, and fire, you can pretty much
> do anything to them without killing them. Use a steel knife, and as long
> as you don't chop off their heads, you can stab and chop to your heart's
> content.
Remind me never to let you handle an interrogation...
Eric Hunter
> Asking them questions about simple things that they really *do* know
> the answer to, ("What's your address? Where are you holding the
> prisoners?") that can be verified is another matter.
Sure, but how many times do they have to lie before it
is too late to act on their "actionable intelligence"?
Once? Twice, maybe? And should Buffy have left
Angel guarding the vamp in Cordy's clothes while
she went to confirm the truth of her confession? Or
should they have taken her back to the library, and
locked her in the cage that will magically hold anyone?
When Buffy discovers the vamp lied, what does she
do, torture her harder? How long would Buffy remain
a hero, if she took that approach? Luckily enough, it
was effective this time, but it was still "Bad".
Eric.
--
kenm47
was effective this time, but it was still "Bad". "
I agree with your point that that was what they were trying to show. I
guess it might have been more meaningful if it was say a human minion
collaborator rather than a dead animated husk occupied by a vamp demon
soul.
Now that I think of it, Blade tortured such human minions in that
series of films, IIRC. Didn't bother me then either.
I guess I'll just catch me some flies and sit in the corner and "play"
with them a bit.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Espen Schjønberg
>
> Anyone have any definitive sources? Everything i've heard agrees with
> Damouth that, regardless of what you see on TV, torture is not a very
> effective way to obtain information. But I'm not an expert on the
> topic or anything.
Don't be.
The thing with torture, is that it belongs to the bad guys.
If they ever offer you the world, but say you then have to be with them,
and accept torture, you should turn them away.
The nazis lost the WW2 because enough people took that stand.
--
Espen
Noe er Feil[tm]
Espen Schjønberg
>
> Apples and oranges. Picking up someone and questioning them about
> difficult to verify subjects ("Are you a witch?" or "Are you a
> terrorist?") until you get an answer you like doesn't work very well,
> because the innocent will lie to make you stop.
>
> Asking them questions about simple things that they really *do* know the
> answer to, ("What's your address? Where are you holding the prisoners?")
> that can be verified is another matter.
You live in a universe where there never will be the wrong guy being
asked the questions?
I don't live there.
--
Espen
There is Something Wrong[tm]
Don Sample
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
Neither do I, but under the circumstances, they had:
1) Four missing people facing imminent death.
2) A known accomplice to the kidnapping in custody.
3) No other clues as to the whereabouts of the victims.
4) If she didn't find them, right away, not only would her friends
die, but a very powerful and dangerous vampire would be restored.
Buffy had nothing to lose, and everything to gain by torturing that
vampire. Even if she had lied, Buffy wouldn't have been any worse off
than she already was.
Shuggie
> In article <0h15b3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de>,
> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>
>> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
>> > the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
>> > sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch.
>>
>> Really? REALLY?? You never knew a 16-yr-old a) lazy and b) indulged by
>> their parents?
>
> But we're talking about Xander and Willow's parents here.
>
About whom we know very little at this point, certainly not enough to
tell whether they're the lunch-packing types, so it's still plausible.
Plus, you know, dream.
--
Shuggie
Espen Schjønberg
But I say it's "fine" that Buff torture that vamp.
I thought this was decaying into a more general discussion. it certainly
looked to me like we not discussed the episode in question any more.
So, we are obviously misunderstanding each other.
The problem with using fairy-tales as background when something is
discussed, is that in the fairy-tales, you have control.
We don't have that in real life.
--
Espen
kenm47
discussed, is that in the fairy-tales, you have control.
We don't have that in real life."
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, controversy be damned, and say that in
real life torture is never good. Further, one should never ever steal a
gian'ts lyre or his golden egg laying hen.
Ken (Brroklyn)
George W Harris
<steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
AIUI, 'floods' is another term for 'highwaters',
that is to say, pants whose cuffs are unfashionably
high.
:
:Stephen
--
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'.
Don Sample
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > In article <0h15b3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de>,
> > shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> >
> >> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I took it for standard behavior too. It's possible that this is what
> >> > the writers were going for, but I'm then forced to ask what kind of
> >> > sixteen-year-old doesn't pack his/her own lunch.
> >>
> >> Really? REALLY?? You never knew a 16-yr-old a) lazy and b) indulged by
> >> their parents?
> >
> > But we're talking about Xander and Willow's parents here.
> >
>
> About whom we know very little at this point, certainly not enough to
> tell whether they're the lunch-packing types, so it's still plausible.
We do know quite a bit about their parents by this point. Xander's
mom's idea of "cooking" is calling for takout. Willow's mother has
absolutely no idea what sort of clothes teenagers wear. Her dad forgets
his keys a lot. Neither of their parents seem to notice when their
children stay out all night.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > That's an interesting idea. I can accept Xander wanting the candy
> > given "Nightmares," but have we ever seen Willow express any interest
> > in having her sugar contaminated by nutrients? I can't think of any
> > example so far.
>
> You're asking leading questions which may or may not result in real
> spoilers, but I think it's pretty safe to tell you that Willow does,
> indeed, have a sweet tooth and a taste for "junk food." (Particularly,
> donuts, mochas, and Halloween candy...)
Yes, I know that based on both S1 and the few episodes of S2 I've seen.
So that's why I'm quesitoning whether her trading fruit for candy
should be viewed as a clue that it's not real. It seemed very much
like something the real Willow would do.
-AOQ
Rowan Hawthorn
Well, she also likes fruit (not gonna tell where we see that,) so, in
terms of whether the trade should be viewed as a "tell" that it's just a
dream: probably not. I'd say the two of them were just as likely as not
to do a trade like that in the real world.
John Briggs
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> Don Sample wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Xns975CB60D1EA0...@66.75.164.120>,
>>> Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Well, this is all happening in a fantasy universe in which torture
>>>> works. I consider many of the arguments against all torture to be
>>>> somewhat iffy, but the best argument (IMO) is that it doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> -Dan Damouth
>>>
>>> It depends on how you use it. Most people don't stand up to torture
>>> very well. They even see the hot irons coming out, and they start
>>> babbling, telling you everything you want to know. It doesn't even
>>> occur to them to lie.
>>
>>
>> Anyone have any definitive sources? Everything i've heard agrees
>> with Damouth that, regardless of what you see on TV, torture is not
>> a very effective way to obtain information. But I'm not an expert
>> on the topic or anything.
>
> hunts. Torture was an accepted method of getting a confession from
> accused witches, because it worked. Of course, information gained
> that way is notoriously unreliable, as the victims will confess to
> anything to stop the torture. (One of the top witch-finders like to
> boast that he could make the pope himself confess, if he could but
> get him within his grasp.)
Take the British citizens incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. By the time the
British Secret Police got there, they found that they had confessed to
attending an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000. The embarrassed
spooks had to point out to the Americans that they knew exactly where the
suspects had been (in England, funnily enough), and they certainly hadn't
been there...
--
John Briggs
shuggie
Don Sample wrote:
Hmm. You got me there. :)
david serafini
I see it as more about Willow being a "good girl", than
about her preference in junk food.
To answer your question, there's the banana in the scence where Willow
is reacting to be called "reliable" by Buffy. Season 2 or 3, I think.
cant rememebr which ep.
> -AOQ
George W Harris
<dbser...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:To answer your question, there's the banana in the scence where Willow
:is reacting to be called "reliable" by Buffy. Season 2 or 3, I think.
:cant rememebr which ep.
Doppelgangland.
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
vague disclaimer
david serafini <dbser...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And that, of course, is in no way a spoiler for AOQ. Except it is.